Four Daze in November--Errors & Omissions in Bugliosi's Book II
dcwi...@netscape.net
model of choreography, with every moment, every movement synched &
diagrammed, to give the illusion of verity. This veritable cascade of
physical detail cried, Realism! Or, O’Neill! Unfortunately,
everything concerning Baker &Truly both before & after Broadway, I
mean the Warren Commission, was out of synch. First reports in the
papers had the encounter with Oswald on the first floor (the source
apparently Truly), not the fabled 2nd-floor lunchroom set. First
affidavit (Baker’s) had the encounter near the third or fourth-floor
stairwell, with no mention yet of the lunchroom, which setting was
apparently a last-minute script redo necessitated by the presence of
witnesses Styles & Adams on the stairs at about the same time that
Baker & Truly would have been there, awkwardly bumping into them.
Then, years later, Baker (for “JFK First Day Evidence”) put the
encounter back where it apparently actually belonged, at the first-
floor entrance. Some would say his memory failed him; I’d say he
forgot the script he had been handed & reverted to the off-Broadway
truth, which had nothing whatever to do with a lunchroom, in the
beginning at the end….
Page 70 Bugliosi is unaware that long-suppressed photos (Moorman #3 &
the uncropped Powell slide) show that Jarman did *not* “yank a window
open” after the shots, after the 5th-floor trio had run to the west
side. It had been open for several minutes *before* the supposed
run. Note that this Jarman-Williams story embellishment was not just
their hot idea; it was coordinated with the suppression of the
photos. The west-end run supposedly explained why the trio (also
including Norman) did not run into a shooter coming down from the 6th
floor (WR p153). It bought time. But Williams’ 11/23/63 FBI
interview shows him unfamiliar--at that time--with the view of the
stairwell area & elevators from the SW corner; he was never there.
(Until the *re-creation* of the window yanking.) Later, he had to
correct himself. The run never happened. The Commission is left
without an explanation, then, as to why Norman, Jarman & Williams did
not collide with a shooter….
To Be Continued!
David Von Pein
>>> "To Be Continued!" <<<
Oh goodie! I hope this series of utter chaff runs at least 99 parts!
We wouldn't want to miss Donald's multiple thread-starters about how
VB totally misrepresents ideal, stand-up, first-rate witnesses like
Jean Hill, Roger Craig, Ed Hoffman, and Gordy Arnold (et al).
Right, DW?*
* = Of course, Donald would have to turn his chaff-happy and "Arce-Did-
It!" mind to Vincent's main #1 book on the JFK case ("Reclaiming
History") in order to talk about VB's opinions of those witnesses I
mentioned. Because "Four Days In November" doesn't get into the wacky
conspiracy theories at all. It's merely a softcover reprint of Chapter
1 of "RH", which is a chronology of the "four days" only.
Harry
Hey Pine-Cone, somebody posted your biography on the internet.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "To Be Continued!" <<<
>
> Oh goodie! I hope this series of utter chaff runs at least 99 parts!
>
> We wouldn't want to miss Donald's multiple thread-starters about how
> VB totally misrepresents ideal, stand-up, first-rate witnesses like
> Jean Hill, Roger Craig, Ed Hoffman, and Gordy Arnold (et al).
On the other hand, LNers dote on johnny-come-lately witnesses like
Jack Tatum!
dw
> Right, DW?*
>
> * = Of course, Donald would have to turn his chaff-happy and "Arce-Did-
> It!" mind to Vincent's main #1 book on the JFK case ("Reclaiming
> History") in order to talk about VB's opinions of those witnesses I
> mentioned. Because "Four Days In November" doesn't get into the wacky
> conspiracy theories at all. It's merely a softcover reprint of Chapter
> 1 of "RH", which is a chronology of the "four days" only.
Recall that I did address Defaming History last year.
dcwi...@netscape.net
I forgot to make the main point here: Note that DVP can't answer
either of my points & must resort to Oswald-did-it generalizations
David Von Pein
>>> "On the other hand, LNers dote on johnny-come-lately witnesses like Jack Tatum!" <<<
Tatum's not needed to prove Oswald's guilt in the Tippit crime. Toss
him aside if you wish (and you will, of course, because he stains the
reputation of your "Patsy For All 11/22 Murders In Dallas").
>>> "Recall that I did address [Reclaiming] History last year." <<<
And you found that VB did an excellent job in proving LHO's guilt,
right? (Yeah, right.)
For a better "RH" analysis (with some criticisms of my own even) you
can go here:
David Von Pein
>>> "Note that DVP can't answer either of my points & must resort to Oswald-did-it generalizations." <<<
There's no need to answer each and every Kook Point...because they're
always stupid points that will never change any core, bottom-line
facts about what we already know re. the assassination of JFK. (A CT-
Kook's footstomping notwithstanding, of course.)
aeffects
da lone nut KOOKSTER von Pein is struggling. An utterly fantastic blow
when Davey found out Myers wrote most of the Tippit material in RC.
But we know.... Davey is pissed that those "ghost writers" made really
good bucks (as they should) writing portions of Reclaiming History
while DVP, ah,er, *volunteered* his services? What-a-schmuck!
dcwi...@netscape.net
Denial, eh? Can't answer so won't answer. So much for Bugliosi's
Warriors....
dw