Bugliosi lies in Cambridge
Anthony Marsh
lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
He did take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that
he would take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands
raised and he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on
a tangent and never allowed me to ask the last question.
Here is the list of questions I had prepared to ask him, a copy of which
I gave him along with the supporting documents.
Vincent Bugliosi
Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
evidence and thinks that, “Well, if they are lying about all the
evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
of frame 313.
You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
the Itek report was wrong. He no longer believes that there was a
head shot from behind. He was impressed by David Wimp's very
careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
in the limo moved forward. Were they all hit by bullets from behind?
His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving
forward.
Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when
you claim the Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book
all your diagrams depict it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say
frame 223-224. So, which is it? Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactly
the same as frame 224 and Connally never changed position, despite the
fact that he testified that he was in the process of turning when he was
hit?
You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in
photos of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained
and speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed
over a flower to cover and protect it.
You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
cover-up. Not because they were genuine (they were a CIA hoax), but
because Hoover and LBJ continued to think they were real and could
lead to WWIII. That is the leverage that LBJ used to blackmail the
Warren Commission into participating in the cover-up.
__________________________________________________________
Here are the documents about the flower which I scanned in and printed
out for him.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Fitt1967.gif
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Bahmer67.gif
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/PX67-80-24.gif
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/PX67-80-42.gif
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/PX67-80-42a.gif
Chad Zimmerman
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
supporting documents.
Vincent Bugliosi
Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
evidence and thinks that, 展ell, if they are lying about all the
evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
(VB's probably response: 89% of the public doesn't know anything
beyond what they read in conspiracy books.)
On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
of frame 313.
(This is BS. His head does snap forward and you simply prefer the no snap
opinion. There are also many researchers that plainly see the snap. Wimp's
analysis is...wimpy.)
You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
the Itek report was wrong.
(Dishonestly? Was he aware of Tink's changing opinions?)
He no longer believes that there was a
head shot from behind.
(Which shows how much Tink has been polluted by CT's over the years...having
been a champion of them.)
He was impressed by David Wimp's very
careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
in the limo moved forward.
(And all their heads visibly tilt forward, right?)
Were they all hit by bullets from behind?
His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving
forward.
Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when you claim the
Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book all your diagrams depict
it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say frame 223-224. So, which is it?
Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactly the same as frame 224 and
Connally never changed position, despite the fact that he testified that
he was in the process of turning when he was hit?
You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in photos
of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained and
speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed
over a flower to cover and protect it.
(Yes, all should research such plainly mundane and pointless details...
Some have better things to do with their time instead of chasing down such
things.)
You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
cover-up.
(You're chewing out VB because he doesn't believe the same garbage you
believe...)
Not because they were genuine (they were a CIA hoax), but because Hoover
and LBJ continued to think they were real and could lead to WWIII. That is
the leverage that LBJ used to blackmail the Warren Commission into
participating in the cover-up.
(I'm sure he's been enlightened by your presence....Chad)
Glenn Sarlitto
On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
I pray to God that this was recorded.
David Von Pein
case?" <<<
[DVP's simulated "Vince Bugliosi mode" turned on for this post] ----
I haven't lied about this case. But if you want to think I have, that's
your prerogative. But you're also wrong via such a belief. Next?....
>>> "It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission defenders
which have caused 89% of the public to believe it was a conspiracy." <<<
Are you sure you're not deliberately lying now, Mr. M? Because the pct. of
JFK conspiracy believers has never been that high, as far as I am aware.
And it certainly isn't nearly that high as of this moment. So why don't
YOU stop lying to the public with your overly-inflated stats re.
conspiracy, okay?
Next?...
>>> "On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that JFK's head
snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames 312 and 313. Several people
have since pointed out their error and that what Itek was really measuring
was the BLUR of frame 313." <<<
Would you care to split some more already-split hairs? Who CARES exactly
what the precise number of centimeters or inches the President's head
moves forward? The main point being, regardless of total DISTANCE (and two
inches or so looks about right to my eyes, just from looking at the film
several times, without using any kind of measuring stick), is that his
head is moving FORWARD at the exact, all- important MOMENT OF IMPACT
between Z312 & Z313.
And the only logical conclusion to reach regarding such an AT-IMPACT
movement is --- a shot coming from the REAR, not from the front.
>>> "Josiah Thompson...no longer believes that there was a head shot from
behind." <<<
With all due respect to Josiah....WHO CARES what he thinks? There is
scientific PROOF (plus the Zapruder Film) to show that the ONE & ONLY head
shot came from the rear....regardless of what Mr. Thompson says in
2007...in 1967....or whenever.
>>> "He was impressed by David Wimp's very careful analysis of the
Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE in the limo moved forward. Were
they all hit by bullets from behind?" <<<
Now you're just being silly. The Z-Film is not showing the very rapid
SNAP-type movement of anyone's head in that car between frames 312 and 313
EXCEPT for the head of President Kennedy....and I think even you know this
to be the case, Mr. Marsh. So why keep trying to blemish the record? And
why keep trying to hide from things you can so easily see with your own
eyes?
>>> "You are a sloppy researcher." <<<
Allow me to repeat my {VB's} main motto (true in all cases I explore VB,
regardless of what the subject matter is)........
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- Vince
"ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SUPPORT" Bugliosi
Sloppy researcher? I beg to differ with you sir. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, audience.
I've enjoyed my time spent with you tonight...and good night.
And just one more question before I leave you tonight....a question for
Mr. Marsh in the audience.....Um, Tony, WHERE ARE THE DAMN BULLETS from
the other guns that hit any victims in the limo? Where?
Thanks.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Tony,
I hope you quizzed him closely on Frank Bender and why he didn't think
ol' CIA Frank took out JFK from the Grassy Knoll like you do. LOL!
What a crock that particular theory is...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
"Newsgroup Commentator"
Martin Shackelford
her own book, when he talked with James Sawa, who received her original
chapters, and assured him that Judyth DID write her own book, revery word,
without question.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
He did take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that
he would take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands
raised and he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on
a tangent and never allowed me to ask the last question.
Here is the list of questions I had prepared to ask him, a copy of which
I gave him along with the supporting documents.
Vincent Bugliosi
Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
evidence and thinks that, 展ell, if they are lying about all the
Martin Shackelford
conspiracy (p. xv). That's true, but the percentage has sometimes been as
high as 90%. He notes that the November 2003 Gallup poll gave the figure as
75%.There are, of course, other polls as well.
Tony is correct--there is no actual evidence of forward head movement in
312/313.
The other bullets? One was found at Parkland Hospital, a pointed-tip bullet
that may still be in the possession of the wife of Parkland Security chief
O.P. Wright (she displayed it during a rare interview). Another may have
been retrieved by a federal agent from the grass in Dealey Plaza (as photos
suggest).
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179893069.7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Way to Go
>
>
> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>
>
> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>
> I pray to God that this was recorded.
>
>
Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
I notice that you don't jump to his defense and answer my questions.
Very telling.
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "{Mr. Bugliosi,} Why do you continue to lie to the public about this
> case?" <<<
>
> [DVP's simulated "Vince Bugliosi mode" turned on for this post] ----
>
> I haven't lied about this case. But if you want to think I have, that's
> your prerogative. But you're also wrong via such a belief. Next?....
>
The specific statement you made was that the DPD immediately thought
Oswald was a lone nut. Actually the original charge they made against
him was that he killed the President "in furtherance of an International
Communist Conspiracy." Hoover found out about that and personally
threatened Curry to remove that conspiracy language, even though Hoover
himself thought that Oswald was paid by Castro.
>>>> "It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission defenders
> which have caused 89% of the public to believe it was a conspiracy." <<<
>
> Are you sure you're not deliberately lying now, Mr. M? Because the pct. of
You are not allowed by the rules of this particular newsgroup to accuse
another poster of lying.
> JFK conspiracy believers has never been that high, as far as I am aware.
Because you are not aware of the Gallup Poll.
> And it certainly isn't nearly that high as of this moment. So why don't
> YOU stop lying to the public with your overly-inflated stats re.
> conspiracy, okay?
>
Well, Vince Bugliosi said 76%. So you have to agree with him or call HIM
a liar. I bet you couldn't do that to his face as I did.
> Next?...
>
>
>>>> "On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that JFK's head
> snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames 312 and 313. Several people
> have since pointed out their error and that what Itek was really measuring
> was the BLUR of frame 313." <<<
>
> Would you care to split some more already-split hairs? Who CARES exactly
> what the precise number of centimeters or inches the President's head
> moves forward? The main point being, regardless of total DISTANCE (and two
If no one cares, then don't bring it up and cite it as proof of something.
> inches or so looks about right to my eyes, just from looking at the film
> several times, without using any kind of measuring stick), is that his
> head is moving FORWARD at the exact, all- important MOMENT OF IMPACT
> between Z312 & Z313.
>
That's the problem. Subjective opinion. You also can't see the Black Dog
Man which 99.999% of people can easily see.
The importance is subjective by which frame you pick to look at. If you
look at ALL the frames you see that EVERYONE was moving forward before
and at the time of the shot. Answer my question. Do you think they were
ALL shot in the back of the head at the same frame?
> And the only logical conclusion to reach regarding such an AT-IMPACT
> movement is --- a shot coming from the REAR, not from the front.
>
That is illogical. Post Hoc Fallacy.
>
>>>> "Josiah Thompson...no longer believes that there was a head shot from
> behind." <<<
>
> With all due respect to Josiah....WHO CARES what he thinks? There is
> scientific PROOF (plus the Zapruder Film) to show that the ONE & ONLY head
> shot came from the rear....regardless of what Mr. Thompson says in
> 2007...in 1967....or whenever.
>
I care that Bugliosi misrepresented someone's research.
>
>>>> "He was impressed by David Wimp's very careful analysis of the
> Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE in the limo moved forward. Were
> they all hit by bullets from behind?" <<<
>
> Now you're just being silly. The Z-Film is not showing the very rapid
> SNAP-type movement of anyone's head in that car between frames 312 and 313
> EXCEPT for the head of President Kennedy....and I think even you know this
> to be the case, Mr. Marsh. So why keep trying to blemish the record? And
> why keep trying to hide from things you can so easily see with your own
> eyes?
>
You simply refuse to look at ALL the evidence.
>
>>>> "You are a sloppy researcher." <<<
>
> Allow me to repeat my {VB's} main motto (true in all cases I explore VB,
> regardless of what the subject matter is)........
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- Vince
> "ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SUPPORT" Bugliosi
>
Bunk. I am proving that he is a liar.
>
> Sloppy researcher? I beg to differ with you sir. Nothing could be further
> from the truth.
>
He didn't even know about the photograph showing the flower.
> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, audience.
> I've enjoyed my time spent with you tonight...and good night.
>
Not exactly what he said. Half of his lecture was spent complaining
about the rostrum which was rolling around on wheels.
> And just one more question before I leave you tonight....a question for
> Mr. Marsh in the audience.....Um, Tony, WHERE ARE THE DAMN BULLETS from
> the other guns that hit any victims in the limo? Where?
>
One more question for you that I did not have time to ask. What happened
to the damn bullet which you think missed according to the Warren
Commission? Where? He made a big deal out of how difficult a shot from
the grassy knoll would be and why the HSCA said that shot missed, but he
couldn't explain how the first and easiest shot from the sniper's nest
at a "nearly stationary" target missed everything in the world.
> Thanks.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
>
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
> take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
> take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
> he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
> never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
> had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
> supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>
> (VB's probably response: 89% of the public doesn't know anything
> beyond what they read in conspiracy books.)
>
Is that proper quoting of my message and proper indication of what is
your response? You are not following the play book. You are supposed to
deny the 89% like a good little WC defender. Then when I quote Bugliosi
saying 76% you have to call him a liar and claim it was never that high.
> On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
> JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
> 312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
> error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
> of frame 313.
>
> (This is BS. His head does snap forward and you simply prefer the no snap
> opinion. There are also many researchers that plainly see the snap. Wimp's
> analysis is...wimpy.)
>
Your comment is BS. I never said that there was NO SNAP. I said the SNAP
started BEFORE the head shot.
There are also many researchers who see Badge Man. That does not make it
a fact.
> You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
> book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
> for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
> the Itek report was wrong.
>
> (Dishonestly? Was he aware of Tink's changing opinions?)
>
I doubt it.
> He no longer believes that there was a
> head shot from behind.
>
> (Which shows how much Tink has been polluted by CT's over the years...having
> been a champion of them.)
>
Which shows that new technology can reexamine old evidence. Ever hear of
NAA?
> He was impressed by David Wimp's very
> careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
> in the limo moved forward.
>
> (And all their heads visibly tilt forward, right?)
>
Yes.Especially Kellerman.
> Were they all hit by bullets from behind?
> His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
> continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
> Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving
> forward.
>
> Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when you claim the
> Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book all your diagrams depict
> it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say frame 223-224. So, which is it?
> Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactly the same as frame 224 and
> Connally never changed position, despite the fact that he testified that
> he was in the process of turning when he was hit?
>
> You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in photos
> of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained and
> speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
> disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
> research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed
> over a flower to cover and protect it.
>
> (Yes, all should research such plainly mundane and pointless details...
>
Bugliosi made the claim that his book was going to cover all the topics
and that he could back up any claim with hard evidence. His book is like
a house of cards. I just pulled out one of the cards.
> Some have better things to do with their time instead of chasing down such
> things.)
>
Who? Some people simply refuse to do any research.
> You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
> Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
> or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
> the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
> cover-up.
>
> (You're chewing out VB because he doesn't believe the same garbage you
> believe...)
>
It's not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact, as I proved by the
documents I gave him.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> You could also ask him why he makes the claim that Judyth Baker didn't write
> her own book, when he talked with James Sawa, who received her original
> chapters, and assured him that Judyth DID write her own book, revery word,
> without question.
>
> Martin
Well, Shackelford, you really can't blame Bugliosi for being
confused. Seems like everytime someone in the NGs pointed out one of
Judyth's bloopers, you jumped in and told us she didn't write it.
Remember "Deadly Alliance" (Plan A was to kill Castro and, failing
that, Plan B was to kill JFK)? Had both Judyth's and Howard
Platzman's name on it but you told us it was all Platzman's work.
Same for the sample chapters that include the infamous bit about JVB
and LHO meeting meet up in the non-existant Cancun after LHO polished
off JFK. So Judyth had a writer who didn't write and a researcher
(you) who didn't research (never interviewed either her ex-husband or
Marina Oswald. No wonder she had to self publish.
JGL
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
> He did take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that
> he would take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands
> raised and he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on
> a tangent and never allowed me to ask the last question.
> Here is the list of questions I had prepared to ask him, a copy of which
> I gave him along with the supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence and thinks that, "Well, if they are lying about all the
Chad Zimmerman
Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
>
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
> take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
> take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
> he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
> never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
> had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
> supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>
> (VB's probably response: 89% of the public doesn't know anything
> beyond what they read in conspiracy books.)
>
Is that proper quoting of my message and proper indication of what is
your response?
(Yes, it is. You are using the alleged 89% figure of the "public" that is
primarily educated by CT's.)
You are not following the play book. You are supposed to
deny the 89% like a good little WC defender. Then when I quote Bugliosi
saying 76% you have to call him a liar and claim it was never that high.
(Who cares what the real poll number is currently. I don't. Whether it is
20% or 90%...
it is still for the same reasons.)
> On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
> JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
> 312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
> error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
> of frame 313.
>
> (This is BS. His head does snap forward and you simply prefer the no snap
> opinion. There are also many researchers that plainly see the snap. Wimp's
> analysis is...wimpy.)
>
Your comment is BS. I never said that there was NO SNAP. I said the SNAP
started BEFORE the head shot.
(Nope, it didn't. There is abrupt change from 312-313.)
There are also many researchers who see Badge Man. That does not make it
a fact.
> You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
> book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
> for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
> the Itek report was wrong.
>
> (Dishonestly? Was he aware of Tink's changing opinions?)
>
I doubt it.
(How is someone supposed to be aware of ever changing opinions? Couldn't
Tink have supplied it to him?)
> He no longer believes that there was a
> head shot from behind.
>
> (Which shows how much Tink has been polluted by CT's over the
> years...having
> been a champion of them.)
>
Which shows that new technology can reexamine old evidence. Ever hear of
NAA?
(Yep, and I've never utilized NAA...and the x-rays still show a shot from
behind, not
from the front. The film still shows ejected spray consistent with a rear
shot, not the front.)
> He was impressed by David Wimp's very
> careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
> in the limo moved forward.
>
> (And all their heads visibly tilt forward, right?)
>
Yes.Especially Kellerman.
(And there is a visual snap in everyone else at 312-313, right?)
> Were they all hit by bullets from behind?
> His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
> continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
> Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving
> forward.
>
> Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when you claim the
> Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book all your diagrams depict
> it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say frame 223-224. So, which is it?
> Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactly the same as frame 224 and
> Connally never changed position, despite the fact that he testified that
> he was in the process of turning when he was hit?
>
> You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in photos
> of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained and
> speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
> disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
> research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed
> over a flower to cover and protect it.
>
> (Yes, all should research such plainly mundane and pointless details...
>
Bugliosi made the claim that his book was going to cover all the topics
and that he could back up any claim with hard evidence. His book is like
a house of cards. I just pulled out one of the cards.
(And yet it didn't fall down....probably because that "card" has absolutely
nothing
to do with the assassination and it is a mundane and pointless detail...one
that you
care more about than he.)
> Some have better things to do with their time instead of chasing down such
> things.)
>
Who? Some people simply refuse to do any research.
(He did...and probably more than you. You just happened to do more research
on
a point that is....well....pointless.)
> You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
> Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
> or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
> the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
> cover-up.
>
> (You're chewing out VB because he doesn't believe the same garbage you
> believe...)
>
It's not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact, as I proved by the
documents I gave him.
(Yep, documents that illustrate pointless subject matter. Good for you.)
Chad
JLeyd...@aol.com
> her own book, when he talked with James Sawa, who received her original
> chapters, and assured him that Judyth DID write her own book, revery word,
> without question.
>
> Martin
Well, Shackelford, you really can't blame Bugliosi for being confused.
Chad Zimmerman
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RST4i.9103$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Bugliosi states that the polls "usually" indicate 70-80% believing in a
> conspiracy (p. xv). That's true, but the percentage has sometimes been as
> high as 90%. He notes that the November 2003 Gallup poll gave the figure
> as 75%.There are, of course, other polls as well.
> Tony is correct--there is no actual evidence of forward head movement in
> 312/313.
That is one interpretation, it just happens to be the preferred CT
interpretation.
> The other bullets? One was found at Parkland Hospital, a pointed-tip
> bullet that may still be in the possession of the wife of Parkland
> Security chief O.P. Wright (she displayed it during a rare interview).
So, the Parkland Security Chief:
A. Kept a memento
B. Was allowed to keep the *real* bullet so his wife could show others
later.
Get real.
Another may have
> been retrieved by a federal agent from the grass in Dealey Plaza (as
> photos suggest).
No, interpretation of the photos by CT's suggest this. There is nothing
resembling a bullet in those photos.
Chad
Gerry Simone (O)
exchange.
VB probably knows his book won't be perfectly vetted until it is released
and read by the public, and maybe he'll learn a thing or two from it.
At least he got your list. Did you give him your list afterwards or did
he have it before you lost your chance to speak?
Hopefully he'll respond and we'd be happy to see that response.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
supporting documents.
Vincent Bugliosi
Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission defenders which
have caused 89% of the public to believe it was a conspiracy. The public
sees that you lie about the evidence and thinks that, 展ell, if they are
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Z4WdnaVF-P3Y1snb...@comcast.com...
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
>>
>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
>> take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
>> take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
>> he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
>> never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
>> had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
>> supporting documents.
>>
>> Vincent Bugliosi
>>
>> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>>
>> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
>> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
>> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
>> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>>
>> (VB's probably response: 89% of the public doesn't know anything
>> beyond what they read in conspiracy books.)
>>
>
> Is that proper quoting of my message and proper indication of what is
> your response?
>
> (Yes, it is. You are using the alleged 89% figure of the "public" that is
> primarily educated by CT's.)
>
That wasn't my question. My question was about the formatting of your
message and what standard quoting on Usenet looks like.
And good for you for denying the 89%. Never admit a simple fact.
> You are not following the play book. You are supposed to
> deny the 89% like a good little WC defender. Then when I quote Bugliosi
> saying 76% you have to call him a liar and claim it was never that high.
>
> (Who cares what the real poll number is currently. I don't. Whether it is
> 20% or 90%...
> it is still for the same reasons.)
>
I never said anything about the current poll numbers. You can't even
cite any 2007 poll. My claim was about a poll in the past. That is why I
used the past tense, as in "lies CAUSED [past tense]."
>> On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
>> JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
>> 312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
>> error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
>> of frame 313.
>>
>> (This is BS. His head does snap forward and you simply prefer the no snap
>> opinion. There are also many researchers that plainly see the snap. Wimp's
>> analysis is...wimpy.)
>>
>
> Your comment is BS. I never said that there was NO SNAP. I said the SNAP
> started BEFORE the head shot.
>
> (Nope, it didn't. There is abrupt change from 312-313.)
>
Yes, it did. The head moved forward before 312 and everyone moved
forward from at least 308 to 317.
> There are also many researchers who see Badge Man. That does not make it
> a fact.
>
>> You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
>> book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
>> for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
>> the Itek report was wrong.
>>
>> (Dishonestly? Was he aware of Tink's changing opinions?)
>>
>
> I doubt it.
>
> (How is someone supposed to be aware of ever changing opinions? Couldn't
> Tink have supplied it to him?)
Did Bugliosi even have the common courtesy to ask Josiah Thompson? Nope.
Bugliosi does not take input.
>
>> He no longer believes that there was a
>> head shot from behind.
>>
>> (Which shows how much Tink has been polluted by CT's over the
>> years...having
>> been a champion of them.)
>>
>
> Which shows that new technology can reexamine old evidence. Ever hear of
> NAA?
>
> (Yep, and I've never utilized NAA...and the x-rays still show a shot from
> behind, not
> from the front. The film still shows ejected spray consistent with a rear
> shot, not the front.)
>
Yes, the X-rays are genuine and show that there was no shot from behind,
only from the front.
The Zapruder film only shows ejected spray from where there was a hole,
regardless of where the bullet came from.
>> He was impressed by David Wimp's very
>> careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
>> in the limo moved forward.
>>
>> (And all their heads visibly tilt forward, right?)
>>
>
> Yes.Especially Kellerman.
>
> (And there is a visual snap in everyone else at 312-313, right?)
>
Yes.
I see that you are unfamiliar with the concept of a house of cards. You
can pull out any card which you think is not important and the whole
thing falls down.
>> Some have better things to do with their time instead of chasing down such
>> things.)
>>
>
> Who? Some people simply refuse to do any research.
>
> (He did...and probably more than you. You just happened to do more research
> on
> a point that is....well....pointless.)
>
He is the one who claimed to have researched every aspect. He included
the reinterment in his book, but did not bother to do the legwork. Had
he ever been to the Kennedy Library?
>
>> You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
>> Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
>> or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
>> the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
>> cover-up.
>>
>> (You're chewing out VB because he doesn't believe the same garbage you
>> believe...)
>>
>
> It's not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact, as I proved by the
> documents I gave him.
>
> (Yep, documents that illustrate pointless subject matter. Good for you.)
>
The point is to show that Bugliosi is a sloppy researcher. That is just
one example out of thousands.
Gerry Simone (O)
missing brain.
If that box was not the canister with the brain, then the brain is still
missing and the conspiracy continues (much to the chagrin of Bugliosi).
The missing brain is a major point.
Am I missing something here?
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:465470be$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Z4WdnaVF-P3Y1snb...@comcast.com...
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
> >
> > I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> > lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He
did
> > take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he
would
> > take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised
and
> > he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent
and
> > never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions
I
> > had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
> > supporting documents.
> >
> > Vincent Bugliosi
> >
> > Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
> >
> > It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> > defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> > was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> > evidence and thinks that, "Well, if they are lying about all the
Gerry Simone (O)
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4653b59c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
>
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
> take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
> take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
> he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
> never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
> had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
> supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence and thinks that, "Well, if they are lying about all the
> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>
> (VB's probably response: 89% of the public doesn't know anything
> beyond what they read in conspiracy books.)
>
> On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
> JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
> 312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
> error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
> of frame 313.
>
> (This is BS. His head does snap forward and you simply prefer the no snap
> opinion. There are also many researchers that plainly see the snap. Wimp's
> analysis is...wimpy.)
>
> You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
> book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
> for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
> the Itek report was wrong.
>
> (Dishonestly? Was he aware of Tink's changing opinions?)
>
> He no longer believes that there was a
> head shot from behind.
>
> (Which shows how much Tink has been polluted by CT's over the
years...having
> been a champion of them.)
*** How can you say Tink was polluted by CT's on the issue of a shot from
behind? That issue is hardly a hallmark of CTs.
WhiskyJoe
> And just one more question before
> I leave you tonight....a question for
> Mr. Marsh in the audience.....Um,
> Tony, WHERE ARE THE DAMN BULLETS from
> the other guns that hit any victims
> in the limo? Where?
I think I can answer this one for Tony. While it is impossible for bullets
to get deflected horizontally, they can be deflected vertically. So the
bullet that hit JFK in the back could easily have deflected 20 degrees
upwards and escaped the car. Indeed, I think this is how all the Oliver
Stone and Robert Groden bullets may have escaped being found.
But it's important to remember that horizontal deflections are not
allowed. So, if one can prove the horizontal misalignment of JFK and
Connally during all times, including all the frames they are both hidden
behind the freeway sign, one can prove the SBT is impossible. And since it
is clear from the Zapruder frames, in the frames where both JFK and
Connally are visible and in the frames where both hidden behind the sign,
that JFK and Connally are clearly out of alignment, that undeniable fact,
combined with not non horizontal deflection of bullets, means the SBT is
impossible. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you will see the
truth.
ScottO
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RST4i.9103$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> The other bullets? One was found at Parkland Hospital, a pointed-tip
> bullet that may still be in the possession of the wife of Parkland
> Security chief O.P. Wright (she displayed it during a rare interview).
> Another may have been retrieved by a federal agent from the grass in
> Dealey Plaza (as photos suggest).
>
> Martin
>
Hard to argue with that logic.
ScottO.
David Von Pein
the Warren Commission?" <<<
I knew this silly question would be coming, of course.
Answer (of course):
The "LN" (Z160) bullet DIDN'T GO INTO ANYONE'S BODY. It was a miss (re.
limo occupants). It's highly unlikely a bullet that MISSED is going to be
recovered or recoverable.
Shouldn't Tony be embarrassed at even asking the above question? I would
be.
David Von Pein
quoted." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake.
Somebody give Tony an award for the Best Hairsplitting Job in 2007. I
forgot to mention PAGE 41 earlier. The horror of it!
Geez. (With a G, yes. Wanna quibble over my not spelling it "Jeez"?) ;)
And, btw, I understood what Michael O'Dell wrote re. Page 40 and the "3.5
seconds" thing immediately. Wonder why you couldn't?
>>> "And why are you bothering to explain a rounding factor when you WC
defenders claim that exact data and minor details do not matter?" <<<
In this particular instance (on pages 40-41), BECAUSE OF THE PRECISE WAY
BUGLIOSI'S WRITTEN IT. He's got things rounded to a TENTH of a decimal
point -- .4 and .5. This shows he's not merely rounding stuff off to a
HALF or a WHOLE second.
And, the ONLY Z-Frame that is technically "3.5" seconds after Z160 is
Z224. That's just a fact.
>>> "Bugliosi is never meticulous. He is sloppy." <<<
Bullshit.
I guess that's why he always "aspires to a masterpiece" in his work, huh?
Jean Davison
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RST4i.9103$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> conspiracy (p. xv). That's true, but the percentage has sometimes been as
>> high as 90%. He notes that the November 2003 Gallup poll gave the figure
>> as 75%.There are, of course, other polls as well.
>> Tony is correct--there is no actual evidence of forward head movement in
>> 312/313.
>> The other bullets? One was found at Parkland Hospital, a pointed-tip
>> bullet that may still be in the possession of the wife of Parkland
>> Security chief O.P. Wright (she displayed it during a rare interview).
>
> substituted another one. But that's not plausible, Martin.
>
> Wright submitted a bullet to FBI agent Johnsen around 2 PM. Are we
> supposed to believe that Wright was carrying around a spent bullet that
> day?
> Was his motto "Be Prepared"? Boy Scout leader, was he?
Sorry, I shoulda said "Secret Service agent Johnsen." I better
correct that, or Tony may claim I am lying. ;-)
Jean
Anthony Marsh
>> And just one more question before
>> I leave you tonight....a question for
>> Mr. Marsh in the audience.....Um,
>> Tony, WHERE ARE THE DAMN BULLETS from
>> the other guns that hit any victims
>> in the limo? Where?
>
> I think I can answer this one for Tony. While it is impossible for bullets
You know nothing about ballistics. If a bullet can be deflected
vertically it can certainly be deflected horizontally.
> to get deflected horizontally, they can be deflected vertically. So the
> bullet that hit JFK in the back could easily have deflected 20 degrees
> upwards and escaped the car. Indeed, I think this is how all the Oliver
> Stone and Robert Groden bullets may have escaped being found.
>
> But it's important to remember that horizontal deflections are not
> allowed. So, if one can prove the horizontal misalignment of JFK and
> Connally during all times, including all the frames they are both hidden
> behind the freeway sign, one can prove the SBT is impossible. And since it
Maybe you missed it the first 7,846 times, but I have always said that
SOME type of SBT is theoretically possible.
> is clear from the Zapruder frames, in the frames where both JFK and
> Connally are visible and in the frames where both hidden behind the sign,
> that JFK and Connally are clearly out of alignment, that undeniable fact,
> combined with not non horizontal deflection of bullets, means the SBT is
> impossible. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you will see the
> truth.
>
Huh?
>
Anthony Marsh
> About that "minor point", didn't it deal with an explanation for the
> missing brain.
>
> If that box was not the canister with the brain, then the brain is still
> missing and the conspiracy continues (much to the chagrin of Bugliosi).
>
> The missing brain is a major point.
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
Shh! You're not supposed to think of that.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony, you make excellent points. Whew! That would have been an exciting
> exchange.
>
> VB probably knows his book won't be perfectly vetted until it is released
> and read by the public, and maybe he'll learn a thing or two from it.
>
> At least he got your list. Did you give him your list afterwards or did
> he have it before you lost your chance to speak?
>
I would only have been allowed to ask one question so I intended to read
from the text straight through to the end of the first point about the
head snap. When he refused to call on me I waited until everyone had
their books signed and then handed him all the material.
> Hopefully he'll respond and we'd be happy to see that response.
>
He should never respond. He knows he has been caught.
More to come.
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com...
>
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face. He did
> take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that he would
> take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands raised and
> he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on a tangent and
> never allowed me to ask the last question. Here is the list of questions I
> had prepared to ask him, a copy of which I gave him along with the
> supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission defenders which
> have caused 89% of the public to believe it was a conspiracy. The public
> sees that you lie about the evidence and thinks that, “Well, if they are
Chad Zimmerman
brain. If one would post the entire text, one would see that. He flatly
stated that nobody knew what was in it. Apparently Tony did. This whole BS
issue is Tony wanting credit for something as usual. Instead of credit, he
tries to martyr himself by calling VB a liar, then bragging about it on
the newsgroup.
Meanwhile in reality, Tony runs rampant through this NG posting blatant
falsehoods.
If you want them, Tony, I'd be happy to dig a few up...;-)
If anything, he is a pot calling a kettle black.
Chad
"Gerry Simone (O)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4654c25b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
-.-....-
Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence and thinks that, ìWell, if they are lying about all the
> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>
Are you an LN now, or just complaining that the public has reached the
right conclusion for the wrong reasons?
(Or just being disingenuous to annoy VB? Not that there's anything wrong
with that.)
Martin Shackelford
Bugliosi talked to one of those involved in the book project, and learned
firsthand that she had written every word of her published book. He then
turned around and falsely claimed that Livingstone wrote it.
I NEVER said that "Deadly Alliance" was "all Platzman's work." It becomes
tiresome responding to your creative inventions presented as "facts."
Once again, you misrepresent the situation with Marina and Judyth's
ex-husband:
1) I wrote to Marina, she didn't respond; I obtained the information
through a third party who was a friend of hers.
2) Judyth's ex-husband wrote that he knew of nothing that would
contradict what she was saying.
These are the things you always omit.
Finally, it is false to state that she "self-published." Self-publishing is
when an author pays to have her book published. In this instance, her book
was published by Harrison Livingstone, and none of the costs were borne by
Judyth. This is no more self-publishing than was Madeleine Brown's book,
also published by Livingstone.
You could use some practice telling the truth--it seems a very
difficult concept for you.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179938621.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
given.
Martin
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:465506a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Jean Davison
> Johnsen, of course, was unable later to identify CE399 as the bullet he
> was given.
How was he supposed to ID a bullet that he didn't mark, months
after he last saw it? .
Was Wright carrying around a spent bullet at Parkland, Martin?
Just happened to have one on him?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
> In article <cLmdnVmL-NNqOM7b...@comcast.com>, Anthony
> Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Vincent Bugliosi
>>
>> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>>
>> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
>> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
>> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
>> evidence and thinks that, ìWell, if they are lying about all the
>> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>>
>
> Are you an LN now, or just complaining that the public has reached the
> right conclusion for the wrong reasons?
>
It's hard to explain if you have never read anything else I have written.
I am complaining about who is responsible for so many people believing
it was a conspiracy. It was the public's reaction to the constant lies
which made them suspect it was a conspiracy. The SBT is a joke. So, if
the WC had just told the truth in the first place it may have taken many
years to catch onto the fact that it was a conspiracy.
> (Or just being disingenuous to annoy VB? Not that there's anything wrong
> with that.)
>
My annoying part was to turn the blame back on him.
Anthony Marsh
> VB was repeating the speculation that others felt that it contained the
> brain. If one would post the entire text, one would see that. He flatly
> stated that nobody knew what was in it. Apparently Tony did. This whole BS
> issue is Tony wanting credit for something as usual. Instead of credit, he
> tries to martyr himself by calling VB a liar, then bragging about it on
> the newsgroup.
>
You are mixing up my paragraphs. The paragraph about the box had nothing
to do with Bugliosi being a liar. The issue about the box was Bugliosi
being a sloppy researcher. Passing along CIA propaganda without
bothering to fact check it.
> Meanwhile in reality, Tony runs rampant through this NG posting blatant
> falsehoods.
>
> If you want them, Tony, I'd be happy to dig a few up...;-)
>
Junk. I had the documents, you didn't, he didn't.
Glenn Sarlitto
> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> > Way to Go
>
> > On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> >> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
Tony,
Per...
> > Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>
> > I pray to God that this was recorded.
>
> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>
>
Get real!
>
>
>
> >> He did take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that
> >> he would take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands
> >> raised and he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on
> >> a tangent and never allowed me to ask the last question.
> >> Here is the list of questions I had prepared to ask him, a copy of which
> >> I gave him along with the supporting documents.
>
> >> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> >> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> >> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> >> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> >> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> >> evidence and thinks that, "Well, if they are lying about all the
> >> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>
> >> On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
> >> JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
> >> 312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
> >> error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
> >> of frame 313.
> >> You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
> >> book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
> >> for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
> >> the Itek report was wrong. He no longer believes that there was a
> >> head shot from behind. He was impressed by David Wimp's very
> >> careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
> >> in the limo moved forward. Were they all hit by bullets from behind?
> >> His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
> >> continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
> >> Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving
> >> forward.
>
> >> Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when
> >> you claim the Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book
> >> all your diagrams depict it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say
> >> frame 223-224. So, which is it? Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactly
> >> the same as frame 224 and Connally never changed position, despite the
> >> fact that he testified that he was in the process of turning when he was
> >> hit?
>
> >> You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in
> >> photos of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained
> >> and speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
> >> disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
> >> research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed
> >> over a flower to cover and protect it.
>
> >> You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
> >> Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
> >> or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
> >> the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
> >> cover-up. Not because they were genuine (they were a CIA hoax), but
> >> because Hoover and LBJ continued to think they were real and could
> >> lead to WWIII. That is the leverage that LBJ used to blackmail the
> >> Warren Commission into participating in the cover-up.
> >> __________________________________________________________
>
> >> Here are the documents about the flower which I scanned in and printed
> >> out for him.
>
> >>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Fitt1967.gifhttp://the-puzzle-palace.com...
Tony,
Per...
> I notice that you don't jump to his defense and answer my questions.
> Very telling.
>
Reality check. The questions you asked were directed at Bugliosi, not
me.
What interested me was your conduct at a public forum.
Quite the Class Act, Tony.
GS
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
But you complained when I theorized about a missed shot.
Gerry Simone (O)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:54qdnQURXYuoicjb...@comcast.com...
> sees that you lie about the evidence and thinks that, 展ell, if they are
JLeyd...@aol.com
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
> He did take questions, but I politely waited until the end. He said that
> he would take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands
> raised and he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on
> a tangent and never allowed me to ask the last question.
> Here is the list of questions I had prepared to ask him, a copy of which
> I gave him along with the supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
Hey, Tony, you lost me after you accused Bugliosi of lying five times in
the first two graphs. You CTs really need to update your Act. We're not
in Fifth Grade anymore... well, most of us.
JGL
Chad Zimmerman
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> VB was repeating the speculation that others felt that it contained the
>> brain. If one would post the entire text, one would see that. He flatly
>> stated that nobody knew what was in it. Apparently Tony did. This whole
>> BS issue is Tony wanting credit for something as usual. Instead of
>> credit, he tries to martyr himself by calling VB a liar, then bragging
>> about it on the newsgroup.
>>
>
> You are mixing up my paragraphs. The paragraph about the box had nothing
> to do with Bugliosi being a liar. The issue about the box was Bugliosi
> being a sloppy researcher. Passing along CIA propaganda without bothering
> to fact check it.
Kinda like your disgustingly pathetic 'chiropractic vs. chiropractor'
argument, eh?
>
>> Meanwhile in reality, Tony runs rampant through this NG posting blatant
>> falsehoods.
>>
>> If you want them, Tony, I'd be happy to dig a few up...;-)
>>
>
> Junk. I had the documents, you didn't, he didn't.
Sashay!
Chad
Anthony Marsh
> On May 23, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>> Way to Go
>>> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
>>>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>
> Tony,
>
> Per...
>
>>> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>>> I pray to God that this was recorded.
>> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>>
>>
>
>
> Get real!
>
Recorded by whom? What did you have in mind?
Anthony Marsh
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ubd5i.9908$rO7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> Johnsen, of course, was unable later to identify CE399 as the bullet he
>> was given.
>
> How was he supposed to ID a bullet that he didn't mark, months
> after he last saw it? .
>
> Was Wright carrying around a spent bullet at Parkland, Martin?
> Just happened to have one on him?
>
> Jean
>
Well, we could do an experiment with YOU identifying bullets. We give you
a M-C bullet which you hold in your hand and then place two bullets on a
table. One bullet is a .38 and the other is a M-C bullet identical to the
one you hold in your hand. Then the question is if you could match up the
bullet you hold in your hand to the same type of bullet out of the two on
the table.
tomnln
As an educated man WHY don't you address evidence/testimony???
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180023308.0...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
>We're not
>in Fifth Grade anymore... well, most of us.
hehe
Well, with the amount of name-calling that goes on ....
I'd lower that to Sr. Kindergarten.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>> You are mixing up my paragraphs. The paragraph about the box had nothing
>> to do with Bugliosi being a liar. The issue about the box was Bugliosi
>> being a sloppy researcher. Passing along CIA propaganda without bothering
>> to fact check it.
>
>Kinda like your disgustingly pathetic 'chiropractic vs. chiropractor'
>argument, eh?
Did you mix up the paragraphs, Chad?
Or is that what you consider to be one of Tony's "blatant falsehoods"?
PF
Glenn Sarlitto
> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> > On May 23, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> >>> Way to Go
> >>> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> >>>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>
> > Tony,
>
> > Per...
>
> >>> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
> >>> I pray to God that this was recorded.
> >> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>
> > Get real!
>
Tony,
> Recorded by whom? What did you have in mind?
>
Something more realistic. Like a video supplied by the host/sponsor of
the event.
Jean Davison
> Jean Davison wrote:
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:ubd5i.9908$rO7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Johnsen, of course, was unable later to identify CE399 as the bullet he
>>> was given.
>>
>> How was he supposed to ID a bullet that he didn't mark, months
>> after he last saw it? .
>>
>> Was Wright carrying around a spent bullet at Parkland, Martin?
>> Just happened to have one on him?
>>
>> Jean
>>
>
> Well, we could do an experiment with YOU identifying bullets. We give you
> a M-C bullet which you hold in your hand and then place two bullets on a
> table. One bullet is a .38 and the other is a M-C bullet identical to the
> one you hold in your hand. Then the question is if you could match up the
> bullet you hold in your hand to the same type of bullet out of the two on
> the table.
>
Sorry, you must be looking for Monty Python's Argument Clinic:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
Jean
Mike
> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>> On May 23, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>>> Way to Go
>>>> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
>>>>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>>
>> Tony,
>>
>> Per...
>>
>>>> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>>>> I pray to God that this was recorded.
>>> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Get real!
>>
>
> Recorded by whom? What did you have in mind?
>
How about by you? I nearly suggested you at least take a camera phone with
you.
Mike :-)
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
> he would take 2 more questions. Two of us in the audience had our hands
> raised and he took a fluff question from some lady and then went off on
> a tangent and never allowed me to ask the last question.
> Here is the list of questions I had prepared to ask him, a copy of which
> I gave him along with the supporting documents.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi
>
> Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
>
> It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
> defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
> was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
> evidence and thinks that, "Well, if they are lying about all the
> evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
>
> On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
> JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
> 312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
> error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
> of frame 313.
***I don't know how much Kennedy's head snapped forward and down, but
it is not due to blur- his head moved in relation to other known
points of reference, which are also blurred. The movement of
Kennedy's head exceeded whatever blur existed in the frame. The
movement of Kennedy's head indicated he was shot from behind.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
The best tactic for you to use is to not read all the messages here and
ignore the fact that I have said thousands of times that JFK's head moved
forward. Just pretend in your mind that I said he never moved at all.
Bugliosi explained that it's a lot easier to defeat an argument by making
up false claims about what someone's theory involves.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:k_ydnXgilsGKbsjb...@comcast.com...
>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>> On May 23, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>>>> Way to Go
>>>>> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
>>>>>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>>> Tony,
>>>
>>> Per...
>>>
>>>>> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>>>>> I pray to God that this was recorded.
>>>> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Get real!
>>>
>> Recorded by whom? What did you have in mind?
>>
>
> How about by you? I nearly suggested you at least take a camera phone with
> you.
>
What do you think I am, some kind of spy? Who the Hell cares what Bugliosi
said? I uploaded the text of the questions I handed him and some of the
files and pictures.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 24, 9:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>> On May 23, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>>>> Way to Go
>>>>> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at a
>>>>>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>>> Tony,
>>> Per...
>>>>> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>>>>> I pray to God that this was recorded.
>>>> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>>> Get real!
>
> Tony,
>
>> Recorded by whom? What did you have in mind?
>>
>
> Something more realistic. Like a video supplied by the host/sponsor of
> the event.
>
It was a very small hall. Only about 70 people in the seats which could
probably not hold more than 250. I saw no one there videotaping. Certainly
the sponsors did not seem interested enough to tape it. I think he went
out of his way to select a location which did not have any official
relationship with an institution such as Harvard or MIT. Good choice,
small crowd.
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:k_ydnXgilsGKbsjb...@comcast.com...
>>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>>> On May 23, 10:27 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>>>>>> Way to Go
>>>>>> On May 22, 10:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I just returned from listening to Bugliosi spew out more nonsense at
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> lecture in Cambridge. As planned, I called him a liar to his face.
>>>> Tony,
>>>>
>>>> Per...
>>>>
>>>>>> Pardon my language ladies, but UNFRICKIN' BELIEVEABLE!!!
>>>>>> I pray to God that this was recorded.
>>>>> Are you suggesting that the CIA bugged the room?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Get real!
>>>>
>>> Recorded by whom? What did you have in mind?
>>>
>>
>> How about by you? I nearly suggested you at least take a camera phone
>> with you.
>>
>
> What do you think I am, some kind of spy?
Nah, you wouldn't make a very good spy: you'd be wanting to tell everyone
all that you know.
Mike :-)
Who the Hell cares what Bugliosi
> said? I uploaded the text of the questions I handed him and some of the
> files and pictures.
>
>> Mike :-)
>>
<snip>
Stug...@aol.com
<walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ubd5i.9908$rO7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Johnsen, of course, was unable later to identify CE399 as the bullet he
> > was given.
>
> How was he supposed to ID a bullet that he didn't mark, months
> after he last saw it? .
>
> Was Wright carrying around a spent bullet at Parkland, Martin?
> Just happened to have one on him?
>
> Jean
>
> > Martin
>
> >news:465506a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >> "Jean Davison" <walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:...
>
> >>> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:RST4i.9103$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>> Bugliosi states that the polls "usually" indicate 70-80% believing in a
> >>>> conspiracy (p. xv). That's true, but the percentage has sometimes been
> >>>> as
> >>>> high as 90%. He notes that the November 2003 Gallup poll gave the
> >>>> figure
> >>>> as 75%.There are, of course, other polls as well.
> >>>> Tony is correct--there is no actual evidence of forward head movement
> >>>> in
> >>>> 312/313.
> >>>> The other bullets? One was found at Parkland Hospital, a pointed-tip
> >>>> bullet that may still be in the possession of the wife of Parkland
> >>>> Security chief O.P. Wright (she displayed it during a rare interview).
>
> >>> You're suggesting that Wright kept the real stretcher bullet and
> >>> substituted another one. But that's not plausible, Martin.
>
> >>> Wright submitted a bullet to FBI agent Johnsen around 2 PM. Are
> >>> we
> >>> supposed to believe that Wright was carrying around a spent bullet that
> >>> day?
> >>> Was his motto "Be Prepared"? Boy Scout leader, was he?
>
> >> Sorry, I shoulda said "Secret Service agent Johnsen." I better
> >> correct that, or Tony may claim I am lying. ;-)
>
> >> Jean
Jean,
The better question is why Elmer Todd's initials-- who was trained to mark
the bullet and who positively ID'd *a* bullet based on those markings--
are not on the round known as CE399. I know you go with the "Todd's
markings completely faded but everyone else's stayed fresh" argument but I
don't think most objective observers would find that very convincing. It
is probably the single most damning revelation about CE399.
-Stu
Jean Davison
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180220954....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Stu,
I don't know that Elmer Todd's initials are not on CE399. But
let's say they aren't. Joseph Nicol testified that he marked CE399 when
he examined it in 1964. Where is his mark? .
The "fading" suggestion came from this item on Weberman's site:
QUOTE:
>In June 1979 the FBI examined the [Walker] bullet for the officers initials
>who
>>>were links in the chain of evidence: "Identifiable marks were found
>>>inscribed on varying portions of the bullet itself. It must be understood
>>>that certain markings are clearly discernible, others admit of more than
>>>one interpretation, while others may be obscured by oxidation or
>>>otherwise." The markings found were, "Q 188," and letters which appeared
>>>to be as follows: "HJ," "RF," "N," "B," "J," "D," "A," "O" or "D." The
>>>bullet was contained in an original Dallas Police evidence box: "The
>>>cover (top) of the box bears 'HJ, RF, April 10, 1963, 4011 Turtle. CK
>>>Burg by F.A. BGB Q 188. The inside bottom of the box bears 'Day 7640' and
>>>the outside bottom bears '7640 Day' as well as 'Q 188' and 'Rm.'" [FBI
>>>Director to Keuch 62-117290-144 7.3.79]<<<
UNQUOTE
Can anyone show that Todd's and Nicol's marks couldn't have been
"obscured by oxidation or otherwise" after 40 years, if in fact they are
no longer visible? If there's a more plausible explanation, what would it
be?
Jean
tomnln
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4659c355$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Can anyone show that Todd's and Nicol's marks couldn't have been
> "obscured by oxidation or otherwise" after 40 years, if in fact they are
> no longer visible? If there's a more plausible explanation, what would it
> be?
>
> Jean
ONLY if you know how to spell "Cover-Up".
ONLY if you know how spell "Alteration of Evidence".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------