New Site: Reclaiming Vincent Bugliosi

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 10:38:22 AM4/18/07

to

I'll be starting a new site soon called "Reclaiming Vicent Bugliosi."

The forum on the site will conduct a chapter by chapter analysis of
Bugliosi's new book: "Reclaiming our History."

cddraftsman, your shenanigans won't be tolerated so don't bother
visiting if you can't behave.

All others are welcomed.

ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman

"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb

aeffects

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:06:42 PM4/18/07

to

whatever chapter analysis YOU post there, cc here... lurkers
hereabouts will appreciate it, thanks!

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:09:48 PM4/18/07

to

Shenanigans ? Who Me ? I , who have never spoken one ill word against
another
soul in my entire life ? .......................ml

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:10:58 PM4/18/07

to

I thought I told you to get back to your bean counting ? .......ml

> >http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

aeffects

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:28:00 PM4/18/07

to

On Apr 18, 9:10 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought I told you to get back to your bean counting ? .......ml

keep posting, laddie -- you and Eddie daCage are the best argument for
conspiracy anywhere on the net -- we indeed thank you! LMFAO!

> On Apr 18, 9:06 am, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > whatever chapter analysis YOU post there, cc here... lurkers
> > hereabouts will appreciate it, thanks!
>
> > RICLAND wrote:
> > > I'll be starting a new site soon called "Reclaiming Vicent Bugliosi."
>
> > > The forum on the site will conduct a chapter by chapter analysis of
> > > Bugliosi's new book: "Reclaiming our History."
>
> > > cddraftsman, your shenanigans won't be tolerated so don't bother
> > > visiting if you can't behave.
>
> > > All others are welcomed.
>
> > > ricland
> > > --
> > > "Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
> > > It only took me 10 visits before I was
> > > able to navigate it just fine."
> > > --cddraftsman
>
> > > "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> > > --Earl Warren, 1964
> > > Who Shot JFK?

> > >http://tinyurl.com/247ybb-Hide quoted text -

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 11:45:57 AM4/18/07

to

cdddraftsman wrote:
> Shenanigans ? Who Me ? I , who have never spoken one ill word against
> another
> soul in my entire life ? .......................ml

The purpose of the site will be to gather the material I need to publish
a book rebutting Bugliosi's book and if you think I'm going to let you
pollute the site with your Usenet terrorism, you really are a few pints
short.

aaronhi...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 1:05:24 PM4/18/07

to

snip

> The purpose of the site will be to gather the material I need to publish
> a book rebutting Bugliosi's book and if you think I'm going to let you
> pollute the site with your Usenet terrorism, you really are a few pints
> short.

snip

To get warmed up, you should read Peter Dale Scott's refutation of
Posner's book. This appears in the Appendix of "Deep Politics II".

> "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> --Earl Warren, 1964
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb

Aaron Hirshberg

aeffects

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 1:17:22 PM4/18/07

to

On Apr 18, 10:05 am, "aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com"

<aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > The purpose of the site will be to gather the material I need to publish
> > a book rebutting Bugliosi's book and if you think I'm going to let you
> > pollute the site with your Usenet terrorism, you really are a few pints
> > short.
>
> snip
>
> To get warmed up, you should read Peter Dale Scott's refutation of
> Posner's book. This appears in the Appendix of "Deep Politics II".

there's a concerted effort by the Lone Nutter Girls, that of dragging
PDScott through the mud amongst other serious conspiracy authors...
The girls have no choice, the can't debate facts/evidence.....

tomnln

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 1:24:53 PM4/18/07

to

Get back to the Truckers Rest Start on the I-80.

HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176912658.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 1:26:15 PM4/18/07

to

WHO is tom lowery?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1176912588.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 3:19:37 PM4/18/07

to

Your really living in a dream world Riccy boy ! You better start
saving your nickels for a self published book ! There's no one out
there that will publish it Period ! JFK Conspiracy Books ARE DEADER
THEN JFK Himself ! Ask around Dummy ! Hahahahah !
They don't even have anymore meetings ! Hehehehehehehe !
Dead ! DEAD ! Read my Lips ! Or Rossley's puckered Rear End !
Which reads " The Truck Stopped Here " ! Hahahhahahaha !

What did you think about that one Rossley ?
You south end of a north bound Donkey !
Heeeeehawwwwwwwwww ! :

Whats you doing way at the bottom there Rossley ?
Collecting nickel bags of butt hairs again ?

On Apr 18, 7:38 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 3:20:17 PM4/18/07

to

tomnln

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 7:54:17 PM4/18/07

to

You can NOT fit a 42 inch rifle into a 27 inch bag.

BUT, It SURE will fit into I-80 Rest Start Queen tom lowery'ds ASS.

Those truckers have a way of "Widening the Road".

Rossley is the ONLY "Pain in the Ass" lowery DON'T LOVE.

HERE is lowery Naked>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm

Exposed by his own words.

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1176924017.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 10:32:35 PM4/18/07

to

>>> "The forum on the site will conduct a chapter by chapter analysis of Bugliosi's new book: "Reclaiming our History"." <<<

And that's bound to be a whopper of a forum (re. accuracy) when you
still can't even get the two-word title of the book right (despite
being told multiple times what the true title is). ~rolleyes~

BTW, here's the REAL "Reclaiming History/Vincent Bugliosi" website for
the book (below). It's a totally-blank site as of today (April 18,
2007), but it's a domain name that's obviously being reserved for some
type of activity surrounding VB's definitive LN tome. Whether it will
include interactive features or strictly FYI type stuff, I cannot
say. ......

www.reclaiminghistory.com

(Check out the text in the blue header at the very top of the above
webpage.)

aeffects

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 10:47:09 PM4/18/07

to

On Apr 18, 7:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The forum on the site will conduct a chapter by chapter analysis of Bugliosi's new book: "Reclaiming our History"." <<<
>
> And that's bound to be a whopper of a forum (re. accuracy) when you
> still can't even get the two-word title of the book right (despite
> being told multiple times what the true title is). ~rolleyes~

that should give you an indication as to what to expect, David. Why
would anyone want to *reclaim* a fraudulent WCR?

> BTW, here's the REAL "Reclaiming History/Vincent Bugliosi" website for
> the book (below). It's a totally-blank site as of today (April 18,
> 2007), but it's a domain name that's obviously being reserved for some
> type of activity surrounding VB's definitive LN tome. Whether it will
> include interactive features or strictly FYI type stuff, I cannot
> say. ......

1600 page tome and a blank website......interesting

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 10:57:43 PM4/18/07

to

We are overcome by paralysis by analysis-the ballistics, forensics, and
eyewitness testimony scream conspiracy. So, Bugliosi's book is a bucket
of shit...

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 10:55:58 PM4/18/07

to

As I've said before many a time-If Bugliosi goes with the cowlick
entrance and an intact back of the head ala the 2 pictures he's out on a
limb as nobody saw that 11-22-63. If he goes with more of an EOP
entrance-the trajectory is all wrong and how do you explain the damage
with an FMJ to the top of the head as seen in Autopsy Pictures when
O'Conner and Jenkins opened the casket?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 11:22:33 PM4/18/07

to

CTers tend to over-analyze the simplest of things. And the JFK head
wounds are simplified by Dr. James Humes himself, via his very first
post-1964 interview, which he gave to CBS in June 1967.

Is Humes being "coerced" into saying these things (printed below) on
nationwide TV? Anyone believing that Humes is lying here should be
locked up with R.P. McMurphy....because Humes didn't have a gun to his
head when it came to his obviously-VOLUNTARY appearance and statements
that he made to CBS' Dan Rather in '67, shown below.

These statements by JFK's chief autopsist prove there was NOT a large
BOH wound in President Kennedy's head. Such a large BOH wound just did
not exist! And Humes' statements also prove beyond all doubt there was
only ONE single wound of entry on JFK's head, and it was in the rear
of the head, bevelled inward. .....

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 11:38:13 PM4/18/07

to

>>> "Why would anyone want to *reclaim* a fraudulent WCR?" <<<

There's nothing fraudulent about the WCR at all. It's not a perfect
document...and VB won't be claiming it is perfect. But the WC's bottom-
line conclusion is perfectly acceptable, given the sum total of
evidence, which does not now, nor did it in '64, spell "conspiracy".

CTers love to trash the WCR....which is a bigger mystery than the
"mystery" those CTers say they are trying to figure out, IMO. For,
given the evidence, there can be no doubt that Lee Oswald shot and
killed JFK & Tippit. No doubt.

And since VB has looked into possible conspiracy BEHIND OSWALD for
many, many years -- and has found no credible theory of that nature
worthy of accepting -- it's a "Mark VII" as far as I am concerned.

Because the only POSSIBLE conspiracy that could have conceivably
existed in Dallas in Nov. '63 would have been some kind of plot that
had Oswald, ALONE, as the shooter (of both JFK and J.D. Tippit), but
one or more persons pulling his (lone) strings in some fashion behind
the scenes somewhere.

And even that kind of "Oswald Did All The Shooting, But Somebody Else
Was In On The Plot With Oswald" conspiracy theory doesn't wash with
Vince B. (and after years of going over every theory imaginable).

Doesn't THAT fact tell the CTers something...at least?

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 11:09:29 PM4/18/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "The forum on the site will conduct a chapter by chapter analysis of Bugliosi's new book: "Reclaiming our History"." <<<
>
> And that's bound to be a whopper of a forum (re. accuracy) when you
> still can't even get the two-word title of the book right (despite
> being told multiple times what the true title is). ~rolleyes~
>

> BTW, here's the REAL "Reclaiming History/Vincent Bugliosi" website for
> the book (below). It's a totally-blank site as of today (April 18,
> 2007), but it's a domain name that's obviously being reserved for some
> type of activity surrounding VB's definitive LN tome. Whether it will
> include interactive features or strictly FYI type stuff, I cannot
> say. ......
>

> www.reclaiminghistory.com
>

You're correct, there's no excuse for continuing to get the title wrong,
but let me offer this observation: the title makes no sense.

It's too generic. The book addresses one isolated incident in our
history, not the length and breadth the title suggests. And this
suggests that your hero Vincent Bugliosi is seriously off point.

The publisher's weekly review would seem to confirm this. This review
says that along with a boatload of weird stuff the book contains (a
discussion of Elvis? Why?) it's just an overly long rehash of Posner's
book -- nothing new are interesting is in it.

Bloat.

Also, if the review is correct, Bugliosi takes testimony at face value,
like Marina Oswald's testimony.

In other words, David, Publisher's Review thinks the book is flawed both
in content and length. And two chapters on Oliver Stone's movie -- why?
No one in this newsgroup takes the Stone movie seriously. It was
entertainment, little more.

And one final thing: if Buglisoi isn't plugged into the internet -- and
he isn't -- he really isn't plugged into the latest thinking about the
event. The Publisher's Review calls the book an over-long Posner clone.
But Posner's book was slam-dunked years ago on the net, something you
wouldn't know about unless you were part of net culture which Bugliosi
and most people of his age aren't.

Of course none of this should come as a surprise to you, David. All of
these points were discussed here already. I made many of them myself. I
told you that today there is no better assassination resource than the
net, that if Bugliosi is not somehow participating in the discussion
we're having, he's not going to have anything in his book worth reading.

You saw how I sent Prof. Rahn packing. You know how McAdam's site is
popping leaks. This newsgroup is the proving ground. If it don't fly
here, it don't fly.

Bugliosi should have posted each one of his chapters here as they were
completed. Of course, had he done that, he'd have known he really
doesn't have a book.

ricland

--
New site coming soon!

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 2:07:39 AM4/19/07

to

>>> "The title {"Reclaiming History"} makes no sense. It's too generic. The book addresses one isolated incident in our history, not the length and breadth the title suggests." <<<

Oh, for Pete sake. You can't be serious here.

The (perfect) title makes perfect sense. And the SUBTITLE -- "The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" -- indicates that VB is
"Reclaiming History" with respect to ONLY the subject matter mentioned
in the subtitle (i.e., the assassination of JFK), which immediately
follows the main title, of course. ....

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V45854587_SS500_.jpg

Why in the world would you think that Vince Bugliosi's book would be
attempting to "reclaim history" in other non-JFK areas?

You weren't really serious when you said that stuff about "length and
breadth", were you? Or were you?? ~shrugs~

>>> "If the {Publishers Weekly} review is correct, Bugliosi takes testimony at face value, like Marina Oswald's testimony." <<<

Mr. Bugliosi very, very rarely (if ever) evaluates evidence (or
witness testimony) ONLY at "face value" (sans digging deeper for
verification).

Vince has a habit, in fact, of going way beyond what is needed to
"verify" something, which leads to redundancy at times in his written
works....which seems to be another thing that the PW reviewer(s)
doesn't seem to like about Vincent's JFK book (i.e., "needless
repetition", which are the exact words used in the PW review).

But such repetition is almost always found within Mr. Bugliosi's
books. As VB builds his "mosaic" of guilt against Oswald (just as he
built such a case of guilt against Charles Manson in the book "Helter
Skelter", and a similar "mosaic" of guilt around O.J. Simpson in VB's
book "Outrage"), some "repetition" is necessary in many places within
the narrative.

And then there's always Vincent's own basic, underlying philosophy
regarding ANY case he's involved in (or any true-crime book he's
writing)....and that is this:

"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi

Via the above statement, a certain amount of redundancy and/or
superfluity is bound to seep into his publications.

>>> "In other words, David, Publisher's Review thinks the book is flawed both
in content and length." <<<

Big deal. Somebody thinks a lone-assassin book re. the JFK case is
"flawed". That's a huge surprise, huh? (Not.)

But, IMO, the "PW" review isn't nearly extensive enough. My review
will be, however. (And then some.) ;)

PW seemed to be looking for things to nitpick. The "Elvis" thing that
was brought up being one such example. Another example being when the
PW review mentions the fact that Bugliosi twice uses the verbiage that
the WC critics "were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal
bullet had come to rest".

But that kind of verbiage is obviously meant to be deliberately "over-
the-top" in nature. Those words, in fact, are the exact words VB used
at the start of his Opening Statement to the jury at the '86 mock
trial.

But such words aren't meant to be taken LITERALLY, which Publishers
Weekly seems to be doing (twice). That's just silly to take VB
"literally" there. It's called "dramatic license", quite obviously.

That very fact (that the PW reviewer was actually taking Vince
literally re. those over-the-top comments) tends to make me critical
of the reviewer himself (or herself). Because that type of silly error
being made in a review makes me think that the reviewer himself isn't
a very sharp tool in the first place. (YMMV.)

>>> "And two chapters on Oliver Stone's movie -- why?" <<<

Why can't you read, Ric. The PW review didn't say there were TWO
chapters on Oliver Stone's movie. The review said that VB devotes
"twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' as to
his chapter on organized crime".

And, IMO, that's a very GOOD thing. A lot of pages SHOULD be devoted
to Stone's film....due to the fact so many people of today's
generation have gotten their skewed facts ONLY from that one single
movie.

But, per this (tentative) Chapter List, there's only one chapter
devoted to Stone's film:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/79aad61f970de446

>>> "No one in this newsgroup takes the Stone movie seriously." <<<

Bull. The basic THEORY we get from Stone's movie is EXACTLY the same
kind of crazy "Patsy" theory that is believed by virtually ALL of the
CT-Kooks at this non-moderated forum. Exactly! I.E., Oswald never
killed anyone on Nov. 22nd, and was being "set up" in advance to take
the fall as the lone "patsy" in the case.

Ben, Walt, Don, Tom R., and several others fully endorse the basic
"Oswald Was Nothing But An Innocent Patsy" theory that Oliver Stone
filmed in 1991.

So, once again, Ric...you are 100% wrong. Stone endorsed the "Patsy"
theory...and that's precisely the type of theory that many/(most) of
the CTers in here advocate as well.

>>> "If Bugliosi isn't plugged into the internet, he really isn't plugged into the latest thinking about the event. ... If Bugliosi is not somehow participating in the discussion we're having, he's not going to have anything in his book worth reading." <<<

What a silly thing to say.

What you're implying here is totally ludicrous. You're implying that
the ONLY place Vince B. could go to HOPE to get the true facts of the
"CT case" is a place like this kook factory on Google.

That's utter nonsense. Vince has a brain of his OWN, you know. And he
has had far greater access to the important materials, and witnesses,
and documents (etc.) than anyone here has had (including myself, I
might add; I'm just a guy at a computer writing my own thoughts down,
just like everyone else here).

To say that Mr. Bugliosi's book is worthless or useless because he
hasn't been plugged into an Internet forum is beyond a kooky
statement. It's borderline insane!

>>> "You saw how I sent Prof. Rahn packing." <<<

~LOL.~

You, my friend, are giving yourself FAR too much credit. You have not
aided the "CT" cause a single iota. In fact, you have proven to be an
embarrassment to your "CT cause" by admitting forthrightly that your
knowledge on some basic JFK-related issues and facts is woefully weak.

Although I'm still not entirely sure you're not just a CT-Faker of
some ilk....just pretending to be pro-CT in your posts. You're a hard
one to figure out, I'll readily admit.

But if you truly think you've run Ken Rahn out of town on a rail, you
are sorely mistaken.

>>> "Bugliosi should have posted each one of his chapters here as they were
completed." <<<

Oh, dear God in heaven.

Excuse me.....

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/laugh.gif
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Thanks for that hearty laugh.

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 6:35:54 AM4/19/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "The title {"Reclaiming History"} makes no sense. It's too generic. The book addresses one isolated incident in our history, not the length and breadth the title suggests." <<<
>
> Oh, for Pete sake. You can't be serious here.
>
> The (perfect) title makes perfect sense. And the SUBTITLE -- "The
> Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" -- indicates that VB is
> "Reclaiming History" with respect to ONLY the subject matter mentioned
> in the subtitle (i.e., the assassination of JFK), which immediately
> follows the main title, of course. ....
>

Oh, I wasn't aware of the subtitle. You didn't mention it and it's not
included in anything I've seen.

> http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V45854587_SS500_.jpg
>
> Why in the world would you think that Vince Bugliosi's book would be
> attempting to "reclaim history" in other non-JFK areas?
>
> You weren't really serious when you said that stuff about "length and
> breadth", were you? Or were you?? ~shrugs~

Again, I wasn't aware of the subtitle.

>
>
>>>> "If the {Publishers Weekly} review is correct, Bugliosi takes testimony at face value, like Marina Oswald's testimony." <<<
>
> Mr. Bugliosi very, very rarely (if ever) evaluates evidence (or
> witness testimony) ONLY at "face value" (sans digging deeper for
> verification).
>
> Vince has a habit, in fact, of going way beyond what is needed to
> "verify" something, which leads to redundancy at times in his written
> works....which seems to be another thing that the PW reviewer(s)
> doesn't seem to like about Vincent's JFK book (i.e., "needless
> repetition", which are the exact words used in the PW review).

Please learn to focus, will you? The discussion is about what Bugliosi
does in this book, not what he has a "habit" of doing in the past.

And you confuse "needless repetition" with not taking things at face
value. They're two different things.

>
> But such repetition is almost always found within Mr. Bugliosi's
> books. As VB builds his "mosaic" of guilt against Oswald (just as he
> built such a case of guilt against Charles Manson in the book "Helter
> Skelter", and a similar "mosaic" of guilt around O.J. Simpson in VB's
> book "Outrage"), some "repetition" is necessary in many places within
> the narrative.

If this is what he does in the book, David, his thinking is as muddled
as yours. The kind of repetition you're talking about is an effective
technique with a jury, not in research. No need; the text is there to
return to for any reader who missed it during the first read.

>
> And then there's always Vincent's own basic, underlying philosophy
> regarding ANY case he's involved in (or any true-crime book he's
> writing)....and that is this:
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
> Vincent T. Bugliosi

Then I can't wait to see the "enormous" amount of support for his
position that Oswald was a "nut."

>
> Via the above statement, a certain amount of redundancy and/or
> superfluity is bound to seep into his publications.

And weaken it. The topic doesn't require 1600 pages. The topic doesn't
require 2/3s of that. He couldn't possibly have uncovered that much new
information. More importantly, that much new information isn't necessary
to proof his case. In fact, all he really has to do is present new
evidence showing Oswald fired the shots from the SBD. Everything else is
just chatter.

>
>
>>>> "In other words, David, Publisher's Review thinks the book is flawed both
> in content and length." <<<
>
> Big deal. Somebody thinks a lone-assassin book re. the JFK case is
> "flawed". That's a huge surprise, huh? (Not.)

But this isn't just any lone-assassin book, this is one the author took
20 years to write, plenty of time to get things right; 20 years to weigh
the value of having a section on Elvis in it; 20 years to reflect on
what motivated Marina to say the things she did right after the
assassination; 20 years to reflect on the things she started saying long
after the assassination which contradict the quotes she made earlier.

>
> But, IMO, the "PW" review isn't nearly extensive enough. My review
> will be, however. (And then some.) ;)
>
> PW seemed to be looking for things to nitpick. The "Elvis" thing that
> was brought up being one such example. Another example being when the
> PW review mentions the fact that Bugliosi twice uses the verbiage that
> the WC critics "were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal
> bullet had come to rest".
>
> But that kind of verbiage is obviously meant to be deliberately "over-
> the-top" in nature. Those words, in fact, are the exact words VB used
> at the start of his Opening Statement to the jury at the '86 mock
> trial.
>
> But such words aren't meant to be taken LITERALLY, which Publishers
> Weekly seems to be doing (twice). That's just silly to take VB
> "literally" there. It's called "dramatic license", quite obviously.
>
> That very fact (that the PW reviewer was actually taking Vince
> literally re. those over-the-top comments) tends to make me critical
> of the reviewer himself (or herself). Because that type of silly error
> being made in a review makes me think that the reviewer himself isn't
> a very sharp tool in the first place. (YMMV.)

It's called "hyperbole," not "dramatic license." The two devices are
quite different. But they do have one thing in common: neither are used
in serious research.

>
>
>>>> "And two chapters on Oliver Stone's movie -- why?" <<<
>
> Why can't you read, Ric. The PW review didn't say there were TWO
> chapters on Oliver Stone's movie. The review said that VB devotes
> "twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' as to
> his chapter on organized crime".

Well, gee, help me with my math here, David. If a chapter is devoted to
organized crime, and twice that is devoted to Oliver Stone, what does
that equal?

>
> And, IMO, that's a very GOOD thing. A lot of pages SHOULD be devoted
> to Stone's film....due to the fact so many people of today's
> generation have gotten their skewed facts ONLY from that one single
> movie.

Okay.

>
> But, per this (tentative) Chapter List, there's only one chapter
> devoted to Stone's film:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/79aad61f970de446
>
>
>>>> "No one in this newsgroup takes the Stone movie seriously." <<<
>
> Bull. The basic THEORY we get from Stone's movie is EXACTLY the same
> kind of crazy "Patsy" theory that is believed by virtually ALL of the
> CT-Kooks at this non-moderated forum. Exactly! I.E., Oswald never
> killed anyone on Nov. 22nd, and was being "set up" in advance to take
> the fall as the lone "patsy" in the case.
>
> Ben, Walt, Don, Tom R., and several others fully endorse the basic
> "Oswald Was Nothing But An Innocent Patsy" theory that Oliver Stone
> filmed in 1991.
>
> So, once again, Ric...you are 100% wrong. Stone endorsed the "Patsy"
> theory...and that's precisely the type of theory that many/(most) of
> the CTers in here advocate as well.

The patsy theory existed long before the Stone movie.

You are aware of this, aren't you?

>
>
>>>> "If Bugliosi isn't plugged into the internet, he really isn't plugged into the latest thinking about the event. ... If Bugliosi is not somehow participating in the discussion we're having, he's not going to have anything in his book worth reading." <<<
>
> What a silly thing to say.
>
> What you're implying here is totally ludicrous. You're implying that
> the ONLY place Vince B. could go to HOPE to get the true facts of the
> "CT case" is a place like this kook factory on Google.
>
> That's utter nonsense. Vince has a brain of his OWN, you know. And he
> has had far greater access to the important materials, and witnesses,
> and documents (etc.) than anyone here has had (including myself, I
> might add; I'm just a guy at a computer writing my own thoughts down,
> just like everyone else here).
>
> To say that Mr. Bugliosi's book is worthless or useless because he
> hasn't been plugged into an Internet forum is beyond a kooky
> statement. It's borderline insane!

The sense I'm getting is that Publisher's Review were disappointed at
not finding any new evidence in the book, that at best, it was a bloated
Posner rehash. If it is a bloated Posner rehash, Bugliosi could have
saved himself 20 years of writing. Posner's book was slam-dunked here
years ago.

>
>
>>>> "You saw how I sent Prof. Rahn packing." <<<
>
> ~LOL.~
>
> You, my friend, are giving yourself FAR too much credit. You have not
> aided the "CT" cause a single iota. In fact, you have proven to be an
> embarrassment to your "CT cause" by admitting forthrightly that your
> knowledge on some basic JFK-related issues and facts is woefully weak.

It's an "iota" not "single iota." If you're going to put yourself forth
as a writer, do learn such things.

[...]

Yawn...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 9:20:06 AM4/19/07

to

>>> "Oh, I wasn't aware of the subtitle {for "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"}. You didn't mention it and it's not included in anything I've seen." <<<

Good grief! I've only mentioned it numerous times in my posts, even in
the TITLE of my several "RH" threads since November 2006, such as this
one shown below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df

Not to mention the many links to various sources for the book which
show the book jacket, with the full title clearly visible.

Your research is very weak. You also should have probably ASSUMED the
book had a subtitle, even if you didn't know it had one. And you
certainly should have looked up the title (at any number of places
online) before writing your last post re. the "breadth" of "RH".

That is just a small example of how lazy a "researcher" you are. I can
just imagine how "knee-jerk" your "new site" re. VB will be.

>>> "If this is what he does in the book, David, his thinking is as muddled as yours. The kind of repetition you're talking about is an effective technique with a jury, not in research." <<<

In a book the size of "RH", Vince will NEED some degree of repetition,
IMO (for context between far-apart chapters). Who wants to constantly
be flipping back to a previous chapter for a particular quote or
passage?

It's going to be bad enough to have to constantly be going from the
physical book to the computer screen every 2 minutes to look up a
footnote or source note, because VB decided to place all the endnotes
(and I also assume most source notes) on a CD-ROM instead of in the
actual book, due to the book's already-mammoth size.

So some redundancy of text is okay with me. I've come to expect it,
esp. in larger tomes.

Plus, Vince B. thinks of his reading "audience" as a "jury". He said
so in this quote, in fact:

"I view myself primarily as a trial lawyer who happens to be writing,
as opposed to a writer who happens to be a trial lawyer, so the
audience is like a jury to me." -- VB

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vincent_bugliosi.html

>>> "I can't wait to see the "enormous" amount of support for his position that Oswald was a "nut"." <<<

That's fairly obvious, isn't it? Oswald took a gun and shot at the
President and killed him. It pretty much takes a "nut" to attempt a
stupid thing like that. 'Nuff said.

Next?....

>>> "The topic doesn't require 1600 pages." <<<

Better revise your estimate. "Reclaiming History" (including the CD-
ROM "pages") will total 2,800+ pages. So, now you've got 1,200+ more
reasons to scold poor Vince it would seem. :)

And given VB's thoroughness, it obviously DOES require that many
pages. At least VB thinks it does. Vince said in 2005, in fact, that
his original uncut manuscript could "easily fill five volumes". (I'd
have loved that.)

But Vince has also said this (in going the opposite direction from
"bulk"):

"I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince the
average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- VB; April 2004

Obviously, VB wasn't going to come out with a "definitive" JFK volume
containing just 25 pages. But the key to that quote is the phrase
"average reader". (I.E., a reader who hasn't buried himself in Lifton-
like or Garrison-like CT tripe for decades on end. It's doubtful if
even 6,000 pages of LN-favoring CS&L could get through to the Lifton-
loving clique.)

>>> "He {VB} couldn't possibly have uncovered that much new information." <<<

No. Probably not. Nor is that entirely what "Reclaiming History" is
attempting to do. Vince said years ago that his JFK book would be
designed (in large part) to attack the conspiracy theories surrounding
the Kennedy case....and that's just what a big part of "RH" will be
doing.

In this 1988 newspaper article (linked below), it is said that "the
target of the Kennedy book will be the conspiracy theorists". ....

http://tinypic.com/seaae9.jpg

"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories. ... It might sound corny, but
the truth is I feel an obligation to write this book. I've read every
book that's been published since 1964, and 85% of them feel that
there's been a conspiracy of some kind. My book will tell the other
side, and I feel I'm equipped to do it." -- VB; January 1988

>>> "All he really has to do is present new evidence showing Oswald fired the shots from the SBD." <<<

"New" evidence that Oswald fired from the Depository??? You must be
kidding!

Won't the mile-high pile of "old" evidence suffice in that crucial
regard? If not, why not?

Oswald's gun.
Oswald's bullets in HOSPITAL and LIMO.
Oswald's shells in Sniper's Nest.
Oswald's prints all over the Nest (including the paper bag).
Oswald is physically seen by a witness firing his last shot toward
JFK's car.

Do you think Vince will unveil a brand-new "I Saw Oswald Shooting"
witness in "RH"?

Vince, just like he did at the '86 mock trial, will build that same
1963 MOSAIC of guilt around Oswald. A mosaic that no reasonable person
can tear down. Not now...or ever.

>>> "It's called "hyperbole," not "dramatic license". The two devices are quite different." <<<

No, not really. Let's just examine the definition:

"Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-
cream cones")." ....

http://webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole

I engaged in the same type of thing just a minute ago too...via my
"mile-high pile of old evidence" remark. Happens all the time. And
Vince does it very well.

But any reasonable person (or book reviewer) certainly should know the
difference between "extravagant exaggeration" (such as VB's "critics

were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to

rest") and "literal prose".

A good writer (like Mr. Bugliosi) can effectively mix the two things
in the same publication...and has done so, many times before. For some
silly reason, that "PW" reviewer took Vince literally (twice!) re.
that obviously-"exaggerated" remark about WC critics. Go figure.

>>> "But they {"dramatic license" and "hyperbole"} do have one thing in common: neither are used in serious research." <<<

What a laugh. You are not the person to be talking about "serious
research". You couldn't even "research" a simple book title before
embarrassing yourself.

>>> "Well, gee, help me with my math here, David. If a chapter is devoted to organized crime, and twice that is devoted to Oliver Stone, what does that equal?" <<<

It equals ONE chapter on Ollie Stone that is TWICE the length of the
ONE chapter on organized crime. It doesn't equal "two chapters", which
is what you specifically said previously.

Duh!

>>> "The patsy theory existed long before the Stone movie. You are aware of this, aren't you?" <<<

Sure. That's correct. But that's not the real point. The point was
that Stone's (and Garrison's) BASIC theory of "Oswald Was Only An
Innocent Patsy" IS taken "seriously" by several members of this forum.
That's the point I was correcting you on before. (I thought this would
have been obvious.)

>>> "It's an "iota" not "single iota." If you're going to put yourself forth as a writer, do learn such things." <<<

LOL. Great. Just great. I'm being given "writing" lessons from someone
who won't even take the two seconds to learn the true name of a book
he continues to bash daily in a pre-release manner ("Reclaiming
History", sans the "Our" in the middle), and who doesn't even know the
subtitle of said publication, to boot.

You're a stitch.

>>> "Yawn..." <<<

Yeah. The LN truth does get kinda boring, I'll admit. No "mob", no
"plot", no "Badge Man", no poisoned darts. Just Oswald and his
Carcano.

I agree with you....

~Yawn~
~Stretch~

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c

THE ABSURDITIES OF THE "OSWALD-AS-PATSY" CONSPIRACY PLOT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MOTIVES FOR KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800

EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 8:57:44 AM4/19/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
[...]

>
> In a book the size of "RH", Vince will NEED some degree of repetition,
> IMO (for context between far-apart chapters). Who wants to constantly
> be flipping back to a previous chapter for a particular quote or
> passage?
>
> It's going to be bad enough to have to constantly be going from the
> physical book to the computer screen every 2 minutes to look up a
> footnote or source note, because VB decided to place all the endnotes
> (and I also assume most source notes) on a CD-ROM instead of in the
> actual book, due to the book's already-mammoth size.
>
> So some redundancy of text is okay with me. I've come to expect it,
> esp. in larger tomes.
>
> Plus, Vince B. thinks of his reading "audience" as a "jury". He said
> so in this quote, in fact:
>
> "I view myself primarily as a trial lawyer who happens to be writing,
> as opposed to a writer who happens to be a trial lawyer, so the
> audience is like a jury to me." -- VB
>
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vincent_bugliosi.html

Bugliosi may think of himself whatever he chooses, the point is his
redundancy results in bloat and bloat is not effective in expository
writing, his peerless genius notwithstanding.

>
>
>>>> "I can't wait to see the "enormous" amount of support for his position that Oswald was a "nut"." <<<
>
> That's fairly obvious, isn't it? Oswald took a gun and shot at the
> President and killed him. It pretty much takes a "nut" to attempt a
> stupid thing like that. 'Nuff said.

Tell Bugliosi "nuff said." He's the one who takes 1600 pages to say
Oswald's a nut.

>
> Next?....

>
>
>>>> "The topic doesn't require 1600 pages." <<<
>

> Better revise your estimate. "Reclaiming History" (including the CD-
> ROM "pages") will total 2,800+ pages. So, now you've got 1,200+ more
> reasons to scold poor Vince it would seem. :)

Hmm...

Now we grasp why Bugliosi refuses to accept the conspiracy theory.
There's not enough trees in the forest to provide the paper he'd need to
write a book about it.

>
> And given VB's thoroughness, it obviously DOES require that many
> pages. At least VB thinks it does. Vince said in 2005, in fact, that
> his original uncut manuscript could "easily fill five volumes". (I'd
> have loved that.)
>

Why am I thinking Occam must be doing back flips in his coffin?

> But Vince has also said this (in going the opposite direction from
> "bulk"):
>
> "I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince the
> average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- VB; April 2004
>
> Obviously, VB wasn't going to come out with a "definitive" JFK volume
> containing just 25 pages. But the key to that quote is the phrase
> "average reader". (I.E., a reader who hasn't buried himself in Lifton-
> like or Garrison-like CT tripe for decades on end. It's doubtful if
> even 6,000 pages of LN-favoring CS&L could get through to the Lifton-
> loving clique.)

Bugliosi's braggadocio gives cause to doubt his ability as a serious
researcher. His 1600 pages begs the question as well. One of the things
the effective writer/researcher learns early on is how to edit. Your
case is not made stronger by throwing everything at it but the kitchen
sink. It's made stronger by knowing when to cut.

>
>
>>>> "He {VB} couldn't possibly have uncovered that much new information." <<<
>
> No. Probably not. Nor is that entirely what "Reclaiming History" is
> attempting to do. Vince said years ago that his JFK book would be
> designed (in large part) to attack the conspiracy theories surrounding
> the Kennedy case....and that's just what a big part of "RH" will be
> doing.

Then the book is not a serious research project. It can't be if the
researcher knows his conclusion before he finishes the project.

>
> In this 1988 newspaper article (linked below), it is said that "the
> target of the Kennedy book will be the conspiracy theorists". ....
>
> http://tinypic.com/seaae9.jpg
>
> "Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
> debunk these absurd conspiracy theories. ... It might sound corny, but
> the truth is I feel an obligation to write this book. I've read every
> book that's been published since 1964, and 85% of them feel that
> there's been a conspiracy of some kind. My book will tell the other
> side, and I feel I'm equipped to do it." -- VB; January 1988

We know what the "other side" is. It's well-documented in a 26 volume
set called The Warren Commission Report."

>
>
>>>> "All he really has to do is present new evidence showing Oswald fired the shots from the SBD." <<<
>
> "New" evidence that Oswald fired from the Depository??? You must be
> kidding!

Right, there isn't any; so why does Bugliosi need 1600 pages to tell us
this?

>
> Won't the mile-high pile of "old" evidence suffice in that crucial
> regard? If not, why not?

Because 75% of the public think it's a mile high pile of crap.

Isn't this what Bugliosi said himself?

>
> Oswald's gun.
> Oswald's bullets in HOSPITAL and LIMO.
> Oswald's shells in Sniper's Nest.
> Oswald's prints all over the Nest (including the paper bag).
> Oswald is physically seen by a witness firing his last shot toward
> JFK's car.
>
> Do you think Vince will unveil a brand-new "I Saw Oswald Shooting"
> witness in "RH"?

No. I don't think he'll reveal anything new.

>
> Vince, just like he did at the '86 mock trial, will build that same
> 1963 MOSAIC of guilt around Oswald. A mosaic that no reasonable person
> can tear down. Not now...or ever.
>
>
>>>> "It's called "hyperbole," not "dramatic license". The two devices are quite different." <<<
>
> No, not really. Let's just examine the definition:
>

> "Main Entry: hy搆er搓o損e: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-

> cream cones")." ....
>
> http://webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole
>
>
> I engaged in the same type of thing just a minute ago too...via my
> "mile-high pile of old evidence" remark. Happens all the time. And
> Vince does it very well.
>
> But any reasonable person (or book reviewer) certainly should know the

> difference between "extravagant exaggeration" (such as VB's "critics

> were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to

> rest") and "literal prose".
>
> A good writer (like Mr. Bugliosi) can effectively mix the two things
> in the same publication...and has done so, many times before. For some
> silly reason, that "PW" reviewer took Vince literally (twice!) re.
> that obviously-"exaggerated" remark about WC critics. Go figure.
>
>
>>>> "But they {"dramatic license" and "hyperbole"} do have one thing in common: neither are used in serious research." <<<
>
> What a laugh. You are not the person to be talking about "serious
> research". You couldn't even "research" a simple book title before
> embarrassing yourself.

You're starting to bore me.

>
>
>
>>>> "Well, gee, help me with my math here, David. If a chapter is devoted to organized crime, and twice that is devoted to Oliver Stone, what does that equal?" <<<
>

> It equals ONE chapter on Ollie Stone that is TWICE the length of the
> ONE chapter on organized crime. It doesn't equal "two chapters", which
> is what you specifically said previously.
>
> Duh!

Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the
Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters.

Try adding it with your fingers.

DUH...

>
>
>>>> "The patsy theory existed long before the Stone movie. You are aware of this, aren't you?" <<<
>

> Sure. That's correct. But that's not the real point. The point was
> that Stone's (and Garrison's) BASIC theory of "Oswald Was Only An
> Innocent Patsy" IS taken "seriously" by several members of this forum.
> That's the point I was correcting you on before. (I thought this would
> have been obvious.)

Please watch your phraseology. The term is "patsy" not "innocent patsy."

Also, Stone's movie is never quoted as a source.

End of story.

>
>
>>>> "It's an "iota" not "single iota." If you're going to put yourself forth as a writer, do learn such things." <<<
>

> LOL. Great. Just great. I'm being giving "writing" lessons from

> someone who won't even take the two seconds to learn the true name of
> a book he continues to bash daily in a pre-release manner ("Reclaiming
> History", sans the "Our" in the middle), and who doesn't even know the
> subtitle of said publication, to boot.
>
> You're a stitch.

Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you,
who can blame me?

ricland

>
>
>>>> "Yawn..." <<<
>
> Yeah. The LN truth does get kinda boring, I'll admit. No "mob", no
> "plot", no "Badge Man", no poisoned darts. Just Oswald and his
> Carcano.
>
> I agree with you....
>
> ~Yawn~
> ~Stretch~
>
>
> LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
>
> THE ABSURDITIES OF THE "OSWALD-AS-PATSY" CONSPIRACY PLOT:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
>
> LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MOTIVES FOR KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800
>
> EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
>

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 10:02:37 AM4/19/07

to

In article <10696-462...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...

>
>We are overcome by paralysis by analysis-the ballistics, forensics, and
>eyewitness testimony scream conspiracy. So, Bugliosi's book is a bucket
>of shit...

Yep... the evidence *does* scream conspiracy. This explains why LNT'ers run in
the opposite direction when I bring up the 35 questions... or the post on FBI
intimidation... or the Provable Lies of the Warren Commission... only the trolls
will dare to respond...

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 10:33:38 AM4/19/07

to

>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<

And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".

Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
nothing about. Will wonders never cease?

>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<

No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".

Are you really this stupid all the time? Or do you take lessons from
Walt every other Tuesday?

>>> "The term is "patsy" not "innocent patsy." <<<

No, the term is "Innocent Patsy" (as in: Oswald never killed
anybody)...which is exactly what the previously-mentioned conspiracy
kooks believe happened in Dallas...incredibly enough.

You'd better learn who your cohorts in CTism are before you open your
yap any further. But, then again, it's been your habit to spit out
theories just to see where they'll splatter....so it's doubtful you
can change now.

>>> "You're starting to bore me." <<<

You've been boring me since Day 1 of your postings here in the asylum.
So, I guess we're even. (Except for the fact that I have some CS&L to
back up my "boring" LN scenario, and you've got none. So, I'm way
ahead there.)

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 10:51:32 AM4/19/07

to

>>> "Your case is not made stronger by throwing everything at it but the kitchen sink. It's made stronger by knowing when to cut." <<<

LOL. And the main reason (in fact, the WHOLE reason) that VB's book is
so long is BECAUSE of the CT-Kooks who keep postulating their never-
ending full-of-shit theories that VB sees fit to debunk in print.
That's the ONLY reason it's this long (2,800+ pages). Period.

It's funny, too....because I'm sure if the book was only 300 or 400
pages, CTers would be dragging VB through the mud because it wasn't
long or "definitive" enough. But now they can do the reverse....just
claim he's being TOO verbose and redundant and "bloating", resulting
in a book the kooks can now gripe about due to its sheer girth alone.

CT-Kooks....hard to please indeed.

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 10:28:13 AM4/19/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
>
> And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
>
> Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
> nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
>

I was being generous, I admit.

>
>
>>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
>
> No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".

Period inside quotes, Hemingway.

>
> Are you really this stupid all the time? Or do you take lessons from
> Walt every other Tuesday?

How's about this: If 50 pages equals one chapter, how many pages equal two?

>
>
>
>
>>>> "The term is "patsy" not "innocent patsy." <<<
>
> No, the term is "Innocent Patsy" (as in: Oswald never killed
> anybody)...which is exactly what the previously-mentioned conspiracy
> kooks believe happened in Dallas...incredibly enough.

I give up.

ricland

>
> You'd better learn who your cohorts in CTism are before you open your
> yap any further. But, then again, it's been your habit to spit out
> theories just to see where they'll splatter....so it's doubtful you
> can change now.

>
>
>
>
>>>> "You're starting to bore me." <<<
>
> You've been boring me since Day 1 of your postings here in the asylum.
> So, I guess we're even. (Except for the fact that I have some CS&L to
> back up my "boring" LN scenario, and you've got none. So, I'm way
> ahead there.)
>

--
New site coming soon!

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 10:36:56 AM4/19/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "Your case is not made stronger by throwing everything at it but the kitchen sink. It's made stronger by knowing when to cut." <<<
>

> LOL. And the main reason (in fact, the WHOLE reason) that VB's book is
> so long is BECAUSE of the CT-Kooks who keep postulating their never-

> ending full-of-shit theories that VB sees fits to debunk in print.

> That's the ONLY reason it's this long (2,800+ pages). Period.
>
> It's funny, too....because I'm sure if the book was only 300 or 400
> pages, CTers would be dragging VB through the mud because it wasn't
> long or "definitive" enough. But now they can do the reverse....just
> claim he's being TOO verbose and redundant and "bloating", resulting
> in a book the kooks can now gripe about due to its sheer girth alone.
>
> CT-Kooks....hard to please indeed.
>

You've got it backwards. A shorter book would have been harder to write.

ricland

"I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one instead."

-- Samual Johnson

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 5:13:48 PM4/19/07

to

On 19 Apr., 16:28, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
>
> > And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
>
> > Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
> > nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
>
> I was being generous, I admit.
>
>
>
> >>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
>
> > No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".
>
> Period inside quotes, Hemingway.

Not a proper English grammar. Putting commas and periods inside quotes
is a nasty American habit.

-Mark

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 5:17:58 PM4/19/07

to

On 19 Apr., 23:13, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 19 Apr., 16:28, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
>
> > > And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
>
> > > Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
> > > nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
>
> > I was being generous, I admit.
>
> > >>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
>
> > > No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".
>
> > Period inside quotes, Hemingway.
>
> Not a proper English grammar. Putting commas and periods inside quotes
> is a nasty American habit.

I meant to say "Not in proper English grammar".

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 7:20:48 PM4/19/07

to

muc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 19 Apr., 16:28, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
>>> And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
>>> Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
>>> nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
>> I was being generous, I admit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
>>> No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".
>> Period inside quotes, Hemingway.
>
> Not a proper English grammar. Putting commas and periods inside quotes
> is a nasty American habit.
>
> -Mark

Well, until you limeys invent something like the internet, you'll just
have to grin and bare it.

ricland

--
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 7:23:13 PM4/19/07

to

muc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 19 Apr., 23:13, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr., 16:28, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
>>>> And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
>>>> Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
>>>> nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
>>> I was being generous, I admit.
>>>>>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
>>>> No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".
>>> Period inside quotes, Hemingway.
>> Not a proper English grammar. Putting commas and periods inside quotes
>> is a nasty American habit.
>
> I meant to say "Not in proper English grammar".
>
>> -Mark

It works fine either way.

Actually, the first way is better. It makes the distinction needed in
the second example.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 9:02:02 PM4/19/07

to

On 20 Apr., 01:23, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> much...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 19 Apr., 23:13, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 19 Apr., 16:28, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >>> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
> >>>> And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
> >>>> Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
> >>>> nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
> >>> I was being generous, I admit.
> >>>>>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
> >>>> No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".
> >>> Period inside quotes, Hemingway.
> >> Not a proper English grammar. Putting commas and periods inside quotes
> >> is a nasty American habit.
>
> > I meant to say "Not in proper English grammar".
>
> >> -Mark
>
> It works fine either way.
>
> Actually, the first way is better. It makes the distinction needed in
> the second example.

You mean the DVP way or the Hemingway way? The British style seems
more logical to me - and probably to most people outside the US.

-Mark

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 9:37:01 PM4/19/07

to

The Ricster<==Going to "publish a book
rebutting Bugliosi's book" without having
read the book yet...

Ricland: Why are you STILL here son?

MR ;~D

On Apr 18, 10:45 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> cdddraftsman wrote:
> > Shenanigans ? Who Me ? I , who have never spoken one ill word against
> > another
> > soul in my entire life ? .......................ml
>
> The purpose of the site will be to gather the material I need to publish
> a book rebutting Bugliosi's book and if you think I'm going to let you
> pollute the site with your Usenet terrorism, you really are a few pints
> short.
>
> ricland
>
> --
> "Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
> It only took me 10 visits before I was
> able to navigate it just fine."
> --cddraftsman
>
> "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> --Earl Warren, 1964
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 9:43:29 PM4/19/07

to

Sak.O.Nutz:
Actually it was a 76.5" rifle supposedly
inserted in a 8" lunch bag. You may
have just busted this case wide open
and earned yerself a Pulitzer prize to
boot.
BTW Your boss at the car wash gave me
your shine kit and crack pipe and asked
that you no longer come by.. He sounded
mad Scroud.

MR <:~? ED

On Apr 18, 6:54 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> You can NOT fit a 42 inch rifle into a 27 inch bag.
>
> BUT, It SURE will fit into I-80 Rest Start Queen tom lowery'ds ASS.
>
> Those truckers have a way of "Widening the Road".
>
> Rossley is the ONLY "Pain in the Ass" lowery DON'T LOVE.
>
> HERE is lowery Naked>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm
>
> Exposed by his own words.
>
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176924017.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Your really living in a dream world Riccy boy ! You better start
> > saving your nickels for a self published book ! There's no one out
> > there that will publish it Period ! JFK Conspiracy Books ARE DEADER
> > THEN JFK Himself ! Ask around Dummy ! Hahahahah !
> > They don't even have anymore meetings ! Hehehehehehehe !
> > Dead ! DEAD ! Read my Lips ! Or Rossley's puckered Rear End !
> > Which reads " The Truck Stopped Here " ! Hahahhahahaha !
>
> > What did you think about that one Rossley ?
> > You south end of a north bound Donkey !
> > Heeeeehawwwwwwwwww ! :
>
> > Rossley's ' Stupid Pills ' Hahahahaha ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2zfu5px
> > Wanted for Conspiracy and Treason :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=49068o8
> > Get well card to his Homo Lover :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ziszux
> > What he did in Vietnam :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2v3it01
> > His life story :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2vdfy9z
> > A Friend to our Enemy's :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=44zyp7n
> > CTer's ' Articles of Faith , His Religion :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=29lz4b4
> > Sits all day dreaming up ways to betray his
> > country :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=42lw380
> > OBR on LIFE mag. cover ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2drhs2x
> > Caught in the Act ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ewiikz
> > Will sell you your version of the ' Deed ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4d4g17o
> > Rossley in DPD Jail ! Hahahahahahaha ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2d8pf2h
> > Conn. Registered Sex Offender :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2f0c32w
> > Rossley , Officer Baker and Gentle Ben :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=331oqbq
> > Another of Rossley's Client's :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lxgpb7
> > Rossley and LHO :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2v18cw9
> > Call for Grassy Knoll Convention :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=44g0h2d
> > Running from haing to answer :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4c2cqa0
> > Some interesting Dirt on Rossley :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4040cvo
> > His site is always under Con-Struction :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2l9jfrl
> > Rossley is Mad ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2yy6vph
> > His idea of humor : AKA : A Sick Joke :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ziszux
> > Limbo man ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4502jwp
> > His overwhelming hatred of me for
> > exposing his seditionistic attitudes :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2qks4s3
> > A Thank You Card from MJ :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2ephdsm
> > The Great Debate :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3zbyruv
> > Speculating with the Bushman :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2q9i4r5
> > Osama Bin Rossley on LIFE mag. cover :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=33lcx05
> > His version of the ' Official Records ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=29ers7r
> > With Fetzer :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3yrvimd
> > His ' catchers ' list :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=40f6ro8
> > Rossley / Groden :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=34eqn40
> > Originally a ' Skid Row Artist ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=48bzfyg
> > Grassey Knoll Investigations :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3yefvjp
> > Excellent evidence of Rossley's involvement
> > in the death of JFK :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=49jlcg2
> > Rossley Family Crest :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=40pahyh
> > His IQ Level : Dumber than a Stump :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=47cck8m
> > Starred in ' The Men Who Didn't Killed Kennedy ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=29p1z4l
> > Umbrella Fella :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=43yrxiu
> > Freak Show ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2ly1h01
> > Good friends with LBJ :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=34zwqa1
> > #8 Head Job :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2rojl9w
> > Rossley : Zeig Heil :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4503pcg
> > Rossley with notables :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3ywy7p0
> > His Favorite Books on the Assassination are
> > by the daftest authors imaginable :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2r6o5lw
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=437rjvq
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2pyz6lx
> > Lets recap. why Tom ' Asshole ' Rossley ,
> > the lunitic of Assassinology , ex-shoe shine
> > boy turned Co-Con-Spiracists Con-Artist has
> > his head so far up his rectum :
> > Was given this prestgious award :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2dux9jm
> > Wanted for Conspiracy and Treason :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=49068o8
> > Get well card to his Homo Lover :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ziszux
> > What he did in Vietnam :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2v3it01
> > His life story :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2vdfy9z
> > A Friend to our Enemy's :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=44zyp7n
> > CTer's ' Articles of Faith , His Religion :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=29lz4b4
> > Sits all day dreaming up ways to betray his
> > country :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=42lw380
> > OBR on LIFE mag. cover ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2drhs2x
> > Caught in the Act ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ewiikz
> > Will sell you your version of the ' Deed ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4d4g17o
> > Rossley in DPD Jail ! Hahahahahahaha ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2d8pf2h
> > Conn. Registered Sex Offender :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2f0c32w
> > Rossley , Officer Baker and Gentle Ben :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=331oqbq
> > Another of Rossley's Client's :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lxgpb7
> > Rossley and LHO :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2v18cw9
> > Call for Grassy Knoll Convention :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=44g0h2d
> > Running from haing to answer :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4c2cqa0
> > Some interesting Dirt on Rossley :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4040cvo
> > His site is always under Con-Struction :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2l9jfrl
> > Rossley is Mad ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2yy6vph
> > His idea of humor : AKA : A Sick Joke :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ziszux
> > Limbo man ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4502jwp
> > His overwhelming hatred of me for
> > exposing his seditionistic attitudes :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2qks4s3
> > A Thank You Card from MJ :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2ephdsm
> > The Great Debate :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3zbyruv
> > Speculating with the Bushman :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2q9i4r5
> > Osama Bin Rossley on LIFE mag. cover :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=33lcx05
> > His version of the ' Official Records ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=29ers7r
> > With Fetzer :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3yrvimd
> > His ' catchers ' list :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=40f6ro8
> > Rossley / Groden :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=34eqn40
> > Originally a ' Skid Row Artist ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=48bzfyg
> > Grassey Knoll Investigations :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3yefvjp
> > Excellent evidence of Rossley's involvement
> > in the death of JFK :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=49jlcg2
> > Rossley Family Crest :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=40pahyh
> > His IQ Level : Dumber than a Stump :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=47cck8m
> > Starred in ' The Men Who Didn't Killed Kennedy ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=29p1z4l
> > Umbrella Fella :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=43yrxiu
> > Freak Show ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2ly1h01
> > Good friends with LBJ :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=34zwqa1
> > #8 Head Job :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2rojl9w
> > Rossley : Zeig Heil :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4503pcg
> > Rossley with notables :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=3ywy7p0
> > His Favorite Books on the Assassination are
> > by the daftest authors imaginable :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2r6o5lw
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=437rjvq
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2pyz6lx
> > Was given this prestgious award :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2dux9jm
> > Wanted for Conspiracy and Treason :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=49068o8
> > Get well card to his Homo Lover :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ziszux
> > What he did in Vietnam :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2v3it01
> > His life story :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2vdfy9z
> > A Friend to our Enemy's :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=44zyp7n
> > CTer's ' Articles of Faith , His Religion :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=29lz4b4
> > Sits all day dreaming up ways to betray his
> > country :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=42lw380
> > OBR on LIFE mag. cover ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2drhs2x
> > Caught in the Act ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ewiikz
> > Will sell you your version of the ' Deed ' :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4d4g17o
> > Rossley in DPD Jail ! Hahahahahahaha ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2d8pf2h
> > Conn. Registered Sex Offender :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2f0c32w
> > Rossley , Officer Baker and Gentle Ben :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=331oqbq
> > Another of Rossley's Client's :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lxgpb7
> > Rossley and LHO :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2v18cw9
> > Call for Grassy Knoll Convention :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=44g0h2d
> > Running from haing to answer :
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4c2cqa0
> > Some interesting Dirt on Rossley :
> >http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4040cvo
> > His site is always under Con-Struction :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2l9jfrl
> > Rossley is Mad ! :
> >http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2yy6vph
> > His- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 9:44:56 PM4/19/07

to

> New site coming soon!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Please just GO Ricland..

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 10:33:05 PM4/19/07

to

On 19 Apr., 08:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The title {"Reclaiming History"} makes no sense. It's too generic. The book addresses one isolated incident in our history, not the length and breadth the title suggests." <<<
>
> Oh, for Pete sake. You can't be serious here.
>
> The (perfect) title makes perfect sense. And the SUBTITLE -- "The
> Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" -- indicates that VB is
> "Reclaiming History" with respect to ONLY the subject matter mentioned
> in the subtitle (i.e., the assassination of JFK), which immediately
> follows the main title, of course. ....
>

> http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V4585...

Ricland, are you an agent provocateur???

-Mark

> But if you truly think you've run Ken Rahn out of town on a rail, you
> are sorely mistaken.
>
> >>> "Bugliosi should have posted each one of his chapters here as they were
>
> completed." <<<
>
> Oh, dear God in heaven.
>
> Excuse me.....
>

> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/laugh.gifhttp://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/laugh.gif

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 11:07:02 PM4/19/07

to

>>> "Period inside quotes, Hemingway." <<<

Nope. I'll never do it that way (unless the entire paragraph I'm
writing is a quote)....because it looks goofy (and looks wrong to
boot), even though you are technically correct in this regard. But it
looks wrong and awful, so I refuse to do it.

Sue me, "Hemingway".

(Yep...looks much better, and more accurate, with the period on the
outside.)

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 11:15:18 PM4/19/07

to

>>> "You've got it backwards. A shorter book would have been harder to write." <<<

Wouldn't matter to the kooks anyway. Because, as I said, they'd gripe
either way. It's impossible to satisfy rabid, lifelong CT-Kooks. You
can't even satisfy them with a pile of Oswald-did-it evidence and a
dozen or more eyewitnesses fingering sweet Lee (counting the Tippit
murder too).

~shrugs~

tomnln

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 11:14:15 PM4/19/07

to

Well KOOK-SUCKER;

You can NOT fit a 42 inch rifle into a 27 inch bag.

BUT, It SURE will fit into I-80 Rest Start Queen ED CAGE'S ASS.

Those truckers have a way of "Widening the Road".

ps;
ed cage was gonna address this one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

Chickenshit ed cage Never got around to it.

<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1177033409....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 19, 2007, 11:28:21 PM4/19/07

to

David;
It is YOU who Dodges evidence/testimony.

http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

Address the authorities Altering evidence THREE (3) Times?

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177038918.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 20, 2007, 7:16:03 AM4/20/07

to

Bugliosi's rhetoric aside, 1600 pages indicates Bugliosi ran into
serious problems making his case, problems he tried to cover-up with bloat.

If Oswald was the lone assassin then the case is a simple one, the many
questions easy enough to explain. For example, new evidence would show
how Oz got to the lunchroom in 90 seconds. New evidence would
demonstrate how shots fired from the SBD would appear to come from the
grassy knoll because of the acoustics of Dealey plaza. New evidence
would show how it was possible for Oz to be at the Tippit crime scene
within the required time.

None of this new evidence would take very long to present. All of it
would be dry and cut, no reason for bloat.

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 20, 2007, 7:26:56 AM4/20/07

to

tomnln wrote:
> David;
> It is YOU who Dodges evidence/testimony.

I think rather than pump himself into believing Bugliosi's book is going
to be the assassination Holy Grail he seems to think it will be, he
ought prepare himself for it being more evidence of Bugliosi's meltdown
than Oswald's guilt.

We don't have to read between the lines too intensely to recognize that
Publishers Weekly thought the book a befuddled mess.

And should we really be that surpised? In his 30 years in the limelight,
Bugliosi has written a grand total of three books, one every 10 years
apparently.

A writer...?

I suppose so, but just barely.

ricland

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 20, 2007, 9:31:32 AM4/20/07

to

>>> "Bugliosi has written a grand total of three books..." <<<

You, like Walt, can't get ANYTHING right....ever. Why even try?

Vince has written way more than 3 books.

You never even heard of VB until March 2007...had you? Had you?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-2065385-6525668?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Vincent%20Bugliosi

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 20, 2007, 1:01:52 PM4/20/07

to

You're right; I was wrong.

Bugliosi has written a total of two books not three books.

All his other books had co-authors.

So, let's see: thats one book every 15 years.

I know monkeys with typewriters with better stats than that.

ricland

aeffects

unread,

Apr 20, 2007, 10:26:05 PM4/20/07

to

On Apr 20, 6:31 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Bugliosi has written a grand total of three books..." <<<
>
> You, like Walt, can't get ANYTHING right....ever. Why even try?
>
> Vince has written way more than 3 books.

David,

It's taken Bugliosi 20 years to write a book concerning the WCR
evidence of commission and/or omission... there is NOTHING NEW!
Packaging up the old to make a NEW? C'mon!

> You never even heard of VB until March 2007...had you? Had you?

Bugliosi is old, OLD news, this book has experienced one delay after
another (usually delays mean someone has a CT book in the offing)....
btw, new blood makes the world go-round... eh?

> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-2065385-65256...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 21, 2007, 1:55:45 AM4/21/07

to

>>> "Bugliosi is old, OLD news." <<<

How would you feel about him if the title of his JFK book was: "The
Conspiracy That Killed JFK"??

Would he be "old, old news" then? Bet not, huh?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 21, 2007, 1:57:19 AM4/21/07

to

>>> "All his other books had co-authors." <<<

LOL. And since VB had a little help with various publications, it
NEGATES VB's having "written" them, huh?

What a goofball you are.

You'd never even heard of VB until last month. You're a kook looking
for a conspiracy....ANY conspiracy....just like all other CT-Kooks in
this place. Aren't you, Ric?

Or would you care to fess up now, and admit that you're really just
faking every silly post you make here? Because why would anyone WANT
to look like the lazy and inept "researcher" you so obviously are
making yourself out to be...day after day?

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 21, 2007, 2:23:00 AM4/21/07

to

Ricland , you'd have trouble recycling two nickel tin cans , how do
you expext to debunk one of the nations top lawyers ? Sounds like your
typical panty twisting
again ! .............Hahahahahahahahahahaha ! .............................tl

On Apr 20, 10:01 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "Bugliosi has written a grand total of three books..." <<<
>
> > You, like Walt, can't get ANYTHING right....ever. Why even try?
>
> > Vince has written way more than 3 books.
>
> > You never even heard of VB until March 2007...had you? Had you?
>

> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-2065385-65256...

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 6:28:10 AM4/22/07

to

On 20 Apr., 01:20, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:

> much...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 19 Apr., 16:28, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>> "Yeah, I was out of line, but with a puffed-up wannabe writer like you, who can blame me?" <<<
> >>> And now, somehow, you claim I'm a "wannabe writer".
> >>> Gee, imagine that -- a kook taking a wild guess at something he knows
> >>> nothing about. Will wonders never cease?
> >> I was being generous, I admit.
>
> >>>>>> "Of course it equals two chapters. If the mob chapter is 50 pages and the Stone chapter is 100; the Stone chapter equals two mob chapters." <<<
> >>> No, it doesn't. It just equals ONE much-longer "chapter".
> >> Period inside quotes, Hemingway.
>
> > Not a proper English grammar. Putting commas and periods inside quotes
> > is a nasty American habit.
>
> > -Mark
>
> Well, until you limeys invent something like the internet, you'll just
> have to grin and bare it.

Here's a little brain teaser for you. Who invented the English
langauge?

-Mark

aeffects

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 11:30:23 AM4/22/07

to

You'd lose your pocket change, champ... *Bet* is not a concept out
this way, its a way of life...

Bugliosi AND Spence are old, Old, OLD news -- frankly, I think of both
of them as, the *boobsey* twins. The"LHO" mock trial was farcical, you
know it, I know it... the missing factor in that farce was GERALDO
Rivera...

Here's a bet for ya.... Within 90 day's Bugliosi and Spence will
appear together, on FOX Network (and other cable shows), chatting up
the new tome. You take a piece of that action?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 1:54:07 PM4/22/07

to

In article <1177237690.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
muc...@gmail.com says...

ROTFLMAO!!!

Okay, I'll bite... who *did* invent the "English langauge?" Was it English
Languagers?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 4:26:54 PM4/22/07

to

>>> "...Bugliosi and Spence will appear together, chatting up the new tome." <<<

Oh, yes, I think that's quite likely to happen indeed. So I don't
think I'll take you up on that bet, thanks.

Vince B. and Gerry Spence are very good friends now. And even Spence
doesn't believe in a JFK conspiracy (and probably never really did),
even though he argued in favor of one in front of a jury at the TV
Docu-Trial.

That could be why Spence's Oswald defense was so horrid during that TV
trial; even HE knew the crap he was arguing was bogus. They should
have probably used Alan Dershowitz as LHO's lawyer. He can sling the
bullshit a lot better than Mr. Spence, IMO. (The O.J. trial kinda
proved that fact.) ;)

At the very end of this clip (below), Spence admits his "no
conspiracy" belief. (And, lookie, it's Geraldo too....so you got your
wish, aeffects. Geraldo turned up after all!)

This clip is from a repeat broadcast of the mock trial in 1988....the
same mock trial that was certainly NOT the "farce" some people here
think it was. Vince B. said the following about the Docu-Trial in late
2005 -- "It's the closest thing to a trial that Lee Harvey Oswald ever
had or will have." (V.B.).....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ku0uAnJKLxE

aeffects

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 5:09:13 PM4/22/07

to

LHO trial? Had? Is Bugliosi a fucking idiot? LMAO -- They'll probably
record the Bug-Ger session in Spences' Wyoming chalet, avoid the ever
pressing media. Maybe even view a bootleg copy of the Zapruder film,
ya think?...

Geraldo, pfffft! He's always been a lightweight when it comes to in-
depth news and docu's, much along the same line as Oprah --
Sensationalists 'all'. Throw in Spence and Bugliosi, you've got a
first rate Lone Nutter circle-jerk with Geraldo presiding.

Want a made for TV LHO mock-trial? Dershowitz for the prosecution/Lane
for the defense.... Two attorney's that know how to argue-debate both
sides of a case

Only way Bugliosi makes hay with this "tome" is IF CTer's decide its
worth a debate effort... if it isn't, I suspect you've purposed a
pickup truck full of *doorstops*....

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ku0uAnJKLxE

tomnln

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 5:22:35 PM4/22/07

to

Bugloisi/Spence are just like you.

The Daily Tri-Fecta DODGE the destruction of evidence.>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

Issues that would get ANY case "Thrown Out of Court".

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1177273614.9...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 7:16:44 PM4/22/07

to

On 22 Apr., 19:54, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1177237690.106922.131...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...

Not bad, but I wasn't trying to *that* funny. It was just an honest
typo.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 22, 2007, 8:33:09 PM4/22/07

to

In article <1177283804....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
muc...@gmail.com says...

Typos and bad grammar are always funny when used in conjunction with the topic
of language, grammar, spelling, etc... as I'm sure you know.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2007, 10:59:10 AM4/23/07

to

On 23 Apr., 02:33, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1177283804.048914.93...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...

As you no doubt realize, the irony would have been greater if I had
been in the habit of ridiculing other posters for their creative
spelling. In this instance, at least, I was only answering Ricland
back. He thinks the Yanks should have carte blanche to mangle the
English language because they invented the Internet.

-Mark