Re: MORE "RECLAIMING HISTORY" TALK
David Von Pein
www.Amazon.com/review/R16MBS8KVCJYDL
>>> "Far from sticking to the facts, 'Reclaiming History' is far and away the most factually inept, theory driven and speculative book ever written on the Kennedy assassination." <<<
The above review-ending verbal salvo unleashed at Vincent Bugliosi by
Martin Hay ("mnhay27") is far and away the most ridiculous and
"factually inept" statement made (to date) by any reviewer at
Amazon.com regarding Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy".
In actuality, Mr. Bugliosi's 2007 JFK tome is far and away the best
(and most accurate) book that has ever been written about the death of
America's 35th President (Mr. Hay's ludicrous statement quoted above
notwithstanding, of course).
RE: The duplication of Lee Oswald's Dallas shooting performance......
Besides "Specialist Miller" for the Warren Commission in 1964, there
are far better examples of gunmen who have not only duplicated
Oswald's "2-for-3, 8.4-second" shooting "feat", but several gunmen
have far SURPASSED Oswald's Dealey Plaza performance -- with the best
(and most visible) examples of this being the multiple shooters who
beat LHO's performance IN FRONT OF CAMERAS for the CBS-TV documentary
"A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" in June of 1967:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=zVYrcxhBvY4
www.YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=015D59B2C24BA191
One of the 11 volunteer gunmen participating in the CBS tests achieved
3 hits on the target in his 3 shots....in only 5.2 seconds!
And those 1967 tests were performed under nearly-identical conditions
to that of Oswald's, i.e., with a moving target (11 MPH) and the
gunmen situated in a specially-constructed tower, 60 feet above the
ground, the same height as Oswald's 6th-Floor sniper's perch in the
Texas School Book Depository Building.
Naturally, nearly all conspiracy-happy individuals will forever ignore
those very impressive CBS-TV tests done in 1967; and, as I said, the
shooters were doing this ON CAMERA.
One of the CBS shooters, in facts, got off three shots from a
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (just like Oswald's) in 4.1 seconds! That
shooter managed only one "hit" on the silhouetted target, but that on-
camera 4.1-second shooting performance was still very impressive, in
that it easily debunks another false claim that the theorists love to
trot out of their stale closets every now and then, that being the
nonsensical claim (i.e., the lie) that it's simply "impossible" for
Oswald (or anyone else in the world) to have fired three shots from a
bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in less than 5.6 seconds.
Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is not without its share of
errors, of course. Good heavens, a book of its size and scope is bound
to have a few mistakes in it, both factual errors and the proverbial
typos (although the overall number of "typos" in Bugliosi's book is,
indeed, remarkably small for a publication of its enormous size).
I've documented some of the mistakes that pop up in "RH" at the two
links below. Interestingly, though, when most of these errors that I
found in the book are corrected, Mr. Bugliosi's bottom-line "Oswald
Did It Alone" conclusion is actually enhanced and buttressed, instead
of these "corrections" leading toward "conspiracy":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac345c6c5a9afaf2
In summary -- Conspiracists like Amazon book reviewer Martin Hay just
flat-out don't like to see (or read about) their make-believe
conspiracies regarding JFK's 1963 murder taken to the woodshed, which
is what Vincent Bugliosi admirably and handily does within the 2,792
total pages of "Reclaiming History" (including the endnotes on the
accompanying CD-ROM disc).
Therefore, people like Martin Hay have no choice but to try and
verbally tear to shreds the immense 21-year-long effort that Bugliosi
put into his exemplary JFK book, a book that comes complete with more
than 10,000 citations to back up Vincent's lone-assassin conclusions.
If only people like Martin had just ONE non-Oswald bullet (or gun or
bullet shell) to prop up on their conspiracy mantle. But, alas, people
like Martin have ZERO bullets, or guns, or anything else of a
"physical evidence" nature to back up their notions of conspiracy in
the JFK case. And, of course, they never have. And never will.
It never ceases to amaze me at how these conspiracy-loving clowns
continue to think, year after year, that their theories regarding the
JFK assassination actually deserve to be treated with respect, despite
a complete lack of ANY solid evidence to support them.
But a total lack of physical evidence to support the multi-gun
conspiracy that nearly all conspiracists place their faith in never
stops the staunch and eager theorists from putting forth their
nonsense....with those theorists expecting their silliness to be
lapped up with glee by everyone who is subjected to it.
Right, Martin?
=====================================
MY "RECLAIMING HISTORY" REVIEW:
Long Version:
www.HomeTheaterForum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
Short (Amazon) Version:
www.Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8
=====================================
mnhay27
> www.Amazon.com/review/R16MBS8KVCJYDL
>
> www.Amazon.com/review/R16MBS8KVCJYDL/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&c...
LOL Had a feeling you wouldn't like my review too much, David. You can
go on about all the "duplications" you want but the FACT is Bugliosi
claimed that "Miller" duplicated Oswald's alleged feat when, in FACT,
he did no such thing. Bugliosi was WRONG, pure and simple. And what's
worse is that he had the nerve to LIE and say that all other
researchers had ignored these "tests" when they had been covered many,
many times - IN BOOKS LISTED IN HIS BIBLIOGRAPHY!
The physical evidence of conspiracy, David, is provided by the wounds
to JFK and Connally that could not have been caused by a single
bullet. And I really don't give a fig how hard you try to deffend that
garbage because its been debunked so many times that its not even
funny.
I cannot see why it is incumbent upon independant researchers to
produce bullets that those conducting the official investigations
never bothered to look for. If the DPD/FBI never bothered to seal off
and search the crime scene how in the hell could anyone produce a
bullet that passed through JFK and out of the limo? Any such evidence
could have ended up anywhere. Where's the Tague bullet? We all agree
that a shot or fragment hit that curb but no one is demanding that
piece of evidence be produced precisely because we know it was never
searched for. And why would any professional assassin leave a shell
behind to incriminate himself? Your straw man arguments are of no
value to anyone wishing to discover the truth, David.
But deep down, you know that don't you, David? You're not here for
anything other than the argument are you, David?
All the best,
Martin
aeffects
you nailed Von Peins ass right to the wall, Martin!
> All the best,
>
> Martin
tomnln
1st shot=No earlier than 210
3rd shot=at 313
Equals 103 frames.
Zapruder film ran at 18.3 fps
EQUALS 5.6 SECONDS
You're in trouble ! ! ! ! !
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:99d2c3a6-abc6-41db...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Give it up, Martin. You've lost your arguments. And you know it. And
this statement of yours about Bugliosi's book will make the "Hall-Of-
Fame Of Idiotic Comments" (as well it should, of course):
"Far from sticking to the facts, 'Reclaiming History' is far and
away the most factually inept, theory driven and speculative book ever
written on the Kennedy assassination." -- Martin Hay
Phil Ossofee
David Von Pein
"Ossofee" is a real kook (and that's even worse than a "shithead").
aeffects
what does Vionce Bugliosi's Reclaiming History for only $4.99 (in
KMART'S book bin) tell ya son? Even for less elsewhere, so goes the
rumor....
does have a nice ring to it:
David Von Pein
That figures, Mr. Crackpipe -- idiotic comments like Martin Hay's
usually do appeal to conspiracy retards like you. So I'm not surprised
you like Hay's stupid remarks re. VB & RH.
mnhay27
Give it up, David. You've got nothing but hot air and YOU know it.
Otherwise you'd be able to counter it with something of substance.
And I'm so proud of that very truthful comment that I might have put
on a T-shirt. You can have one too if you like!
David Von Pein
>>> "And I'm so proud of that very truthful comment that I might have put on a T-shirt. You can have one too if you like!" <<<
A T-shirt that highlights a retard's nonsense.
Yeah, that's a real good idea.
~eyeroll~
aeffects
sitdown dipshit.... you're getting all lathered up.... we understand
the recent lone nut/troll setback has you all nervous.... So, whose
cumming to dinner, shithead!?
lazu...@webtv.net
Doug Horne and a bunch of others would like to clean Bugliosi's clock in
a public forum...Bugliosi doesn't have the guts..like other lone nut
trolls who change their alias's quicker than underwear...he's all mouth,
no substance, and sucking up to the Establishment that he hides
behind...he wants to try Bush for murder, but if he used his brain and
really understood the meaning of JFK's Assassination..he'd realize we
would have never had any damn Bushes near the white house..if the JFK
case had been investigated fairly...no presidents from Texas or the CIA
in our lifetime...
David Von Pein
>>> "He'd realize we would have never had any damn Bushes near the white house..if the JFK case had been investigated fairly...no presidents from Texas or the CIA." <<<
The above is yet another stupid comment by a conspiracy idiot.
mnhay27
LOL My, my, David. resorting to name-calling again? thank you for
proving my point: You've got nothing but hot air!
David Von Pein
I've got all the bullets. How many have you CTers got?
aeffects
> >>> "He'd realize we would have never had any damn Bushes near the white house..if the JFK case had been investigated fairly...no presidents from Texas or the CIA." <<<
>
> The above is yet another stupid comment by a conspiracy idiot.
the above is another moronic postition taken by one, sick lone nut,
KOOKSTER, David Von Pein [sic] specifically....
Carry on troll!
mnhay27
> I've got all the bullets. How many have you CTers got?
No, David. You've got TWO bullets, which, even in the official
fairytale, is most certainly not ALL the bullets. Perhaps you'd better
read the Warren Report again as it seems you need a reminding about
what you're actually defending.
David Von Pein
www.Amazon.com/review/R16MBS8KVCJYDL
>>> "You did not even address the FACT that Bugliosi LIED in his handling of the "Miller duplication.".... Bugliosi LIED when he said that it had been "duplicated," that the proof was in the WC volumes and that the tests had been ignored by the critics - and LIE HE DID." <<<
You're talking utter nonsense. Vincent Bugliosi didn't "lie" at all.
In fact, if you would bother to read (and cite) ALL of the pertinent
information in Mr. Bugliosi's comprehensive book, "Reclaiming
History", you would have found that Bugliosi was completely
forthright, honest, and above board when dealing with the issue of
"Specialist Miller's" shooting re-creation.
Vincent even openly berates the Warren Commission with respect to the
far-from-perfect manner in which the Commission's shooting tests were
conducted. So your assertion that Bugliosi "simply ignore[s]" this
matter is a totally-false assertion. Let's have a look (on Page 495 of
the main text of Vince's book):
"The best rifleman [using CE139, Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle], one "Specialist Miller," got off three shots (using
the telescopic sight) within 4.6 seconds on the first of two series of
three shots, and within 5.15 seconds on his second series. Using the
iron sights, he got off three rounds in 4.45 seconds. (The second and
third riflemen [whose names were Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Staley*], using
only the telescopic sight, took 6.75 and 6.45, and 8.25 and 7.00
seconds, respectively, for the two series.) ....
"It should be added that in an example of investigative
sloppiness, the three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the
Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half
the height of the sixth-floor window from Elm Street below. I have
been told by firearms experts that this difference in elevation was
inconsequential to the validity of the tests, but why not construct a
tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to fire?" --
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE 495 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)
* = The names of the other two riflemen who participated in the Warren
Commission tests (Hendrix and Staley) are names that are provided by
Mr. Bugliosi on page #341 of the endnotes on the CD-ROM that is
included with the book "Reclaiming History".
Also on page 341 (and 340) of the endnotes, we find the following
Warren Commission-bashing remarks by Bugliosi (indicating, once more,
Bugliosi's fairness and honesty, which is the kind of straight talk
that can be found throughout Vincent's JFK book):
"In a perfect example among many, many others of Warren
Commission assistant counsels having brilliant legal minds, but not
having trial experience, which would tell them they have to establish
time and place with all witnesses, Melvin Aron Eisenberg, the
assistant counsel who handled the questioning on the test firing,
after asking his witness, “Did you conduct a test” with the Carcano?
and getting a “yes” answer, didn’t ask the automatic follow-up
questions, “When” and “Where” did you conduct the tests?
"Earlier, the witness, on his own, volunteered that rifle tests
were conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Eisenberg didn’t ask
where this was located, but its in Aberdeen, Maryland, and we can
assume that the tests with Oswald’s Carcano were also conducted there.
"Although, as indicated, Eisenberg did not ask the witness,
Ronald Simmons, when the tests were conducted, inasmuch as Simmons
testified on March 31, 1964, we can assume that the tests had to have
been conducted, of course, before that date, most likely sometime in
February or March of 1964. It’s unlikely they took place in 1963,
since not too much time was left in 1963, and also, these tests were
conducted for the Warren Commission, and the first formal meeting of
the Warren Commission staff didn’t take place until January 20, 1964.
"We don’t even know the full names of the riflemen who
participated in the tests, Eisenberg not asking Simmons who they were.
But Simmons, on his own (the way exasperated Warren Commission
researchers frequently get their information), volunteered that one
was a “Mr. Hendrix,” the other a “Mr. Staley,” and the other a
“Specialist Miller” (3 H 390, 442, 446). But one way or another,
through their own in-depth questioning and more precise FBI reports,
the Warren Commission elicited all the information about the case any
reasonable person could ever hope for, and then some.
"But while we’re on the subject, surprisingly, even the lawyers
on the Commission staff who had trial experience, like Joe Ball and
Albert Jenner, often found it difficult to ask the automatic
preliminary questions of time and place (which sometimes have
absolutely critical importance), and for the researcher the
information frequently has to be secured from other sources.
"For example, oftentimes the witness, without being asked, had
the common sense to volunteer the information. An example as to time
that can be multiplied many times over is that Joe Ball, in
questioning Dallas police detective Guy Rose about his going out to
the residence of Ruth Paine on the afternoon of the assassination,
never asked Rose, “Approximately what time did you arrive at the Paine
residence?” (7 H 227–230, WCT Guy F. Rose).
"And Albert Jenner, questioning Mrs. Paine, also couldn’t find
it within himself to ask her what time the detective arrived (3 H 78,
WCT Ruth Hyde Paine). But Paine later volunteered, “It [when the
police arrived] was now after school or this babysitter would not have
been there, which brings us to 3:30 perhaps” (3 H 80). The researcher
can also learn the approximate time was 3:30 p.m. from the report
Detective Rose submitted with his two fellow officers (CE 2003, 24 H
292)." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 340-341 OF ENDNOTES IN
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
=========================
Now, Martin, what was it you were saying about Vincent Bugliosi being
a "liar"?
mnhay27
David, your defence of Bugliosi is both predictable and laughable.
I'll make it as simple as I can for you:
Bugliosi said, "way back in 1964, one `Specialist Miller' of the U.S.
Army, using Oswald's own Mannlicher Carcano rifle, not only duplicated
what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald's time."
That, David, was a LIE. (for reasons already stated)
Bugliosi said that this "duplication" was ignored by the critics when
in fact it was dealt with by Mark Lane way back in 1966 and Sylvia
meagher the following year.
So that, David, was another LIE.
aeffects
Martin, even I ducked when I saw this one coming..... DVP must be
firing off a note to Vinnie's secretary by now.... asking for
direction as well as clarification
mnhay27
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I've never known
anybody to so obstinately resist the facts when they're presented with
them. I'm expecting DVP to announce that the world is flat any day
now.
aeffects
hasn't he told you? Vin Bugliosi says its so.... perhaps one of these
days a composite part of DVP will appear on stage stating JFK is alive
and well living in the Bahamas, he was fooled for all this time.... of
course he'll blame Bugliosi!
lazu...@webtv.net
was even constantly arguing with lone nutter John Canal, and Canal took
him verbally out to the woodshed and layed him out...damn...though he's
like a cockroach...hard to kill.
David Von Pein
>>> "Von Pein...has a pathological need to argue. He was even constantly arguing with lone nutter John Canal, and Canal took him verbally out to the woodshed and layed him out." <<<
LOL. As if "Laz" believes ANYTHING written by John Canal regarding
JFK's head wounds. That's a real laugh.
In other words -- "Laz", being the conspiracy kook he is, obviously
thinks I'm dead-wrong regarding JFK's head wounds. And "Laz" also
thinks John Canal is dead-wrong about JFK's head wounds (because we
all know that every CTer in this place, with the exception of Tom
Purvis and Pat Speer, thinks that JFK was hit in the head by at least
one shot from the front) -- and yet (somehow, some way) I was
supposedly taken to the woodshed by a person (Canal) who also doesn't
know what he's talking about concerning the President's wounds (per
Laz-Kook).
Classic CTer idiocy on display there, Laz.
But, I guess it makes sense....if you're a nut.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1dad3676c7855229
>>> "David, your defence of Bugliosi is both predictable and laughable. I'll make it as simple as I can for you: Bugliosi said, "way back in 1964, one 'Specialist Miller' of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's own Mannlicher Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald's time." That, David, was a LIE (for reasons already stated)." <<<
Once again (for the reading-impaired).....Vince Bugliosi didn't "lie"
with respect to the post-1963 "duplications" of Lee Harvey Oswald's
shooting performance. Bugliosi lays out all the information (with
proper citations) that the reader needs to know, including the Warren
Commission-bashing fact that the WC tests were performed from a 30-
foot-high tower, instead of the proper height of about 60 feet.
And if Bugliosi's critics would take note of everything relating to
this issue that appears in "Reclaiming History", they would have also
found the following passage, which prefaces Vincent's remarks
concerning "Specialist Miller":
"Conspiracy theorists and critics of the Warren Commission
allege, as we've all heard them do a hundred times, that no one, not
even a professional shooter, has ever been able to duplicate what
Oswald did on the day of the assassination, that is, get off three
rounds at three separate distances with the accuracy the Warren
Commission says Oswald had (two out of three hits) in the limited
amount of time he had. ....
"On page 446 of [Warren Commission] volume 3 we learn that way
back in 1964, one "Specialist Miller" of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's
own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but
improved on Oswald's time. In fact, many marksmen, including the
firearms expert from Wisconsin [Monty Lutz] whom I used at the [1986]
London trial ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"], have done better than
Oswald did. ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0227b.htm
[Later in the book we find this....]
"It should be added that in an example of investigative
sloppiness, the three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the
Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half
the height of the sixth-floor window from Elm Street below. I have
been told by firearms experts that this difference in elevation was
inconsequential to the validity of the tests, but why not construct a
tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to fire?" --
Vincent Bugliosi; Pages xxviii and 495 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
A key sentence above is:
"That is, get off three rounds at three separate distances with
the accuracy the Warren Commission says Oswald had (two out of three
hits) in the limited amount of time he had." -- VB
Bugliosi, in the above sentence, is defining what he means by
"duplicating" Oswald's shooting performance.
If you now want to argue that Vince is dead-wrong in his definition of
"duplicating Oswald's performance", go ahead. But that quoted passage
I just cited above (whether you think it's right or wrong) is still
going to be in Mr. Bugliosi's book.
Hence, Vincent Bugliosi is not "lying" to the readers of his book
concerning this "duplication" topic.
In addition, allow me to add this:
Mr. Bugliosi also does not ignore the fact that the rifle tests
performed by "Specialist Miller" (and two other riflemen) were done
with only stationary targets, rather than a moving target which Oswald
was shooting at in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Let's take a look at
Bugliosi's forthright honesty in this "stationary target" regard:
"In 1964 the Warren Commission had three expert riflemen fire
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at stationary targets (head and
shoulder silhouettes) located at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet,
the distances of 175 and 265 feet corresponding to the distances from
the [Book Depository's] sniper's nest window to the presidential
limousine at [Zapruder] frames 210 and 313, respectively.
"The fact that the targets were stationary does not quite
warrant the criticism the Commission has gotten from critics like
[Robert] Groden, since the critical point in trying to simulate what
Oswald did was to compel the riflemen to move the muzzle between
shots. And since the targets were SEPARATED from each other, the
riflemen would have to move their muzzles in the same way they would
have if the target were moving as Oswald's target was.
"Even given this, however, it would seem to be easier to fire at
stationary rather than at moving targets, although as we have seen,
the 3.9-degree declination of Elm Street made it less difficult.
"On the other hand, it is noteworthy that none of the riflemen
had any practice with Oswald's rifle except to operate the bolt for
about "two or three minutes" [3 H 447, WC Testimony of Ronald
Simmons], and did not have any practice with the trigger at all
because of concern "about breaking the firing pin" [3 H 447, WC
Testimony of Ronald Simmons]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 494-495 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0228a.htm
Plus -- doesn't Vince get ANY bonus points from the conspiracy-happy
kooks for placing these words in his book, which he probably wouldn't
have put in his book if he was a rotten, good-for-nothing "liar" and
cover-up artist, right?:
"The three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the
Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half
the height of the sixth-floor window [in the TSBD]. .... Why not
construct a tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to
fire?" -- VB
>>> "Bugliosi said that this [Warren Commission] "duplication" was ignored by the critics[,] when in fact it was dealt with by Mark Lane way back in 1966 and Sylvia Meagher the following year. So that, David, was another LIE." <<<
Where in Bugliosi's book does Vince state that the "Specialist Miller"
test has been "ignored" by conspiracy theorists? I could find no such
passage in "Reclaiming History". Perhaps I missed it, but such a
statement by Bugliosi is certainly not included on page xxviii of the
book's Introduction (which is the page you cited from in your
Amazon.com review).
www.Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8
mnhay27
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1dad3676...
>
> Plus -- doesn't Vince get ANY bonus points from the conspiracy-happy
> kooks for placing these words in his book, which he probably wouldn't
> have put in his book if he was a rotten, good-for-nothing "liar" and
> cover-up artist, right?:
>
> "The three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the
> Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half
> the height of the sixth-floor window [in the TSBD]. .... Why not
> construct a tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to
> fire?" -- VB
>
> >>> "Bugliosi said that this [Warren Commission] "duplication" was ignored by the critics[,] when in fact it was dealt with by Mark Lane way back in 1966 and Sylvia Meagher the following year. So that, David, was another LIE." <<<
>
> Where in Bugliosi's book does Vince state that the "Specialist Miller"
> test has been "ignored" by conspiracy theorists? I could find no such
> passage in "Reclaiming History". Perhaps I missed it, but such a
> statement by Bugliosi is certainly not included on page xxviii of the
> book's Introduction (which is the page you cited from in your
> Amazon.com review).
>
> www.Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8
>
> www.Amazon.com/review/R16MBS8KVCJYDL
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
David, I can't even be bothered to try and explain this to you again
because I know you'll just continue to believe what you want to
believe and, frankly, your semantical arguments are starting to bore
the crap out of me. You and I both know that Bugliosi used Miller's
"duplication" as an example of what he says the critics have ommitted,
distorted etc (I can't type the exact passage because I don't have
access to the book right now) and that is a LIE because Miller never
duplicated Oswald's alleged feat (even if Bugliosi says he did) and
the crtics have always dealt with it in a forthright manner. I'm gonna
leave it there because you're giving me a headache.
But I have to say, David, that the length of your posts always amuses
me. It's as if you think that the longer you ramble on the more
impressive you'll seem. But no matter how high you pile manure, it's
still manure.
Ben Holmes
mnhay27 says...
>
>On May 17, 4:07=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1dad3676...
>>
>'ll make it as simple as I can for you: Bugliosi said, "way back in 1964, o=
>ne 'Specialist Miller' of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's own Mannlicher Carc=
>ano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald's ti=
>me." That, David, was a LIE (for reasons already stated)." <<<
>>
>> Once again (for the reading-impaired).....Vince Bugliosi didn't "lie"
Of course he did.
>> with respect to the post-1963 "duplications" of Lee Harvey Oswald's
>> shooting performance. Bugliosi lays out all the information (with
>> proper citations) that the reader needs to know, including the Warren
>> Commission-bashing fact that the WC tests were performed from a 30-
>> foot-high tower, instead of the proper height of about 60 feet.
Simply telling the truth about the actual facts - then pretending that they
*STILL* support that Oswald's alleged feat has been duplicated, is still a lie.
>> And if Bugliosi's critics would take note of everything relating to
>> this issue that appears in "Reclaiming History", they would have also
>> found the following passage, which prefaces Vincent's remarks
>> concerning "Specialist Miller":
>>
>> Conspiracy theorists and critics of the Warren Commission
>> allege, as we've all heard them do a hundred times, that no one, not
>> even a professional shooter, has ever been able to duplicate what
>> Oswald did on the day of the assassination, that is, get off three
>> rounds at three separate distances with the accuracy the Warren
>> Commission says Oswald had (two out of three hits) in the limited
>> amount of time he had. ....
That is, of course, merely the truth. As Bugliosi goes on to illustrate - even
though he lies about it.
>> "On page 446 of [Warren Commission] volume 3 we learn that way
>> back in 1964, one "Specialist Miller" of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's
>> own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did,
Page 446 says no such thing. *I* can duplicate the same times... watch:
Snap.... snap... snap.
See? I snapped my fingers three times in exactly 4.6 seconds.
Of course, a real *DUPLICATION* would entail someone with roughly similar rifle
expertise, firing at a moving target, from the SAME WINDOW, using the same
rifle.
The only thing done was to utilize the same rifle.
So no, there was no "duplication" done by anyone...
>> but improved on Oswald's time.
I did so as well... see above.
>> In fact, many marksmen, including the
>> firearms expert from Wisconsin [Monty Lutz] whom I used at the [1986]
>> London trial ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"], have done better than
>> Oswald did. ....
Anyone can. Get your stopwatch, and presuming that you are in normal health,
you should be able to snap your fingers three times in 4.6 seconds.
Of course, this has *nothing* to do with duplicating what Oswald is alleged to
have done...
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_022...
>>
>> [Later in the book we find this....]
>>
>> "It should be added that in an example of investigative
>> sloppiness, the three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the
>> Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half
>> the height of the sixth-floor window from Elm Street below. I have
>> been told by firearms experts that this difference in elevation was
>> inconsequential to the validity of the tests,
Then Bugliosi is either lying, or too stupid to ask the right question, and
understand the answer. (Of course, there's no doubt in my mind that Bugliosi is
simply lying here.) Indeed, Mr. Simmons remarks on the problem with angles even
at just 30 feet.
As Mr. Simmmons stated in WC III, pg. 446: "This involved the displacement of
the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had
to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the
movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the
second target."
For reading impaired DVP - this means that the angles between the targets, (in
particular, between the first and second one) EVEN AT JUST 30 FEET UP, changed
enough to force the shooters to change position, and to miss targets. A
high-school geometry student would be able to explain to you that the problems
described by Mr. Simmons would be double at the real height.
Bugliosi was certainly familiar with Mr. Simmons testimony - and it contradicts
his anonymous "firearms experts".
>> but why not construct a
>> tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to fire?" --
>> Vincent Bugliosi; Pages xxviii and 495 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
>> 2007)
An excellent question... perhaps even Bugliosi couldn't come up with a
reasonable explanation for that little snafu.
But, you see, it's incumbent on the LNT'ers side to ANSWER THAT QUESTION! Not
merely acknowledge that it exists.
The problem, of course, is that reasonable and believable non-conspiratorial
answers for the questions raised about the evidence by CT'ers are rare or even
non-existent.
Bugliosi couldn't produce a reasonable or believable explanation for why the
tests were conducted with an eye to indicting Oswald.
>> A key sentence above is:
>>
>> "That is, get off three rounds at three separate distances with
>> the accuracy the Warren Commission says Oswald had (two out of three
>> hits) in the limited amount of time he had." -- VB
Yet even a moron would recognize that this was made *EASIER* to do by the
selection of highly qualified shooters, by stationary targets, and by an angle
of shooting *HALF* of what the alleged SN's shooter was faced with.
Surely Bugliosi isn't a moron... so clearly, he's doing what lawyers do best,
lying for their client.
DVP, of course, is lying too...
>> Bugliosi, in the above sentence, is defining what he means by
>> "duplicating" Oswald's shooting performance.
Yep... I can "duplicate" it as well... 10 feet up, firing at three stationary
targets, 10, 15, and 20 feet away, with my trusty .45
Only a real moron can speak of "duplicating" an action without actually doing
very much that "duplicates" the action...
I can, just as Bugliosi did - "define" what I mean by "duplication"... but it
doesn't mean that he's not lying when he says Oswald's alleged feat was actually
duplicated.
>> If you now want to argue that Vince is dead-wrong in his definition of
>> "duplicating Oswald's performance", go ahead.
No argument needed. The facts have just been laid out above. Only a moron or
liar can dispute it. There was *NO* "duplication" ever done by Specialist
Miller. (or anyone else for that matter).
A real duplication would have been relatively easy to perform.
>> But that quoted passage
>> I just cited above (whether you think it's right or wrong) is still
>> going to be in Mr. Bugliosi's book.
>>
>> Hence, Vincent Bugliosi is not "lying" to the readers of his book
>> concerning this "duplication" topic.
Yes... he is. And so are you.
"duplication" is a well-known and understood English word... understood by most
English speaking people.
Merely redefining it to mean something else won't save Bugliosi from the charge
that he lied.
>> In addition, allow me to add this:
>>
>> Mr. Bugliosi also does not ignore the fact that the rifle tests
>> performed by "Specialist Miller" (and two other riflemen) were done
>> with only stationary targets, rather than a moving target which Oswald
>> was shooting at in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Let's take a look at
>> Bugliosi's forthright honesty in this "stationary target" regard:
Of *course* he's ignoring it. Merely mentioning that he's aware of the facts...
but then going on to talk about "duplicating" Oswald's alleged feat, is EXACTLY
"ignoring" the facts.
>> "In 1964 the Warren Commission had three expert riflemen fire
>> Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at stationary targets (head and
>> shoulder silhouettes) located at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet,
>> the distances of 175 and 265 feet corresponding to the distances from
>> the [Book Depository's] sniper's nest window to the presidential
>> limousine at [Zapruder] frames 210 and 313, respectively.
>>
>> "The fact that the targets were stationary does not quite
>> warrant the criticism the Commission has gotten from critics like
>> [Robert] Groden, since the critical point in trying to simulate what
>> Oswald did was to compel the riflemen to move the muzzle between
>> shots.
And clearly, Bugliosi, (as well as you, DVP); are simply liars. Mr. Simmons
testified that the three Master-rated shooters were told to take all the time
they wanted to aim in their first shot - but this simply could *NOT* have
occurred in a real "duplication" of the alleged feat... with a moving target.
>> And since the targets were SEPARATED from each other, the
>> riflemen would have to move their muzzles in the same way they would
>> have if the target were moving as Oswald's target was.
>>
>> "Even given this, however, it would seem to be easier to fire at
>> stationary rather than at moving targets, although as we have seen,
>> the 3.9-degree declination of Elm Street made it less difficult.
Of *COURSE* it's easier to fire at stationary targets! You'd be a liar to
assert otherwise.
Oops... looks like you're a liar, DVP.
>> "On the other hand, it is noteworthy that none of the riflemen
>> had any practice with Oswald's rifle except to operate the bolt for
>> about "two or three minutes" [3 H 447, WC Testimony of Ronald
>> Simmons], and did not have any practice with the trigger at all
>> because of concern "about breaking the firing pin" [3 H 447, WC
>> Testimony of Ronald Simmons]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 494-495 of
>> "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Indeed... no more practice than Oswald is proven to have had...
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_022...
>>
>> Plus -- doesn't Vince get ANY bonus points from the conspiracy-happy
>> kooks for placing these words in his book, which he probably wouldn't
>> have put in his book if he was a rotten, good-for-nothing "liar" and
>> cover-up artist, right?:
>>
>> "The three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the
>> Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half
>> the height of the sixth-floor window [in the TSBD]. .... Why not
>> construct a tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to
>> fire?" -- VB
It's a question he should have *ANSWERED*. Merely raising the very points that
prove him a liar isn't good enough.
>> >>> "Bugliosi said that this [Warren Commission] "duplication" was ignored
> by the critics[,] when in fact it was dealt with by Mark Lane way back in
> 1966 and Sylvia Meagher the following year. So that, David, was another LIE."
>>
>> Where in Bugliosi's book does Vince state that the "Specialist Miller"
>> test has been "ignored" by conspiracy theorists? I could find no such
>> passage in "Reclaiming History". Perhaps I missed it, but such a
>> statement by Bugliosi is certainly not included on page xxviii of the
>> book's Introduction (which is the page you cited from in your
>> Amazon.com review).
>>
>> www.Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8
>>
>> www.Amazon.com/review/R16MBS8KVCJYDL
>>
>> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>David, I can't even be bothered to try and explain this to you again
You can't explain the facts to someone who has faith. True faith is oblivious
to mere facts.
>because I know you'll just continue to believe what you want to
>believe and, frankly, your semantical arguments are starting to bore
>the crap out of me. You and I both know that Bugliosi used Miller's
>"duplication" as an example of what he says the critics have ommitted,
>distorted etc (I can't type the exact passage because I don't have
>access to the book right now)
"On the issue of fairness. he more I studied the assassination and the writings
of the conspiracy theorists and Warren Commission critics, the more I became
disturbed with them. Though they accused the bipartisan Warren Commission of
bias, distorting the evidence, and deliberately suppressing the truth from the
American people, I found that for the most part it was they, not the Warren
Commission, who were guilty of these very same things. I haven't read all of
the pro-conspiracy books, I don't know anyone who has. I have, however, read
all the major ones, and a goodly number of minor ones. And with a few notable
exceptions, when the vast majority of these conspiracy authors are confronted
with evidence that is incompatible with their fanciful theories, to one degree
or another their modus operandi is to do one of two things - twist, warp, and
distort the evidence, OR SIMPLY IGNORE IT - both of which are designed to
deceive their readers. Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth
is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." (pg xiv)
I capitalized the relevant section....
>and that is a LIE because Miller never
>duplicated Oswald's alleged feat
Yep... that's absolutely correct, Miller DID NOT "duplicate" Oswald's alleged
feat, he wasn't even given the opportunity to attempt to do so.
>(even if Bugliosi says he did)
Bugliosi, like DVP, and pretty much all other LNT'ers... are liars when it comes
to the evidence in this case.
>and the crtics have always dealt with it in a forthright manner. I'm gonna
>leave it there because you're giving me a headache.
>
>But I have to say, David, that the length of your posts always amuses
>me. It's as if you think that the longer you ramble on the more
>impressive you'll seem. But no matter how high you pile manure, it's
>still manure.
As usual, DVP is simply a liar.
Here's the relevant section:
"So those peddling misinformation about the Kennedy assassination have been able
to get by with their blatant lies, omissions, distortions, and simply erroneous
statements because their readers aren't in a position to dispute the veracity
of their assertions. A few examples among countless others: When conspiracy
theorists and critics of the Warren Commission allege, as we've all heard them
do a hundred times, that no one, not even a professional shooter, has ever been
able to duplicate what Oswald did on the day of the assassination, that is, get
off three rounds at three separate distances with the accuracy that the Warren
Commission says Oswald had (two out of three hits) in the limited amount of time
he had, how would any reader who didn't have volume 3 of the Warren Commission
know that this is a false assertion? On page 446 of volume 3 we learn that way
back in 1964, one "Specialist Miller" of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's own
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on
Oswald's time. In fact, many marksmen, including the firearms expert from
Wisconsin whom I used at the London trial, have done better than Oswald did."
Now, how else can such a paragraph be read other than to presume that Bugliosi
thinks that "Specialist Miller" has been ignored, or even lied about? (as he
made explicit pages earlier?)
DVP seems to think that people cannot check the source materials, and discover
for themselves that Bugliosi & DVP are simply liars.
As for Bugliosi's misrepresentations - let's go through some of them... first,
of course, is that Specialist Miller did NOT duplicate Owald's alleged feat -
the testimony by Mr. Simmons (WC III pg 444) clearly states that the height
being fired from was only 30 feet. Interestingly, Mr. Simmons is also explicit
that all three shooters were rated "Master" by the NRA. This, compared to
Oswald's known skills, was quite similar to comparing a driver with a few years
of experience to an Indy 500 driver. [And having been a member of the Marine
Corps' West Coast Rifle team, I *do* have knowledge of what I'm talking about]
Mr. Simmons also admits that all three marksmen were told to take all the time
they wanted on the first shot - when clearly such was *NOT* the case for any
shooter at the SN in the TSBD.
So it's a flat out misrepresentation, indeed, simply a lie to assert that
Specialist Miller duplicated what Oswald is alleged to have done.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com