Mr. Bugliosi vs's the CT's!

[YoHarvey]

Mr. Bugliosi in his introduction typed of the myriad number of
conspiracy oriented books published since the mid 1960's. He chose a
conservative number of 1,000 postulating that the essential basis in
virtually all of these books to be the same. I'm curious about one
idea I've thought about for some time. Mr. Bugliosi has been
crucified on this forum over the past month or so. CT's have
"accepted the challenge" and gone on record referring to Mr. Bugliosi
with every colorful adjective available EVEN though his book has yet
to be made public. Whether you agree or disagree with the postion
Bugliosi has taken, I believe he deserves the respect of the research
community whether pro or con conspiracy for devoting 21 years of his
life to determine the truth as he sees it. This type of respect I
personally have for the late Harold Weisberg. Weisberg wrote his
first conspiracy book in 1965 to be followed by 7 more over the
years. As a researcher he accumulated 60 files cabinests containing
more than a quarter of a million assassination documents. By any
standard Mr. Weisberg was considered the Dean of conspiracy research
until his death in 2003. A fellow researcher recently said "Harold
spent 7 days a week for for more than 35 years" in attempting to
determine the truth of the
events of 11/22. Although I personally disagree with each of Mr.
Weisbergs books and findings I have the utmost respect for his
achievements and open dialogue that has resulted from his research.
Until his death Mr. Weisberg still believed in conspiracy in the case
but did make the following statement in 1999: "much as it looks like
Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shread
of evidence to support it and he never had an extra penny, so he had
no loot from being an agent". This kind of candor and intelligence
deserves respect as does the effort by Mr. Bugliosi. Objectivity is
difficult in this case but common decency and respect has been earned
by
both of these gentlemen.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Bugliosi is one person he is not infallible. It would be foolish in the
extreme to think whatever bugliosi says goes..I believe he is wrong on
all the key points and even if he is right on a lotta stuff..he is dead
wrong on the SBT, headshot from the rear and no conspiracy,( why is his
opinion better than dozens and dozens of others? , in a lotta cases only
the witness knows for sure how much is true) and please don't tell me he
is a back of the head intact person and it is Kooky to believe in a shot
from the grassy knoll...

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Why is his {Bugliosi's} opinion better than dozens and dozens of others?" <<<

Because Vince has the TRUTH on his side...simple as that.

1.) Based on the SUM TOTAL of evidence, Lee Harvey Oswald (alone)
killed JFK in 1963.

2.) And based on the PHYSICAL (BALLISTICS) EVIDENCE in the case, Lee
Oswald's very own rifle conclusively was used to kill Kennedy.

Why CTers refuse to accept the above two facts is possibly the biggest
mystery in the whole case.

>>> "And please don't tell me he {VB} is a 'back of the head intact' person..." <<<

I fully expect Vince to support an "INTACT BACK OF THE HEAD" (i.e., no
large HOLE back there). That's because: there was NO LARGE HOLE in the
back of Kennedy's head. The autopsy report, the photos, the Z-Film,
and the never-changing testimony and statements of all three
autopsists prove this fact.

And, in my view, there would have been absolutely no good ENOUGH
reason whatsoever (as John Canal purports) for those autopsy doctors
to skew the truth or dance around a large-sized BOH wound IF THE LONE
HEAD SHOT PROVABLY CAME FROM THE REAR (which it positively did...also
per the autopsy report, photos, Z-Film, and doctors' testimony).

If a large BOH wound did exist, and the doctors were also confronted
with just the ONE entry hole at the back of the head (whether it be at
the cowlick or the EOP), the doctors could quite easily explain the
reasons why there was a large BOH wound within the context of "ONE
HEAD SHOT FROM THE REAR".

Why do I say this? Because it would have been THE TRUTH!

Therefore, WHY THE HELL AVOID THIS TRUTH? Deceiving people within a
LEGIT and TRUE scenario of one shot hitting JFK in the head from the
rear is just ..... STUPID!

Such deception within such a scenario could ONLY be disastrous for the
doctors and the ensuing investigation, IMO. Because they'll always
need to cover their tracks re. this deception. And ALL FOR NO GOOD
REASON....because the "One Head Shot From The Rear" conclusion would
still be true whether they lied or told the truth.

So, IMO, if Mr. Bugliosi supports ANY type of "Large BOH Wound" on
Kennedy's head...he's probably going to be in major trouble. (Unless
he's got an extremely good and convincing reason for believing in such
a thing in light of the autopsy report, the doctors' statements, the Z-
Film, and the photos/X-rays.)

Why? Because such a "BOH" declaration would make all 3 autopsy doctors
absolute liars and deceivers when it came to that autopsy report and
their various verbal pieces of testimony over the years.

And WHY would Dr. Humes go on TV (voluntarily!) and say this, when he
obviously didn't have a gun to his head, forcing him to talk to Dan
Rather?:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right
side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; 1967

If Humes, the primary autopsy doctor, had been trying to deceive
America re. any kind of large BOH wound, he would have never gone on
TV and said the above words. He merely would have turned down the
offer to appear on CBS-TV in 1967.

Here are some Bugliosi quotes that CTers would be wise to read (and
absorb). All of this stuff has been uttered by many of the LNers here
at these JFK Forums in one fashion or another. Vince just uses
different words (and they're damn good words too).....

"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." -- VB

"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are
based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to
their logical conclusion. Instead of asking, "Where does this go?"--
that is, where does the discrepancy, contradiction, or whatever, lead
them?--they immediately give their minds a breather and conclude that
what they find is itself proof of a conspiracy (or proof that Oswald
is innocent). The discrepancy or contradiction is the ENTIRE story.
And being the entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-
six volumes of the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or
even argued." -- VB

"Other than blithely tossing out names, they {CTers} have failed to
offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor
have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators
behind the assassination were. So after more than forty years, if we
were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without
an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a
conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- VB