Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bugliosi Tackles All Of Fetzer's "Smoking Guns" In "Reclaiming History" .... Here Are The Cites (One By One)

72 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 8:19:36 PM12/30/07
to
"James Fetzer...wrote me on January 23, 2001:...[Quoting
Fetzer:] "What would it take to convince you of the existence of a
conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? .... Are none of our
[Fetzer's and Dr. David Mantik's] major discoveries--our '16 smoking
guns,' for example--convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, then
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?" [End Fetzer quote.]

"Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." --
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE #974 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)

www.amazon.com/review/R2R0RQ0Q9AZY0M

==============================================

BEN HOLMES SAID THIS ON AUGUST 22, 2007:

>>> "DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't. Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to* cite." <<<

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6d550fa4cb5c8792


AND KOOK HOLMES SAID THIS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2007:

>>> "Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a45aaa342d10998

DVP SAID THIS ON AUGUST 19, 2007:

>>> "Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items. They are all answered very well in various places throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb

==============================================

The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):

www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html

==============================================

Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY". (Book title hereafter in
this post shortened to "RH".)

Here now are some citations and excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book
which directly deal with the above-linked "Smoking Guns"....which are
"Guns" that a Super-Kook named Holmes insists that "Bugliosi did NOT
address" anywhere in "RH":

======================

SMOKING GUN #1:

"[Per the WC and the HSCA] JFK was hit at the base of the back
of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any
bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie. [This]
is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to
impact bony structures."


"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:

"The bruises in the neck region [of JFK]...COULDN'T have been
caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body
was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no
bruise--that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not
discoloration of the tissue.

"The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung HAD to have
been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating
sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur. [Source Note #132 = Dr.
Humes' WC testimony @ 2 H 368.]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm


"In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
TO THE INCISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL (i.e., they had
to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE
PRESIDENT'S BACK AND EXITING THE THROAT. [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]

"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
in the front of the president's neck. ....

"This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
#134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0117b.htm


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0118a.htm


~~~~~~

"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.

"The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm

"The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).

"Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-
ROM)


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0154b.htm


======================

SMOKING GUN #2:

"The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."


"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:

"A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 500


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0024a.htm

~~~~~~

"Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm


======================

SMOKING GUN #3:

"The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
have fired the bullets that killed the president."


[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
Murder Weapon".]


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815

======================

SMOKING GUN #4:

"The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
have used, thereby exonerating him."


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons." [End Petty quote.]

"In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
of JFK's head]. ....

"Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0203a.htm

"Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0182b.htm


======================

SMOKING GUN #5:

"The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
area of the right temple."


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 863

======================

SMOKING GUN #6:

"The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40
eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs."


"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden:] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 407-408

~~~~~~

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president.

"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of
Endnotes

~~~~~~

"On the Ida Dox drawing of the autopsy photograph of the back of
the president's head showing the entrance wound (see 7 HSCA 104), the
numbers on the ruler are not visible, even with a magnifying glass,
but the entrance wound does not seem to be four inches above where I
would imagine the external occipital protuberance was on the
president's head, and does not appear as high up as the round black
circle signifying the entrance wound on the HSCA sketch (see 1 HSCA
406).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057b.htm


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0205b.htm

"It may be that the location of the entrance wound was somewhere
between where the autopsy surgeons and the later pathologists said it
was. But if, indeed, the autopsy surgeons were correct on the lower
location of the head entrance wound, how this would affect the
trajectory analyses, and be compatible with the minute missile
fragments traversing on a line from back to front higher up on the
head, is beyond my knowledge and expertise.

"However, we mustn't forget that since the president's head was
inclined slightly forward at the time of the head shot, a bullet
traveling on a downward trajectory would be proceeding on a higher
path, anatomically, through the president's head. (See discussion on
this issue in main text with respect to the president's back wound.)"
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 231 of Endnotes

======================

SMOKING GUN #7:

"These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."

"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm


======================


SMOKING GUN #8:

"Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of
the brain of someone other than JFK."

[DVP Interjection --- This "Gun" is yet another incredibly-stupid one,
with absolutely zero granules of truth in it whatsoever, and is a
theory that should make anyone purporting it turn various shades of
crimson due to the embarrassment at having even written it down.

Mr. Bugliosi handily and humorously (and with ample citations to
testimony from Humes, Boswell, Finck, and other sources), deals with
the "Two Brains" idiocy on pages 434 to 447 of the main text in "RH";
and pages 282 to 287 of the CD's endnotes. A few excerpts follow.....]


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever
promulgated in the assassination debate, and yet one whose contention
is being hailed and widely accepted today in the conspiracy community,
is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for
military records. ....

"Unbelievably, Horne said that the depositions taken by the ARRB
caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from
some anonymous third party. ....

"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain?

"Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true
facts of the assassination. ....

"Horne does his best to protect his credibility on his
memorandum by burying in a footnote near the very end of it some
information that severely damages the credibility of his star witness,
autopsy photographer John Stringer. (But it's too late. There is
nothing that can possibly restore the credibility of Doug Horne for
the main conclusions he sets forth in the body of his memorandum.)" --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 434-435, 439, and 441

======================

SMOKING GUN #9:

"Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that
parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or
destroyed."


"RH" BOOK CITATIONS (with many more conspiracy-smashing cites
concerning this sub-topic to be found on pages 260-280 of the CD's
endnotes):


"What does Doug Horne conclude from all of this? For Horne, the
implications are staggering. If the navy was correct in saying that
the camera it provided "was indeed the camera used at the
autopsy" (the navy only said the camera was "believed to be" the
autopsy camera), then either, he says, (1) all the autopsy photographs
are authentic and were indeed taken by John Stringer, and a benign but
unknown explanation exists for why the HSCA photographic experts
believed the autopsy photographs could not have been taken by the navy
camera they examined (e.g., the lens of the camera used to take the
photographs was different from the 135-millimeter Zeiss Jena Tessar
lens supplied by the navy)...

"...or (2) many or all of the autopsy photographs were taken by
a photographer other than John Stringer, and the photographs Stringer
said he took were removed from the official autopsy photographic
collection (Doug Horne's memorandum for file, pp.5-6).


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm


"This second possibility is apparently meant to conjure up
images of a mysterious, unknown photographer shooting a second set of
autopsy photographs after the autopsy was completed (a set of images
that presumably concealed the true nature of the president's wounds),
which were then substituted for the official set of photographs taken
by Stringer.

"Horne's memo suggests that the latter is true (i.e., the
autopsy photographs are substitutes, taken by someone other than
Stringer). But this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.

"We know through stereoscopic analysis that the photographs in
evidence (even if they are substitute photographs of the autopsy taken
by someone other than Stringer) are authentic and unaltered. We also
know from the HSCA anthropologists and the odontologist that the skull
is that of John F. Kennedy.

"What this all means is that irrespective of the camera and
lens, whatever the photographs show must be the true condition of the
president's body at the time of the autopsy. Since the photographs
clearly show that the president was struck from behind by two bullets,
what possible purpose could be served by substituting or removing
photographs? Neither Horne nor [Gary] Aguilar say.

"The authentication of the existing photographic collection
eliminates the possibility that any photographs that might have
disappeared from the collection, either by removal or by substitution,
could show anything other than what we now see.

"After all, there was only one body and the wounds in that body
either show that shots were fired from the front or they don't, no
matter how many photographs are substituted or removed. Surprisingly,
this obvious fact seems to have escaped the conspiracy theorists." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 226-227 of Endnotes

~~~~~~

"There are several other tales of photographs allegedly taken
during the autopsy that critics claim have since vanished, but I
should emphasize that even if these alleged missing photographs exist
somewhere (or did exist at one time), they can't possibly show
something that contradicts what we already know to be true about the
president's wounds.

"How do we know this? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that
the autopsy photographs and X-rays that are available are authentic
and unaltered and depict the condition of President Kennedy's body on
the night of the autopsy. So, any additional photographs or X-rays
that might exist (or might have existed) can't depict something else.

"Therefore, when someone comes forward with a story about
photographs that supposedly showed something other than what we know
to be true (i.e., the president was struck from behind by two shots),
we know, of necessity, that the person telling the story is either
honestly mistaken or deliberately lying. One hundred or one thousand
sworn testimonies about missing photographs would not change this
unshakable truth.

"One of these other tales that critics are convinced is evidence
of a completely different (and unusual) set of autopsy photographs was
told by Saundra Spencer, an E-6 photographer's mate first class who
was in charge of the White House photo lab, a small room located
inside the three-story facilities of the Naval Photographic Center
(NPC) at Anacostia, Maryland, across the river from Washington,
D.C. ....

"Spencer said that none of the photos showed the scalp peeled
back on the skull. Also, unlike the photographs in the National
Archives inventory today, Spencer said that the president's eyes and
mouth were closed and that he appeared to be in "a rest position."
Spencer said that other than the wound to the back of the president's
head, she saw no other wound to the head. "The prints that we printed
did not have the massive head damages" shown in the official autopsy
photos. ....

"Spencer's testimony, of course, has raised the question in the
conspiracy community of whether there was a second set of photographs
taken of Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy (a set conspiracy
theorists presume showed the "true" nature of the president's wounds)
and that this second set was squirreled away as part of the cover-
up. ....

"But was Spencer's testimony accurate? For starters, keep in
mind that Spencer's recollection of events was thirty-four years after
the fact. But more importantly, her recollection is at odds with
almost the entire official record. While the official autopsy
photographs were processed, as Spencer remembered, at the NPC, the
rest of the documentary record details a completely different and
rather divergent series of events which, I think you'll agree, is
quite unlike Spencer's account. ....

"In this case, like many others where eyewitnesses are
confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra
Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when
she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center
of the back of the president's head.

"Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy
surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively,
and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time
of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described. ....

"[Robert L.] Knudsen's version of events has been tarnished as
well. .... In May 1996, Gloria Knudsen, widow of Knudsen, and two of
his four surviving children were interviewed by the ARRB. .... They
said that Robert Knudsen told them sometime after the assassination
that he alone had photographed the autopsy.

"Knudsen also told them that he witnessed and photographed
probes inserted in the president's body, and that the Secret Service
took his film as soon as he had exposed it. (ARRB MD 230, Meeting
Report, Interview of Gloria Knudsen and children Terri and Bob, May
13, 1996, p.1)" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 263-266, 268, and 272 of
Endnotes


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md230/html/md230_0004a.htm


======================

SMOKING GUN #10:

"The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques."


[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts
below.....]


"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:

"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....

"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507

~~~~~~

"Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....

"As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
when the alteration supposedly took place. ....

"One exception among the steadily increasing number of
alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).

"But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of
Endnotes

======================

SMOKING GUN #11:

"The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."


[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":

Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.

Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.

Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
question? ....

"[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363


======================

SMOKING GUN #12:

"The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
eyewitness reports."


[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.

Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
too, for that matter.]


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....

"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes

======================


SMOKING GUN #13:

"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."


[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
conspiracy myth is anyone's guess. But, it is indeed difficult at
times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy
theorist.] .....


WAS THE MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,
the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H
614). ....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0322b.htm


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0323a.htm


"However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmnmap2.gif


======================

SMOKING GUN #14:

"Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
about them.

"Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
was deficient in the performance of its duties."

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
Page 1245

======================

SMOKING GUN #15:

"Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
committed the crime."


[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
"Smokers" list.

But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
debunking VB quotes follow.....]


"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:

"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes

~~~~~~

"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes

~~~~~~

"The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
missing. ....

"[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of
Endnotes

~~~~~~

"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275

~~~~~~

"No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238

~~~~~~

"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195

~~~~~~

"Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.

"What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242

======================

SMOKING GUN #16:

"Many individuals knew details about the assassination before
and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more [than] a
patsy."


"RH" BOOK CITATION:

"The more Joseph Milteer talked, the more it became obvious that
before the assassination, he knew as much about what was going to
happen as you or I (though William Somersett tended to believe that
Milteer had foreknowledge, not believing Milteer would be able to
guess that Kennedy would be shot with a rifle from a window).

"Milteer now, after the assassination, wanted to lead Somersett
to believe that he was part of the group that was behind it. He said
he was connected to a group Somersett had never heard of, the
International Underground, an organization, he said, of American
patriots, and this group had infiltrated Oswald's pro-Castro group in
New Orleans. (By now Milteer had undoubtedly already heard over the
news that Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans. What no one knew at this point, including Milteer, was
that that committee, or group, only had one member, Oswald, so
Milteer's organization could not have infiltrated a group that did not
exist.) ....

"When Milteer and Somersett met the following day, Sunday, with
the four members of the Ku Klux Klan...he also told them about his
group being behind the assassination. ....

"Somersett was of the opinion that the four Klansmen had never
met Milteer before and met with him because he had asked for the
meeting. So here we have Milteer confessing to being part of the
conspiracy to murder Kennedy not only to his friend Somersett, but
also to four virtual strangers.

"Somersett didn't say whether or not he heard Milteer confess to
the waiter at the restaurant." [~LOL Break~] -- V. Bugliosi; 724-725
of Endnotes

[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
Advance" theory.

Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
those individuals have been implicated in.

==============================================

FINAL "SMOKING GUNS" ANALYSIS:

When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.

In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.

==============================================

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html


www.ReclaimingHistory.com

ejung...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 8:47:16 PM12/30/07
to
Fetzer is a pustule on the posterior of skeptical inquiry. But both he
and the bug man are laughing all the way to the bank.
Message has been deleted

Phil Ossofee

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 9:28:46 PM12/30/07
to
Who gives a shit what Bugliosi tackles? The man has no credibility, he
writes like the lone nutters on his board in that his apparent goal in
life is to give Hoover and Helms posthumous BJ's.

Phil Ossofee

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 9:34:20 PM12/30/07
to
There is no evidence worth a damn any bullet exited JFK's throat. When
you have every single witness at Parkland saying"it appeared to be an
entrance". How the hell do you get an exit out of that? Any other case
it would be F you and the mule you rode in on, to say they Medical
Doctors/nurses were all mistaken. Besides, the wound was half the size
of the back entrance.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 10:31:44 PM12/30/07
to

>>> "Who gives a shit what Bugliosi tackles?" <<<


Some kook named Holmes seemed to care a while back.


>>> "The man {VB} has no credibility..." <<<


You're an idiot.

ejung...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 10:43:27 PM12/30/07
to

I am not seeing a groundswell of support for Bugliosi like there was
for Posner. Is it LN fatigue? Mustache envy? Squeaky sympathy?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 11:12:05 PM12/30/07
to


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc786671680ac2bc

>>> "There is no evidence worth a damn any bullet exited JFK's throat. When you have every single witness at Parkland saying "it appeared to be an entrance". How the hell do you get an exit out of that?" <<<

Simple -- There was no bullet(s) LEFT IN KENNEDY'S BODY. Period. And
there was certainly no damage inside JFK's neck/upper back that would
account for a bullet to have simply stopped inside the President's
body (let alone the TWO stopped bullets that anti-SBT kooks require in
this regard, including the upper-back wound).


Plus.....

"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front
of the president's neck [and not seeing the corresponding entry wound
in JFK's back at any time], the Parkland doctors would instinctively
have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost
anyone would be so predisposed." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 414 of
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)


Plus.....

If that throat wound wasn't an exit wound, the $64K Q is --- WHERE IS
THE DAMN BULLET??

And the next question is -- WHERE IS THE *OTHER* BULLET THAN WENT INTO
KENNEDY'S BACK BUT ALSO NEVER EXITED THE OTHER SIDE??


Another "plus" from VB.....

"Though conspiracy theorists are almost unanimous in believing
that the president was shot from the front and his throat wound was an
entrance wound, they are strangely silent as to what happened to this
bullet after it entered the president's throat. .... It would be
virtually impossible for a bullet entering the soft tissue of the neck
at a speed of 2,000 feet per second to stop inside the neck and not
exit the body." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 416 of "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (c.2007)

>>> "Besides, the wound was half the size of the back entrance." <<<

Nobody measured the throat wound with any precision, idiot.

Plus.....

"These experiments [involving the firing of MC/WCC bullets at a
simulated JFK upper back and neck] confirmed beyond all of my doubts
that the smallness of the exit hole in the front of Kennedy's neck was
due to the fact that the skin was supported by a firm collar band,
which restrained it from bulging and bursting open ahead of the
exiting bullet. .... If the bullet had not exited from the President's
neck just AT the collar band, the exit wound might have been much
larger." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 239 of "KENNEDY & LINCOLN" (c.
1980)

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f18bcb78b94d9d8

~~~~~~~

So, I guess the CT-Kooks should go back to the drawing board and think
up some new stupid-sounding pro-CT arguments to berate the perfectly-
logical Single-Bullet Theory.

In short --

The SBT fits every last piece of evidence connected with the wounding
of JFK & JBC.
The SBT works perfectly.
The SBT makes sense.
The SBT is correct.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Ben Holmes

unread,
Dec 30, 2007, 11:27:33 PM12/30/07
to
In article <e7b5b70c-0d4a-4417...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ejung...@gmail.com says...

Posner wasn't as obvious in his lies as Bugliosi is.

That made Posner easier to defend.

aeffects

unread,
Dec 31, 2007, 12:14:27 AM12/31/07
to
On Dec 30, 8:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

<snip the LN nonsense, again>

you sell any books yet, Dave?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 3:48:35 AM1/2/08
to

>>> "You sell any books yet, Dave?" <<<


Plenty of non-kooks are buying Vincent Bugliosi's excellent conspiracy-
debunking book. And many people are of the opinion that it's a very
good book that cuts through the half-assed conspiracy-flavored
bullshit to get at the truth of the assassination.

In fact, as of this writing on January 2, 2008, 56% of the 141 reviews
for VB's book at Amazon are 5-Star reviews, which is a darn good
percentage if you ask me (especially considering the fact that 75% of
all Americans with an opinion on the matter believed in a conspiracy
prior to the release of VB's "Reclaiming History" on May 15th,
2007). .....


www.amazon.com/review/product/0393045250/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/002-8330534-3632809?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

In addition, 71.6% of those first 141 Amazon reviews for VB's book are
"3-Star" reviews or higher.

In other words, almost 3 out of every 4 Amazon reviews for "RH" (to
date) are essentially "positive" reviews (at least as far as basic
"star" ratings are concerned, with a 3-Star rating certainly being a
"positive" rating, based on the fact that it's a rating that includes
more than 50% of the maximum number of rating stars allowed). Not bad
stats for "Reclaiming History" at all, IMO.

Also -- Only 22% of the Amazon reviewers (to date) have given "RH" a
bottom-of-the-barrel 1-Star rating. Per the kooks in this place, that
"1-Star" stat should probably be closer to 80% or 90% (or even 100%),
huh?

Just goes to show (albeit only in a rough, unscientific form, based on
141 book reviews posted at Amazon.com) that a majority of people
interested in the JFK assassination don't possess the same mindset
regarding the case that most of the rabid CTers at this forum possess.
(At least after reading "Reclaiming History" at any rate.)

A sampling from two 5-Star reviews posted at Amazon.com in December
2007 reveal comments like these.....

"The conspiracy theorists were always wrong when it came to the
JFK assassination. Bugliosi's new book is amazing, it makes one think
they were a buffoon for ever believing that the hapless Oswald
could've ever taken part in a conspiracy involving the CIA, mafia, or
military-industrial-complex to kill the president. ....

"The facts and evidence Bugliosi unearths is astonishing. He
makes many of the conspiracy writers look like frauds, there's simply
no other way to put it. It presents a near perfect account of the
assassination and a meticulous dissection of virtually every
conspiracy theory surrounding it. .... Bugliosi takes on every angle
and easily convinces anyone who chooses to see that Oswald acted alone
and wasn't involved in any conspiracy. ....

"Mr. Bugliosi has provided an incredibly valuable service to the
world with his Magnum Opus. He doesn't just shut the door on any more
thoughts of a conspiracy, he drop kicks it shut with a resounding slam
that will echo for generations to come. Reclaiming History will no
doubt go down as one of the seminal pieces of investigative historical
truth telling ever written." -- Drew Hunkins; Amazon Reviewer;
12/29/2007

www.amazon.com/review/R3OB2286HEWSIR


======================


"This is by far the single best work I have seen on the JFK
assassination. I was expecting another Posner-ish type book, but boy
was I pleasantly surprised. One by one the conspiracy theories are
falling by the wayside. ....

"I currently find myself in the position I never thought I would
be in. It is hard to let go of all the conspiracy baggage I have been
carrying the past twenty years. I have invested a lot of time and
money on this quest to find the answer to "who did it".

"During the course of my investigation I have determined that
JFK made many enemies during his presidency; some even to the point of
creating a motive for murder, however in the end, it appears to me now
that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. This will be
the last book I ever read on the JFK assassination." -- Daniel Gibson;
Amazon Reviewer; 12/18/2007

www.amazon.com/review/R29BE2LUMEKYEG


======================


www.amazon.com/review/R2R0RQ0Q9AZY0M


======================


BTW.....


Is there any chance we'll see Benjamin Holmes admit to this Internet
aggregation that he was dead wrong when, on 8/22/07, he said that
"Bugliosi did NOT address the 16 smoking guns"?

And will hell freeze over in rock-solid form before we hear Kook
Holmes say he was mistaken when he uttered the following additional
falsehood on November 4, 2007?:

"Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking
Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the
opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated

that Bugliosi DID answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it."


(My guess is: Yes, Hades will have to turn to ice first.)


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e77756f1dff25f3e


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 1:43:16 PM1/2/08
to
On Jan 2, 12:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You sell any books yet, Dave?" <<<
>
> Plenty of non-kooks are buying Vincent Bugliosi's excellent conspiracy-
> debunking book. And many people are of the opinion that it's a very
> good book that cuts through the half-assed conspiracy-flavored
> bullshit to get at the truth of the assassination.
>
well shit, it finally made the K-Mart book bins, eh? What's it selling
for $4-5 bucks...

Maybe ole Tom Hanks can do a sequel to his film (for HBO of course)
you know where he's on that deserted island... he can replace the
basketball [or was it a volleyball] that he spent the majority of the
movie talking to with daBug's book.... he'd be a stark raving lunatic
before the end of the film.... no happy ending here, Dave!

aeffects

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 1:45:10 PM1/2/08
to
On Dec 30 2007, 6:23 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_018...

>
> > "In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
> > president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
> > TO THE INCISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL (i.e., they had
> > to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
> > found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE
> > PRESIDENT'S BACK AND EXITING THE THROAT. [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]
>
> > "Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
> > fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
> > Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
> > president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
> > through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
> > left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
> > in the front of the president's neck. ....
>
> > "This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
> > bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
> > forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
> > was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
> > #134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA...
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA...

>
> > ~~~~~~
>
> > "The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
> > the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
> > panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.
>
> > "The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
> > radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
> > evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
> > a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
> > incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
> > process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
> > located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
> > 202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA...

>
> > "The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
> > vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
> > by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
> > of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
> > bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).
>
> > "Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
> > metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
> > 1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
> > stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
> > fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
> > president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
> > these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
> > into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
> > rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
> > Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-
> > ROM)
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA...

>
> > ======================
>
> > SMOKING GUN #2:
>
> > "The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
> > [President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."
>
> > "RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
>
> > "A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
> > wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
> > in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
> > back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
> > of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
> > the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
> > Bugliosi; Page 500
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA...

>
> > ~~~~~~
>
> > "Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
> > 388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
> > head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
> > head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
> > frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
> > -- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
> > ...
>
> > read more »
>
> A GREAT post, DVP...5 stars!

sure your not Fast Eddy Cage?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 4:32:32 PM1/2/08
to
I've opened my killfile to respond to this one post - it seems that DVP is
willing to lie, so in order to avoid lurkers from being misled, I'll answer
these lies, then back into the killfile for DVP.

(Thanks David, for alerting me to the presence of this monstrous spin... note
also, whenever I preface with "more info", that's material I used from other
sources with no cite given - but the originals can be easily Googled for those
who are interested to see the source material.)


In article <21583d06-2acb-48da...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...


>
> "James Fetzer...wrote me on January 23, 2001:...[Quoting
>Fetzer:] "What would it take to convince you of the existence of a
>conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? .... Are none of our
>[Fetzer's and Dr. David Mantik's] major discoveries--our '16 smoking
>guns,' for example--convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, then
>WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?" [End Fetzer quote.]
>
> "Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." --
>VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE #974 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
>
>www.amazon.com/review/R2R0RQ0Q9AZY0M
>
>==============================================
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID THIS ON AUGUST 22, 2007:
>
>>>>"DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't.
>>>>Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to*
>>>>cite." <<<
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6d550fa4cb5c8792


And, as true today as the day I posted it.


>AND KOOK HOLMES SAID THIS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2007:
>
>>>>"Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and
>>>>surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP,
>>>>Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16
>>>>smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a45aaa342d10998

Still true, as everyone will be able to see below:

>DVP SAID THIS ON AUGUST 19, 2007:
>
>>>>"Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and
>>>>outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that
>>>>Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those
>>>>so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't
>>>>responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's
>>>>hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince
>>>>didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS",
>>>>that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB
>>>>hasn't ignored those items. They are all answered very well in various places
>>>>throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb
>
>==============================================
>
>The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):
>
>www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
>
>==============================================
>
>Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
>discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within


If this were true, then cites and/or quotes would be possible.

Sadly, as illustrated below, DVP has been unable to locate the refutations of
the 16 Smoking Guns, even though Bugliosi was *provably* familiar with them.

Why he refused to specifically address them is a question that everyone should
ask... and consider.


DVP posted a lot of material above - which all seems to be discussing the bruise
on the apical portion of the lung... the only known photo of which disappeared
while under government control. So there's no real proof of this "bruise."

But that isn't the issue being refuted at all!!

The Smoking Gun was how a bullet can enter within an inch or two of the spine,
exit the center of the neck, AND FAIL TO DAMAGE THE SPINE as has been
conclusively shown by a CAT Scan. Here's the relevant scan:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/img/figure13.gif

Now... I wonder why DVP was unable to quote ANY WORDS AT ALL from Bugliosi
dealing with this issue?

Looks like, with even just the first example, DVP has lied when he claimed that


"Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of
those so-called "16 Smoking Guns"

Rather embarrassing, that we discover such to be a lie on even the FIRST of the
16 Smoking Guns, is it not?


>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #2:
>
> "The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
>[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
>
> "A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
>wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
>in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
>back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
>of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
>the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
>Bugliosi; Page 500


Impossible to do. Only by *MOVING* the entrance has this been "possible."

Indeed, the investigations have consistently shown JFK leaning forward at an
angle not seen in the extant Z-film in order to get this presumed trajectory.


>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0024a.htm
>
>~~~~~~
>
> "Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
>388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
>head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
>head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
>frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
>-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes
>
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm


Bugliosi has now realized that the Rydberg drawing is incorrect, BUT HE ACCEPTS
A FALSE ENTRY POINT TO AVOID ANSWERING SMOKING GUN #2!

This isn't a refutation, it's known as 'ducking' the point.


>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #3:
>
> "The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
>have fired the bullets that killed the president."
>
>
>[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
>ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
>with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
>easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
>within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
>Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
>Murder Weapon".]
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
>Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
>automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
>my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
>find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
>killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
>about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
>weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815


Sadly, Bugliosi doesn't even respond to the point that Mantik was making - which
is that the damage to JFK's head was consistent with a *HIGH-POWERED RIFLE*, and
not the Carcano.

Take a look here: http://www.khadaji.com/Fackler.html

So why you'd think that Bugliosi had answered this, when you can't quote him
discussing the topic, is beyond silly.


>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #4:
>
> "The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
>jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
>caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
>explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
>head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
>debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
>not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
>have used, thereby exonerating him."
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
>responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
>before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
>the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
>capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
>products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
>such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
>frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
>produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
>weapons." [End Petty quote.]


Sadly for Petty - he's simply wrong. Far too many people have described the
spray of lead in JFK's X-rays for lurkers to misunderstand this point.

> "In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
>forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
>well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
>head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
>of JFK's head]. ....
>
> "Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
>Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
>Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0203a.htm


Yes... let's take a look at what Larry Sturdivan said:

More info:
Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray
of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the
President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?
Mr. STURDIVAN. . . . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of
metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. (1 HSCA 401)

Dr. Sturdivan was seemingly unaware of the fact that on the unenhanced autopsy
x-rays, a cloud of fragments is visible in the right frontal region, which would
indicate that a frangible bullet struck in that area. Apparently Dr. Sturdivan
only examined the enhanced x-rays and not the original x-rays. Historian Dr.
Michael Kurtz comments on Dr. Sturdivan's testimony:

Sturvidan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an
exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared,
was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud
of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding
bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud
of fragments in the x-ray. Sturdivan's remarks betrayed both his own ignorance
of the medical evidence and the committee's careful manipulation of that
evidence. Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the
original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed
a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.
Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the
head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted
the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head. One of
the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of
tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal
bone." The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the
numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head
wound. The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of
fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence,
according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the
president there.

You can take a look yourself, and make your own judgement:
http://www.khadaji.com/Fackler.html

> "Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
>the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
>dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
>not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
>had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
>2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863
>
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0182b.htm


At least we finally have (for the first time here) a response by Bugliosi that
actually *addresses* the point being made. Bravo!

He's still wrong, however. Since it's *PROVABLE* that the X-rays had a trail of
lead fragments...


>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #5:
>
> "The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
>with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
>area of the right temple."
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
>president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
>proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
>from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
>the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
>Bugliosi; Page 863


Ducking the issue again...

The axis of debris appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the
right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found
in Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., "The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet
Cannot Account for the Injuries," The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1- 15, and
in Mantik's research on the X-rays published in Assassination Science (1998), in
his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB
(Appendix G), and in his new study of the medical evidence. In the autopsy
report, Humes had described this metallic trail as beginning low on the right
rear of the skull. The actual trail, however, lies more than 4 inches higher,
much closer to the top of the skull than to the bottom.

Confronted with this discrepancy, Humes concedes that the autopsy report is
wrong by some 10 cm. Humes here faced an impossible paradox, which he could not
honestly resolve. If he had described the trail correctly and simultaneously
reported the low entry wound to the back of the head, then the behind and one
from in front--which, in turn, would have implied the existence of at least two
gunmen. Humes had no choice but literally to move the trail of metallic debris
downward by more than four inches (10 cm), which is precisely what he did. As
Mantik explains, it took more than three decades for Humes to be asked to
confront this important paradox, which falsifies the lone gunman theory.

Thus, the issue is the location of the actual trail of fragments.

It's also interesting to note that the *bigger* fragments were close to the
right temple - exactly where one would expect them to be... next to the
entrance. See these cites:

DiMaio again:

X-rays of individuals shot with hunting ammunition usually show a characteristic
radiologic picture that is seen almost exclusively with this form of rifle
ammunition. This is the so-called lead snowstorm. As the expanding bullet moves
through the body, fragments of lead break off the lead core and are hurled out
into the surrounding tissues. Thus an X-ray shows scores of small radiopaque
bullet fragments scattered along the wound track (the lead snowstorm). Such a
picture is not seen with pistol bullets, nor with one exception, with full
metal-jacketed rifle bullets. The exception is the 5.56 mm cartridge, whose
propensity to fragment has been previously discussed. (Livingstone, KILLING THE
TRUTH, 59)

Howard Donahue discovered that the HSCA's own ballistics tests appeared provided
further evidence that the bullet that struck Kennedy in the head did not behave
like a Carcano missile, but rather like a high-velocity, frangible bullet. Bonar
Menninger explains:

Yet another clue surfaced . . . that further strengthened Donahue's belief that
his conclusions were correct. A press package containing reams of ballistic data
and charts was made available to who attended the [HSCA's] ballistic hearings.
Included in the package were photographs of gelatin blocks shot with various
caliber bullets. The gelatin simulated the human brain. The tests were designed
to mimic the President's head wound. Among the bullets tested by the committee
were a 6.5 mm Carcano round, a .30 caliber rifle bullet and a .223 M-16 (which
is the same as an AR-15) round. Side-view photos showed both the 6.5 mm and the
.30 caliber full-metal-jacketed bullets punched straight, relatively narrow
channels through the gelatin, wounds in no way consistent with the damage done
to the President's brain. The M-16 bullet, however, tumbled, disintegrated, and
gouged a huge, gaping portion from the gelatin, leaving tiny fragments near the
front of the block in a carbon copy of the wound Kennedy suffered. No
explanation was offered at the committee hearings for why the Carcano bullet
failed to replicate the President's head wound. . . . (Menninger 165)

So again, we have Bugliosi simply not answering the smoking gun...


Interestingly, none of this refutes the smoking gun. Bugliosi is simply denying
the facts, or ignoring them.

It's a *FACT* that the autopsy report (and, for that matter, the BOH photo) were
contradicted by more than 40 eyewitnesses, most of whom had the medical
expertise to precisely place the wound.

Bugliosi ducked this one - there's really no response possible, other than to
label all of them mistaken.

And no, the autopsy photos were *NOT* authenticated - they couldn't be, they
didn't even match the camera supplied by Bethesda.

And, as Mantik points out, the stereoscopic views of the BOH photo demonstrate
that it's been altered.

>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #7:
>
> "These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
>rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):
>
> "The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
>autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
>time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
>manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes
>
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm


Citing a contradicting "expert" who doesn't even address the precise issue isn't
going to work.

The HSCA didn't even *KNOW* that the optical density measurements demonstrate
the 6.5mm virtually round object to be fraudulent. So they can hardly refute
Dr. Mantik.

Here's more information:

As Mantik has discovered through the employment of optical densitometry studies,
the lateral cranial X-ray has been fabricated by imposing a patch over a massive
defect to the back of the head, which corresponds to the eyewitness reports
describing (what is called here) "the heel" shot. In effecting this deception,
the perpetrators used material that was much too dense to be normal skull
material, which enabled Mantik to discover what had been done. It turns out
that, although not common knowledge at the time, instructions that could be
followed to create composites were available in contemporary radiology
publications. He has replicated these results in the radiology darkroom, as he
explains here and in earlier studies in Assassination Science (1998).

The anterior-posterior (front-to-rear) autopsy X-ray, moreover, has been
fabricated by imposing a 6.5 mm metal object not present on the original, which
Mantik has established on the basis of additional optical densitometry studies
published in Assassination Science (1998). All three of the military
pathologists who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda have now confirmed to the
ARRB that they did not see this metallic object on the X-ray, no doubt because
it was added after the autopsy was finished. The addition of this metallic
object appears to have been done to implicate a 6.5 mm weapon, such as the
Mannlicher-Carcano, in the assassination of President Kennedy. The conspirators
made mistakes ~due to their lack of familiarity with this weapon, however, since
it is not a high-velocity rifle and could not have inflicted the damage that
caused the President's death.

Another issue ducked by Bugliosi...

Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, has concluded
that credible reports of damage to the cerebrum and especially to the cerebellum
-- numerous and consistent from the physicians at Parkiand, as Aguilar has
explained -- are incompatible with the diagrams and photographs that are alleged
to be of the brain of President Kennedy. As he summarizes his findings,
Livingston, who is also an expert on wound ballistics, states, "A conclusion is
obligatorily forced that the photographs and drawings of the brain in the
National Archives are those of some brain other than that of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy" (Assassination Science 1998, p. 164). This stunning inference has been
confirmed by new evidence released by the ARRB, which establishes the occurrence
of two distinct post - autopsy brain examinations involving two distinct brains,
as Douglas Home, who was the Senior Analyst for Military Records of the ARRB,
explains in a contribution to this volume.

Denying the evidence isn't a refutation of it. What Bugliosi *needed* to do is
explain the contradictions that Horne pointed out, not try to portray Horne as a
kook.

As a consequence of depositions by the ARRB, we now also have extensive
additional evidence that autopsy photographs have been altered, created, or
destroyed. One of the fascinating discoveries that has emerged from its efforts
are eyewitness reports from John Stringer, the official autopsy photographer,
that the photographs of the brain shown in the official set are not those that
he took at the time; from Robert Knudsen, White House photographer, who has
reported having in his possession--at one and the same time -- photographs that
displayed a major blow-out to the President's head and others that did not; and
from Saundra Spencer, who processed the originals, who explains that she knows
they are not the same because they do not have the same physical features as
other photographs she processed using the same film, some of which she still
possesses. The importance of these and related discoveries for understanding the
medical evidence in this case is explored in studies by Aguilar and by Mantik
elsewhere in this volume.

Again, denial isn't a refutation. This is simply a fact, and Bugliosi spun his
way all around the issue, and never directly confronts the facts.

>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #10:
>
> "The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
>using highly sophisticated techniques."
>
>
>[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
>quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
>"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
>Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
>plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts
>below.....]
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
>
> "The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
>have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
>film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
>what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
>of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
>bearing on the president's murder. ....


This is a strawman argument. Note that Bugliosi doesn't deal with the actual
evidence of alteration...


> "The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
>the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
>moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
>height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
>silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
>palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507


Strangely, this strawman would be easy to refute - simply show some identical
photos from the same vantage point.


>~~~~~~
>
> "Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
>technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
>accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
>hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....


No "supersecret technology" would have been needed.

Another strawman argument.


> "As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
>film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
>some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
>1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
>original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
>sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
>possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
>when the alteration supposedly took place. ....


This has never been proven, indeed, there's evidence to contradict it - that
Bugliosi doesn't even mention, let alone deal with.


> "One exception among the steadily increasing number of
>alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
>implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
>was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
>photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
>film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
>in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).
>
> "But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
>complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
>doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
>about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
>these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
>imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of
>Endnotes

Again, not a refutation.

More information:

Since The Warren Report (1964) published many of the frames of the Zapruder film
and placed heavy reliance upon its authenticity in arriving at its conclusions
about how many shots were fired and the time it took to fire them, if the
photographic evidence is flawed, then the Commission's conclusions are equally
in doubt. And, indeed, there are many reasons to question the authenticity of
the Zapruder film as well as much of the other photographic evidence. In his
major study of the assassination of JFK, Bloody Treason (1997), Noel Twyman
reports consulting with Roderick Ryan, a leading technical expert on motion
picture film. Twyman had been puzzled by the discovery of numerous anomalies in
the film, including blurred stationary background figures but sharp focus of the
limousine in frame 302 versus the sharp focus of both in frame 303

When Twyman asked Ryan how this could be explained, he stated, "the limousine is
moving in 302 and standing still in 303" (Twyman 1997, p. 150). And when Twyman
asked him about the mysterious ~'blob" that seems to shift around from frame to
frame immediately after the fatal head shot at frame 313, Ryan told him "it
looked as if the blobs had been painted in" (Twyman 1997, p. 151). [Editor's
note: The cover highlights "the blob" and Jackie's face, which also seems to be
painted in.] Ryan's opinions are all the more important insofar as they
corroborate conclusions about film alteration that had been drawn independently
by Jack White and by David Mantik, initially in Part IV of Assassination Science
(1998) and now in Part V of the current volume. Dr. Ryan received an Oscar for
his technical contributions to the motion picture industry during the April 2000
Academy Awards

Among the most remarkable discoveries of the ARRB, moreover, was locating two
persons who worked on processing a home movie of the assassination at the
National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) run by the CIA the weekend of
the murder. This movie, which appears to have been the "out-of-camera" original
of the Zapruder film, was studied by Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the
color laboratory at the time. He has reported that, after viewing it at least 10
times, he had concluded that JFK was hit 6 or 8 times from at least three
directions, a conclusion subsequently dismissed by Secret Service Agent William
Smith, who declared that MeMahon had to be mistaken because only three shots had
been fired from above and behind, an opinion he had reached without interviews
conducted for the ARRB by Douglas Home and published here.

Bugliosi, much in common with others who deny that the extant Z-film has not
been altered, refuses to specifically deal with the evidence of alteration.

Another smoking gun ducked...

>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #11:
>
> "The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
>on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."
>
>
>[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
>attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":
>
>Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
>439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.
>
>Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.
>
>Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
>text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
>witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
>witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
>heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
>right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
>question? ....

Simple denial.


> "[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
>limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
>[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
>London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
>from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363

Simple denial.

The smoking gun itself wasn't even addressed... So here's another one that
Bugliosi simply didn't respond to.

More info:
Descriptions of two wounds -- of a small wound to the throat as well as a
massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by an entry wound to the right
temple--were widely broadcast that afternoon. If you look at television coverage
from that day, you will find that, at 1:35 P14, NBC reports both a shot to the
throat and a shot through the right temple, findings attributed to Admiral
George Burkley, the President's personal physician. At 1:45 PM, another network
reports a shot through the head and a shot to the throat. Chet Huntley reports a
shot through the right temple. Robert MacNeil says it is unclear to him how the
President could have been shot through the throat and temple if the assassin was
firing from above and behind. Frank McGee calls it incongruous.

Malcolm Perry, M.D., who performed a tracheostomy in a vain attempt to save the
life of the mortally injured President, was so certain that a small wound to the
throat at the location of the tracheostomy had been fired from in front
that--when told that the assassin had been above and behind the limousine--he
concluded that JFK must have stood and turned to wave to spectators who were
behind him. During a press conference held at Parkland that afternoon, he stated
three times that the wound to the throat had been a wound of entry, not a wound
of exit. Through deceptive use of a series of hypothetical questions -- that
assumed the bullet entered at the based of the neck, transited the neck without
hitting any bony structures, and exited at the base of the throat--the author of
"the single bullet theory," Arlen Specter, was able to obfuscate these
observations in support of the official account, in which the trajectories of
these wounds were reversed.


>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #12:
>
> "The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
>even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
>eyewitness reports."
>
>
>[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
>covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.

No, it hasn't.

The eyewitnesses *WERE* intimidated into changing their testimony on the basis
of these altered documents.

Even if you make the presumption that these photos, X-rays, and Z-film were
authentic, THEY WERE STILL USED IMPROPERLY TO INTIMIDATE THE EYEWITNESSES INTO
CHANGING THEIR TESTIMONY.


>Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
>things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
>"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
>"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
>too, for that matter.]


If so, then Bugliosi should be able to refute it.


>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
>of the most modern technological advances available in film and
>photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
>Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
>done back then. ....


It's already been shown to have been possible using the technology known then.
And by people who are experts in that field.


> "But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
>Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
>equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
>the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
>40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
>Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes


Another strawman... the Z-film need not have been altered at the NPIC. Bugliosi
simply bypasses the problems caused by the ARRB testimony about the NPIC and the
extant Z-film.

So this is another smoking gun that wasn't even addressed by Bugliosi.

>======================
>
>
>
>
>SMOKING GUN #13:
>
> "The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
>assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."
>
>
>[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
>conspiracy myth is anyone's guess.

Perhaps because it's true?

>But, it is indeed difficult at
>times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy
>theorist.] .....
>
>
>WAS THE MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?:
>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
>
>
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,


Three days is hardly the sort of refutation of the smoking gun that we'd expect.
Indeed, look below for more info.


>the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
>downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
>Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
>Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
>provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H
>614). ....
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0322b.htm
>
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0323a.htm
>
>
> "However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
>Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
>motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
>jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
>Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
>was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
>been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
>detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes
>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmnmap2.gif

More info:

Think about it. As Chief of Police Jesse Curry confirmed in his JFK
Assassination File (1969), which I discuss elsewhere in this volume, it was not
until 18 November 1963 that the final motorcade route was settled at a meeting
between representatives of the Police Department and the Secret Service, when it
was agreed that the motorcade would take a right off Main Street onto Houston
and a very sharp left onto Urn en route to the Trade Mart, where JFK~ was
scheduled to present a luncheon speech. At the turn from Houston onto Elm,
remarkably, the motorcade was considered over and local security was no longer
provided. This appears to be such a transparent pretext for disavowing
responsibility for the President's security by the Dallas Police as to be
indicative of what is known in the law as "consciousness of guilt" in failing to
take or in taking measures that ordinarily would or would not be taken--save for
knowledge of the circumstances of a crime

So, just four days prior, the motorcade route was determined, and in THAT
SECTION - determined just four days earlier, the assassination occurred.

In other words, when Mantik says: "The motorcade route was changed at the last
minute and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.",
he was simply telling historical fact.

And Bugliosi can't refute historical fact.

Nor did he try.

>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #14:
>
> "Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
>were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATION:
>
> "The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
>two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
>Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
>examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
>Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
>about them.

Oh? Did they have Secret Service protection being pulled at the last minute, as
happened in this case? (everyone recall how the two agents who were set to ride
the rear of the limo got pulled at the airport???)


> "Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
>Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
>something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
>was deficient in the performance of its duties."

Denial isn't refutation.


> "Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
>better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
>president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
>Page 1245

Another smoking gun that simply wasn't addressed.

More information:

More than a dozen Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
seem to have been violated during the motorcade in Dallas, including no
protective military presence; no coverage of open windows; motorcycles out of
position; agents not riding on the Presidential limousine; vehicles in improper
sequence; utilization of an improper route, which included a turn of more than
900; limousine slowed nearly to a halt at the corner of Houston and Elm; the
limousine came to a halt after bullets began to be fired; agents were virtually
unresponsive; brains and blood were washed from the limousine at Parkland, even
before the President had been pronounced dead; the limousine was stripped down
and being rebuilt already Monday, the day of the formal state funeral; a
substitute windshield was later produced as evidence; and so on--discoveries
that are strengthened and extended by Vincent Palamara and Douglas Weldon, J.D.,
in this book

As an illustration, consider the sequence of vehicles. As the accompanying
diagram displays (see Richard F. Sprague, Computers and Automation May 1970, pp.
48-49), the Presidential limousine was the lead vehicle in the motorcade,
followed by the Secret Service ~~ Queen Mary," the Vice-Presidential limousine,
the Vice-President's security, then the Mayor, some dignitaries, Press Car #1,
Press Car #2, and so on, which is completely absurd. A proper motorcade would
have the lower-ranking dignitaries early on, then those in between, and finally
the highest official, who would naturally be surrounded by the press, who were
there, after all, to cover a political event! In this case, however, everything
was wrong -- even though, as Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain (1994), p. 45,
has observed, the vehicles were identified with numerals, where the Mayor's car,
for example, was marked with a number "1" on its windshield. Indeed, the
President's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was in the very last car!

Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began
its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed
presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy's trips in
the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one
week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its
request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service
files on the President's travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be
relevant
----From the ARRB Final Report (1998), p. 149.

This had to be deliberate, it had to be wrong, and everyone involved with
security had to know that it was wrong. In this regard, one of the most
remarkable paragraphs in the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review
Board (1998) is the following:

Here again we appear to be confronted with one more indication of consciousness
of guilt, which we must add to other indications of Secret Service complicity in
the death of JFK.


>======================
>
>SMOKING GUN #15:
>
> "Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
>have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
>for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
>photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
>to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
>any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
>Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
>that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
>those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
>crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
>clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
>covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
>committed the crime."
>
>
>[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
>ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
>"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
>"Smokers" list.


Actually, no, they weren't. Denial isn't the same as actually addressing and
refuting THE EVIDENCE of alteration.


>But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
>three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
>But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
>Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
>debunking VB quotes follow.....]
>
>
>"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
>
> "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
>with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
>have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
>combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

And the BOH photo doesn't provide a stereoscopic view.


> "The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
>stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
>identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
>Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....
>
> "The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
>autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
>time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
>This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
>photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
>president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes


And yet, the evidence is still there, and still unrefuted by Bugliosi - indeed,
not even mentioned.


>~~~~~~
>
> "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
>autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
>conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
>people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
>working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
>suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
>photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
>through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes


Nice of Bugliosi to admit that photos have disappeared.

What he can't address is the sort of photos that *DID* disappear.

>~~~~~~
>
> "The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
>[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
>diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
>the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
>large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
>says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
>missing. ....


Denial isn't refutation, nor is it addressing the central point, that only the
government could have done this.


> "[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
>there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
>than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
>cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of
>Endnotes

Sadly, eyewitnesses to JFK's actual brain don't agree. This is one of the
strongest bits of evidence to a forged brain exam, and Bugliosi doesn't even
address it.


>~~~~~~
>
> "The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
>murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
>my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
>has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
>rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
>V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275


IOW's, if someone entertains the fact that a man can commit a murder (or be
*unable to* simply because he's elected to political office) - then that person
isn't rational.

However, simple denial isn't refutation.

Denying the validity of someone's point is hardly the way to refute it.


>~~~~~~
>
> "No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
>[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
>responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
>Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
>President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
>suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238


Another simple denial...


>~~~~~~
>
> "Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
>killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
>CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
>deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
>because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
>intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195


Assuming facts not in evidence, simple denial, and again; doesn't address the
smoking gun.


>~~~~~~
>
> "Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
>responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
>route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
>notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
>virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.


How silly! If history has shown us anything at all, it's shown us that
political murders quite often happen at the hands of those who guard the
politician. (or dictator, or king, etc)


> "What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
>fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
>hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
>had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242


Another denial... in fact, quite clearly, helping LBJ would have only been a
*benefit* to their career... and indeed, a number of SS agents continued a well
distinguished career, as Palamara has shown.

But, here's more information:
The complicity of medical officers of the United States Navy, agents of the
Secret Service, the President's personal physician, and other representatives of
the Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA provides powerful evidence that can serve as
a premise in the appraisal of alternative theories about the assassination of
JFK. Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could have


fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain
of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected motion
pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using highly
sophisticated techniques. Nor could any of these things have been done by the
alleged assassin, Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead

The only theories that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings,
are those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a crime of
such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the clearly most
reasonable explanation is that elements of the government covered up the crime

because those same elements of the government committed the crime. For the CIA
to have brought these effects about on its own, moreover, would have required
medical officers of the U.S. Navy, agents of the Secret Service, and the
President's personal physician, among many others, to have been working for or
otherwise under its control. While the CIA has repeatedly demonstrated its
abilities in bringing about changes in governments around the world--and no
doubt elements of the CIA were involved in planning and covering up this
crime--it looks as though it could not have done this one on its own.

Note that Bugliosi danced all around this one, but can't refute it. It's a
simple *fact* that only the government could have orchestrated JFK's killing.


Sadly, there's a tape recording of Milteer. Did Bugliosi not know this???


>[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
>debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
>Advance" theory.

If he didn't know about it, he was a psychic.


>Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
>Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
>this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
>those individuals have been implicated in.

Again, denial isn't a refutation.

More information:

One of the more amusing events involved in assassination studies occurred when
Liz Smith, a syndicated columnist, apprised her readers that, although she had
always taken for granted that The Warren Report (1964) was right and that Oswald
had been a lone assassin, after reading Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), she
was no longer sure. This provoked an outraged response from Jack Valenti, the
Hollywood Czar and former aide to LBJ, who proclaimed that there was a simple
way to know for sure no conspiracy had been involved, namely: that, if there had
been a conspiracy, someone would have talked -- and no one has talked! The
possibility of a small scale conspiracy or that most of the conspirators might
have been eliminated right away to keep things quiet may have escaped him, but
for a conspiracy of any magnitude--involving dozens and dozens, if not hundreds
of people--what Valenti said may have seemed to be right. Of course, that
presumes Valenti knew what he was talking about. On a single page of Bloody
Treason (1997, p. 285), for example, Noel lists eight names of prominent persons
who have talked, including Mafia Dons Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante,
Jr.; right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer; mobster Johnny Roselli; high ranking
CIA official David Atlee Phillips; his old boss, Lyndon Baines Johnson; CIA
contract agent and professional anti-Communist Frank Sturgis; and Sam Giancanna,
who confessed the complicity of the mob in collusion with the CIA to his
brother, Chuck. If Valenti cared about the truth in a matter of this kind, then
he might have wanted to read Twyman's book before he set out to trash it, or
visited his local book store and picked up a copy of Double Cross (1992)

Other Sources
These are hardly the only persons to have talked about the assassination. Jim
Hicks, for example, who bears a striking resemblance to someone photographed
outside of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City impersonating Lee Oswald, was
photographed in Dealey Plaza with an antenna hanging out of his pocket and
claims to have been a communications coordinator for the killing. Charles
Harrelson, serving a life term for the assassination of a federal judge with a
high - powered rifle, once confessed to having killed Kennedy, by which I take
it he meant he had fired the fatal shot. Chauncey Holt, a counterfeiter who
worked as a contract agent for the CIA, has told me he was instructed to bring
15 sets of forged Secret Service credentials to Dealey Plaza, which he dutifully
prepared, but that, in light of his extensive experience with the underworld, he
thought it was not a mob hit but rather a military operation. I now suspect that
Chauncey was correct.

And there are others. Perhaps the most interesting is Madeleine Duncan Brown, a
former mistress of LBJ by whom she had a son, who was not LBJ's only offspring
out of wedlock but was his only son. Among the fascinating details she conveys
in a book of their affair, Texas in the Morning (1997), is that Lyndon told her,
at a social, event the night before the murder at the home of oil baron Clint
Murchison, that after tomorrow he would not have to put up with embarrassment
from those Kennedy boys any longer. And that, during a New Year's Eve rendezvous
at The Driskill Hotel in Austin, when she confronted him with rumors (rampant in
Dallas at the time) that he had been involved (since no one stood to gain more
personally), he blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had
decided that Jack had to be taken out - which is about as close as we are going
to get to the font

Then and Now
Having known Chauncey Holt and having talked with Madeleine Duncan Brown, no
doubt I have cognitive advantages that Jack Valenti does not enjoy, simply
because I know more about the case than he does. Although many American know
that there are excellent books on the assassination--including Harold Weisberg,
Whitewash (1965), Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment (1966), Josiah Thompson1 Six
Seconds in Dallas (1967), Sylvia Meager, Accessories After the Fact (1967),
James Hepburn, Farewell America (1968), George O'Toole, The Assassination Tapes
(1975), Gary Shaw, The Cover-Up (1976), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: The
Case for Conspiracy (1976), David Lifton, Best Evidence (1980), Jim Garrison, On
the Trail of the Assassins (1988), Jim Marrs, Crossfire (1989), Robert Groden
and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason (1989), Charles Crenshaw, JFK: Conspiracy
of Silence (1992), Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2 (1992), Robert Groden,
The Killing of a President (1993), and Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997)--to
mention 16 of the best--they do not realize how much we know now on the basis of
scientific findings.

So this would be another smoking gun that Bugliosi simply ducked.


>==============================================
>
>FINAL "SMOKING GUNS" ANALYSIS:
>
>When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
>"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
>when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
>doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
>prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.


Only to trolls willing to lie. For as I showed above, Bugliosi *NEVER*
specifically addressed the 16 Smoking Guns, and even when he tangentially
covered one of them, didn't refute any of them. Indeed, simple denial was his
most common theme.


>In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
>Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.


Lurkers may think otherwise.


>==============================================
>
>www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>
>www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>
>
>www.ReclaimingHistory.com

Message has been deleted

YoHarvey

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 7:16:16 PM1/2/08
to
On Jan 2, 7:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Bugliosi *NEVER* specifically addressed the 16 Smoking Guns, and even when he tangentially covered one of them, didn't refute any of them." <<<
>
> Reasonable people who aren't bogged down in the CTer-infested world of
> minutiae will realize that Ben-Kook's statement above is complete
> bullshit. Mr. Bugliosi addressed every item on Fetzer's silly list.
>
> Ben, as I knew would be the case, simply doesn't like the refutations
> that Bugliosi provides. Gee, what a surprise....a kook thinks
> something hasn't been addressed or dealt with fully enough to meet his
> "kook requirements" (which can never be done in the first place if
> you're a nutcase named Ben, which is something I've also said
> previously as well).
>
> BTW, there are many more "RH" cites for most of those specific
> "smoking" topics that I could have used as well. It's sometimes
> difficult to locate every single thing re. a specific sub-topic in
> VB's book, because he repeats many things in various chapters, plus
> the 1,100+ pages of endnotes.
>
> But, as anyone can plainly see, I proved Ben to be a liar via just the
> VB quotes I culled in this post below:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e77756f1dff25f3e
>
> Ben was proven a liar in my post linked above because of what Ben said
> on Aug. 22, 2007: "Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so

> there's no page number *to* cite."
>
> Here's the funniest part of Ben's mindset as it relates to Vincent
> Bugliosi's massive JFK book.....
>
> Mr. Holmes, for some reason, actually thinks that the meticulous and
> ultra-thorough Vince Bugliosi took 20+ years to write his "magnum
> opus" on the JFK asssassination (from an "LN" POV), and yet (oops!)
> apparently he just FORGOT TO ADDRESS AND KNOCK DOWN SEVERAL MAJOR PRO-
> CONSPIRACY ISSUES that are part of James H. Fetzer's "16 Smoking
> Guns".
>
> ~~LOL Break here~~
>
> Now, that's not to say that some of Fetzer's "Guns" are really worthy
> of very much attention at all....because a few of them are just
> downright stupid, silly, and idiotic at first blush, and could be
> "knocked down" by just blowing on them. Such as these items, which are
> laughable from every POV (if you've studied this case for more than
> just one day, that is):
>
>       "Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could

> not have fired the bullets that killed the president."
>
>       "Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National

> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK."
>
>       "Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last

> minute and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been
> changed."
>
> www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
>
> But Mr. Bugliosi DOES deal with every one of those items in
> "Reclaiming History"....even the ridiculous ones that were disproved
> and discredited long ago. That's what makes "RH" Vincent's "magnum
> opus". It's as complete a book as you could possibly get when it comes
> to the JFK case and its many conspiracy theories surrounding the case.
>
> But to hear Ben (K.) Holmes tell it, Bugliosi might as well released a
> book with 2,800 blank pages (or at least 2,700 blank ones at any
> rate)....because Kook Ben doesn't seem to believe that VB has refuted
> ANY of Fetzer's nonsense. NONE of it!
>
> Then, too, what more could we expect from a mega-kook who "finds" a
> JFK conspiracy everywhere he looks.
>
> >>> "Indeed, simple denial was his {VB's} most common theme." <<<
>
> And many times a simple denial is more than enough to debunk some of
> the bullshit being purported by you conspiracy-loving clowns.
>
> Again, just because Ben doesn't like (or approve of) the way Vince
> addressed the conspiracy claims doesn't mean that VB didn't address
> them or refute them. Because I think all reasonable people will agree
> that the things a CT-Kook demands and the things that a "reasonable"
> person demands are two entirely different propositions.
>
> >>> "Lurkers may think otherwise." <<<
>
> I think most "reasonable" "lurkers" will be able to spot an empty
> vessel (named Ban) when they see one. Happy sailing (in your empty
> vessel).

Know why people who get to know Holmes believe he's a liar the moment
he types something? It saves time.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 2, 2008, 7:31:51 PM1/2/08
to
>>> "Bugliosi *NEVER* specifically addressed the 16 Smoking Guns, and even when he tangentially covered one of them, didn't refute any of them." <<<

Reasonable people who aren't bogged down in the CTer-infested world of
minutiae will realize that Ben-Kook's statement above is complete
bullshit. Mr. Bugliosi addressed every item on Fetzer's silly list.


Ben, as I knew would be the case, simply doesn't like the refutations
that Bugliosi provides. Gee, what a surprise....a kook thinks
something hasn't been addressed or dealt with fully enough to meet his
"kook requirements" (which can never be done in the first place if
you're a nutcase named Ben, which is something I've also said
previously as well).

BTW, there are many more "RH" cites for most of those specific
"smoking" topics that I could have used as well. It's sometimes
difficult to locate every single thing re. a specific sub-topic in
VB's book, because he repeats many things in various chapters, plus
the 1,100+ pages of endnotes.

But, as anyone can plainly see, I proved Ben to be a liar via just the
VB quotes I culled in this post below:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e77756f1dff25f3e

Ben was proven a liar in my post linked above because of what Ben said

on Aug. 22, 2007 --- "Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns,


so there's no page number *to* cite."

Here's the funniest part of Ben's mindset as it relates to Vincent


Bugliosi's massive JFK book.....


Mr. Holmes, for some reason, actually thinks that the meticulous and
ultra-thorough Vince Bugliosi took 20+ years to write his "magnum
opus" on the JFK asssassination (from an "LN" POV), and yet (oops!)
apparently he just FORGOT TO ADDRESS AND KNOCK DOWN SEVERAL MAJOR PRO-
CONSPIRACY ISSUES that are part of James H. Fetzer's "16 Smoking
Guns".

~~LOL Break here~~


Now, that's not to say that some of Fetzer's "Guns" are really worthy
of very much attention at all....because a few of them are just
downright stupid, silly, and idiotic at first blush, and could be
"knocked down" by just blowing on them. Such as these items, which are
laughable from every POV (if you've studied this case for more than
just one day, that is):

"Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could


not have fired the bullets that killed the president."

"Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National


Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK."

"Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last


minute and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been
changed."


www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html

But Mr. Bugliosi DOES deal with every one of those items in
"Reclaiming History"....even the ridiculous ones that were disproved
and discredited long ago. That's what makes "RH" Vincent's "magnum

opus". It's as complete a book as you could possibly get when it comes
to the JFK assassination and its many conspiracy theories surrounding
the case.


But to hear Ben (K.) Holmes tell it, Bugliosi might as well have
released a book with 2,800 blank pages in it (or at least 2,700 blank


ones at any rate)....because Kook Ben doesn't seem to believe that VB
has refuted ANY of Fetzer's nonsense. NONE of it!

Then, too, what more could we expect from a mega-kook who "finds" a

JFK conspiracy everywhere he looks?


>>> "Indeed, simple denial was his {VB's} most common theme." <<<


And many times a simple denial is more than enough to debunk some of
the bullshit being purported by you conspiracy-loving clowns.

Again, just because Ben doesn't like (or approve of) the way Vince
addressed the conspiracy claims doesn't mean that VB didn't address
them or refute them.

I think all reasonable people will agree that the things a rabid
conspiracy-happy kook demands and the things that a "reasonable"


person demands are two entirely different propositions.

>>> "Lurkers may think otherwise." <<<


I think most "reasonable" lurkers will be able to spot an empty vessel

(named Ben) when they see one.

Happy sailing (in your empty vessel).

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

0 new messages