"The conspiracy community leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions."
David Von Pein
A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
>>> "To 'Akwilks': You are the best poster here! Please send me a list of the strongest points of evidence for conspiracy. You have already written 5 very good ones here. We can include them with my points of conspiracy. .... We could co-author a powerful thread on 20 points of conspiracy that no rational person can deny!" <<<
"AKWILKS" RESPONDED:
>>> "Sure; give me a day to work on it. No rational person can deny? Maybe! But some LN people are not rational when it comes to the JFK case -- they simply believe that a plot is impossible and reject all evidence that proves them wrong." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
That's curious.....
"Conspiracy theorists are not rational and sensible when it comes to
the Kennedy assassination." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1275; "Reclaiming
History"
VB Common-Sense Addendum........
Before the "Dynamic Conspiracy Duo" joins forces to undermine "all
that is explained" (see below), I'll offer up this nice (and spot-on
accurate) Bugliosi-ism below for the "CT Duo" to chew on (not that
it'll resonate in the slightest way....because once a CTer has a
"list" in his hands of things that he deems credible for a JFK
conspiracy, forget about it; even though, invariably, every single
item on that "CT List" has been thoroughly debunked at least 86 times
in the past 40 years; but the CTer will merely pretend that each item
is fresh and new and has not been refuted in any fashion; go
figure)......
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything
perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
xliii; "Reclaiming History"
==========
I especially enjoy these portions of the above VB quote (somebody give
an "Amen" after reading these two things here).....
"The conspiracy community....treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof."
--And:--
"The conspiracy community....leaps from the most minuscule of
discoveries to the grandest of conclusions."
robc...@netscape.com
____________________________________________________
RDC wrote:
And VB doesn't? This is the guy who had Thomas Noguchi removed from
the RFK case because he wouldn't lie about the number of shots
fired. The police have always said at least 10-13 shots were fired
(13 probably) and Sirhan Sirhan's gun was an eight shot pistol. So
they removed him from the case. Also, he said RFK was shot from
behind and we all know SS was only in front of him.
VB has an agenda and it has nothing to do with truth. He's a walking
contridiction. He wrote " a bestselling book, Outrage, on the
acquittal of O.J. Simpson, in which he detailed the work of the
district attorney, prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and presiding
judge; he used these profiles to illustrate broader problems in
American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of
judges. Bugliosi was very critical of prosecutors Marcia Clark and
Christopher Darden and pointed out many glaring mistakes that they had
made during the trial." Easy to point the finger at them, but the
mistakes they made were minor league to the WC's, yet he believes
everything they said in 26 volumes. Hmm. He has no problem with the
fact that not one major media company has ever considered the
possibility anyone other than LHO killed a president, but he didn't
like how they handled the O.J. Simpson case. Hmm. He doesn't care
that no one in the media ever uses the term "alledged" in regards to
LHO who was never convicted in a court of law, yet if they forget that
term with a purse snatcher who has been convicted they can be sued.
Hmm. Some lawyer.
He also condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Jones v.
Clinton and in the 2000 presidential election. He wrote a lengthy
criticism of the decision in an article for The Nation titled "None
Dare Call It Treason," which was later expanded into a book titled The
Betrayal of America. Some of his criticisms are portrayed in the 2004
documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave. Doesn't care that a dead
president got worse treatment than a common criminal in terms of an
autopsy and investigation. No objections there! Hmm.
His newest book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President
John F. Kennedy" was a waste of trees as the government and media have
already guaranteed that the LHO theory is the only taught and
accepted. So what is he reclaiming? Us concerned citizens who don't
believe every thing we are told as gospel are already on the outside
thanks to the official theory buffs, so why is he reclaiming history?
Hmm.
lazu...@webtv.net
plausible, nor the Jet effect, nor the neuromuscular reaction, nor
obliterate Oswald's myriad CIA ties, nor all the people who have come
forward against their own interest in a position to know.. thelastng
effects of the JFK Assassination is America became a very dishonest
country...
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
I think you have that wrong. When it came to the RFK case, it was VB who argued
in court that there WAS a conspiracy... In fact, it was VB who was
instrumental in *proving* that there were too many shots fired to have come from
only one pistol.
>The police have always said at least 10-13 shots were fired
>(13 probably) and Sirhan Sirhan's gun was an eight shot pistol. So
>they removed him from the case. Also, he said RFK was shot from
>behind and we all know SS was only in front of him.
Yep... tis true!
>VB has an agenda and it has nothing to do with truth. He's a walking
>contridiction. He wrote " a bestselling book, Outrage, on the
>acquittal of O.J. Simpson, in which he detailed the work of the
>district attorney, prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and presiding
>judge; he used these profiles to illustrate broader problems in
>American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of
>judges. Bugliosi was very critical of prosecutors Marcia Clark and
>Christopher Darden and pointed out many glaring mistakes that they had
>made during the trial." Easy to point the finger at them, but the
>mistakes they made were minor league to the WC's, yet he believes
>everything they said in 26 volumes. Hmm. He has no problem with the
>fact that not one major media company has ever considered the
>possibility anyone other than LHO killed a president, but he didn't
>like how they handled the O.J. Simpson case. Hmm. He doesn't care
>that no one in the media ever uses the term "alledged" in regards to
>LHO who was never convicted in a court of law, yet if they forget that
>term with a purse snatcher who has been convicted they can be sued.
>Hmm. Some lawyer.
He's a lawyer just like any other lawyer... they live their lives to prove
whatever side of a case you have the money to pay them to argue.
Truth is irrelevant - it's what you can *prove* to a judge and jury.
>He also condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Jones v.
>Clinton and in the 2000 presidential election. He wrote a lengthy
>criticism of the decision in an article for The Nation titled "None
>Dare Call It Treason," which was later expanded into a book titled The
>Betrayal of America. Some of his criticisms are portrayed in the 2004
>documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave. Doesn't care that a dead
>president got worse treatment than a common criminal in terms of an
>autopsy and investigation. No objections there! Hmm.
>
>His newest book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President
>John F. Kennedy" was a waste of trees as the government and media have
>already guaranteed that the LHO theory is the only taught and
>accepted.
And yet, strangely enough, as many as 90% of Americans *DON'T* believe this
official tale. LNT'ers want you to believe that it's because of what they
learned... but what Americans learn from the mass media and from the educational
system IS THAT OSWALD DID IT.
>So what is he reclaiming? Us concerned citizens who don't
>believe every thing we are told as gospel are already on the outside
>thanks to the official theory buffs, so why is he reclaiming history?
>
>Hmm.
Try reading his book. "Reclaiming History" is it's own best antidote...
David Von Pein
Thanks for your opinion, Rob.
~Yawn~