"Pay no Attention to that Man behind the Curtain..."
RICLAND
his new book. The first thing that sent off warning bells is Bugliosi's
(Vinny's) tactic of relating everything to the conspiracy theorist
position. For example, he talks about the
"frailties in the thinking processes of the theorists is that they
rarely ever carry their suspicious, which are based on some discrepancy
anomaly, or contradiction they find, to their logical conclusion."
-- Vinny
Vinny gives several examples of this the first being the report that the
weapon found in the sniper's nest was first reported to be a "7.62 Mauser."
About this, Vinny goes on to say:
"Over and over again, conspiracy theorists who believe Oswald was framed
actually cite this fact as part of their proof—that is, it wasn’t
Oswald’s rifle so he’s innocent and was framed. But
one moment’s reflection (one moment more than almost all conspiracy
theorists are willing to give) would cause you to ask, If he was framed,
why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth floor that was not
Oswald’s, one that no one could ever connect him to? And
if they didn’t place or plant it there, how could they possibly think
they could successfully frame him if they knew a rifle belonging to
someone else was found on the sixth floor? Conspiracy theorists never
bother to ask and attempt to answer such obvious questions.
Instead, they find it so much easier to make a silly allegation and then
simply move on—to their next silly observation."
-- Vinny
Did you catch all that?
Do you see what Vinny's doing?
Now I'm sure someone will come forth and name the logical fallacy Vinny
employs directly above, but until someone does I'd like to call it the
"Wizard of OZ" fallacy in honor of that scene in the movie where
Dorothy, the Tin Man, and the Lion see the Wizard at the microphone when
the curtain drops and the Wizard, seeing that they've seen him,
hurriedly says into the microphone --
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Isn't Vinny doing the same thing? Isn't he employing lawyer
razzle-dazzle to get us to ignore hard evidence?
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
David Von Pein
Of course, as per the Ric norm, HE himself (the Ric-ster) can't do
this himself. Someone ELSE must come forward and point out VB's
"fallacies".
God, what a lazy asswipe.
RICLAND
This from a guy whose nose is so far up Bugliosi's ass his eyes are brown.
--
Ricland:
David Von Pein
That a far sight better than being the lazy, loudmouth, ignorant-of-
the-JFK-facts asswipe that you are, Mr. Ric-kook.
Wouldn't you agree?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178684277.2...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
RICLAND
Only thing I agree with is that it's fun getting you pissed.
Walt
> Finally got a chance to visit the Bugliosi site and read the intro to
> his new book. The first thing that sent off warning bells is Bugliosi's
> (Vinny's) tactic of relating everything to the conspiracy theorist
> position. For example, he talks about the
>
> "frailties in the thinking processes of the theorists is that they
> rarely ever carry their suspicious, which are based on some discrepancy
> anomaly, or contradiction they find, to their logical conclusion."
> -- Vinny
>
> Vinny gives several examples of this the first being the report that the
> weapon found in the sniper's nest was first reported to be a "7.62 Mauser."
>
> About this, Vinny goes on to say:
>
> "Over and over again, conspiracy theorists who believe Oswald was framed
> Oswald's rifle so he's innocent and was framed. But
> one moment's reflection (one moment more than almost all conspiracy
> theorists are willing to give) would cause you to ask, If he was framed,
> why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth floor that was not
> Oswald's,
it wasn't Oswald's rifle so he's innocent and was framed. But one
moment's reflection (one moment more than almost all conspiracy
theorists are willing to give) would cause you to ask, If he was
framed, why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth floor that
was not Oswald's,
That's a valid question, and one that has always given me
pause........ Because I know, just as sure as I'm typing this, that
the Manlicher Carcano in Oswald's hands in CE 133A (the one and only
authentic BY photo) is NOT the rifle that was found in the TSBD. I
really don't know the reason that Oswald has an MC with bottom sling
swivels on it, in CE 133A, I just know that the rifle is a model 91/38
with the rare dual sling swivels. ( bottom & side) The rifle found in
the TSBD is the one that had a paper trail leading to it, that
indicated it had been sent to AJ Hidell at Oswald's PO box. However
there is NO evidence that Oswald ever had possession of that rifle,
serial # C2766. That rifle has only the side sling swivels, so it
can't possibly be the rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A.
Walt
one that no one could ever connect him to? And
> if they didn't place or plant it there, how could they possibly think
> they could successfully frame him if they knew a rifle belonging to
> someone else was found on the sixth floor? Conspiracy theorists never
> bother to ask and attempt to answer such obvious questions.
> Instead, they find it so much easier to make a silly allegation and then
> simply move on-to their next silly observation."
RICLAND
My point is that Vinny's point is that theorists are dumb and judging
from the intro to his book posted on his site, that seems to be the
entire slam dunk in his book -- that only he was able to take the
evidence and shake from it why conspiracy theories are not the truth.
Everything else in the book seems to be padding. Again and again
Bugliosi performs his cleverness on each piece of evidence presented. In
the end, presumably, he someone makes it all fit.
--
Ricland:
Walt
Yes I understand your point and yer right, Da Bug is just another
arrogant LNer asshole who thinks he's smarter than the average
citizen.
But nobody has ever presented the question that Da Bug presented in
the introduction to his book, and I've been waiting for some clear
thinking LNer to present that question... because it is a good
question.
"If he was framed, why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth
floor that was not Oswald's?"
I'd say that they thought they had created a perfect frame up by using
the paper trail that seemingly lead to Oswald, and they had created a
couple of photos ( CE 133B and the Roscoe White photo 133C) that
seemed to show him holding that rifle. They overlooked the fact that
the original authentic photo (CE 133A)
shows that the rifle Oswald is holding has BOTTOM sling swivels.
Walt
>
> Everything else in the book seems to be padding. Again and again
> Bugliosi performs his cleverness on each piece of evidence presented. In
> the end, presumably, he someone makes it all fit.
>
> --
> Ricland:
>
> http://www.riclanders.com/
>
> Reclaiming History ...???
> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Is it truly POSSIBLE for a person to be this stupid??
You arbitrarily claim that 1550+ pages that you have not seen seem to
be "padding".
Does it ever occur to you to actually THINK before you write out the
kooky stuff you spew?
David Von Pein
Yeah, and the fact that the MC bullet shells in the SN, the MC bullet
fragments in the limousine, and CE399 in the hospital (which all lead
to LHO's C2766 rifle) won't be linked to the "Mauser" that some CTers
think was found in the TSBD.
Or don't those little "overlooked" ballistics problems bother you at
all?
Geesh...what a kook.
David Von Pein
>>> "But nobody has ever presented the question that Da Bug presented in the introduction to his book, and I've been waiting for some clear-thinking LNer to present that question...because it is a good question. .... "If he was framed, why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth floor that was not Oswald's?"" <<<
You haven't looked very hard then. Because I've asked that exact
question on numerous occasions in the last few years. Just three
examples are provided below (and in the first example, from last
August, I was even evidently talking to you, Walt).......
"And I also look forward to Walter explaining (within a Patsy-Framing
POV) why the brainless plotters decided it would be wise to plant a
Mauser in the TSBD, instead of the one and only gun they need in
evidence to frame their dupe." -- DVP; Aug. 4, 2006
"The "Mauser"/"Carcano" nonsense that so many CTers feel is virtual
PROOF of conspiracy. Which, of course, is pure idiocy from any "Patsy
Plotters'" pre-shooting POV -- WHY on Earth would they plant the WRONG
kind of rifle to be found by police in order to frame Oswald -- a
"Patsy" who didn't own a Mauser...he owned a Carcano)." -- DVP; Nov.
12, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7c06125f277d260d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/949dc24eac266a2f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7d042b8eee5dde9c
Walt
> >>> "But nobody has ever presented the question that Da Bug presented in the introduction to his book, and I've been waiting for some clear-thinking LNer to present that question...because it is a good question. .... "If he was framed, why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth floor that was not Oswald's?"" <<<
>
> You haven't looked very hard then. Because I've asked that exact
> question on numerous occasions in the last few years. Just three
> examples are provided below (and in the first example, from last
> August, I was even evidently talking to you, Walt).......
>
> "And I also look forward to Walter explaining (within a Patsy-Framing
> POV) why the brainless plotters decided it would be wise to plant a
> Mauser in the TSBD, instead of the one and only gun they need in
> evidence to frame their dupe." -- DVP; Aug. 4, 2006
Hey Dumbass.... Does your question in your 8-4-06 post ask about a
"Mauser'"??
This is NOT the same question that da Bug asked.
>
> "The "Mauser"/"Carcano" nonsense that so many CTers feel is virtual
> PROOF of conspiracy. Which, of course, is pure idiocy from any "Patsy
> Plotters'" pre-shooting POV -- WHY on Earth would they plant the WRONG
> kind of rifle to be found by police in order to frame Oswald -- a
> "Patsy" who didn't own a Mauser...he owned a Carcano)." -- DVP; Nov.
> 12, 2005
Once again you can't seem to understand ..... I've never believed the
rifle founf behind the boxes on the sixth floor was a Mauser.... It
was a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano but that rifle C2766 is NOT NOT
the rifle in Oswld's hands in CE 133A.
Can you understand that??
Walt
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7c06125f277d260d
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/949dc24eac266a2f
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7d042b8eee5d...
David Von Pein
Yes, it is. It's exactly the same. The culled quote by VB (which you
got from Ric's post, undoubtedly; you didn't look up the whole quote,
naturally) doesn't have the word "Mauser" in it, true.
But Bugliosi is positively referring to the "Mauser" mis-
identification by Boone/Weitzman/Craig when VB says on pages 978 and
979 (via a fuller portion of the quote):
"The rifle found on the sixth floor was originally identified as a
7.65 Mauser. Over and over again, conspiracy theorists who believe
Oswald was framed actually cite this fact as part of their proof--that
is, it wasn't Oswald's rifle so he's innocent and was framed. But one
moment's reflection (one moment more than almost all conspiracy
theorists are willing to give) would cause you to ask, If he was
framed, why would the framers place a rifle on the sixth floor that
was not Oswald's, one that no one could ever connect him to?" -- VB;
Pages 978-979
As usual--Walt loses. My quotes re. this matter and Vincent's are
identical in nature and context.
>>> "Can you understand that?" <<<
I understand that you're a fucking kook who makes shit up out of whole
cloth every time you post about this case. That's all I need to know
about you really.