DVP's Favorite Quotes From "Reclaiming History"

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

I'll probably be adding more to the above webpage in the future.

Feel free to add your own Vince Bugliosi/"RH" favorites here in this aaj
thread.

[Anthony Marsh]

You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.
Google it.

[bigdog]

Great stuff, David. A great compilation of VB's best. I've always admired
how he is able to zero in like a laser beam on the conspiracy hobbyists'
myths and completely destroy them. Of course they just pick up the pieces
and try to put their Humpty Dumpty theories together again.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:57884385$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

Tell us for the millionth time how you rudely called him a liar to his
face, Tony. I'm sure he was really flustered by that broadside.

[David Von Pein]

Who cares what your "complaints" are/were? I sure don't.

Now, back on topic.....

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
964 of "RH"

[David Von Pein]

Addendum....

W. ANTHONY MARSH UTTERED:

You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.

DAVID R. VON PEIN SAYS:

Well, *of course* you've got plenty of complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's
outstanding and comprehensive tome. What else would we expect from a
CTer---praise for a "Lone Assassin" book? (Duh!)

For heaven's sake, you find lots of things to complain about even when you
*agree* with somebody, Tony. So, naturally, you've attempted at various
times to rip "Reclaiming History" to shreds.

But you (and all other CTers) have failed miserably in that endeavor.

[BOZ]

Marsh your complaints are in vain. Nobody has ever heard of you. Who are
you?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/16/2016 12:43 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Addendum....
>
> W. ANTHONY MARSH UTTERED:
>
> You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.
>
>
> DAVID R. VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Well, *of course* you've got plenty of complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's
> outstanding and comprehensive tome. What else would we expect from a
> CTer---praise for a "Lone Assassin" book? (Duh!)
>

I have complimented some WC defender books sometimes. Maybe they get as
much as 2% of the facts rights.

> For heaven's sake, you find lots of things to complain about even when you
> *agree* with somebody, Tony. So, naturally, you've attempted at various
> times to rip "Reclaiming History" to shreds.
>

That's why I'm here.

> But you (and all other CTers) have failed miserably in that endeavor.
>

Oh yeah, We have public opinion behind us. We got the HSCA. You have 1%
of the public.

You're part of Romney's 1%.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/16/2016 12:34 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:18:37 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 8:35 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html
>>>
>>> I'll probably be adding more to the above webpage in the future.
>>>
>>> Feel free to add your own Vince Bugliosi/"RH" favorites here in this aaj
>>> thread.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.
>> Google it.
>
> Who cares what your "complaints" are/were? I sure don't.
>

we know that, which is why we know you were not honest when you asked us
to add our RH favorites here.

> Now, back on topic.....
>
> "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
> them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
> Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
> talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
> trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
> 964 of "RH"
>

Stupid. The Tippit murder is separate from the JFK murder. One does not
prove the other.

[bigdog]

Conspiracy hobbyist suspicions trump all that. At least in their minds.

[Anthony Marsh]

I went to his lecture and hand delivered a letter to him pointing out
that HIS LIES are a major reason why do many people believe there was a
conspiracy. Then when he lied in the lecture, I said, "That's a lie."
He WAS flustered.

[Jason Burke]

On 7/16/2016 4:10 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/16/2016 12:43 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Addendum....
>>
>> W. ANTHONY MARSH UTTERED:
>>
>> You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.
>>
>>
>> DAVID R. VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>> Well, *of course* you've got plenty of complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's
>> outstanding and comprehensive tome. What else would we expect from a
>> CTer---praise for a "Lone Assassin" book? (Duh!)
>>
>
> I have complimented some WC defender books sometimes. Maybe they get as
> much as 2% of the facts rights.

You're about 98% short on the percentage, Tony.
But keep on, keep on living your dreams. (Though they'll never come true.)

[Jason Burke]

Marsh is a legend in his own mind.

[David Emerling]

Was it that the book was too thick? I've always found it hilarious that
one of the most common criticisms I hear from CTs about "Reclaiming
History" is that it's too thick. Well, the REASON it's so thick is because
Bugliosi addressed all the silliness the CTs have come up with over the
decades. It's THEIR fault it's so thick!

Another common complaint is that Bugliosi is too snarky. That's his style.
But it doesn't change the substance! Bugliosi was a very successful
prosecutor. He's confident. He highlights ridiculous assertions. Hell, he
managed to get Charles Manson locked up for LIFE and Manson neither killed
anybody nor was he even present at the crime scene. If you get a speeding
ticket and decide to contest it - if Bugliosi walks in the room - you'll
probably end up getting a lethal injection for doing 50 in a 35 mph zone.

"Reclaiming History" is to the CTs as garlic is to vampires.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm a real person, not an alias, not a troll.

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who cares what your "complaints" are/were [re: "Reclaiming History"]? I
sure don't.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

We know that, which is why we know you were not honest when you asked us

to add our RH favorites here.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh?

Please explain how your above comment makes any sense whatsoever.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in news:578a8321
@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

He probably didn't expect to be heckled by a discourteous buff. You no
doubt saved a copy of this famous letter. Please share it with us.

P.S. Can we take from this that you have no problem with the GOP
congressman who shouted "You lie!" at Obama?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Then when he [Vincent Bugliosi] lied in the lecture [at the Brattle
Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 22, 2007], I said, "That's a
lie."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What did Vince say that you labelled a "lie", Tony? I'd be interested in
knowing exactly what it was.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/17/2016 9:26 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 8:35 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html
>>>
>>> I'll probably be adding more to the above webpage in the future.
>>>
>>> Feel free to add your own Vince Bugliosi/"RH" favorites here in this aaj
>>> thread.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.
>> Google it.
>
> Was it that the book was too thick? I've always found it hilarious that
> one of the most common criticisms I hear from CTs about "Reclaiming
> History" is that it's too thick. Well, the REASON it's so thick is because
> Bugliosi addressed all the silliness the CTs have come up with over the
> decades. It's THEIR fault it's so thick!
>

Bugliosi himself joked about that at his lecture. He had to use it to
keep his lecturn from rolling around.
Bugliosi was the master of the straw man argument. He thought up wacky
theories that the kooks couldn't even think up.

> Another common complaint is that Bugliosi is too snarky. That's his style.

Snarky is not the correct word. Arrogant. HUBRIS born of ignorance.
You should read THAT book. You might accidentally learn something.

> But it doesn't change the substance! Bugliosi was a very successful
> prosecutor. He's confident. He highlights ridiculous assertions. Hell, he

Wade was a very successful prosecutor. He was the master of convicting
innocent black men.

> managed to get Charles Manson locked up for LIFE and Manson neither killed

Managed? Boy, that must have been a really tough case, eh?

> anybody nor was he even present at the crime scene. If you get a speeding

Conspiracy, when it's convenient.

> ticket and decide to contest it - if Bugliosi walks in the room - you'll
> probably end up getting a lethal injection for doing 50 in a 35 mph zone.
>

He walked in the room and made fool of himself.

> "Reclaiming History" is to the CTs as garlic is to vampires.
>

I used it to stand on to reach something too high.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Please explain how your arguments make any sense.
All you can do is make personal attacks. No facts.
You asked for comments about his book and then said that you don't want
mine.

[bigdog]

Somehow I can't see a guy who went toe-to-toe with a skilled trial lawyer
like Gerry Spence and came out victorious getting flustered by the likes
of Tony Marsh. It's not as if he has displayed any great rhetorical skills
on this forum.

[Anthony Marsh]

I know you wouldn't, but it was that the police believed that weekend that
Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. The Parallel to the
other recent shootings is interesting. In Dallas the police immediately
thought it was a conspiracy with multiple shooters because the shooter
moved around and used more than one weapon.

One of the better experts on MSNBC even made that comparison. It took them
a few hours to figure out that it was a lone shooter. Likewise in the
recent shooting in Baton Rouge the early theory was that there was one
shooter and 2 accomplices. BTW, that would make it a conspiracy.

[slats]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:d6a907c6-bb50-4406...@googlegroups.com:

Not true. He's as eloquent as Alistair Cooke when he calls people
"Nazis."

[Anthony Marsh]

Spence took a dive for the money.
As I said, Bugliosi was flustered. You weren't there.
He had no answer.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not very good at this propaganda thing. Instead of admitting that
Bugliosi lied you should be calling me a liar and claim that Bugliosi
never said it. You should be claiming that he admitted the conspiracy
and said that on Saturday the Dallas Police believed that it was a
conspiracy and were preparing to charge Oswald with conspiracy.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

You asked for comments about his book and then said that you don't want
mine.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You think I asked for "comments", eh? I wonder why. Because I asked for no
such thing in this thread. I invited people "to add your own Vince

Bugliosi/"RH" favorites here in this aaj thread".

I didn't ask for commentary. I asked for quotes from VB's book.

When will you finally get something right, Marsh? In 2025 perhaps? Should
I bother waiting up?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

[Bugliosi's lie] was that the police believed that weekend that Oswald

acted alone and that there was no conspiracy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, sure, Tony. The thing you labeled as a "lie" during Vince Bugliosi's
2007 Cambridge appearance must be why we have all kinds of quotes from the
weekend of November 22-24, 1963, coming from the likes of Dallas Police
Chief Jesse Curry and Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Homicide
Captain Will Fritz, to the effect that it was the opinion of each of those
men that OSWALD AND OSWALD ALONE had murdered President Kennedy and
Officer Tippit.

E.G.,

JESSE CURRY (11/23/63) -- "I think this is the man [Lee Oswald] that
killed the President."

REPORTER -- "Is there any evidence that anyone else may have been linked
with Oswald to this shooting?"

CURRY -- "At this time, we don't believe so."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HENRY WADE (11/23/63) -- "There's no one else but him [Oswald], so far."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REPORTER (11/24/63) -- "Are you absolutely sure that Oswald was the
assassin of the President?"

WILL FRITZ -- "Yes, sir. No question about it."

REPORTER -- "Are you still convinced he was in this by himself when he
shot the President?"

FRITZ -- "Yes, I am. .... I don't think there's anyone else."

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/interviews-with-jesse-curry.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/08/henry-wade-press-conferences.html

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxZ7UPWuNPdkNUhlT3NxR0lPZlk/view

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/20/2016 9:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> You asked for comments about his book and then said that you don't want
> mine.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You think I asked for "comments", eh? I wonder why. Because I asked for no
> such thing in this thread. I invited people "to add your own Vince
> Bugliosi/"RH" favorites here in this aaj thread".
>
> I didn't ask for commentary. I asked for quotes from VB's book.
>

That was one of my Bugliosi favorites.

> When will you finally get something right, Marsh? In 2025 perhaps? Should
> I bother waiting up?
>

Don't bother waking up. Stay asleep.

[David Von Pein]

Don't bother admitting that what you said above about "comments" had
nothing to do with what I said in the thread-opener. We're accustomed to
Anthony Marsh being dead wrong and never admitting it.

Just another day in the salt mines with Mr. Marsh.

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU asked for comments and then ignored mine. BIAS.

[David Von Pein]

Wrong. I never asked for "comments". Why you think I did remains a
mystery.

[David Von Pein]

"Apparently, Kennedy's assassin, instead of trying to hide in the trunk of
a car in the railroad yard parking lot or trying to escape from behind the
picket fence after shooting Kennedy, had much more important things to
do—mainly, climb over the fence (at which point he'd be in plain
view of everyone on Elm Street) so he could beat up on that louse Gordon
Arnold and take his film." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 888 of "RH"

[Anthony Marsh]

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

Silly strawman. Everyone knows that Gordon Arnold was just a hoax and
not even there.
Now, if Bugliosi was as brave as you claim, why didn't he debunk ALL the
UFO theories?

WIMP!


Apparently Kennedy's assassin got away by pretending to be a SS agent
and helping the police hunt for the shooter.

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU said it.

[David Von Pein]

Where?

[David Von Pein]

Revised VB Website....

http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:34:21 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:18:37 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 7/14/2016 8:35 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

> > >
> > > I'll probably be adding more to the above webpage in the future.
> > >
> > > Feel free to add your own Vince Bugliosi/"RH" favorites here in this aaj
> > > thread.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book.
> > Google it.
>

> Who cares what your "complaints" are/were? I sure don't.
>
> Now, back on topic.....
>
> "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
> them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
> Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
> talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
> trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
> 964 of "RH"




The usual DVP skimming of facts leaving a false impression. Ownership
of weapons does NOT say that the owner is the killer of both persons.
And DNA wasn't used until 1986.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

True, but it sure points in that direction. Wouldn't you agree,
Chris/Frame?

Then, when we add in all of these other things that lead straight to
Oswald as being a double-killer, it becomes rather clear who murdered JFK
and J.D. Tippit in Dallas....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

> And DNA wasn't used until 1986.

So what? Bugliosi was merely commenting on the very low ODDS of Oswald
being innocent even though he was the owner of BOTH the JFK & Tippit
murder weapons. Vincent's use of a DNA analogy was simply to emphasize the
obviousness of the point he was attempting to convey to his readers---with
that point being (of course): Lee Oswald, using his own guns, shot and
killed both Kennedy and Tippit on 11/22/63.



>
> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

True, but He glosses over something that I have brought up a few times.
Oswald shot at General Walker. If the DPD had been competent they could
have figured out that a Carcano was used. So my question is how many
Carcanos were owned in that area and couldn't they look up recent
purchases and investigate Oswald as a suspect?

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

To a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist like Chris, it is enough to simply
point out a theoretical possibility of Oswald's innocence, no matter how
remote that possibility may be. Bugliosi pointed out that the odds of an
innocent man owning both the weapons used in two murders committed less
than an hour and a few miles apart are truly staggering. But a far fetched
possibility is all a conspiracy hobbyist needs to argue for Oswald's
innocence. Presented with a single piece of evidence, the conspiracy
hobbyist will ALWAYS opt for the least likely explanation for that
evidence. For example, take the shirt fibers found on the butt plate of
the rifle which matched the shirt Oswald was seen wearing on the bus he
boarded on Elm St. and which he was still wearing when arrested. The most
likely way for those fibers to have been deposited on the butt plate of
the rifle would be the recoil of the rifle forcefully driving the rifle
butt into Oswald's shoulder. But of course that's not the explanation
Chris wants. So he concocts this possibility that after Oswald smuggled
the disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a makeshift bag for reasons Chris
hasn't seemed to settle on, Oswald removed the rifle from the bag,
assembled it and then simply placed the rifle against his shoulder and
that was enough to deposit the fibers there. When one stretches for the
least likely explanation for one piece of evidence, it could allow for at
least a reasonable possibility of Oswald's innocence. But when one has to
reach for that least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence
to argue for Oswald's innocence, the possibility he could still be
innocent isn't even worth considering. As Bugliosi pointed out, just the
fact that Oswald owned both murder weapons would raise the possibility of
his innocence to the level of a false positive DNA match. But that's good
enough for Chris.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but if I bring up DNA or make an analogy, you attack me.
You are always quick to spot the speck, but you can't see the mote.

>
>
>>
>> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, it is. To a lawyer all you need is reasonable doubt.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I've put out NO THEORY like the WCR did. I put out facts that
lead to Oswald not being in the window and firing the MC rifle into the
plaza. As we break down the silly stuff bd put out, we see the effort to
try and make the WCR true, instead of the mess it is these days.

> Bugliosi pointed out that the odds of an
> innocent man owning both the weapons used in two murders committed less
> than an hour and a few miles apart are truly staggering. But a far fetched
> possibility is all a conspiracy hobbyist needs to argue for Oswald's
> innocence.

Bugliosi has been refuted many, many times on the internet. Put
"Bugliosi 53 reasons" into Google and you will se the refutations for
EVERY one of his silly reasons. Remember, Bugliosi is a lawyer. It's
part of his job to make a story sound plausible, whether true or not.

> Presented with a single piece of evidence, the conspiracy
> hobbyist will ALWAYS opt for the least likely explanation for that
> evidence.

A ridiculous generalization. Typical method to get agreement from the
audience, if there is any. Also a false statement.

> For example, take the shirt fibers found on the butt plate of
> the rifle which matched the shirt Oswald was seen wearing on the bus he
> boarded on Elm St. and which he was still wearing when arrested. The most
> likely way for those fibers to have been deposited on the butt plate of
> the rifle would be the recoil of the rifle forcefully driving the rifle
> butt into Oswald's shoulder.

So here we go all over again with all the fake evidence. The fibers on
the butt plate of the MC rifle probably came from Oswald's shirt, because
it's his rifle, and one day when wearing that shirt, he put the rifle to
his shoulder and sighted down the barrel or through the scope. There
isn't even any way to tell what day the fiber got there on HIS OWN RIFLE.
Note how if it isn't said, there is the assumption that you will find that
a sign of guilt.

> But of course that's not the explanation
> Chris wants. So he concocts this possibility that after Oswald smuggled
> the disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a makeshift bag for reasons Chris
> hasn't seemed to settle on, Oswald removed the rifle from the bag,
> assembled it and then simply placed the rifle against his shoulder and
> that was enough to deposit the fibers there.

WRONG again! This could go on all day. The explanation is not what
has to do with what is wanted, but with what is provable and makes sense.
Fibers from your shirt onto your own rifle can happen any time and any
day, and doesn't have to be when the rifle is fired, which probably
wouldn't catch a fiber on the butt plate. If the plate had a burr, or a
bit of metal sticking out, it might catch a fiber from a shirt when it was
rubbed on the shirt. But just pushing the rifle back into the shoulder
has less chance of catching that fiber.

> When one stretches for the
> least likely explanation for one piece of evidence, it could allow for at
> least a reasonable possibility of Oswald's innocence. But when one has to
> reach for that least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence
> to argue for Oswald's innocence, the possibility he could still be
> innocent isn't even worth considering.

WRONG! The assumption that the "least likely" explanation is used is
an opinion, and has no place in trying to prove something. But there it
is, an attempt to sway the audience poor bd is talking to he uses that
phrase. Also using the terms 'stretch' and 'reach' makes it sound like
explanations are some long distance from here, when they are just as
possible as the ones offered by the stupid WCR.

> As Bugliosi pointed out, just the
> fact that Oswald owned both murder weapons would raise the possibility of
> his innocence to the level of a false positive DNA match. But that's good
> enough for Chris.

WRONG! As usual, the claim that there are dozens of bits of evidence
is false. Looking above there are much fewer bits used. Now we come to
more opinion. It is an opinion that the MC rifle killed JFK. There is NO
DIRECT PROOF od such a thing. There is nothing whatsoever that puts
Oswald in the 6th floor window with the MC rifle in his hands firing down
at the motorcade. There is also NO DIRECT PROOF that ANY bullet from the
MC rifle hit or hurt anyone, least of all JFK. There is also some doubt
still in the murder of Tippit, and to me, that is unresolved and needs
more study. But in both instances, there is not a shred of proof that
shows that the ownership of the 2 weapons proves that Oswald did the
murders of either of the 2 dead men. That's not sensible logic.

And through all of this, we must consider that there is evidence that
says that Oswald was NOT at the window on the 6th floor, and did not shoot
at anyone, and had no intention to do so. That evidence has been put out
many times, and bd has seen it most of those times. He once again has
gotten his name on the board by repeating everything he has said over and
over time and again.

So now we can assess bd's efforts to try and prove my being wrong
about the case. It has failed again, it would seem.

Chris

[bigdog]

That Oswald never left the lunchroom is your theory. That there were two
other men in window is your theory. That the head shot came from the front
is your theory. (OK, you have to share that one with lots of people). That
the bullet that entered JFK's back stopped at the pleura is your theory.
That the autopsy team was ordered to lie in their AR is your theory. I
could go on and on. Everything you believe about this case is your theory.
None of it is factual.

>
> > Bugliosi pointed out that the odds of an
> > innocent man owning both the weapons used in two murders committed less
> > than an hour and a few miles apart are truly staggering. But a far fetched
> > possibility is all a conspiracy hobbyist needs to argue for Oswald's
> > innocence.
>
>
>
> Bugliosi has been refuted many, many times on the internet. Put
> "Bugliosi 53 reasons" into Google and you will se the refutations for
> EVERY one of his silly reasons. Remember, Bugliosi is a lawyer. It's
> part of his job to make a story sound plausible, whether true or not.
>

I decided to take you up on this. The very first hit was an excellent
summation and makes the same point I have many times. That it is the
totality of the evidence which establishes Oswald's guilt, not any single
piece.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=4552

"This will be a summary of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald, as
compiled by Vincent Bugliosi in his book Reclaiming History.

No doubt a few of these will be dismissed as lightweight stuff by
conspiracy theorists. It is the totality of the evidence we are looking at
here, though. It's the way they work together to demonstrate Oswald's
guilt. His actions before, during, and after the assassination, his
possession of the two murder weapons, his many lies to others, all of it
shows his guilt. Most importantly, all of it is from his own volition. No
one made Oswald go back to Irving on a day completely outside his habit.
No one made Oswald have his cab driver drive past his house. No one forced
Oswald to shoot Officer Tippit. This is him: what he did.

And so, the evidence demonstrating the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Note: I'll make a post for each one under this OP. I won't finish them
all today! But they will be finished by November.)"

The next hits demonstrate what the author wrote above. They attack the 53
pieces in isolation, never looking at the evidence as a whole. These
"refutations" were made by Ben Holmes over on the nuthouse, aka
alt.conspiracy.jfk, where he is the laughing stock. Actually I should say
one of the laughing stocks since the nuthouse has lots of them. That's why
we call it the nuthouse.

>
>
>
> > Presented with a single piece of evidence, the conspiracy
> > hobbyist will ALWAYS opt for the least likely explanation for that
> > evidence.
>
>
>
>
> A ridiculous generalization. Typical method to get agreement from the
> audience, if there is any. Also a false statement.
>

It might be a generalization but it is an accurate one. When "refuting"
Bugliosi's 53 pieces it is always done one piece at a time. Never does
anyone take on the body of evidence as a whole or even multiple pieces at
a time. For example let's take the fact Oswald owned both murder weapons.
You can make the argument that just because he owned the rifle which fired
the only three recovered shells and two recovered bullets doesn't prove he
was the one that fired them and that would be a reasonable statement. You
can make the argument that just because he owned the Tippit murder weapon
doesn't prove he murdered Tippit and that two would be reasonable. But
when you combine those two it becomes rather far fetched that he could own
both murder weapons but was not responsible for either murder and when you
add in the fact that he still had the Tippit murder weapon in his
possession a short time later with the same two makes of bullets that were
found in Tippit's body, the argument becomes ludicrous. And that is just
combining a few of the 53 pieces. The more elements we add to the
conversation, the more ludicrous the prospects of Oswald's innocence
becomes.

So keep doing what you and every other conspiracy hobbyist has done for 53
years. Continue to attack the evidence in isolation and never look at the
totality of the evidence. If you did that it would make your arguments
look very foolish.

>
>
>
> > For example, take the shirt fibers found on the butt plate of
> > the rifle which matched the shirt Oswald was seen wearing on the bus he
> > boarded on Elm St. and which he was still wearing when arrested. The most
> > likely way for those fibers to have been deposited on the butt plate of
> > the rifle would be the recoil of the rifle forcefully driving the rifle
> > butt into Oswald's shoulder.
>
>
>
>
> So here we go all over again with all the fake evidence.

Fake evidence? Fiber evidence? Fiber evidence was the lynchpin of the case
against notorious Atlanta child murderer Wayne Williams. Without that it
would have been difficult to make the case against him. With it they
nailed him.

> The fibers on
> the butt plate of the MC rifle probably came from Oswald's shirt, because
> it's his rifle, and one day when wearing that shirt, he put the rifle to
> his shoulder and sighted down the barrel or through the scope. There
> isn't even any way to tell what day the fiber got there on HIS OWN RIFLE.
> Note how if it isn't said, there is the assumption that you will find that
> a sign of guilt.
>

I suppose what you say is theoretically possible although it seems
unlikely. So if somebody else fired Oswald's rifle, why aren't their shirt
fibers on the butt plate of the rifle? Why are all the fibers on the butt
plate matched to Oswald's shirt? You would have us believe that Oswald
deposited shirt fibers on the rifle simply by placing the rifle butt to
his shoulder but the person who fired the rifle from the TSBD did not
leave any shirt fibers. And we are also supposed to believe that it was
just a rotten coincidence that Oswald just happened to be wearing the same
shirt on the day of the assassination that he was wearing the day he put
the rifle to his should. He sure was one unlucky SOB.

Your argument reminds me of the conversation between Arlo Guthrie and
Sheriff Opie in Alice's Restaurant:

Sheriff Opie: Kid, we found your name on an envelope underneath a pile of
garbage.

Arlo: Opie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope underneath
that pile of garbage.

Essentially, you are telling us Oswald put the envelope underneath the pile
of garbage.

>
>
>
> > But of course that's not the explanation
> > Chris wants. So he concocts this possibility that after Oswald smuggled
> > the disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a makeshift bag for reasons Chris
> > hasn't seemed to settle on, Oswald removed the rifle from the bag,
> > assembled it and then simply placed the rifle against his shoulder and
> > that was enough to deposit the fibers there.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG again! This could go on all day. The explanation is not what
> has to do with what is wanted, but with what is provable and makes sense.
> Fibers from your shirt onto your own rifle can happen any time and any
> day, and doesn't have to be when the rifle is fired, which probably
> wouldn't catch a fiber on the butt plate. If the plate had a burr, or a
> bit of metal sticking out, it might catch a fiber from a shirt when it was
> rubbed on the shirt. But just pushing the rifle back into the shoulder
> has less chance of catching that fiber.
>

Please explain why just putting the rifle against one's shoulder would
deposit the fibers but when the butt of the rifle is driven forcefully
into the shoulder by the recoil of the rifle that "probably wouldn't catch

a fiber on the butt plate".

>
>
>
>

> > When one stretches for the
> > least likely explanation for one piece of evidence, it could allow for at
> > least a reasonable possibility of Oswald's innocence. But when one has to
> > reach for that least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence
> > to argue for Oswald's innocence, the possibility he could still be
> > innocent isn't even worth considering.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! The assumption that the "least likely" explanation is used is
> an opinion, and has no place in trying to prove something. But there it
> is, an attempt to sway the audience poor bd is talking to he uses that
> phrase. Also using the terms 'stretch' and 'reach' makes it sound like
> explanations are some long distance from here, when they are just as
> possible as the ones offered by the stupid WCR.
>

You've been invited to explain why your explanation for the shirt fibers
isn't the least likely explanation. I look forward to your response.

>
>
>
> > As Bugliosi pointed out, just the
> > fact that Oswald owned both murder weapons would raise the possibility of
> > his innocence to the level of a false positive DNA match. But that's good
> > enough for Chris.
>
>
>
> WRONG! As usual, the claim that there are dozens of bits of evidence
> is false.

53 three of them. That's four dozen plus 5.

> Looking above there are much fewer bits used.

Of course there are when you isolate them which is what conspiracy
hobbyists always do. Bugliosi put them together and counted 53. Ben Holmes
went to the trouble of making 53 refutations.

> Now we come to more opinion. It is an opinion that the MC rifle killed JFK.

Right. Just because it fired the only shells and the only bullets that
were ever recovered is no reason to think it was the murder weapon. Once
again you reach for the least likely explanation and dismiss the one that
is staring you in the face.

> There is NO
> DIRECT PROOF od such a thing. There is nothing whatsoever that puts
> Oswald in the 6th floor window with the MC rifle in his hands firing down
> at the motorcade. There is also NO DIRECT PROOF that ANY bullet from the
> MC rifle hit or hurt anyone, least of all JFK. There is also some doubt
> still in the murder of Tippit, and to me, that is unresolved and needs
> more study. But in both instances, there is not a shred of proof that
> shows that the ownership of the 2 weapons proves that Oswald did the
> murders of either of the 2 dead men. That's not sensible logic.

Of course not when you isolate the individual pieces of evidence. When you
dumped the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle on the table it doesn't look like
much. When you put the pieces together the only way they can go together
it creates a very clear picture. The conspiracy hobbyists refuse to put
the pieces together. They point to the pile of pieces on the table and say
what does that prove.

>
> And through all of this, we must consider that there is evidence that
> says that Oswald was NOT at the window on the 6th floor, and did not shoot
> at anyone, and had no intention to do so.

No, there is no such evidence. That is more of your theories.

> That evidence has been put out
> many times, and bd has seen it most of those times. He once again has
> gotten his name on the board by repeating everything he has said over and
> over time and again.

You keep repeating the nonsense. I keep pointing out the nonsense.

>
> So now we can assess bd's efforts to try and prove my being wrong
> about the case. It has failed again, it would seem.
>

You could prove me wrong by actually putting all the pieces of the puzzle
together into a cohesive scenario but of course we know you aren't going
to ever do that because you know the only way the pieces go together
presents a clear picture of Oswald's guilt.