Vincent Bugliosi Interview (Re. His Book "Reclaiming History")
David Von Pein
(RECORDED APRIL 30, 2007):
=================================================
Click on the image of Mr. Bugliosi at the link below to access the
interview:
http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=917#
Fascinating stuff here, including a section about David Lifton's
nonsensical body-alteration theory. That particular segment of the VB
interview almost had me thinking that I was related to this man
(Vince) in some way. We think so much alike about many of the details
re. the JFK case.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
Plus, the way Vince talks about the wealth of non-stop "lies" within
Oliver Stone's movie (which are lies that apparently a goodly number
of people accept at face value; go figure).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
FOOTNOTE -- The above-linked interview seems to be a unedited version
of the interview. You'll note redundancy in a portion of it, that I
assume will be cut out for the final version (which is slated to
appear, at some point, on VB's book website at www.reclaiminghistory.com).
Plus, VB makes a couple of gaffes that will likely be excised as well.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>A 29-MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI RE. HIS JFK BOOK
>(RECORDED APRIL 30, 2007):
>
>=================================================
>
>Click on the image of Mr. Bugliosi at the link below to access the
>interview:
>
>http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=917#
Thanks for the link.
PF
Gerry Simone (O)
Thanks for the link.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178954079....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Pure garbage. If Vince has not gotten any smarter since delivering that
monologue to now when the book is published, we don't need to wait until
the book comes out to review it. His errors are glaringly obvious.
Early on he tries to compare conspiracy books to Hitler's big lie.
Poisoning the Well. Then he uses the same Hitlerian tactic about the
evidence. For example, he repeats the WC myth that JFK's head moved
forward 2.3 inches between Z-312 and Z-313. He did not independently
measure that. He relies on CIA propaganda from the Itek report, which even
the nuttiest WC defenders have since realized is wrong. The only way to
get the 2.3 inches is to measure the blur of frame Z-313 which gives an
illusion of 2.3 inches. Others have since removed that blur and found the
forward movement of only an inch or so. See Doug Weldon's presentation.
And he incorrectly assumes that only a shot from behind could cause that
forward movement. As I pointed out many years ago EVERYONE in the limo was
moving forward at that time at that rate. Because the limo had suddenly
slowed down. The forward movement is not due to shot, it is due to
inertia, as you can see in any crash test dummy.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
And I expect that he will fall into the same trap as most uninformed WC
defenders and claim that a shot from the front could not possibly move the
head backwards. And yet he claims it did move the head forward. Double
standard. Hypocrisy. Misuse of science. Illogic.
Another example is his defense of the Single Bullet Theory. He complains
(correctly) that some conspiracy believers place Connally directly in
front of Kennedy and that's why the SBT looks so ridiculous. He then asks
if Connally were placed correctly where would the bullet leaving Kennedy
go? According to him it could ONLY hit Connally. It could not miss hitting
Connally. OK. But he misses the logical point that even misplacing
Connally to the right by several inches, the same bullet leaving Kennedy
would likewise have to hit Connally on the back because the Connally back
wound was 8 inches to the right of his midline. It is not just moving
Connally around which makes the difference on whether or not the bullet
hits him. And if an other factor actually causes the miss with Connally
placed incorrectly, then that same factor can cause the miss with Connally
placed correctly. I certainly hope that he does not rely on Dale Myers to
place Connally correctly. Dale Myers had a similar complaint about the
conspiracy drawings (correctly) as not accurately depicting Connally's
position. Like Bugliosi he left the impression that if only the conspiracy
writers had placed Connally correctly then the SBT would work. So what did
Myers do? He simply lied. He said that Connally was not seated at the same
height as Kennedy. He said that Connally was three inches lower than
Kennedy. In fact it was the jump seat which was three inches lower than
Kennedy's seat, but Connally was taller than Kennedy so the net result was
that Connally was only about 1-1/2 inches lower than Kennedy. If Myers and
Bugliosi need to move Connally down three inches to get the SBT to work
then it is not going to work at 1-1/2 inches down or else it would have
worked just as well at the same height.
Bugliosi then goes on to commit the same error in logic as he accuses the
conspiracy authors of doing about the SBT. He points out that it is easy
to make fun of a theory simply by misstating its premises. He does exactly
the same thing with Lifton's crackpot theory of body alteration. He claims
that Lifton's theory is that the conspirators hijacked the President's
body WHILE Jackie and all his aides were with it all the time. That is a
lie. That is not Lifton's theory. And Jackie and his aides were not with
the body all the time. The military took the body and refused to let
Kennedy's aides take it off the plane.
Bugliosi's unfamiliarity with the documents shows through when he makes
flippant remarks. In his ranting about how insane Oswald was he asks the
rhetorical question, "Who the Hell defects to the Soviet Union"? Obviously
unaware of the CIA study of 23 American defectors to the Soviet Union.
What is Bugliosi's motivation for writing this book? Not just the money.
Delusions of Grandeur. He claims that it will be a "Book for the Ages."
He derides Posner for the obvious errors and then makes the same type of
obvious errors.
Posner II.
Anthony Marsh
> A 29-MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI RE. HIS JFK BOOK
> (RECORDED APRIL 30, 2007):
>
> =================================================
>
> Click on the image of Mr. Bugliosi at the link below to access the
> interview:
>
> http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=917#
>
> Fascinating stuff here, including a section about David Lifton's
> nonsensical body-alteration theory. That particular segment of the VB
> interview almost had me thinking that I was related to this man
> (Vince) in some way. We think so much alike about many of the details
> re. the JFK case.
>
Here he commits the same fallacy of misrepresenting the premise that he
accused the critics of the SBT of doing.
David Von Pein
<<<
Thanks. I voted myself the President & Chairman of that club many years
ago. But thanks for the "second" vote. ~wink~
V.B. QUOTES FROM THE INTERVIEW:
"It's my very firm belief--I'm very, very confident--that no reasonable,
rational person -- and let's underline those words 'reasonable' and
'rational' -- no reasonable , rational person can possibly read this book
without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald hit
Kennedy and acted alone." -- Vince Bugliosi
~~~~~
"He {Oliver Stone} did have three things right, and I got to hand it to
Oliver...he had the date of the assassination correct--November 22nd,
1963; he had the victim--John F. Kennedy; and he had the location--Dallas.
Beyond that, Oliver Stone's movie, 'JFK', is one continuous lie. ...
Perhaps the best way of illustrating how bad that movie was, in
"Reclaiming History" I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence, all of
which point towards Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. And in Stone's movie, 3
hours and 8 minutes, Oliver just couldn't find the time to mention even
ONE of those 53 pieces of evidence." -- Vince Bugliosi
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "I nominate you as the President of the Vincent Bugliosi Fan Club!"
><<<
>
>Thanks. I voted myself the President & Chairman of that club many years
>ago. But thanks for the "second" vote. ~wink~
>
>V.B. QUOTES FROM THE INTERVIEW:
>
>"It's my very firm belief--I'm very, very confident--that no reasonable,
>rational person -- and let's underline those words 'reasonable' and
>'rational' -- no reasonable , rational person can possibly read this book
>without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald hit
>Kennedy and acted alone." -- Vince Bugliosi
Btw, rational and reasonable David Talbot's new book is now available:
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years
Got mine today.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/13/RVG5FPLIMF1.DTL&type
PF
David Von Pein
This is just flat incorrect. And hilarious at the same time!
The limo isn't slowing down "suddenly". It's "slowing" a little more,
yes...but the car's only moving at 11.2 MPH (approx.) even BEFORE the
slowdown begins. You think everyone is going to be JERKED forward by
going from 11 MPH to 6 or 7 or 8 MPH?? Get real. The car was crawling
at a snail's pace the whole time, right from the Houston/Elm turn.
And the other occupants are NOT moving forward with a sudden JERK like
JFK's head does between 312 and 313. If you believe they are, you're
dreaming. (Or "inventing".)
>>> "The forward movement is not due to {the} shot, it is due to inertia, as you can see in any crash test dummy." <<<
To use your favorite word again--NONSENSE.
What are the odds that Kennedy's head would snap forward very rapidly
at the VERY INSTANT a bullet is hitting him FROM THE FRONT (per CTer
claims)? The odds must be off the charts in favor of "COULDN'T HAPPEN
IN A MILLION YEARS".
François Carlier
A great, intelligent man, saying important truths.
Every CT should listen to him.
I mean "listen".
... and learn !
Well, you conspiracy theorists, it is the end of the game.
You wasted your time. I am sorry for you. But this time, it's all over.
Thank you Mister Bugliosi.
François Carlier
Fra-c...@orange.fr
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1178954079....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
<Fra-C...@orange.fr> wrote:
IS there a French version of the book coming out, Francois?
PF
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "EVERYONE in the limo was moving forward at that time {from Z312 to Z313} at that rate. Because the limo had suddenly slowed down." <<<
>
> This is just flat incorrect. And hilarious at the same time!
>
> The limo isn't slowing down "suddenly". It's "slowing" a little more,
> yes...but the car's only moving at 11.2 MPH (approx.) even BEFORE the
The 11.2 MPH is just an AVERAGE over a range of Zapruder frames.
Have you never read Luis Alvarez's study. He carefully studied the
Zapruder film and found that the limousine was going about 12 MPH just
before about Z-300 and suddenly slowed down to about 8 MPH at about
Z-300. We've been over this dozens of times. Where have you been? Did
you not see Doug Weldon's GIF which shows everyone moving forward? Did
you not read my article which quantifies everyone's movements?
> slowdown begins. You think everyone is going to be JERKED forward by
> going from 11 MPH to 6 or 7 or 8 MPH?? Get real. The car was crawling
Yes, and you can demonstrate this for yourself at home. Put a baby
weighing 9 pounds on the passenger seat of your car and drive it at 4
MPH into a brick wall. See if the baby stays in its place.
Ever see films of crash test dummies? Do they stay in place when the car
crashes?
It's called inertia.
> at a snail's pace the whole time, right from the Houston/Elm turn.
>
The turn was a crawl of about 2.5 MPH. Then the car sped up. Then the
car suddenly slowed down. Everyone saw that and commented on it.
> And the other occupants are NOT moving forward with a sudden JERK like
> JFK's head does between 312 and 313. If you believe they are, you're
> dreaming. (Or "inventing".)
>
There was no sudden jerk. The forward movement was not 2.3 inches. Itek
was measuring the blur. Everyone moved forward at the same time at about
the same rate. And everyone else continued to move forward after
Kennedy's head started to go back.
>
>>>> "The forward movement is not due to {the} shot, it is due to inertia, as you can see in any crash test dummy." <<<
>
> To use your favorite word again--NONSENSE.
>
> What are the odds that Kennedy's head would snap forward very rapidly
> at the VERY INSTANT a bullet is hitting him FROM THE FRONT (per CTer
> claims)? The odds must be off the charts in favor of "COULDN'T HAPPEN
> IN A MILLION YEARS".
>
Nonsense. Everyone started moving forward before the head shot. You make
the mistake in logic of looking ONLY at frames Z-312 and Z-313, not
before and after.
François Carlier
Not that I know of, but mine (I mean, my own book, soon to be published,
and more or less the same as Bugliosi's)
François Carlier
Fra-c...@orange.fr
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> a écrit dans le message de news:
osle439p7c4r4lkqs...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
Wow! A 4 MPH slowdown of a car that's crawling along in the first place!
How did anyone in the limo survive it?! It's a wonder Jackie and the
Connallys weren't thrown violently through the windshield with 4-MPH
slowdown forces like this at work against them!
>>> "There was no sudden jerk." <<<
Yes, there was. Deny it if you wish. But denying it doesn't do your
credibility any favors, IMO.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
>>> "The forward movement was not 2.3 inches." <<<
I don't really care how many feet his head moved precisely. The main point
is: his head jerks forward (very fast) at the exact same moment a bullet
hits him in the head. Shouldn't that be telling you something? (It
certainly is telling me something; and it has nothing to do with that
vicious "12 to 8 MPH slowdown".)
>>> "You make the mistake in logic of looking ONLY at frames Z-312 and
Z-313, not before and after." <<<
And you make the mistake of letting your "inertia" get in the way of your
common sense. JFK's head snaps forward, not backward, at the precise
moment of impact. That's a critical observation. And it's a very rapid
head snap forward, too. (Despite your denials.)
If JFK has just been shot from the front...where's the TO-THE-REAR
MOVEMENT AT THE EXACT POINT OF IMPACT? Where is it?
Or don't you think there should be any FRONT-to-BACK point-of-impact
movement (even a little bit) when a 2,000fps bullet hits a human head?
Or is your "inertia" movement so forceful and constant that it completely
MASKED the FRONT-to-BACK point-of-impact movement of Kennedy's cranium
after it was struck by a high-powered bullet moving at thousands of
feet-per-second?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The limousine was going about 12 MPH just before about Z-300 and
> suddenly slowed down to about 8 MPH at about Z-300." <<<
>
> Wow! A 4 MPH slowdown of a car that's crawling along in the first place!
> How did anyone in the limo survive it?! It's a wonder Jackie and the
> Connallys weren't thrown violently through the windshield with 4-MPH
> slowdown forces like this at work against them!
>
OK, so you now stipulate to the 4 MPH slowdown.
>
>>>> "There was no sudden jerk." <<<
>
> Yes, there was. Deny it if you wish. But denying it doesn't do your
> credibility any favors, IMO.
>
Your accepting Itek's mistake does your credibility no favors.
> http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
>
>
>>>> "The forward movement was not 2.3 inches." <<<
>
> I don't really care how many feet his head moved precisely. The main point
> is: his head jerks forward (very fast) at the exact same moment a bullet
> hits him in the head. Shouldn't that be telling you something? (It
> certainly is telling me something; and it has nothing to do with that
> vicious "12 to 8 MPH slowdown".)
>
No, the point is that his head was already moving forward before the
head shot.
And if everyone else's heads were moving forward, does that mean that
they were all shot in the back of the head?
>
>>>> "You make the mistake in logic of looking ONLY at frames Z-312 and
> Z-313, not before and after." <<<
>
> And you make the mistake of letting your "inertia" get in the way of your
> common sense. JFK's head snaps forward, not backward, at the precise
You have no common sense. I have done the science. You merely guess.
> moment of impact. That's a critical observation. And it's a very rapid
> head snap forward, too. (Despite your denials.)
>
His head was already snapping forward before the head shot.
> If JFK has just been shot from the front...where's the TO-THE-REAR
> MOVEMENT AT THE EXACT POINT OF IMPACT? Where is it?
>
Z-314.
Why do you assume that a bullet impact can move the head violently?
> Or don't you think there should be any FRONT-to-BACK point-of-impact
> movement (even a little bit) when a 2,000fps bullet hits a human head?
>
You know the speed of the bullet from the front?
Gerry Simone (O)
Hey, I disagree with VB's quote there - if I disagree with him, then I'm
not reasonable and rational?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179011793....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
If he thinks that winning a mock trial in which the Defendant is dead
makes his view on this case more special, you're only kidding yourself.
"François Carlier" <Fra-C...@orange.fr> wrote in message
news:464721a1$0$5087$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...