Reading RH
Papa Andy
Four Days in November
Not what I expected
In the Intro, VB makes some harsh allegations against CTs
calls them liars and suppressors of the truth
(someone has already asked how CTs can suppress anything so I'll move
on)
He claims that Garrison was lying when he said that LHO was a poor
shot
VB gives us the 'sharpshooter' and 'marksman' ratings from the Marines
but doesn't mention 'Maggies drawers' or any of the Minsk evidence
seems a bit of a stretch to say that Garrison is lying
VB also claims (this is a standard argument of our 'own' cdddraftsman)
that CTs are not entitled to use the WC evidence
This is because they do not accept the conclusions
this 'argument' is so silly that I don't think it is meant to be taken
seriously
VB just hopes that you mind glazes over (perhaps from supporting the
weight of the book) and you just nod along with whatever he says
Imagine if VB was prosecuting a case in court and the defense lawyer
picked up the murder weapon to ask the witness about it
If he followed his own argument, he'd have to object that the defense
was not entitled to use that evidence as it is part of the
prosecutions case
If VB were actually to persist in this line of 'reasoning' he'd either
be cited for contempt or institutionalized
You can be sure that VB doesn't really believe this because although
he says that the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy is erroneous, he has no
problem using their evidence
He says in the main text that there were a number of threats against
JFK in 61 and 62
This put me in mind of 63 and I looked in the index for Abraham Bolden
Bolden doesn't make the main text but is found in the 700s of the
endnotes
There Bolden's story is dismissed on the basis of the HSCA
I eventually got to the first chapter Four Days in November
This checks in at a mind-numbing 350+ pages and the temptation to skip
it is great because who cares whether Jackie was in the bedroom when
the streward knocked on the door, or when Parkland Hospital was built
yet I soldier on
for a book with 'endless' footnotes and endnotes, it seemed odd that
his claim that Howard Brennan was far-sighted does not rate a footnote
and what do we make of his construction 'Oliver Stone's military
industrial complex'
is this different from Eisenhower's or does VB think the term was
coined in the movie JFK
No one need trouble themselves about how LHO could have gotten off
three shots in 5.6 seconds
It took over 8 seconds according to VB
this is thrown in as pure narration
no argument
no mention of 5.6
as if it was an irrefutable fact and not a key element of controversy
there's more
but enough for now
A
RICLAND
> So far, I've worked my way through the Introduction and about 1/4 of
> Four Days in November
>
> Not what I expected
>
Good. Nice and punchy and with your permission, I've included on my
website below, under reviews.
Also, I'll be away for a couple of weeks, so I'd appreciate it if you
(and everyone else )could log-on to my site and post your future reviews.
ricland
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
cdddraftsman
best it shows you to have mastered the art of confused thinking
skills . So we will take it slow so even you might catch on to the
sillyness of your position :
a) Jim Garrison's Clinical Psychopathology :
In 1952, Jim Garrison was relieved of duty in the National Guard.
Doctors at the Brooke Army Hospital in Texas diagnosed him as
suffering from a "severe and disabling psychoneurosis" which
"interfered with his social and professional adjustment to a marked
degree." The evaluation further said that Garrison "is considered
totally incapacitated from the standpoint of military duty and
moderately incapacitated in civilian adaptability," and recommended
long-term psychotherapy. See Case Closed, p. 423.
In 1986, Patricia Toole interviewed Garrison, and asked him about
various authors who had written books on the Kennedy assassination.
See what he says about Tony Summers' Conspiracy and Henry Hurt's
Reasonable Doubt. This interview is from the files of the AARC in
Washington, DC.
Conclusion : Mental Illness does not go away by itself , it's a
chemical inbalance in the brain that needs medication to stabilize the
inbalance .
Jim Garrison is out of the picture . Had he gotten the medical help he
needed
( Librium and Lithium ) you never would of heard of that smuck .
b) CTer's have suppresed the truth by telling lies so often and so
loud they've brainwashed the entire nation , especially you ! Although
your treatment probably only took a moist paper towel .
c) VB didn't and has not stretched anything in regards to LHO's
ability to kill JFK with a MC rifle . When properly motivated he
proved he was a excellent shot by civilian standards and a good shot
by Marines standards .
d) You are a proven master of being silly , so answer these few
quwstions :
1) How can you distinguish when and if the WC members are lying to
you if you don't trust it's conclusions ? You'd have to be very
selective depending if you want to have a conspiracy or not . Both
indications are in the WCR , but the conclusion of no conpiracy was
based on a lack of a unbroken chain of evidence and a 9 to 1
in given testimony that goes against conspiracy .
2) How do you then go on to use that same report to support a
conclusion of conspiracy , using 1/10th of the available evidence ?
3) How do you know WC members weren't all communist infiltraitors who
wanted you to believe that the USG killed JFK ? If their liars you
wouldn't know , would you ?
4) You never consider ( Let alone answer ) these questions , because
you've joined Rossley's by now on a dead run away from the questions
that prove the fallacy of your entire hocus pocus act . That's the
true sign of a real CTer . You see the yellow stripe on his back as he
vanishes leaving no visible trace .
e) The HSCA was left without acoustic support for it's contention and
also said that if anyone shot from the grassey knoll they missed . So
how is VB using their report erroneous ? Makes no sense .
f) Nor your rambling on about a supposed controversy about the timing
of the shots . 8.9 sec. ( Dr. Lattimers 13 year old son did it in less
time ) In the ABC tests in 67 , one man hit the target 3 out of 3
shots in 5.6 seconds .
Case Closed !
PS : Pretty weak questions from someone who doesn't admit Jim Garrison
was a psychopath .
Ben Holmes
says...
I don't recall Bugliosi mentioning the two known assassination attempts in just
the few weeks before Dallas.
Excellent start... Sooner or later people will realize that Bugliosi is acting
*exactly* as a lawyer arguing a case, rather than as a scholar researching
historical truth.
Papa Andy
>
> - Show quoted text -
amazing
you evaded every point in my original post
and you gave another (albeit unnecessary) display of your political
paranoia
A
David Von Pein
Spare us. (Please.)
Your silly evaluation of Mr. Bugliosi's excellent and thoroughly-
engaging "Four Days In November" first chapter has been ample enough
to make me want to vomit my just-finished noontime meal.
Also: As any reasonable person could easily tell, the "Four Days"
chapter was meant as strictly a NARRATIVE of events; not a detailed
argument supporting Oswald's guilt. The arguments (in force) come
later.
And you need to learn to count too. The "Four Days" chapter logs in at
317 pages, not 350+. (Unless you want to count the endnotes, which I'm
doubting you were including.)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d0e813277d5baa0
Papa Andy
well David -- how about this one
in Four Days a page note says that doctors worked for 42 minutes on
JFK
yet he was shot at 12:30 and died at 1 PM
if I got the number of pages wrong, I'm sorry, it is still mind-
numbing
it is also very strange that he throws in the 8 second shooting spree
without a hint that there is anything unusual about it
enjoy your meals
A
David Von Pein
'22'.
But does that small error mean I must now toss the whole book in the
trash? There are plenty of small errors re. dates and some names
["William" Hinckley...three times! And "Joan" Davison once]. And I
have mentioned several of them in my long-winded review of the book.
But the errors are minor and do not take away from the enormous amount
of hard work VB put into the book. And such errors certainly don't
take away even a small piece of the immense "LHO All Alone" foundation
that Vince pours down for the reading masses in "RH".
And why should anyone think the 8-second shooting timeline is
"unusual"? It's being laid out in the narrative, much like a VB
"opening statement" to the jury. A statement that will be backed up by
other evidence later in the tome.*
* = Although I totally disagree with VB's oddball scenario re. what
happened to that hopping & skipping bullet that he has hitting both
the Elm AND Main St. curbs at Z160. Very strange. But at least Vince
only devotes one very short paragraph to the whole "Tague injury"
matter. I think even he was a little unsure about that scenario, given
his very few words devoted to it in such a giant book.
Ben Holmes
says...
They do this by top-posting. Martin is another one that likes to top-post.
Many of the LNT'ers do - since it enables them to bypass answering points made
in the post, without being obvious about it.
Papa Andy
5.6 seconds is the WC timeline
A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jun 25, 1:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "There's more; but enough for now." <<<
>>
>> Spare us. (Please.)
>>
>> Your silly evaluation of Mr. Bugliosi's excellent and thoroughly-
>> engaging "Four Days In November" first chapter has been ample enough
>> to make me want to vomit my just-finished noontime meal.
>>
>> Also: As any reasonable person could easily tell, the "Four Days"
>> chapter was meant as strictly a NARRATIVE of events; not a detailed
>> argument supporting Oswald's guilt. The arguments (in force) come
>> later.
>>
>> And you need to learn to count too. The "Four Days" chapter logs in at
>> 317 pages, not 350+. (Unless you want to count the endnotes, which I'm
>> doubting you were including.)
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d0e813277d5baa0
>
>well David -- how about this one
>in Four Days a page note says that doctors worked for 42 minutes on
>JFK yet he was shot at 12:30 and died at 1 PM
Actually, I believe that this is correct. The 1300 'time of death' was
'backdated' to a convenient time.
I can't recall off the top of my head a good citation for this - but trust me,
it wouldn't be Bugliosi's tome.
David Von Pein
No, it's really not. The WC timeline is "from approximately 4.8 to in
excess of 7 seconds" (WR; Pg. 117). .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
Papa Andy
from the WC:
TIME SPAN OF SHOTS
Witnesses at the assassination scene said that the shots were fired
within a few seconds, with the general estimate being 5 to 6 seconds.
365 That approximation was most probably based on the earlier
publicized reports that the first shot struck the President in the
neck, the second wounded the Governor and the third shattered the
President's head, with the time span from the neck to the head shots
on the President being approximately 5 seconds. As previously
indicated, the time span between the shot entering the back of the
President's neck and the bullet which shattered his skull was 4.8 to
5.6 seconds. If the second shot missed, then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was
the total time span of the shots. If either the first or third shots
missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle)
must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a
minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than
2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then
the time span would be correspondingly increased.
I think we can rate the 3rd shot miss as most unlikely
the shooter has hit JFK right in the head, so why keep shooting
also note how they don't mention the Z film here
VB does not have a third shot miss
I stand by my suggestion that VB is trying to mislead the reader with
his shooting scenario
A
tomnln
volumes.
"Papa Andy" <playiso...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1182800483.5...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Bud
I don`t recall anyone establishing there were attempts in those
cities.
<snicker> The kooks diregard all the incrimination information
Marina related about her husband, all the incriminating information
developed in the interrogations against Oz, and then complain that
Bugliousi is avoiding historical reality. It`s over, kooks.
Papa Andy
feel free to use on your site
A
David Von Pein
And I stand by my conviction that you couldn't be more wrong.
Here's a quick "math + common sense" lesson.......
Lee Oswald's C2766 Carcano positively fired THREE bullets out of that
6th-Floor SN window on 11/22/63 (the evidence is too overwhelming to
think otherwise in this regard). And we can be pretty confident that
ALL of the shooting in Dealey Plaza took place during the few seconds
that JFK's car was on Elm Street at 12:30 PM. (Nobody's going to argue
with this fact, right?)
So....given these known, undeniable facts in evidence....we can
therefore KNOW for a fact that the person who was firing those 3 shots
from the SN (Mr. Oswald by all logical accounts, of course, was this
gunman) positively WAS able to fire these 3 gunshots at JFK's vehicle
from Rifle C2766 during the span of time that the car was under attack
by gunfire....REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY (OR FEW) SECONDS IT AMOUNTED TO.
Therefore, the people who love to shout "He couldn't have gotten off 3
shots in time!" are 100% wrong. And the three spent bullet shells
under that window PROVE they are wrong. (Plus witness testimony of
people like Harold Norman, who heard THREE shots fired above his head
during the time period in question.)