Vince Palamara on Vince Bugliosi...and Vince Palamara!, Vince, a.k.a. Judas, the scumbag [insert nasty title here], etc.
SecretServiceguy
All I can say is "wow" [or OMG in computer-speak]: I cannot believe
the number of e-mails, forum messages, YouTube comments/ messages,
etc. I have received regarding my comments on Bugliosi's book. I don't
know where exactly to begin, so, typical of my chaotic writing style,
I will start from wherever and finish somewhere LOL.
First of all, I have to say this forecefully: I am still your friend
(even if you don't care to be mine); no nasty rejoinders, comments, or
anything like that from me, trust me. My goal is to surpass Richard
Trask as the nicest "lone-nutter" in the research community (he is
virtually the only one from the "dark" side CTers still like and
respect, to a great extent)! Second, as Gil Jesus will back me up on
this one (I e-mailed him the following) and, what's more, it's even in
the YouTube message: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL
THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN
MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that, as much as
it pains me to admit (trust me, it does), Oswald beat everyone to the
punch. So, in THAT regard, I am hardly a lone nutter, per se. To make
an analogy: several groups were planning to rob the First National
Bank of Boston, but some lone individual pulled off the caper before
they got the chance to enact their nefarious schemes. Third, I
(OBVIOUSLY) STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE'S GROSS
NEGLIGENCE LED TO THE DEATH OF JFK *AND* THERE INEPT HANDLING OF
PRE-11/22/63 THREATS TO JFK AIDED AND ABETTED BOTH OSWALD *AND* THE
POTENTIAL (SEPARATE) CONSPIRATORS WHO WERE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS,
UNABLE TO SEE THEIR GOAL COME TO FRUITION (BUT LOVED THE FACT THAT
OSWALD DID THEIR DIRTY WORK). Fourth, I REALLY AND TRULY READ VINCE
BUGLIOSI'S BOOK: EVERY WORD, EVERY SOURCE NOTE, FOOTNOTE...EVERY
DETAIL...DID YOU???? Or did you dismiss it out of hand, skim it, or
rely on just the nasty CT book reviews for your, ahem, "reading" of
his book? Well (answer truthfully)? From 1978 to April 2007, I
adamantly and forcefully believed there was a conspiracy in DALLAS and
that Oswald, if he acted at all (which I highly doubted), did NOT act
alone. I don't know what my friend Jack White was referring to
earlier: limited hangout???? From me???? I am on record, many times on
the net, in conference appearances, e-mails, etc. as espousing a firm
belief that there was a conspiracy in DALLAS...and, in a strong way, I
AM STILL ESPOUSING ONE---AGAIN, I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE
MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE
BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...but Oswald
"took the rap" for them by doing the deed by himself. Am I guilty of
trying to have it both ways? Guilty as charged---but it's a sincere
belief on my part.
I firmly believe THAT is the rub (to quote my cheesy YouTube video:
hey, I ain't Speilberg LOL): all the seeming evidence of a conspiracy/
prior threats...yet all the damning evidence that Oswald did it by
himself.
Have there been government cover-ups and conspiracies? Obviously, yes;
you don't need me to tell you that. After all, in the final analysis,
I am just one man with an opinion, that's all: aren't we a country
filled with diversity, different cultures, backgrounds, beliefs,
political party affiliations (Democrat, Republican, Independent,
etc.)? Why get so up in arms about myself? Remember: I am on record,
several times (Murder In Dealey Plaza, COPA '95, SRU 3/22/07, my book,
etc) as giving out a caveat---whether one views the JFK assassination
as the act of a lone nut (Oswald) or the act of a deadly conspiracy,
my work holds up either way.
I work a day job, I am hardly rich (far from it), and have lost $ on
the pursuit of this case/ my research (any very modest $$$ I have made
through sale of books, etc. has been greatly countered by the costs of
production, time, etc). My access to all of those retired Secret
Service agents came through normal, over-the-counter ingenuity: access
to a phone and a directory, e-mail, their addresses, etc. that anyone
WHO CARED TO DO SO could have obtained relatively easily on their
own...I was just fortunate that I tapped into a relatively unexplored
area of the case.
It is as simple as this: I read the Warren Report, the HSCA Report,
David Belin's books, Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner, and, while I was
disturbed, I was not ultimately swayed because they left many holes
for us to plug, so to speak. I came to Vince Bugliosi's book EXTREMELY
skeptical, to put it mildly...but the book won me over (again, to a
point: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND
CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST
BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that Oswald beat everyone to
the punch). I have always been blessed with an OPEN mind. DO I WANT
AND WISH FOR OSWALD TO NOT BE THE SOLE SHOOTER AND FOR THERE TO HAVE
BEEN A CONSPIRACY IN ***DALLAS***? You bet; absolutely (so, yes: I
wish I could still believe that LOL).
Is Bugliosi's book (or ANY book) perfect or error-free? No (i.e. I
disagree with Bugliosi on his whole take on JFK's alleged desires to
not have the agents on the car). But, again, I read the book, I came,
I saw, and I was conquered.
Thanks for your time...let the vitriol begin!!!
Vince Palamara
a.k.a. Scumbag, Judas, the traitor, the mole, the limited-hangout
dude, etc.
P.S. To answer any (future) inquiries:
"What made you change your mind, you *&^%&^ Vince????"
Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.
It is what it is.
aeffects
> Hello everyone:
>
> All I can say is "wow" [or OMG in computer-speak]: I cannot believe
> the number of e-mails, forum messages, YouTube comments/ messages,
> etc. I have received regarding my comments on Bugliosi's book. I don't
> know where exactly to begin, so, typical of my chaotic writing style,
> I will start from wherever and finish somewhere LOL.
Vince,
This is pretty simple stuff, Vince -- most CT's are open to
scenario[s] LHO had some sort of involvement in the events of Nov 22nd
1963. There's no virtriol on my part nor most of the folks I know here
and on other boards....
To say the least, we're a tad curious as to how, specifically Bugliosi
convinced you, YOU Vince Palamara of LHO 's solo participation in
JFK's demise on Elm Street... That's what has most us curious.... Did
you forget the SBT!
> First of all, I have to say this forecefully: I am still your friend
> (even if you don't care to be mine); no nasty rejoinders, comments, or
> anything like that from me, trust me. My goal is to surpass Richard
> Trask as the nicest "lone-nutter" in the research community (he is
> virtually the only one from the "dark" side CTers still like and
> respect, to a great extent)!
He is? vince you really need to keep up
Second, as Gil Jesus will back me up on
> this one (I e-mailed him the following) and, what's more, it's even in
> the YouTube message: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL
> THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN
> MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that, as much as
> it pains me to admit (trust me, it does), Oswald beat everyone to the
> punch. So, in THAT regard, I am hardly a lone nutter, per se.
ahh.... LHO beat them to it, eh? Mere coincidence, eh.... A sitting
head-of-state is executed on the streets of Dallas Texas.
Vince, any way you cut it, you're a Lone Nutter... And frankly, thats
fine... we've been through this (a CT *finally* sees the WCR/SBT
light) on more than one occasion.....
Evidently you've forgot the rest of the evidence, eh? Still can't say
"there was no conspiracy in the murder of JFK", Vince? It is what it
is......
Your video is still cheesy, and THAT surprises me more than anything
-- Vince.... :)
<snip>
justm...@gmail.com
A response from Healy snipping a post....this from a man that thought
Kennedys middle name was FRANCIS, and has stated that Zapruder was an
imposter posing as Zapruder. Sit down lapdog, no one cares what you
have to say.
Vince, it's a shame that you are having to put up with such ignorance
from the CT's you thought to be your friends. 9 out of 10 CT's have
not touched Bugliosis book. They were condemming it before it was even
released. Personally, I think there are a lot more CT's that believe
LHO acted alone, they have shot off their mouths for so long that they
are now stuck defending the conspiracy take. They aren't man enought
to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong or misinformed, like
you were. You've risen above them all by saying what you believe.
Congratulations on that.
lazu...@webtv.net
something like I'm leaning towards Oswald doing it because of Bugliosi's
book fine, just don't act like it's 100% certain the sbt occurred, or
it's a 100% certain the headshot came from the rear etc...cause that's
what you must believe if LHO beat the plotters to the punch...where's
the sliver of doubt?..Laz
aeffects
wrote:
sitdown Joey, 20 year olds to the back of the bus.....
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Vince, it's a shame that you are having to put up with such ignorance
> from the CT's you thought to be your friends. 9 out of 10 CT's have
> not touched Bugliosis book. They were condemming it before it was even
> released. Personally, I think there are a lot more CT's that believe
> LHO acted alone, they have shot off their mouths for so long that they
> are now stuck defending the conspiracy take. They aren't man enought
> to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong or misinformed, like
> you were. You've risen above them all by saying what you believe.
> Congratulations on that.-
Now THERE'S an endorsement I wouldn't want.
justm...@gmail.com
It's an endorsement you'll never get either Gilda. If you ever did
change your mind...the LN's wouldn't want you on our side...you'd be a
misfit moron just like you are with the CT's.
As for you Healy, being a little racist aren't you??? I can afford to
take a bus...you on the other hand walk the streets with your tin can
in your hand begging for drug money. Back to the rehab for you junkie,
you're acting like the ignorant imbecile we all know you to be.
Boring, irrelevent and worthless all rolled into one. Get lost skank!
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeKbExfoXM8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/453430d430092938
>>> "I [Vincent M. Palamara] am on record...as espousing a firm belief that there was a conspiracy in DALLAS...and, in a strong way, I AM STILL ESPOUSING ONE...I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...but Oswald "took the rap" for them by doing the deed by himself." <<<
Hi Vince P.,
Good post. I enjoyed reading it.
Re: The "MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK"
possibly in the city of Dallas on 11/22/63.....
That theory, of course, is pretty close to being impossible to
disprove entirely....although I definitely disagree with you on that
theory (if, in fact, you do think that other assassins [not connected
with Oswald] were stationed somewhere in Dallas on November 22; you
seemed to shy away from positively saying whether you thought any such
"mortal threats" were actually being planned for DALLAS itself, but I
get the feeling you haven't discounted that idea entirely either).
But let's examine this in slightly more detail:
If there had been an organized plot to kill President Kennedy IN
DALLAS on 11/22/63 by some unknown group(s), and Lee Harvey Oswald
"beat everyone to the punch", as you said....and Oswald wasn't
"connected" in any way at all with this "organized" plot being
theorized (and you and I both agree he was not)....then you must
believe that any such assassination attempt against JFK was going to
be made at the Trade Mart. Is that correct?
The reason I say the Trade Mart is quite simple -- because at the time
JFK was killed by lone assassin Oswald in Dealey Plaza, the bulk of
the motorcade drive through the city was finished....and, of course,
Kennedy encountered no problems at all while shaking hands with many
people at Love Field Airport.
So it stands to reason that if you are correct, Vince P., this would
indicate that whoever was going to be aiming weapons at John F.
Kennedy in Dallas must have planned to do it only AFTER the motorcade
had left Dealey Plaza -- otherwise the organized "plotters" (and not
Oswald) would have gotten to JFK first.
In your above post, Vince, you didn't elaborate on the details
surrounding this so-called "mortal threat" that you think was possibly
hanging over Kennedy's head on November 22nd in Dallas.....but via the
chronology of events* that DID occur in Dallas that day, you're pretty
much left with your theorized non-Oswald assassination attempt taking
place at the Trade Mart....or perhaps AFTER Kennedy's luncheon, during
his drive back to Love Field (which was scheduled to be a much-quicker
trip at higher automobile speeds; i.e., it wasn't going to be a slow
motorcade drive through the city again).
* = With this chronology including these facts -- JFK was not bothered
or harassed or shot at with guns at Love Field (and from some TV
reports, it was said that the police were MORE fearful of
"demonstrations" or potential acts of violence there at the airport
than at any other location during JFK's Dallas visit); and the
President was not shot at with guns during the bulk of his motorcade
drive through Dallas, with the assassination occurring at the very
tail-end of the parade route in Dealey Plaza.
Now, I do know that the Secret Service wasn't originally too happy
about the choice of the Trade Mart as the site for President Kennedy's
luncheon. And this uneasiness on the part of the USSS was, I believe,
mainly due to the high balconies and overhangs within the Trade Mart
building, which were balconies that could, to quote Richard Basehart's
narration from the best JFK assassination film ever made, IMO ("Four
Days In November")...."offer an excellent perch for an assassin".
So, I suppose that one of those Trade Mart balconies would have been a
pretty good choice to place an assassin. Plus there's the fact that
any such assassin(s) wouldn't have to worry about the weather in
Dallas that day, and "they" wouldn't have to be concerned about it
raining on the motorcade, which would have made it necessary for any
outdoors shooter(s) to fire through the plastic (though not
bulletproof) bubbletop roof that would have been affixed to JFK's
limousine had it continued to rain that day.
To repeat -- your theory about some kind of organized plot brewing
against JFK in Dallas could conceivably be accurate, but it also
suffers from the same fatal disease that plague so many other JFK
conspiracy theories -- A TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
>>> "To answer any (future) inquiries: 'What made you change your mind, Vince [Palamara]?' Answer: I read Bugliosi's book." <<<
And this is as good a short, four-word, to-the-point answer as could
possibly be made, IMO.
>>> "Is Bugliosi's book (or ANY book) perfect or error-free? No." <<<
Speaking of this "error" topic, let me add this:
While looking through the pages of Vincent Bugliosi's "Four Days In
November" paperback book (the truncated version of "Reclaiming
History" which was just released in late May 2008), I noticed that a
few small errors that popped up in the original "RH" book have been
corrected in the softcover "Four Days" edition.
The most notable of these corrections (as far as I could tell from an
initial glance) occurs on page #61 of the 688-page "Four Days" volume,
when Bugliosi changes the amount of time that occurs between Lee
Oswald's first and second gunshots from "3.5 seconds" (in "RH") to
"2.7 seconds" (in "Four Days").
This revised "2.7 seconds" time between the shots is more in line with
Mr. Bugliosi's general feelings about when the "SBT" shot actually
occurred, with VB saying several times throughout the book "RH" that
it's his belief that the SBT shot occurred at approximately Zapruder
Film frame 210 (which is a timeline I definitely disagree with very
strongly...and for a variety of reasons, as discussed at the top of
the Internet post linked below).
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200860-post.html
So, indeed, as Vince Palamara said, no book is going to be "perfect or
error-free". But Mr. Bugliosi evidently did want to correct a few of
his "RH" mistakes, and has done so in his "Four Days In November"
paperback version.
www.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/615f542f2b18ef1f
>>> "DO I WANT AND WISH FOR OSWALD TO NOT BE THE SOLE SHOOTER AND FOR THERE TO HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY IN DALLAS? You bet; absolutely (so, yes: I wish I could still believe that)." <<<
Well, I've got to give you a lot of extra points for outright honesty
here, Vince. The above type of bold "I WANT A CONSPIRACY" declaration
is usually the kind of forthright honesty we never ever see coming
from the lips of JFK conspiracy theorists (and probably not from too
many "reformed" CTers either).
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics
www.youtube.com/user/dvp1122
Gil Jesus
position.
But that position requires a belief in a "Coincidence Theory", if you
will. It requires in a belief that Oswald killed JFK:
On a day when the SS just happened to remove the motorcycle escorts
from the side of the car.
On a day when the SS just happened to remove the general from the
front seat of the car.
On a day when the SS just happened to leave the agent who would have
been in the front of the running board on the President's side of the
car at the airport.
On a day when the SS just happened to stay up all the previous night
drinking and carousing with hookers.
On a day when the SS just happened to stay off of the rear bumper of
the limo.
On a day when the SS just happened to move the motorcycle escorts to
the back of the limo and then to tell the Dallas motorcycle officers
at Love Field to "hold your position no matter what happens."
On a day when the SS just happened to order their agents not to move
when the shooting started.
On a day when the SS just happened to slow the limo down when the
shooting started.
On a day when the SS just happened to "casually look around" when the
shooting started.
Too many coincidences here, my friend, for me to buy into that kind of
a theory.
And I haven't even started touching on the inconsistencies in the
"evidence".
I suppose that's where we differ: what you see as negligence and
perhaps even as gross negligence, I see as criminal.
Because I believe that a couple could be "coincidences", but when you
put all of them together, there's no way that all of these occurances
could have happened without being planned.
Watch Groden's video of the entire motorcade, Vince. Watch how far
away from the President's limo the lead police car is. Watch how far
back from the follow-up car Lyndon Johnson's convertible is before it
turns onto Houston street, near the end of the motorcade.
Kennedy's limo and the followup car are all by themselves. Like they
were out on an island and no one around.
Funny how that didn't happen in Tampa.
Funny how that didn't happen in Berlin.
When I first saw that, I KNEW that they were expecting something to
happen. They stayed as far away from those two cars as they could.
They led this guy into an ambush and although they didn't pull the
trigger, they made it much easier for the party or parties who did.
The people who were responsible for the murder of John Kennedy were
people who preferred Lyndon Johnson as President and Hoover as head of
the FBI. I have no doubt that some of those people were employed by
the USSS.
And for saving Hoover's job, Hoover made sure that the real
perpetrators would never come to justice. And Johnson's "commission"'s
purpose was to rubber-stamp Hoover's investigation, affirming the
conclusion that Hoover had come to before any of the evidence was even
examined by the FBI.
And so we have "historical fact" according to J. Edna Hoover.
justm...@gmail.com
Once again you have no proof of anything you just typed...it is all
your interpetation of the film and your own little theory. But that's
all you CT's live on anyway...no proof of anything, no other
shooter(s), no other weapons, no other bullets....NOTHING but
speculation and conjecture. Oh and let's not forget misleading
fantasies like JFK coughing up bullets and John or Nellie Connally
shooting JFK.
Carry on toots...as your retarded sidekick always says. Keep
dreaming.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Once again you have no proof of anything you just typed...it is all
> your interpetation of the film and your own little theory.
Ummm.. it's in the WC 26 volumes, Joey. It's also in Vince's work with
the SS.
Maybe you should go sit in the corner and do your homework.
You're way in over your head here, little man.
justm...@gmail.com
Sorry Gilda, sweet talking me won't get you in my pants. LHO killed
JFK...case closed LOL
lazu...@webtv.net
P.S. I respect Vince alot, but come on ya gotta have some doubts...
David Von Pein
>>> "That position requires a belief in a "Coincidence Theory", if you will. It requires in a belief that Oswald killed JFK: On a day when the SS just happened to remove the motorcycle escorts from the side of the car." <<<
Which is an occurrence (i.e., no motorcycles riding RIGHT SMACK-DAB UP
AGAINST Kennedy's limousine) that took place in probably every other
pre-11/22/63 motorcade that JFK ever drove in, with the following
photos providing just three examples:
http://media.abqtrib.com/albq/content/img/photos/2007/03/15/031507_KENNEDY_t600.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/0c/Photo_jfkl-01_0130-AR-7956-1B.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Hawaii2.jpg
In fact, in that last picture from Hawaii, there's not a motorcycle
anywhere NEAR Kennedy's limousine (on the right-hand side of the car
anyway).
What about that, Gil Jesus? Seems pretty strange, doesn't it? (Or does
it?)
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to remove the general from the front seat of the car." <<<
LOL time here. As if a General riding between Greer and Kellerman
would (or COULD) have prevented the assassination from taking place.
You're a kook.
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to leave the agent who would have been in the front of the running board on the President's side of the car at the airport." <<<
Here we have yet another pure CTer-created myth. SA Henry Rybka of the
Secret Service was originally assigned by Emory Roberts to sit in the
MIDDLE OF THE BACK SEAT of the SS follow-up car. He wasn't assigned to
ride a running board at all.
And even if he had been so assigned originally...so what? Even without
Rybka there, there was still an agent in the proper place on the
right-
front running board throughout the Dallas parade (John Ready).
Per Roberts:
"Note: On shift report for Nov. 22, 1963, I listed SA Rybka as
riding in center of rear seat, which was in error, as he was not in
car. As mentioned above, he remained at Love Field." -- EMORY P.
ROBERTS
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-rober.htm
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ecedfa490b8a9359
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to stay up all the previous night drinking and carousing with hookers." <<<
This is yet another convenient excuse for CTers to ignore all the
evidence of Oswald's lone guilt, as the CTers can then pretend that
all (or most) of the eight Secret Service agents in the Queen Mary SS
follow-up car were stone drunk at 12:30 PM on November 22nd when the
motorcade turned onto Elm Street.
Apparently, if some agents hadn't been at "The Cellar" the previous
night, everything would have turned out differently in Dealey Plaza.
SS Agent John Ready would have leaped to JFK's aid at the sound of the
first shot and spread-eagled himself over Kennedy's body just in time
to save him.
Right, Gil?
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to stay off of the rear bumper of the limo." <<<
Which is something that occurred in probably EVERY Kennedy motorcade
prior to November 22 too. The agents didn't CONSTANTLY ride the
bumpers of SS-100-X, you idiot. And these same three photos indicate
that they didn't always ride the bumpers:
http://media.abqtrib.com/albq/content/img/photos/2007/03/15/031507_KENNEDY_t600.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/0c/Photo_jfkl-01_0130-AR-7956-1B.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Hawaii2.jpg
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to move the motorcycle escorts to the back of the limo and then to tell the Dallas motorcycle officers at Love Field to "hold your position no matter what happens"." <<<
Better take another look at those three photos linked above once
again. There's not a single motorcycle riding right on top of
Kennedy's car in those photos of three pre-11/22/63 motorcades.
Ever wonder why, Gil?
Could it be that November 22 was NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER PRE-
NOVEMBER 22 MOTORCADE WHEN IT CAME TO THE GENERAL SECURITY PROCEDURES
BEING FOLLOWED?
In actuality, the Dallas motorcade (as we can easily see from a
variety of photos) was no different than any other Kennedy motorcade
whatsoever.
But it's best for conspiracy-loving idiots like Gil Jesus if they
continue to totally ignore photographs like the three I've offered up
in this post.
Because when they see such pre-11/22 pictures, what can CTers like Gil
possibly say? Are they going to pretend that all of those pre-Nov. 22
pictures are "fakes" too (like they claim is the case with many of the
11/22 photos)?
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to order their agents not to move when the shooting started." <<<
You're a nutcase if you believe the above shit.
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to slow the limo down when the shooting started." <<<
And how many OTHER pre-11/22/63 motorcades involved people "shooting"
at JFK (to use as a comparison to Greer's actions in the Nov. 22
motorcade)?
You're a kook.
>>> "On a day when the SS just happened to "casually look around" when the shooting started." <<<
And how many OTHER pre-11/22/63 motorcades involved people "shooting"
at JFK (to use as a comparison to the SS agents "casual" actions in
the Nov. 22 motorcade)?
You're a mega-kook.
>>> "And I haven't even started touching on the inconsistencies in the "evidence"." <<<
If those arguments are as paper-thin as the ones you've provided in
this thread, then I think all LNers can rest easy.
>>> "I believe that a couple could be "coincidences", but when you put all of them together, there's no way that all of these occurances [sic] could have happened without being planned." <<<
I've just proved you wrong via my above responses.
Move on to another silly theory, Gil. This one regarding the Secret
Service is more than moribund. It's already six feet under.
>>> "Kennedy's limo and the followup car are all by themselves. Like they were out on an island and no one around." <<<
Kind of like in this pre-Nov. 22 instance too, huh?:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/0c/Photo_jfkl-01_0130-AR-7956-1B.jpg
Gil....you're dreaming.
There was nothing about the Dallas motorcade's security measures that
were substantially different or lacking (or "conspiratorial") when
compared to any of the other motorcades that John Kennedy drove in
prior to November 22nd. And you cannot prove there were any
substantial differences. (And a General not riding in the front seat
in Dallas doesn't qualify as "substantial", or "conspiratorial", if
you ask me.)
>>> "And [Lyndon] Johnson's "commission"'s purpose was to rubber-stamp Hoover's investigation." <<<
So, then, why didn't the Warren Commission do that very thing you're
suggesting? They didn't. They took 10 months to conduct their OWN
investigation (with the help of the FBI, true, I don't deny that).
But if it was Johnson's desire from the GET-GO to have his Commission
"rubber-stamp" Hoover's initial report (issued on December
9th)....then WHY DIDN'T THE COMMISSION DO THAT VERY THING?
In fact, in Johnson's phone call to Richard Russell on 11/29/63 (which
can be heard in its entirety at one of the links provided below), we
can hear LBJ telling Russell that all that was going to be required of
Russell and the other WC members WAS, indeed, to "evaluate a report"
that was already being prepared at that time by the FBI. And Johnson
is saying this ON TAPE.
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=kt8qtb3408&v=1
Why, then, didn't the WC and its counsel members DO that very thing
suggested by Johnson himself (to Russell) on November 29th?
The logical answer to that last question, of course, is this:
The Warren Commission and its Counsel knew that the initial 12/9/63
FBI Report was not an in-depth enough of a report with which the
Commission could rely on to write its own Final Report on the
assassination of an American President.
Therefore, seeing as how there wasn't ANY kind of "cover-up" being
orchestrated by Lyndon Johnson or by J. Edgar Hoover or by anyone else
in a position of "power" within the U.S. Government....the WC used its
OWN best judgment (not President Johnson's) on how to handle the FBI
Report.
And that best judgment was to not wholly rely on that FBI Report for
the Commission's final conclusions. So an independent investigation
was started by the Commission.
Yes, the ULTIMATE final conclusion reached by the Warren Commission
and its staff did align with the FBI's initial report from 12/9/63.
But the reason for that "alignment" is quite simple -- Lee Harvey
Oswald was, indeed, the lone assassin of President Kennedy (based on
the sum total of the evidence in the case).
Gil Jesus
>
> Once again you have no proof of anything you just typed...it is all
> your interpetation of the film and your own little theory.
"Clint Hill, riding in the Secret Service followup car, was the only
agent to sprint for the limousine when the shots rang out. HE DID THIS
DESPITE BEING ORDERED TO STAY PUT BY THE AGENT IN CHARGE OF HIS
VEHICLE, EMORY P. ROBERTS." (emphasis mine)
Talbot, Brothers, pg. 22.
Like I said, Joey, you're WAAAAAYY out of your league here.
Ben Holmes
SecretServiceguy says...
If even you cannot admit that Bugliosi's book was basically a prosecutor's
brief, I'd be amazed.
The question would still remain, since it's quite clear that Bugliosi simply
sidestepped much of the solid evidence of conspiracy. For example, he knew well
the "16 Smoking Guns" - and dealt with them NOT AT ALL.
You must be ignorant of much of the evidence to be persuaded by Bugliosi.
robcap...@netscape.com
"Hello everyone:
All I can say is "wow" [or OMG in computer-speak]: I cannot believe
the number of e-mails, forum messages, YouTube comments/ messages,
etc. I have received regarding my comments on Bugliosi's book. I don't
know where exactly to begin, so, typical of my chaotic writing style,
I will start from wherever and finish somewhere LOL."
I don't know why everyone is so upset, it is really of little value to
debate that someone can't change their mind on any topic, but I'm
curious what made you do it.
"First of all, I have to say this forecefully: I am still your friend
(even if you don't care to be mine); no nasty rejoinders, comments, or
anything like that from me, trust me. My goal is to surpass Richard
Trask as the nicest "lone-nutter" in the research community (he is
virtually the only one from the "dark" side CTers still like and
respect, to a great extent)!"
This sounds like "an assignment" more than a belief to me.
"Second, as Gil Jesus will back me up on this one (I e-mailed him the
following) and, what's more, it's even in the YouTube message: I STILL
STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL)
TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH
11/22/63...just that, as much as it pains me to admit (trust me, it
does), Oswald beat everyone to the punch."
Boy this is an UNDERSTATEMENT as there were over 400 DEATH THREATS
against JFK just between 4/1/63 to 11/22/63. What proof do you have
that LHO "beat the conspiracies to the punch?"
"So, in THAT regard, I am hardly a lone nutter, per se. To make an
analogy: several groups were planning to rob the First National Bank
of Boston, but some lone individual pulled off the caper before they
got the chance to enact their nefarious schemes."
You can't have it both ways Vince, either you believe in the sole
assassin theory warts and all (like NO proof, NO evidence, and the
most silly theory of all time - the SBT) or you don't. F.Y.I.- the
act of a group of individuals is still a conspiracy to commit a crime
when they were working in unison.
"Third, I (OBVIOUSLY) STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE'S
GROSS NEGLIGENCE LED TO THE DEATH OF JFK *AND* THERE INEPT HANDLING OF
PRE-11/22/63 THREATS TO JFK AIDED AND ABETTED BOTH OSWALD *AND* THE
POTENTIAL (SEPARATE) CONSPIRATORS WHO WERE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS,
UNABLE TO SEE THEIR GOAL COME TO FRUITION (BUT LOVED THE FACT THAT
OSWALD DID THEIR DIRTY WORK)."
Why were NONE of these SS men ever held to account for direlection of
duty?? Why were NONE afraid to admit to you their direlection of
duty??? Why were none thrown off the roster for drinking when on a
detail?? Their inability to act would have sealed the fate of JFK no
matter who fired the weapon(s), this does NOT confirm or prove to me
LHO was the man pulling the trigger. Why does it do it for you?
"Fourth, I REALLY AND TRULY READ VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK: EVERY WORD,
EVERY SOURCE NOTE, FOOTNOTE...EVERY DETAIL...DID YOU????"
I did NOT as I have better things to do than read a rehash of a 44
year old fantasy story, but since you did read it all, please tell us
what made you change your mind. I will NOT criticize you as you are
entitled to your opinion, I'm just curious what left you "snake
bitten."
"Or did you dismiss it out of hand, skim it, or rely on just the nasty
CT book reviews for your, ahem, "reading" of his book? Well (answer
truthfully)?"
What new things has VInce B. introduced? What has he shown to you,
via his book, that was NOT available for many years now?
"From 1978 to April 2007, I adamantly and forcefully believed there
was a conspiracy in DALLAS and that Oswald, if he acted at all (which
I highly doubted), did NOT act alone."
Exactly, so what made you change your mind after all those years?
What new and wonderful thing did Vince B. introduce to you?
"I don't know what my friend Jack White was referring to earlier:
limited hangout???? From me???? I am on record, many times on the net,
in conference appearances, e-mails, etc. as espousing a firm belief
that there was a conspiracy in DALLAS...and, in a strong way, I AM
STILL ESPOUSING ONE---AGAIN, I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE
MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE
BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...but Oswald
"took the rap" for them by doing the deed by himself. Am I guilty of
trying to have it both ways? Guilty as charged---but it's a sincere
belief on my part."
You are skirting the issue Vince, what made you see the light that LHO
beat anyone to the punch? Remember the old Wendy's commercials that
said "where's the beef?" Where is the beef Vince?
"I firmly believe THAT is the rub (to quote my cheesy YouTube video:
hey, I ain't Speilberg LOL): all the seeming evidence of a conspiracy/
prior threats...yet all the damning evidence that Oswald did it by
himself."
What evidence Vince? Where's the beef?
"Have there been government cover-ups and conspiracies? Obviously,
yes; you don't need me to tell you that. After all, in the final
analysis, I am just one man with an opinion, that's all: aren't we a
country filled with diversity, different cultures, backgrounds,
beliefs, political party affiliations (Democrat, Republican,
Independent,
etc.)? Why get so up in arms about myself? Remember: I am on record,
several times (Murder In Dealey Plaza, COPA '95, SRU 3/22/07, my book,
etc) as giving out a caveat---whether one views the JFK assassination
as the act of a lone nut (Oswald) or the act of a deadly conspiracy,
my work holds up either way."
It doesn't really matter to me one way or another what you believe to
be honest, as you are entitled to your opinion, but when one spends so
many years believing and writing a certain viewpoint and then quickly
changes, it is curious to say the least. I'm just curious what part
of all that "damning evidence" made you believe LHO did it all by his
lonesome. It is a matter of feeling duped Vince, many people bought
your books, not me, and they feel you have betrayed them I guess.
Just explain what great insight Bugliosi wrote that changed your mind.
"I work a day job, I am hardly rich (far from it), and have lost $ on
the pursuit of this case/ my research (any very modest $$$ I have made
through sale of books, etc. has been greatly countered by the costs of
production, time, etc). My access to all of those retired Secret
Service agents came through normal, over-the-counter ingenuity: access
to a phone and a directory, e-mail, their addresses, etc. that anyone
WHO CARED TO DO SO could have obtained relatively easily on their
own...I was just fortunate that I tapped into a relatively unexplored
area of the case."
Why did these men speak with you in the first place? Didn't they fear
retribution or trouble for admitting what they did to you? I guess
they really didn't admit anything anyone with two eyes didn't know
already, right? They were abysmal on 11/22/63 and it is amazing NONE
of them got into any trouble.
"It is as simple as this: I read the Warren Report, the HSCA Report,
David Belin's books, Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner, and, while I was
disturbed, I was not ultimately swayed because they left many holes
for us to plug, so to speak. I came to Vince Bugliosi's book EXTREMELY
skeptical, to put it mildly...but the book won me over (again, to a
point: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND
CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST
BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that Oswald beat everyone to
the punch). I have always been blessed with an OPEN mind. DO I WANT
AND WISH FOR OSWALD TO NOT BE THE SOLE SHOOTER AND FOR THERE TO HAVE
BEEN A CONSPIRACY IN ***DALLAS***? You bet; absolutely (so, yes: I
wish I could still believe that LOL)."
What won you over Vince??? Why can't you just state this item or
items?? What is the big deal? You said you were won over by it so why
are you NOT saying what "it" is?
"Is Bugliosi's book (or ANY book) perfect or error-free? No (i.e. I
disagree with Bugliosi on his whole take on JFK's alleged desires to
not have the agents on the car). But, again, I read the book, I came,
I saw, and I was conquered."
What conquered you Vince?? Where's the beef? The longer you put off
answering this question the longer this debate will go on I'm sure.
"Thanks for your time...let the vitriol begin!!!"
THERE IS NO VITRIOL for me, I'm just baffled why you won't say what
changed your mind?? What is the big secret?
"Vince Palamara
a.k.a. Scumbag, Judas, the traitor, the mole, the limited-hangout
dude, etc."
I don't view you in this light, you can join the losing side and it
won't affect me one little bit. Good luck defending the fantasy story
you have chosen as the truth.
P.S. To answer any (future) inquiries:
"What made you change your mind, you *&^%&^ Vince????"
Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.
It is what it is."
Ah, now we come to the truth. You were paid to change your mind, the
stuff above about not making any money on your books made me think
this, but out of courtesy I did not say it. If a man proclaims he has
changed his mind after nearly 30 years and WON'T state what made him
convinced his longheld beliefs were wrong, then we are left with money
being the only option. What other reason would you have for not
sharing the "golden fleece" to the rest of us? Isn't part of your new
mission to convince others LHO did it all by himself?
David Von Pein
>>> "[Bugliosi] knew well the "16 Smoking Guns" - and dealt with them NOT AT ALL." <<<
Ben loves to tell the above fable...over & over & over again. But
he'll still be 100% wrong--no matter how many hundreds of times he
says it:
===================================================
===================================================
BEN HOLMES SAID THIS ON AUGUST 22, 2007:
>>> "DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't. Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to* cite." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6d550fa4cb5c8792
AND KOOK HOLMES SAID THIS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2007:
>>> "Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a45aaa342d10998
DVP SAID THIS ON AUGUST 19, 2007:
>>> "Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items. They are all answered very well in various places throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb
==============================================
The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):
www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
==============================================
Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY". (Book title hereafter in
this post shortened to "RH".)
Here now are some citations and excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book
which directly deal with the above-linked "Smoking Guns"....which are
"Guns" that a Super-Kook named Holmes insists that "Bugliosi did NOT
address" anywhere in "RH":
======================
SMOKING GUN #1:
"[Per the WC and the HSCA] JFK was hit at the base of the back
of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any
bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie. [This]
is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to
impact bony structures."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The bruises in the neck region [of JFK]...COULDN'T have been
caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body
was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no
bruise--that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not
discoloration of the tissue.
"The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung HAD to have
been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating
sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur. [Source Note #132 = Dr.
Humes' WC testimony @ 2 H 368.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm
"In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
TO THE INCISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL (i.e., they had
to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE
PRESIDENT'S BACK AND EXITING THE THROAT. [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]
"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
in the front of the president's neck. ....
"This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
#134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0117b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0118a.htm
~~~~~~
"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.
"The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm
"The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).
"Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-
ROM)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0154b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #2:
"The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 500
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0024a.htm
~~~~~~
"Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #3:
"The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
have fired the bullets that killed the president."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
Murder Weapon".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815
======================
SMOKING GUN #4:
"The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
have used, thereby exonerating him."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons." [End Petty quote.]
"In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
of JFK's head]. ....
"Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0203a.htm
"Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0182b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #5:
"The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
area of the right temple."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 863
======================
SMOKING GUN #6:
"The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40
eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden:] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 407-408
~~~~~~
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president.
"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.
"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"On the Ida Dox drawing of the autopsy photograph of the back of
the president's head showing the entrance wound (see 7 HSCA 104), the
numbers on the ruler are not visible, even with a magnifying glass,
but the entrance wound does not seem to be four inches above where I
would imagine the external occipital protuberance was on the
president's head, and does not appear as high up as the round black
circle signifying the entrance wound on the HSCA sketch (see 1 HSCA
406).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0205b.htm
"It may be that the location of the entrance wound was somewhere
between where the autopsy surgeons and the later pathologists said it
was. But if, indeed, the autopsy surgeons were correct on the lower
location of the head entrance wound, how this would affect the
trajectory analyses, and be compatible with the minute missile
fragments traversing on a line from back to front higher up on the
head, is beyond my knowledge and expertise.
"However, we mustn't forget that since the president's head was
inclined slightly forward at the time of the head shot, a bullet
traveling on a downward trajectory would be proceeding on a higher
path, anatomically, through the president's head. (See discussion on
this issue in main text with respect to the president's back wound.)"
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 231 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #7:
"These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."
"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #8:
"Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of
the brain of someone other than JFK."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Gun" is yet another incredibly-stupid one,
with absolutely zero granules of truth in it whatsoever, and is a
theory that should make anyone purporting it turn various shades of
crimson due to the embarrassment at having even written it down.
Mr. Bugliosi handily and humorously (and with ample citations to
testimony from Humes, Boswell, Finck, and other sources), deals with
the "Two Brains" idiocy on pages 434 to 447 of the main text in "RH";
and pages 282 to 287 of the CD's endnotes. A few excerpts follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever
promulgated in the assassination debate, and yet one whose contention
is being hailed and widely accepted today in the conspiracy community,
is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for
military records. ....
"Unbelievably, Horne said that the depositions taken by the ARRB
caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from
some anonymous third party. ....
"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain?
"Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true
facts of the assassination. ....
"Horne does his best to protect his credibility on his
memorandum by burying in a footnote near the very end of it some
information that severely damages the credibility of his star witness,
autopsy photographer John Stringer. (But it's too late. There is
nothing that can possibly restore the credibility of Doug Horne for
the main conclusions he sets forth in the body of his memorandum.)" --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 434-435, 439, and 441
======================
SMOKING GUN #9:
"Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that
parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or
destroyed."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS (with many more conspiracy-smashing cites
concerning this sub-topic to be found on pages 260-280 of the CD's
endnotes):
"What does Doug Horne conclude from all of this? For Horne, the
implications are staggering. If the navy was correct in saying that
the camera it provided "was indeed the camera used at the
autopsy" (the navy only said the camera was "believed to be" the
autopsy camera), then either, he says, (1) all the autopsy photographs
are authentic and were indeed taken by John Stringer, and a benign but
unknown explanation exists for why the HSCA photographic experts
believed the autopsy photographs could not have been taken by the navy
camera they examined (e.g., the lens of the camera used to take the
photographs was different from the 135-millimeter Zeiss Jena Tessar
lens supplied by the navy)...
"...or (2) many or all of the autopsy photographs were taken by
a photographer other than John Stringer, and the photographs Stringer
said he took were removed from the official autopsy photographic
collection (Doug Horne's memorandum for file, pp.5-6).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm
"This second possibility is apparently meant to conjure up
images of a mysterious, unknown photographer shooting a second set of
autopsy photographs after the autopsy was completed (a set of images
that presumably concealed the true nature of the president's wounds),
which were then substituted for the official set of photographs taken
by Stringer.
"Horne's memo suggests that the latter is true (i.e., the
autopsy photographs are substitutes, taken by someone other than
Stringer). But this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.
"We know through stereoscopic analysis that the photographs in
evidence (even if they are substitute photographs of the autopsy taken
by someone other than Stringer) are authentic and unaltered. We also
know from the HSCA anthropologists and the odontologist that the skull
is that of John F. Kennedy.
"What this all means is that irrespective of the camera and
lens, whatever the photographs show must be the true condition of the
president's body at the time of the autopsy. Since the photographs
clearly show that the president was struck from behind by two bullets,
what possible purpose could be served by substituting or removing
photographs? Neither Horne nor [Gary] Aguilar say.
"The authentication of the existing photographic collection
eliminates the possibility that any photographs that might have
disappeared from the collection, either by removal or by substitution,
could show anything other than what we now see.
"After all, there was only one body and the wounds in that body
either show that shots were fired from the front or they don't, no
matter how many photographs are substituted or removed. Surprisingly,
this obvious fact seems to have escaped the conspiracy theorists." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 226-227 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"There are several other tales of photographs allegedly taken
during the autopsy that critics claim have since vanished, but I
should emphasize that even if these alleged missing photographs exist
somewhere (or did exist at one time), they can't possibly show
something that contradicts what we already know to be true about the
president's wounds.
"How do we know this? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that
the autopsy photographs and X-rays that are available are authentic
and unaltered and depict the condition of President Kennedy's body on
the night of the autopsy. So, any additional photographs or X-rays
that might exist (or might have existed) can't depict something else.
"Therefore, when someone comes forward with a story about
photographs that supposedly showed something other than what we know
to be true (i.e., the president was struck from behind by two shots),
we know, of necessity, that the person telling the story is either
honestly mistaken or deliberately lying. One hundred or one thousand
sworn testimonies about missing photographs would not change this
unshakable truth.
"One of these other tales that critics are convinced is evidence
of a completely different (and unusual) set of autopsy photographs was
told by Saundra Spencer, an E-6 photographer's mate first class who
was in charge of the White House photo lab, a small room located
inside the three-story facilities of the Naval Photographic Center
(NPC) at Anacostia, Maryland, across the river from Washington,
D.C. ....
"Spencer said that none of the photos showed the scalp peeled
back on the skull. Also, unlike the photographs in the National
Archives inventory today, Spencer said that the president's eyes and
mouth were closed and that he appeared to be in "a rest position."
Spencer said that other than the wound to the back of the president's
head, she saw no other wound to the head. "The prints that we printed
did not have the massive head damages" shown in the official autopsy
photos. ....
"Spencer's testimony, of course, has raised the question in the
conspiracy community of whether there was a second set of photographs
taken of Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy (a set conspiracy
theorists presume showed the "true" nature of the president's wounds)
and that this second set was squirreled away as part of the cover-
up. ....
"But was Spencer's testimony accurate? For starters, keep in
mind that Spencer's recollection of events was thirty-four years after
the fact. But more importantly, her recollection is at odds with
almost the entire official record. While the official autopsy
photographs were processed, as Spencer remembered, at the NPC, the
rest of the documentary record details a completely different and
rather divergent series of events which, I think you'll agree, is
quite unlike Spencer's account. ....
"In this case, like many others where eyewitnesses are
confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra
Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when
she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center
of the back of the president's head.
"Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy
surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively,
and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time
of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described. ....
"[Robert L.] Knudsen's version of events has been tarnished as
well. .... In May 1996, Gloria Knudsen, widow of Knudsen, and two of
his four surviving children were interviewed by the ARRB. .... They
said that Robert Knudsen told them sometime after the assassination
that he alone had photographed the autopsy.
"Knudsen also told them that he witnessed and photographed
probes inserted in the president's body, and that the Secret Service
took his film as soon as he had exposed it. (ARRB MD 230, Meeting
Report, Interview of Gloria Knudsen and children Terri and Bob, May
13, 1996, p.1)" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 263-266, 268, and 272 of
Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md230/html/md230_0004a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #10:
"The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques."
[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts
below.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....
"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507
~~~~~~
"Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....
"As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
when the alteration supposedly took place. ....
"One exception among the steadily increasing number of
alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).
"But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of
Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #11:
"The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."
[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":
Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.
Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.
Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
question? ....
"[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
======================
SMOKING GUN #12:
"The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
eyewitness reports."
[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.
Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
too, for that matter.]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #13:
"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."
[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
conspiracy myth is anyone's guess. But, it is indeed difficult at
times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy
theorist.] .....
WAS THE MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,
the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H
614). ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0322b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0323a.htm
"However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmnmap2.gif
======================
SMOKING GUN #14:
"Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
about them.
"Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
was deficient in the performance of its duties."
"Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
Page 1245
======================
SMOKING GUN #15:
"Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
committed the crime."
[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
"Smokers" list.
But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
debunking VB quotes follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....
"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
missing. ....
"[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275
~~~~~~
"No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238
~~~~~~
"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195
~~~~~~
"Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.
"What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242
======================
SMOKING GUN #16:
"Many individuals knew details about the assassination before
and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more [than] a
patsy."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The more Joseph Milteer talked, the more it became obvious that
before the assassination, he knew as much about what was going to
happen as you or I (though William Somersett tended to believe that
Milteer had foreknowledge, not believing Milteer would be able to
guess that Kennedy would be shot with a rifle from a window).
"Milteer now, after the assassination, wanted to lead Somersett
to believe that he was part of the group that was behind it. He said
he was connected to a group Somersett had never heard of, the
International Underground, an organization, he said, of American
patriots, and this group had infiltrated Oswald's pro-Castro group in
New Orleans. (By now Milteer had undoubtedly already heard over the
news that Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans. What no one knew at this point, including Milteer, was
that that committee, or group, only had one member, Oswald, so
Milteer's organization could not have infiltrated a group that did not
exist.) ....
"When Milteer and Somersett met the following day, Sunday, with
the four members of the Ku Klux Klan...he also told them about his
group being behind the assassination. ....
"Somersett was of the opinion that the four Klansmen had never
met Milteer before and met with him because he had asked for the
meeting. So here we have Milteer confessing to being part of the
conspiracy to murder Kennedy not only to his friend Somersett, but
also to four virtual strangers.
"Somersett didn't say whether or not he heard Milteer confess to
the waiter at the restaurant." [~LOL Break~] -- V. Bugliosi; 724-725
of Endnotes
[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
Advance" theory.
Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
those individuals have been implicated in.
==============================================
FINAL "SMOKING GUNS" ANALYSIS:
When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.
In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.
==============================================
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
curtjester1
Lone
I see: somebody put some pills in your morning- milk. SS-guy: your
online credibility-suicide is now---complete!
David Von Pein
>>> "None other than Vince Palamara was swayed by the book [Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"], and he not only believes that Bugliosi has presented the best possible evidence and proved that Oswald did it alone, he praised Vince and his research for "Four Days in November". His words are there for all to see in the book itself." <<<
And Vince Palamara's review is available to read on the "Reclaiming
History" website too:
“Vince Bugliosi’s masterful Reclaiming History is a devastating
knock-out blow to those who, like me, once believed there was a
conspiracy in the death of JFK. Bugliosi finishes and completes, in
exhaustive and impressive detail, the work of the Warren Commission,
the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and, quite frankly, all
the other writers who have ever delved into the crime of the twentieth
century. It is time to get a life, America: Oswald did indeed kill
Kennedy, acting alone. Vince Bugliosi has done what I once thought was
the impossible: he has convinced me of this notion. The conspiracy
community was able to survive the Warren Commission Report, as well as
the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The
question is whether it will be able to survive Bugliosi’s Reclaiming
History.” -- Vince Palamara, Secret Service expert and former JFK
conspiracy theorist
www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=8
Footnotes:
It's interesting to note that two of Dr. David Mantik's
supposedly-'RH'-favoring comments are propped up at the RH.com website
too (and in VB's "Four Days" paperback as well).
But, in my own personal opinion, those comments from Mantik don't
belong there in the "Praise For RH" section of the website (or in the
"Four Days" paperback book which came out in late May 2008 either).
And that's because of Mantik's overall view of Bugliosi's "RH" book,
which is way, way more negative than it is positive. In fact, Mantik
attempts to rip VB a new anal cavity many times within his 23-page-
long review for "Reclaiming History", which can be found at the link
below:
www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1mantik.pdf
Moreover, the two supposedly-glowing Mantik blurbs that appear at
www.ReclaimingHistory.com and in the "Four Days" book have also been
taken totally out of context. When Mantik said: "It is a masterpiece",
that wasn't the complete comment made by Dr. Mantik in his "RH"
review. Here's the full quote, which places an entirely new meaning on
the truncated version of the remark:
"In its own way, it is a masterpiece--a truly brilliant
prosecutorial brief."
Mantik's other quote that appears at RH.com and in the "Four Days"
book is this one: "It is likely that this book [RH] will stand forever
as the magnum opus of this case."
But those above words take on a bit of a new flavor when we see what
Dr. Mantik wrote right after those words. Here's the full quote:
"It is likely that this book will stand forever as the magnum
opus of this case--though not without serious flaws."
I've gone through Dr. Mantik's lengthy review of "Reclaiming History"
and culled a few passages that give the overall flavor of Mantik's
opinions about Bugliosi's book. (And all of these anti-VB things
written by Mantik are things that I firmly disagree with entirely, of
course; but everybody's going to have their own opinion.).....
"The problem...is that he [Vincent Bugliosi] wears permanent
blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for
those from science."
"B’s [Bugliosi's] approach reminded me of a bulldozer in a
garbage pile. Never mind anything, just plow straight ahead, crunching
whatever lies below and ahead, and clear a path to the other side. At
this, he is unsurpassed. After he is done, the road is indeed clear,
but who would want to follow such a path?"
"In a very deep sense, [Bugliosi] really does not want to look
at all the pertinent data--after all, he already knows the answer, so
why bother? It’s really just too much trouble. This again
characterizes the legal mind, but not the scientific mind. And, more
troublesome for him, it totally violates his own best description of
his own book--a book that attempts “… to be a comprehensive and fair
evaluation of the ENTIRE [sic] case….”."
"In the future, unlike [Bugliosi], let’s actually examine all of
the evidence, but especially those items that are central--and even
the evidence we weren’t quite expecting."
"[Bugliosi] clearly wants to destroy every last scintilla of
anti-WC [Warren Commission] evidence. But even he admits that
virtually no murder case is ever that clean cut. It is therefore more
than a little bewildering that he does not give ground a little here
and there--but he simply won’t. That makes him all the less credible.
And it certainly does not give him the air of a scientist. But he does
not seem to care. He would prefer to appear omniscient. There is not
even a pretense of open-mindedness. His scorn, perhaps even hatred,
for the critics comes through page after page. Again, the reader must
decide if he can accept such a relentless bias."
[END MANTIK QUOTATIONS.]
Now, after reading those comments written by Dr. Mantik, why in the
WORLD anyone would be silly enough to take his out-of-context
"masterpiece" remark and prop it up as overall, general "Praise" for
VB's "RH" book is just something I cannot fathom for the life of me.
And it's even more ridiculous (IMHO) for those two short blurbs from
Mantik to have been reprinted as "praise" for "RH" within VB's "Four
Days In November" paperback volume that came out late last month.
Anyone reading only those blurbs (and not the entire review written by
Mantik) might very well think that Dr. Mantik, like Vincent Palamara,
had completely changed his tune with respect to his previously-long-
held beliefs in a JFK conspiracy. But nothing could be further from
the truth in Dr. Mantik's case.
To put review blurbs like those from David W. Mantik in a follow-up
volume of "RH", which was done in "Four Days In November", is just
incredibly silly, in my view...and totally misrepresents Mantik's
overall opinion of Mr. Bugliosi's "RH" book.
It makes me truly wonder if Vince Bugliosi had ever even read Mantik's
COMPLETE review from top to bottom. For, if he had read it, it's hard
to believe he would have approved of those two blurbs being placed in
his "Four Days" book (and on his "RH" website).
Returning to Vince Palamara for a moment longer.....
All in all, I'm not too impressed by Mr. Palamara's sudden turn toward
LN-ville (although his "turn" wasn't just recently; it dates back to
at least November 2007, and probably earlier, although nobody at the
JFK Internet Forums I frequently visit seems to realize this fact at
all, to hear them talk about it).
From what I've experienced of him online in personal conversations and
from looking at his shameless and non-stop self-promoting "reviews" at
Amazon.com (for JFK books where he, himself, appears in the book's
index), my overall opinion isn't really too high of Vince Palamara.
That's just my own personal opinion, of course. And, by the same
token, based on our few personal online sessions, my guess would be
that he doesn't have a very high opinion of me either. But, so it
goes. ;)
Also.....
Incredibly, on May 9, 2008 (many months AFTER he officially became an
ex-"CTer" with respect to the murder of John F. Kennedy), Vincent M.
Palamara somehow was able to find enough residual "conspiracy" left in
him to write a glowing 5-Star review for James Douglass' new pro-
conspiracy book (and he gets in a good self-congratulatory remark or
two along the way as well...as usual):
www.amazon.com/review/R1SCRUKKJ2YSKQ
And, btw, the YouTube video that Mr. Palamara uploaded on May 22, 2008
(wherein he acknowledges on camera his switch to the "LN" camp) has
now been removed from the YouTube website by Vince P. himself.
The video wasn't very well-done, IMO, and perhaps after watching it a
few times, Vince himself felt the same way. Maybe he'll put together
another similar "I'm Now A Lone-Nutter" video in the future. Could be.
At least it's an easy way to slap yourself on the back as you read
your own review from the pages of Mr. Bugliosi's "Four Days In
November" (which is what Vince P. did in his now-deleted YouTube
video).
Anyway, that's just my $0.02 (well, maybe $0.03).
David Von Pein
lazu...@webtv.net
alone? So miniscule it can't be calculated mathematically... all the
dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of things showing
conspiracy that palamara peed his pants over in-Murder In Dealey Plaza,
Ultimate Sacrifice, The Radical Right...all have to be 100% wrong, every
witness 100% wrong, .in Basketball parlance...if you know the
NBA..there's more chance Kwame Brown will be next year's MVP than LHO
did this by his lonesome...Laz
Bud
It is, and always has been, a pretty simple affair. That you needed
Bugliosi to explain it to you doesn`t speak well for you. Almost
everything in Bug`s book has been on the table for decades, all you
needed was the ability to filter out kook spin and blather.
aeffects
yep, so simple you've spent your entire adult live posting to USENET
boards in support of the WCR.... Ya need a break Dudster, ya been at
this Lone neuter for so long that tin-foil beanie of yours has rusted
(imagine that)
David Von Pein
>>> "You've spent your entire adult live posting to USENET boards in support of the WCR." <<<
That must be why Bud didn't make a single solitary post to the Usenet
JFK boards between April 15 and May 28, 2008.
Gee, come to think of it, I only get 2-day vacations for being a CIA &
VB Disinfo Agent. Looks like Bud has a much better deal -- he gets one-
and-a-half-month paid vacations.
I'll have to check out Bud's Disinfo handler and see if I can sign up
there.
>>> "Ya need a break Dudster." <<<
He just took 1.5 months off. Perhaps you never even noticed.
Looks like Healy hasn't found a way yet to shed that 'dunce' cap. It's
firmly affixed atop his noggin. (It probably even has a secret
compartment for his crackpipe...for easy access 24/7.)
aeffects
did some time, did he? It's a tough world out there Von Pein... So
how'se the good right winger folk of Indiana fairing with daBug's
latest offering? Dan Qualye come out of shock yet?
David Von Pein
>>> "So how's the good right-winger folk of Indiana fairing with daBug's [Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.] latest offering? Dan Qualye [sic; it's spelled "Quayle", Mr. Crackpipe] come out of shock yet?" <<<
I, myself, haven't come out of shock quite yet.
I'm more than halfway through Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution Of
George W. Bush For Murder", and even though I was somewhat skeptical
about Mr. Bugliosi's severe anti-Bush position on this matter when I
started reading it, I must say that the book is well-researched and
very well-written (like all of Mr. Bugliosi's books, of course).
Vince, as usual, takes no prisoners and tells it as he sees it. In
this (Bush) case, he lays out all the lies that GWB foisted upon the
American people.
It seems to me, however, that certain members of Congress (who voted
to go to war in October 2002) should also take their fair share of
blame as well with respect to the Iraq war, in that the critical
classified CIA report (the one that was ultimately revised and mangled
by Bush's people for its declassified version, with the references to
Saddam Hussein NOT being an imminent threat to the security of the
U.S. being completely deleted in the altered version--an inexcusable
act of altering the evidence if there ever was one, IMO) was right
there for every Senator and Congressmen to examine and scrutinize.
But evidently only a handful of Congress members bothered to even read
the full CIA (NIE) report. They trusted what President Bush and his
people were telling them.
But, as Mr. Bugliosi quite amply demonstrates in his new book,
"trusting" anything uttered by George W. Bush regarding the subject of
going to war in Iraq was a very, very grave error.
So, unless there are some other key things that aren't revealed in
Bugliosi's book concerning Bush's possible reasons for doing what he
did in promoting the stupid and needless war in Iraq (and I'll readily
admit that there could very well be other things involved that we
don't fully know about), it looks like I will, indeed, have to eat a
few of these words that I wrote in an earlier post in February:
"I know that VB pretty much despises George W. Bush...but I must
admit, that the heavy title of that new book really took me by
surprise ("The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder") when I first
noticed it. .... I'll probably buy the book, but based on its title
ONLY, I'm not too sure that I'm going to fully agree with everything
in it. (And I'm certainly no GW Bush cheerleader myself.) But, then
again, I might end up eating those last words I just wrote. You never
can tell....because VB is the King of "CS&L", IMO. So he might just be
able to convince me that our current President is actually guilty of
"murder" (somehow). But that might be taking things a bit too far, in
my view. But, we'll see." -- DVP; February 21, 2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4cbb14a356413a0a
===================================================
VB QUOTES:
"No political figures in American history ever so shamelessly
exploited a war for political advantage as much as [George W. Bush,
Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney]. ....
"Bush is obviously not a man of stature. He's a spoiled, callous
brat who became president only because of his father's good name. And
Rove is a pasty, weak-faced, and mean-spirited political
criminal. ....
"These two [Bush and Rove] are human embarrassments, and it's
written all over their faces who they are. There's nothing of
substance and character on the inside of either of these two "men" for
their faces to reflect." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 44 of "The
Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder" (Vanguard Press)(c.2008)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Because of what [George] Bush said in his State of the Union
address [on January 28, 2003], America could only think that there
was a strong possibility that [Saddam] Hussein was planning a nuclear
attack on us, exactly what Bush and his people wanted them to believe
to build up their claim of self-defense...in going to war. The
information was phony and the Bush administration had been told it was
phony, but Bush and his people decided to lie to the American public
to drag them into a horrendous war. ....
"Has any American president, ever, engaged in such monumentally
criminal and deadly activity? No. Indeed, I don't believe any other
president would even have dreamed of doing such a thing.
"If all of the above, enough to enrage a saint, doesn't make
your blood boil, it's only because you are a bloodless wonder, and
belong as a feature exhibit at the Smithsonian." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
Pages 129-130 of "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For
Murder" (Vanguard Press)(c.2008)
===================================================
ADDENDUM:
Here's a very interesting radio interview with Vince Bugliosi
regarding his "Bush For Murder" book (via KHOW-Denver), including a
couple of irate callers who phone in to tell Vince that he's nuts:
"Karen [caller] doesn't care....she loves George Bush....she
doesn't care whether he committed murder or not." -- VB; May 2008
===================================================
Bud
Quite an exaggeration.
> in support of the WCR....
Even more of one. I could have figured this case out without the
WCR. It really is just that simple.
>Ya need a break Dudster,
I stayed away for weeks. I wouldn`t expect you to notice.
> ya been at
> this Lone neuter for so long that tin-foil beanie of yours has rusted
> (imagine that)
What you need to worry about is Bug`s ability to reach even hard
core kooks like Vince here. The future is bleak for the conspiracy
position, you`ll never be able to deliver a conspiracy for the public,
leaving them no choice but to accept reality.
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "You've spent your entire adult live posting to USENET boards in support of the WCR." <<<
>
>
>
> That must be why Bud didn't make a single solitary post to the Usenet
> JFK boards between April 15 and May 28, 2008.
>
> Gee, come to think of it, I only get 2-day vacations for being a CIA &
> VB Disinfo Agent. Looks like Bud has a much better deal -- he gets one-
> and-a-half-month paid vacations.
>
> I'll have to check out Bud's Disinfo handler and see if I can sign up
> there.
>
>
>
> >>> "Ya need a break Dudster." <<<
>
>
> He just took 1.5 months off. Perhaps you never even noticed.
Conputer problems and a lack of interest. Watching that show on
9-11 kooks really drove home what this type of fanatic is about.
Impervious to reality, and when it really comes down to it, it really
doen`t matter what they think. For some it has become a parlor game.
For some, a chance at being someone. Some kooks, like Healy here,
crave attention. All are probably best ignored. The amatuer sleuths
are trying to draw water from a dry well, chewing the marrow from
dusty bones. The ones that used this case to make names for themselves
choose idiocy as a means to gain celebrity. But by far the most
pathetic are the Healy-type, lonely no lifers who haunt this board,
yet can`t engage in any of topics discussed on it.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Oh, I don't know... Dan Quayle is probably on my left as well as both Bushes,
and familiar talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity, and *I* think
Bugliosi is a good lawyer.
Of course, one of the primary prerequisites of a good lawyer is the ability to
argue *any* side of a case, right or wrong, facts or lies - doesn't enter into
it.
I agree with Bugliosi when he argued that there was a conspiracy in the RFK and
JFK cases.