DVP's Favorite Vincent Bugliosi Quotes

[David Von Pein]

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an
astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's
guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the
leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no
background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of
evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of,
all the other evidence." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 952-953 of
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"
(c.2007)(Published by W.W. Norton & Co.)

Also see:

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

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now
gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were
altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took
place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and
objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the
president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some
point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza
were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

[Anthony Marsh]

53 pieces of silver. Do you even know what that means? Jesus Christ,
wake up.

[bigdog]

I've been saying that for years although Bugliosi has said it much
stronger than I ever did. Conspiracy hobbyists will always attack the
evidence piecemeal. They never look at the entire body of evidence. It is
much easier attack the individual pieces because when you put those pieces
together, the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts
because each piece strengthens the others.

For example, you could look at the fact that Oswald owned the murder
weapon and you could make a reasonable argument that someone else fired
the shots and it would not be all that far fetched. But when you combined
it with the fact that he made a special trip to Irving the night before,
that he brought a long package into work with him the next day, that long
empty bag was found near the sniper's nest, that the bag had his
fingerprints on it, that it had fibers matching his rifle blanket in it,
that his palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could have
only been placed with the rifle disassembled, that fibers matching his
shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, that his fingerprints
were found in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if he was
looking down Elm St., and an eyewitnesses IDed him, reasonable arguments
for his innocence evaporate. You could look at any one of those pieces and
you could find a reasonable explanation that doesn't include Oswald being
the assassin but there is no conceivable way all that evidence would
coincidentally line up against him if he were actually innocent. But that
one stop the anybody-but-Oswald crowd. They will go down that list of
evidence and reach for the least likely of possible explanations because
the most likely one invariably points to his guilt.

I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
looking at the body of evidence as a whole.

[BOZ]

WOW! BUGLIOSI WAS BRILLIANT.

[BOZ]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 1:05:00 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Great quotes. The conspiracy believers should not be taken seriously.
The whole thing is silly.

[David Von Pein]

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

[OHLeeRedux]

That's about the twentieth time you've made that same silly reference. And
yes, we all know what it means, even though you will falsely claim that we
don't.

You really need to read a book now and then. Maybe then you will be able
to find some new references to replace the moldy ones you keep trotting
out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. We've been over this stuff thousands of times and you never pay
attention.

[David Von Pein]

Ready for another one? Okay....but make sure you aren't drinking anything
when you read this one:

"Apparently, Kennedy's assassin, instead of trying to hide in the trunk of
a car in the railroad yard parking lot or trying to escape from behind the
picket fence after shooting Kennedy, had much more important things to
do—mainly, climb over the fence (at which point he'd be in plain
view of everyone on Elm Street) so he could beat up on that louse Gordon
Arnold and take his film." -- Vincent Bugliosi

[David Von Pein]

Bugliosi Bonus....

Radio Interview....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_YygHvgJjo6V1JSUGVSbGdDbXM/view

[David Von Pein]

JOHN CORBETT (BIGDOG) SAID:

You could look at any one of those pieces and you could find a reasonable
explanation that doesn't include Oswald being the assassin but there is no
conceivable way all that evidence would coincidentally line up against him

if he were actually innocent. But that [won't] stop the anybody-but-Oswald

crowd. They will go down that list of evidence and reach for the least
likely of possible explanations because the most likely one invariably
points to his guilt.

I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
looking at the body of evidence as a whole.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

**Ding! Ding! Ding!** Bigdog wins the jackpot prize!

Actually, the discussion linked below with our dear CT friend Ben Holmes
started many days before I posted this "Bugliosi Quotes" thread here at
aaj, but the point brought up by John Corbett above is still correct and
valid anyway --- i.e., CTers will "ISOLATE" the evidence until the cows
come home. Let's just watch as a conspiracy fantasist attempts to isolate
every single one of Vince Bugliosi's "53 Reasons":

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Stupid conflating. One crime does not prove the other.
There have been other cases where someone was framedm but later killed
someone else.

[Anthony Marsh]

The public took us seriously. The House took us seriously.
We have the majority opinion. You are in the fringe.

[bigdog]

Another brilliant observation and one I wished I had thought of years ago.
Oswald was the owner of both murder weapons and had one still in his
possession when arrested yet amazingly some people continue to claim he
was innocent. Two murders committed less than an hour apart, both with
Oswald's guns, and we are supposed to believe he was innocent. Amazing.

[John McAdams]

On 2 Feb 2017 22:06:10 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

I'm afraid I have to be the statistics cop here. This kind of logic
only holds if the two events (killing of JFK and killing of Tippit)
were independent draws from some probability distribution.

If they were *casually related* the logic would not follow.

The LN causal relationship is that the Tippit shooting by Oswald
logically followed from the shooting of JFK when Tippit recognized
Oswald as fitting the broadcast description of the shooter.

But a conspiracy causal connection would exist if a conspiracy
arranged both shootings, and arranged both to be done by a gun that
could be tied to Oswald. Or had the power, post hoc, to fake evidence
to tie both guns to Oswald.

So both shootings are related, regardless of your theory.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:06:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

WHOA! Who proved that the MC rifle killed anyone? Or that bullets
from it ever hit or hurt anyone? Impossible to prove, but you're welcome
to try. And there are still difficulties with the Tippit killing that
make it not so open and shut. As well, who's kidding who when a lawyer
tries to suggest that the odds are in favor of Oswald being guilty. If
there are odds on that, then there is a chance he is innocent too.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Well, now we have your opinion. Try evidence next time.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WOW! Bugliosi was a lawyer, trained to convince people of something
that may not be true. He made money from his book if foolishness.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 9:19:10 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:05:00 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > "The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an
> > astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's
> > guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the
> > leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no
> > background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of
> > evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of,
> > all the other evidence." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 952-953 of
> > "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"
> > (c.2007)(Published by W.W. Norton & Co.)
> >
> > Also see:
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html
> >
> > http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
> >
> > http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
>
> I've been saying that for years although Bugliosi has said it much
> stronger than I ever did. Conspiracy hobbyists will always attack the
> evidence piecemeal. They never look at the entire body of evidence. It is
> much easier attack the individual pieces because when you put those pieces
> together, the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts
> because each piece strengthens the others.
>

Oh well, of course, you were there first. However WRONG as usual.
As a proud CT I've looked at the crime in overview and come up with a
conspiracy more than ever. Including the bits too. No mater how you look
at it, it was a plot to murder JFK, and it will succeed as long as there
are folks that help the government keep it covered up.

> For example, you could look at the fact that Oswald owned the murder
> weapon and you could make a reasonable argument that someone else fired
> the shots and it would not be all that far fetched. But when you combined
> it with the fact that he made a special trip to Irving the night before,
> that he brought a long package into work with him the next day, that long
> empty bag was found near the sniper's nest, that the bag had his
> fingerprints on it, that it had fibers matching his rifle blanket in it,
> that his palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could have
> only been placed with the rifle disassembled, that fibers matching his
> shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, that his fingerprints
> were found in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if he was
> looking down Elm St., and an eyewitnesses IDed him, reasonable arguments
> for his innocence evaporate.

WRONG! The rifle belonged to Oswald. Most of that so-called evidence
above was there because he owned the rifle. Therefore it's not really
evidence. There are any number of reasons why someone would bring their
rifle in to work, just as Truly did, to show off his guns. Using a paper
bag to hide the rifle in also is reasonable if the worker didn't want to
be caught spending his work time showing or selling his rifle. Fibers
also are a natural result of the owner of a rifle when they might try the
rifle to the shoulder. I could make a list of 'evidence' like that, and
find someone guilty too. For example, I know a fellow that wears a blue
shirt on Fridays, and he owns a rifle and he works at the TSBD and he eats
his lunch there during a 12 o'clock break. See? He's guilty! I've
proved it! Sheesh! What garbage!

You could look at any one of those pieces and
> you could find a reasonable explanation that doesn't include Oswald being
> the assassin but there is no conceivable way all that evidence would
> coincidentally line up against him if he were actually innocent. But that
> one stop the anybody-but-Oswald crowd. They will go down that list of
> evidence and reach for the least likely of possible explanations because
> the most likely one invariably points to his guilt.
>

You could find a ham sandwich guilty using thinking like that.

> I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
> hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
> they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
> looking at the body of evidence as a whole.

To make you feel better, I hereby reject your thinking and phony list
of 'evidence' "as a whole". I will also do it individually if you need
lots of rejection.

Chris

[bigdog]

Just once I would like to see a conspiracy hobbyist at least attempt to
present a complete scenario of the shooting that explains all of the
available evidence rather than try to explain it away. They can offer
alternative explanations for each and every piece of evidence in isolation
but I would like to see them put together a complete scenario that
incorporates all those alternative explanations. I would like to see that
but I would also like to see a winning Powerball ticket in my hands. I'm
not sure which of these wishes has the longer odds.

[BOZ]

I'm in suspense? Uhhh Who is Judas Priest I mean Iscariot?

[BOZ]

Keep them coming. These are great.

[Jason Burke]

On 2/3/2017 7:53 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:06:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
>> them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
>> Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
>> talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
>> trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
>
>
>
>
> WHOA! Who proved that the MC rifle killed anyone? Or that bullets
> from it ever hit or hurt anyone?

Dang. This dude ACTUALLY thinks he's serious.
Sad.

[David Von Pein]

But Bugliosi's "What is the probability?" logic is a lot harder for
anybody to argue with when we add in the additional fact of OSWALD STILL
HAVING ONE OF THOSE TWO GUNS IN HIS POSSESSION AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST.
(Therefore, the idea of a "planted" gun in the Tippit case must be tossed
out the window.)

With that latter element in place (and it *is* firmly in place, although
no Internet CTer would dare admit it), then the probability of Oswald
being innocent of BOTH murders is nonexistent.

[John McAdams]

On 4 Feb 2017 20:03:24 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>

Right, but that doesn't bail out Bugliosi's argument.

If you find somebody in possession of a murder weapon, and there is no
plausible scenario as to how he might have acquired it *since* the
murder, that's strong evidence.

Did the real shooter run up to Oswald, who was innocently strolling
around in Oak Cliff, hand him the pistol and say "here Lee, please
take this and go run hide from the police?"

But my point is you can't just multiply probabilities the way you can
with to independent events.

What is the probability of drawing two aces in a row from a deck of
cards?

If the probability of drawing the first ace is 4/52, and the
probability of then drawing a second ace is 3/51, the probability is:

(4/51)*(3/51)

But that is only because the two draws are *independent.*

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

The only recovered bullet and the only recovered shells were positively
matched to Oswald's rifle. You insist we prove the bullets from Oswald's
rifle killed JFK yet you don't even have any other bullets so how are you
going to prove other bullets killed JFK?

[bigdog]

I never claimed to be the first to make that observation but the is beside
the point. Let's see you present a complete alternative scenario that is
compatible with the known evidence. You will find you won't be able to do
it. You will be forced to claim the evidence is fraudulent. The only
scenario that fits all the evidence is that Oswald fired the shots that
killed JFK and there is no evidence that anyone else took part.

>
>
> > For example, you could look at the fact that Oswald owned the murder
> > weapon and you could make a reasonable argument that someone else fired
> > the shots and it would not be all that far fetched. But when you combined
> > it with the fact that he made a special trip to Irving the night before,
> > that he brought a long package into work with him the next day, that long
> > empty bag was found near the sniper's nest, that the bag had his
> > fingerprints on it, that it had fibers matching his rifle blanket in it,
> > that his palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could have
> > only been placed with the rifle disassembled, that fibers matching his
> > shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, that his fingerprints
> > were found in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if he was
> > looking down Elm St., and an eyewitnesses IDed him, reasonable arguments
> > for his innocence evaporate.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! The rifle belonged to Oswald. Most of that so-called evidence
> above was there because he owned the rifle. Therefore it's not really
> evidence.

The fact the murder weapon was his rifle is evidence. Given the nonsense
you think is evidence it is not surprising you don't recognize real
evidence when you see it.

> There are any number of reasons why someone would bring their
> rifle in to work, just as Truly did, to show off his guns.

No, somebody else brought a couple rifles into the TSBD to show Truly
earlier in the week. No bullets or shells were recovered from those rifles
or any other rifle other than Oswald's.

> Using a paper
> bag to hide the rifle in also is reasonable if the worker didn't want to
> be caught spending his work time showing or selling his rifle.

Or if he didn't want to be seen bringing a rifle to work on a day the
POTUS would be riding by in a slow moving open top car.

> Fibers
> also are a natural result of the owner of a rifle when they might try the
> rifle to the shoulder. I could make a list of 'evidence' like that, and
> find someone guilty too.

You're welcome to try.

> For example, I know a fellow that wears a blue
> shirt on Fridays, and he owns a rifle and he works at the TSBD and he eats
> his lunch there during a 12 o'clock break. See? He's guilty! I've
> proved it! Sheesh! What garbage!
>

Where are the bullets or shells from his rifle? Where is his rifle? Did he
leave the TSBD after the shooting and kill a cop less than 45 mintues
later.

>
>
> You could look at any one of those pieces and
> > you could find a reasonable explanation that doesn't include Oswald being
> > the assassin but there is no conceivable way all that evidence would
> > coincidentally line up against him if he were actually innocent. But that
> > one stop the anybody-but-Oswald crowd. They will go down that list of
> > evidence and reach for the least likely of possible explanations because
> > the most likely one invariably points to his guilt.
> >
>
>
>
> You could find a ham sandwich guilty using thinking like that.
>

So now you are mimicking Marsh. Not something to be proud of.

>
>
>
> > I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
> > hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
> > they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
> > looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
>
>
>
> To make you feel better, I hereby reject your thinking and phony list
> of 'evidence' "as a whole". I will also do it individually if you need
> lots of rejection.
>

Rejecting evidence is what conspiracy hobbyists do. If they actually tried
to explain the evidence the only explanation available to them is that
Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

[BOZ]

Cyril Wecht is the minority. Wecht is in the fringe.

[David Von Pein]

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

----------------------------

"If conspirators were to use a fake photograph to frame Oswald, why would
they take all these [backyard] photos—thereby increasing the risk,
by each photo, of their fakery being detected—when just one photo
would accomplish their purpose? .... What reason would the conspirators
have for taking multiple photos? Even if it was to ensure that they at
least got one good photo, after they got their good photo, why wouldn't
they destroy the others?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

[Jason Burke]

You *might* win Powerball if you buy enough tickets (See how some boys
from my old dorm, Random Hall, were able to do that with a flawed
Massachusetts Lottery game.)

But the odds of the other are zero.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/3/2017 10:40 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2017 22:06:10 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
>> them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
>> Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
>> talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
>> trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
>
> I'm afraid I have to be the statistics cop here. This kind of logic
> only holds if the two events (killing of JFK and killing of Tippit)
> were independent draws from some probability distribution.
>
> If they were *casually related* the logic would not follow.
>
> The LN causal relationship is that the Tippit shooting by Oswald
> logically followed from the shooting of JFK when Tippit recognized
> Oswald as fitting the broadcast description of the shooter.
>

False. The 2 crimes can not be connected that way. Oswald was paranoid
and could have shot Tippit for merely being followed and stopped.
We see that all the time when a cop stops a car for a traffic violation
and the driver comes out shooting. That does not prove that he just
assassinated someone. It proves that he is a criminal who does not want
to be arrested.

> But a conspiracy causal connection would exist if a conspiracy
> arranged both shootings, and arranged both to be done by a gun that
> could be tied to Oswald. Or had the power, post hoc, to fake evidence
> to tie both guns to Oswald.
>
> So both shootings are related, regardless of your theory.
>

False. You intentionally fail to list the other possibility.
That Oswald realized that he had been set up and was fleeing for his
life. Your thinking is always black and white, but the real world is
not only in black and white.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

False. You just praise a fellow WC defender who shares your bias.
Oswald might have been completely innocent of killing the President, but
had a motive to kill Tippit.

[David Von Pein]

"Even if Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to plant a bullet on
Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder, making Ruby a
part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, is...too ludicrous for words.
The philosophy of the zany conspiracy theorists is that if something is
theoretically possible (as most things are), then it's not only probable,
it happened." -- Vincent Bugliosi

[Anthony Marsh]

You haven't so why should we? You can't tell us where the miss shot went.

> it. You will be forced to claim the evidence is fraudulent. The only
> scenario that fits all the evidence is that Oswald fired the shots that
> killed JFK and there is no evidence that anyone else took part.
>

False ASSuMPTION.

>>
>>
>>> For example, you could look at the fact that Oswald owned the murder
>>> weapon and you could make a reasonable argument that someone else fired
>>> the shots and it would not be all that far fetched. But when you combined
>>> it with the fact that he made a special trip to Irving the night before,
>>> that he brought a long package into work with him the next day, that long
>>> empty bag was found near the sniper's nest, that the bag had his
>>> fingerprints on it, that it had fibers matching his rifle blanket in it,
>>> that his palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could have
>>> only been placed with the rifle disassembled, that fibers matching his
>>> shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, that his fingerprints
>>> were found in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if he was
>>> looking down Elm St., and an eyewitnesses IDed him, reasonable arguments
>>> for his innocence evaporate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! The rifle belonged to Oswald. Most of that so-called evidence
>> above was there because he owned the rifle. Therefore it's not really
>> evidence.
>
> The fact the murder weapon was his rifle is evidence. Given the nonsense
> you think is evidence it is not surprising you don't recognize real
> evidence when you see it.
>
>> There are any number of reasons why someone would bring their
>> rifle in to work, just as Truly did, to show off his guns.
>
> No, somebody else brought a couple rifles into the TSBD to show Truly
> earlier in the week. No bullets or shells were recovered from those rifles
> or any other rifle other than Oswald's.
>

No attempt was made to recover any bullets from Custer's rifles of Truly's.

>> Using a paper
>> bag to hide the rifle in also is reasonable if the worker didn't want to
>> be caught spending his work time showing or selling his rifle.
>
> Or if he didn't want to be seen bringing a rifle to work on a day the
> POTUS would be riding by in a slow moving open top car.
>
>> Fibers
>> also are a natural result of the owner of a rifle when they might try the
>> rifle to the shoulder. I could make a list of 'evidence' like that, and
>> find someone guilty too.
>
> You're welcome to try.
>
>> For example, I know a fellow that wears a blue
>> shirt on Fridays, and he owns a rifle and he works at the TSBD and he eats
>> his lunch there during a 12 o'clock break. See? He's guilty! I've
>> proved it! Sheesh! What garbage!
>>
>
> Where are the bullets or shells from his rifle? Where is his rifle? Did he
> leave the TSBD after the shooting and kill a cop less than 45 mintues
> later.
>

You are conflating again. Was he left-handed? Had he defected to the
Soviet Union?

>>
>>
>> You could look at any one of those pieces and
>>> you could find a reasonable explanation that doesn't include Oswald being
>>> the assassin but there is no conceivable way all that evidence would
>>> coincidentally line up against him if he were actually innocent. But that
>>> one stop the anybody-but-Oswald crowd. They will go down that list of
>>> evidence and reach for the least likely of possible explanations because
>>> the most likely one invariably points to his guilt.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You could find a ham sandwich guilty using thinking like that.
>>
>
> So now you are mimicking Marsh. Not something to be proud of.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
>>> hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
>>> they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
>>> looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
>>
>>
>>
>> To make you feel better, I hereby reject your thinking and phony list
>> of 'evidence' "as a whole". I will also do it individually if you need
>> lots of rejection.
>>
>
> Rejecting evidence is what conspiracy hobbyists do. If they actually tried

Proving that the Zapruder film is authentic is what I did.

[Anthony Marsh]

We have a lot of dustlike fragments in the brain. You can't prove what
bullet they came from and you can't show another case of a WCC Carcano
doing that.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/4/2017 8:34 PM, bigdog wrote:

NAA. CABL.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, you're not putting the cards back and reshuffling the deck.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Hubris is not evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

WHo said they TOOK the photos? That is a straw man argument.
The claim is that they altered existing photos.

[Anthony Marsh]

I thought we were talking about conspiracy.

[BOZ]

False. The 2 crimes can not be connected that way. (OF COURSE> OSWALD
KILLED TIPPIT BECAUSE HE KILLED JFK).

Oswald was paranoid (OF COURSE OSWALD WAS PARANOID BECAUSE HE JUST KILLED
THE PRESIDENT). and could have shot Tippit for merely being followed and
stopped.(HE WENT TO GET HIS HANDGUN FIRST BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS RIFLE ON the
6th FLOOR) We see that all the time when a cop stops a car for a traffic
violation (WE DON'T SEE IT ALL THE TIME). and the driver comes out
shooting. That does not prove that he just (OSWALD WAS WALKING HE WAS NOT
IN A CAR> HE DID NOT HAVE A LICENSE) assassinated someone. It proves that
he is a criminal who does not want to be arrested. (IT PROVES
CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT)

[bigdog]

BINGO!!! BINGO!!! BINGO!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Oswald was paraoid when he went down to Mexico and told the KGB
that the FBI was following him and he took the gun everywhere he went for
protection. Of course you know the FBI would never follow anyone around,
don't you? DON'T YOU?

> stopped.(HE WENT TO GET HIS HANDGUN FIRST BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS RIFLE ON the
> 6th FLOOR) We see that all the time when a cop stops a car for a traffic
> violation (WE DON'T SEE IT ALL THE TIME). and the driver comes out

You don't watch enough TV. They have a shot dedicated to that.

> shooting. That does not prove that he just (OSWALD WAS WALKING HE WAS NOT
> IN A CAR> HE DID NOT HAVE A LICENSE) assassinated someone. It proves that

I hate to be the one to tell you the facts of life but a lot of people
drive cars who do not have a license. Grow up.

> he is a criminal who does not want to be arrested. (IT PROVES
> CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT)
>

Is that true of every punk who shoots a cop for a simple stop?

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

Well, there's a bunch of opinions that prove nothing.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Because you Haven't recovered other bullets does NOT
automatically mean that the bullets found killed someone, or even hurt
someone. That's not logical. And there are too many bullet strikes in
Dealey Plaza, particularly around JFK, to be coincidental or ricochets, or
fragments shedding off other bullets.

One of the 2 bullets found and in evidence has an odd background that
makes it suspect as even having been fired by anyone in the TSBD.

Aside from the bullet found on the WRONG gurney in Parkland, later
when there were complaints, that bullet (CE399) was shown to 4 men that
had handled the original bullet, and they refused to identify it. One of
them even said that it was the wrong shape. That it was round nosed when
it should have been pointy nosed. This is suggestive of a replacement
bullet in evidence. So a bullet found on a gurney at Parkland was
co-opted to be a murder bullet, when there was NO proof of such a foolish
invention. Now let's look at the second bullet found.

The second bullet found was in 2 fragments, and they were supposedly
found in the front seat area of the limousine. Directly over the
windshield of the limo there was a serious, heavy bullet strike, which was
circular and was probably one of the 3 shells supposedly fired by the MC
rifle. Given the position of the strike on the limo, it's too high to
have been ricocheted up to that point, which is over the heads of any
passengers in the limo, and no one can think of a way for the bullet to
have hit anyone and then popped up to strike above the windshield so hard
that the bullet breaks into 2 pieces and falls down directly below the
strike point. As well, all bullet hits on people have been accounted for
as per the government story. So that bullet didn't hit anyone.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The evidence doesn't show any such thing! I've seen your
evidence and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

> >
> >
> > > For example, you could look at the fact that Oswald owned the murder
> > > weapon and you could make a reasonable argument that someone else fired
> > > the shots and it would not be all that far fetched. But when you combined
> > > it with the fact that he made a special trip to Irving the night before,
> > > that he brought a long package into work with him the next day, that long
> > > empty bag was found near the sniper's nest, that the bag had his
> > > fingerprints on it, that it had fibers matching his rifle blanket in it,
> > > that his palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could have
> > > only been placed with the rifle disassembled, that fibers matching his
> > > shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, that his fingerprints
> > > were found in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if he was
> > > looking down Elm St., and an eyewitnesses IDed him, reasonable arguments
> > > for his innocence evaporate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The rifle belonged to Oswald. Most of that so-called evidence
> > above was there because he owned the rifle. Therefore it's not really
> > evidence.
>
> The fact the murder weapon was his rifle is evidence. Given the nonsense
> you think is evidence it is not surprising you don't recognize real
> evidence when you see it.
>

Saying it over again that the rifle belonged to Oswald does NOT make it
evidence of murder. It is only evidence that it belonged to Oswald. No
bullet from the rifle was found inside any injured or dead person.

> > There are any number of reasons why someone would bring their
> > rifle in to work, just as Truly did, to show off his guns.
>
> No, somebody else brought a couple rifles into the TSBD to show Truly
> earlier in the week. No bullets or shells were recovered from those rifles
> or any other rifle other than Oswald's.
>

So what? Finding bullets or shells to a rifle may prove that it was
fired, but whether the bullets hit anyone, is unprovable in this case.

> > Using a paper
> > bag to hide the rifle in also is reasonable if the worker didn't want to
> > be caught spending his work time showing or selling his rifle.
>
> Or if he didn't want to be seen bringing a rifle to work on a day the
> POTUS would be riding by in a slow moving open top car.
>

There's no proof of a connection in the mind of Oswald. That's just
opinion.

> > Fibers
> > also are a natural result of the owner of a rifle when they might try the
> > rifle to the shoulder. I could make a list of 'evidence' like that, and
> > find someone guilty too.
>
> You're welcome to try.
>
> > For example, I know a fellow that wears a blue
> > shirt on Fridays, and he owns a rifle and he works at the TSBD and he eats
> > his lunch there during a 12 o'clock break. See? He's guilty! I've
> > proved it! Sheesh! What garbage!
> >
>
> Where are the bullets or shells from his rifle? Where is his rifle? Did he
> leave the TSBD after the shooting and kill a cop less than 45 mintues
> later.
>

There is no difference in my list of proof and yours as to whether
they suggest that murder was done. None at all.

> > You could look at any one of those pieces and
> > > you could find a reasonable explanation that doesn't include Oswald being
> > > the assassin but there is no conceivable way all that evidence would
> > > coincidentally line up against him if he were actually innocent. But that
> > > one stop the anybody-but-Oswald crowd. They will go down that list of
> > > evidence and reach for the least likely of possible explanations because
> > > the most likely one invariably points to his guilt.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You could find a ham sandwich guilty using thinking like that.
> >
>
> So now you are mimicking Marsh. Not something to be proud of.
>

The term came from a prosecutor long ago. The phrase a that you could
indict a haw sandwich if you wanted to with a grand jury.

> > > I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
> > > hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
> > > they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
> > > looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
> >
> >
> >
> > To make you feel better, I hereby reject your thinking and phony list
> > of 'evidence' "as a whole". I will also do it individually if you need
> > lots of rejection.
> >
>
> Rejecting evidence is what conspiracy hobbyists do. If they actually tried
> to explain the evidence the only explanation available to them is that
> Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

WRONG! I've explained all of the above and I don't reject evidence
like you do. You're an LN conspiracy hobbyist.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:42:09 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> > JOHN CORBETT (BIGDOG) SAID:
> >
> > You could look at any one of those pieces and you could find a reasonable
> > explanation that doesn't include Oswald being the assassin but there is no
> > conceivable way all that evidence would coincidentally line up against him

> > if he were actually innocent. But that [won't] stop the anybody-but-Oswald

> > crowd. They will go down that list of evidence and reach for the least
> > likely of possible explanations because the most likely one invariably
> > points to his guilt.
> >

> > I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
> > hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
> > they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
> > looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
> >
> >

> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > **Ding! Ding! Ding!** Bigdog wins the jackpot prize!
> >
> > Actually, the discussion linked below with our dear CT friend Ben Holmes
> > started many days before I posted this "Bugliosi Quotes" thread here at
> > aaj, but the point brought up by John Corbett above is still correct and
> > valid anyway --- i.e., CTers will "ISOLATE" the evidence until the cows
> > come home. Let's just watch as a conspiracy fantasist attempts to isolate
> > every single one of Vince Bugliosi's "53 Reasons":
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html
>
> Just once I would like to see a conspiracy hobbyist at least attempt to
> present a complete scenario of the shooting that explains all of the
> available evidence rather than try to explain it away. They can offer
> alternative explanations for each and every piece of evidence in isolation
> but I would like to see them put together a complete scenario that
> incorporates all those alternative explanations. I would like to see that
> but I would also like to see a winning Powerball ticket in my hands. I'm
> not sure which of these wishes has the longer odds.

Typical of your self congratulatory style. By giving a complete
scenario it would give you the opportunity to potshot that scenario, which
is always easier than making the scenario, and also giving you the chance
to congratulate yourself for your wonderful analysis. Sadly, the whole
thing would take too long to write down only for you to potshot it and
begin an argument, but I have given you as much of it that exists up to
now, so you can put it together. I WILL give you a quick scenario though,
with the statement that there are many fill-ins for the gaps, if asked.

For political reasons as well as wealth and just plain hate, a number
of men got together and found that they all had the same goal, that of
removing JFK from the presidency and installing someone who would be more
happy with their goals. By feeling each other out and then contacting
others who felt similarly, they put together a group of about 20 people
that decided to perform a coup, taking out JFK and installing LBJ. There
were a few main movers, but also men from the Secret Service and men from
the FBI included in the group. As well, there were a couple from the CIA,
who also contacted some from the Mafia. The intent was to station
shooters around a good location in a city they chose, where there was a
good 'patsy' to take the blame for the whole murder and die soon after so
that he couldn't be made to talk or convince anyone that he was telling
the truth that he was a 'patsy'.

It was decided that using the power of the White House resources, they
could quickly cover up their tracks and make it seem that all was done by
the 'lone nut' patsy. They decided that since they had to use multiple
shooters to be sure of killing the target, they would have to get the body
to a military installation so they could control the autopsy and results,
which would be demanded in a murder case. Best to get the body back to
Washington where they knew the territory. A location was chosen for the
killing near where the 'patsy' worked, and all the protections they could
remove from the presidential limousine were dealt with and ordered away.
The route was established that would take the limo near to the 'patsy's
location. The local police were also ordered to keep back from the limo
with their motorcycles.

The killing went off as planned, and the limousine was taken to Parkland
hospital, where JFK was pronounced dead. 5 people saw a bullet hole in
the forward windshield of the limo, and a driver got it out of there
before it became an object of conversation.

Before all this a lookalike for the patsy was going around doing
various suspicious things to appear to be either planning something, or
staying in a bad fame of mind politically. Most of that preparation was
not used in the end.

After the shooting many people that worked in the TSBD saw or were told
what had happened out on the street, where JFK had been shot. A
motorcycle cop went inside and found Roy Truly, a supervisor in the TSBD
and they went to go upstairs to find the shooter on the upper floor.

Oswald the patsy had been convinced with some story or other to bring
in his MC rifle, and he had done that using a paper bag he quickly made
from brown paper. He did that because he didn't want to get caught doing
his own work during working hours. He hid the rifle on the 6th floor and
told the person that had convinced him to bring it in where it was.

A small group of 3 people snuck into the TSBD at about 12:25pm,
consisting of Mac Wallace (LBJs hit man) and a native Indian name Loy
Factor (who fired the MC rifle), and a woman named Ruth Ann Martinez who
handled a walkie-talkie to signal other shooters when it was time to fire.
That allowed the many shots to sound like less shots by coordinating them.
The 3 people quickly left the 6th floor and went down the back stairs
before anyone had gotten away from looking out the windows at the murder
scene outside. They made it to the ground floor, and left through ha door
to the loading dock behind the TSBD.

At Parkland hospital after JFK was cleaned up and put into a Bronze
casket, there as a argument that almost came to gunfire when the SS wanted
to remove the body, and the Dallas Medical Examiner rightfully wanted to
body to stay and be autopsied at Parkland. The SS won and they stole the
body and the limousine away to Washington DC, though the limo was a murder
scene and shouldn't have left the Dallas area. All by plan.

On the plane going back to Washington, at some point probably early in
the flight or even before Starting off while LBJ was being given the oath,
the body was removed from the Bronze casket which had been put in the rear
of the plane near the galley. The body was placed in a shipping casket
the military used to move bodies from Vietnam, etc. The best possibility
for that operation was to tell one or more of the FBI or SS agents present
to help move the body to another casket so that they could fool the press
which would be hanging on Jackie every minute. The Bronze casket was now
empty. During that flight back to Washington, there was much
communication between AF1 and the ground (W.H.) about how to proceed from
when they landed in Washington. They mentioned using helicopters to move
the body to a military hospital.

During the time from Parkland and up until arrival at Bethesda, the
wounds to JFK were mainly a large hole in the BOH a bit to the right rear,
and a throat wound entry. Also an upper back wound that wasn't seen at
Parkland.

When they got to Washington, they moved the Bronze casket (now empty)
off the plane at the rear port side into a scissors lift, which took some
of the family, Jackie and the Bronze casket to the ground and it was put
into a hearse. A motorcade was formed of family and agents, and they set
off for Bethesda hospital as a slow pace.

In the meantime, a forklift was taking the shipping casket with the
body out f the exit door next to the galley on the starboard side of the
plane, which aa dark and everyone was concentrating on the casket out
front and the scissors lift taking it down.

After the motorcade left the airport, a helicopter was brought and the
shipping casket with the body was flown to Bethesda which had a helipad to
land the helicopter. A hearse picked up the shipping casket and brought
it to the Bethesda morgue loading dock behind the building. It was now
6:35pm when a marine sergeant and his squad of men were there for the
arrival of the ambulance that brought the shipping casket. Doctor Humes
and Boswell were waiting on the loading dock for the casket to arrive.
They quickly went inside with the shipping casket and took out the body of
JFK, which was seen to be him, and they laid it on the table.

While a few witnesses stayed in the gallery, Humes and Boswell began
their first priority which was to find any bullets of fragments that had
been left in the body, and get rid of them before any agents got there.
It appears from the terribly messy and large tracheostomy that they also
dug around in the neck for the bullet that entered the neck and made the
messy wound there. Their search included taking out the brain to examine
for bullet tracks.

At a certain point in the clandestine work, they realized there were a
few of the navy staff in the gallery and they kicked them out. Also
during that time, they expanded the wound that was at the right rear of
the head, and expanded it to go around the right side and some of the top
of the head. The only person that stayed was Tom Robinson of Gawler's
Funeral Home.

The schedule for the autopsy was for 8:00pm. No work before that was
proper. And Humes made a few casual jokes to cover up the indications
that they had been at the body already before the autopsy. At 8:00pm the
gallery was full of witnesses including a few admirals and generals.

The autopsy began at 8:00pm and at about 8:30pm Pierre Finck arrived
and basically took charge, since he was the only pathologist that was
experienced enough in autopsies including bullet cases He was also a Wound
Ballistics expert. Finck was brought in by Humes, who recognized that he
and Boswell didn't have what it took to do an autopsy this important
correctly.

Before the autopsy, Humes was called by a Dr. Robert Livingston, who
said he told Humes about there being a tracheostomy done over a bullet
entry wound in the throat. As well, Humes had conversations on the phone
with Dr. Perry at Parkland hospital about the same thing DURING the
autopsy.

During the autopsy there were 2 FBI agents that were observing, and at
one point they heard ALL the prosectors make the point that "There's NO
EXIT" from the body. This conclusion was to be borne out nearer the end
of the autopsy.

Early on an X-ray Technician state that he had seen a bullet fall from
the back of JFK when he raised the body for an X-ray. This is in doubt
because of arguments that some folks have made. One thing it does is
begin the suspicion that the bullet was what they call a 'short shot'
where a bullet for various reasons doesn't have the energy to go far into
a body, it goes only a short way. A metal probe and a finger were used to
probe the upper back wound and they determine that it was only about an
inch or so in depth. This was borne out nearer the end of the autopsy.

As the autopsy proceeded, there were orders from the gallery that kept
interrupting Humes, who was nominally in charge, and they came from
Admiral Burkley, the president's person physician. Most of his comments
were to shorten the autopsy and skip various procedures. At one point
they had removed all the organs and the full autopsy team saw the
verification of the 'short shot' when they saw that in the body there was
the pleura and right lung, both bruised, but having NO tear or puncture,
and NO path beyond that point of an inch or so into the body. It was
proof that the bullet from the upper back wound did NOT go past that point
in the body, and therefore it could not come out the throat wound as some
WC lawyers later tried to suggest. It was called the 'single bullet'
theory, but what they saw in the body made that impossible.

The autopsy team were finished and the Gawler's team took over and
began the job of making the body look presentable for a funeral. From
this work Tom Robinson was asked what wounds he had seen in the body, and
he stated that there was the large hole in the BOH about the size of an
orange, and a wound in the back and wound in the forehead/temple are that
was about a 1/4th inch in diameter. He also saw the throat wound.

Since the full autopsy team saw the proof of there being a 'short
shot' in the pleura and the bullet not going past that point, it was at
first strange that Humes who went home and wrote up the Autopsy Report
(AR) and said that the bullet that has stopped at the pleura had actually
gone on somehow and went out the throat wound. However he never dissected
that path, and the AR says as much. As well, Humes also left out
mentioning the wound in the forehead/temple area, which was probably the
kill shot. That wound had been seen by a number of autopsy team members,
including Finck. These serious errors on the part of Humes and his
description of a completely false situation with the back wound bullet
make it clear that he was ordered to say what the did in the AR. He would
never take the initiative to lie in an autopsy as important as this on his
own. As well, the other prosectors also signed off on the AR, so that the
orders to lie went farther than just humes. Those lies were to follow
them wherever they went in trials and such.

The public continued to complain that proper investigation of the whole
murder wasn't done properly, and the government to try and shut them up,
kept ordering some 'experts' to look at the evidence and make a determination.
The evidence consisted of testimony and photos and X-rays, and of the
X-rays and photos, the men who took them commented that many were missing.
From the most heinous crime of the century the evidence was missing!

What the medical experts had to say was missing the important thing of
seeing inside the body what the autopsy tam members saw, and they didn't
hear what the Navy staff had to say. These lacks put them in a position
of having no input to the errors and problems and proofs from the autopsy.


All of the above is based on cites and links from official files for
the most part. Many will no doubt deny many parts of the above, but most
of it can be proven from the official record. To find the truth in this
case, the ARRB files are the single most important resource for anyone
looking into the murder. I'm sure there will be things forgotten in the
above, but I can fill in most things if asked.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:34:45 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:06:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
> > them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
> > Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
> > talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
> > trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
>

> Another brilliant observation and one I wished I had thought of years ago.
> Oswald was the owner of both murder weapons and had one still in his
> possession when arrested yet amazingly some people continue to claim he
> was innocent. Two murders committed less than an hour apart, both with
> Oswald's guns, and we are supposed to believe he was innocent. Amazing.

Oh bullshit! You can't prove the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone. Go
ahead and try.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

"[Jim] Garrison, of course, smelled a rat in [James] Braden's story and
had his investigators pursue the matter. Remarkably and unbelievably for
Garrison, he concluded that "after sustained analysis...it was clear that
Braden's contribution to the assassination was a large zero." When you can
be cleared of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination by the likes of Jim
Garrison, you must be clean." -- Vincent Bugliosi

[David Von Pein]

"Perhaps the most famous...of the "other" assassins are the "three
tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their guilt
is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there was one big
piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: they weren't Lee
Harvey Oswald! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no
evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee
Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't prove that. Frazier couldn't prove it. You ASSuME it.
But if the 2 large fragments did come from just one bullet there are
still some big pieces they never recovered.

> found in the front seat area of the limousine. Directly over the
> windshield of the limo there was a serious, heavy bullet strike, which was
> circular and was probably one of the 3 shells supposedly fired by the MC

You don't fire shells. You fire bullets.

> rifle. Given the position of the strike on the limo, it's too high to
> have been ricocheted up to that point, which is over the heads of any

According to some theories. Possible for other theories.

> passengers in the limo, and no one can think of a way for the bullet to
> have hit anyone and then popped up to strike above the windshield so hard
> that the bullet breaks into 2 pieces and falls down directly below the

Of course someone can. Just at Furhman.

[bigdog]

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:00:18 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 8:34:07 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:53:07 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:06:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of
> > > > them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
> > > > Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
> > > > talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
> > > > trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WHOA! Who proved that the MC rifle killed anyone? Or that bullets
> > > from it ever hit or hurt anyone? Impossible to prove, but you're welcome
> > > to try. And there are still difficulties with the Tippit killing that
> > > make it not so open and shut. As well, who's kidding who when a lawyer
> > > tries to suggest that the odds are in favor of Oswald being guilty. If
> > > there are odds on that, then there is a chance he is innocent too.
> > >
> >
> > The only recovered bullet and the only recovered shells were positively
> > matched to Oswald's rifle. You insist we prove the bullets from Oswald's
> > rifle killed JFK yet you don't even have any other bullets so how are you
> > going to prove other bullets killed JFK?
>
>
>
> WRONG! Because you Haven't recovered other bullets does NOT
> automatically mean that the bullets found killed someone, or even hurt
> someone. That's not logical.

So how do you propose to prove that bullets that weren't found killed JFK.
Oh, that's right. You don't have to prove your contentions. It's enough
simply to make the claim. As Bugliosi observed in one of the quotes DVP
provided, if a conspiracy hobbyist can demonstrate something is
theoretically possible then it must be true as you continue to
demonstrate.

> And there are too many bullet strikes in
> Dealey Plaza, particularly around JFK, to be coincidental or ricochets, or
> fragments shedding off other bullets.
>

No forensic evidence of any shots other than those fired by Oswald's
Carcano.

> One of the 2 bullets found and in evidence has an odd background that
> makes it suspect as even having been fired by anyone in the TSBD.
>

Nothing odd about it at all.

> Aside from the bullet found on the WRONG gurney in Parkland, later
> when there were complaints, that bullet (CE399) was shown to 4 men that
> had handled the original bullet, and they refused to identify it.

They didn't complain and they didn't say it wasn't the bullet they
handled.

> One of
> them even said that it was the wrong shape. That it was round nosed when
> it should have been pointy nosed. This is suggestive of a replacement
> bullet in evidence.

Why didn't the others say the bullet they saw was pointy?

> So a bullet found on a gurney at Parkland was
> co-opted to be a murder bullet, when there was NO proof of such a foolish
> invention. Now let's look at the second bullet found.
>
> The second bullet found was in 2 fragments, and they were supposedly
> found in the front seat area of the limousine. Directly over the
> windshield of the limo there was a serious, heavy bullet strike, which was
> circular and was probably one of the 3 shells supposedly fired by the MC
> rifle. Given the position of the strike on the limo, it's too high to
> have been ricocheted up to that point, which is over the heads of any
> passengers in the limo, and no one can think of a way for the bullet to
> have hit anyone and then popped up to strike above the windshield so hard
> that the bullet breaks into 2 pieces and falls down directly below the
> strike point. As well, all bullet hits on people have been accounted for
> as per the government story. So that bullet didn't hit anyone.
>

Is this an example of your logical thinking? <chuckle>

[bigdog]

No amount of evidence ever would in your eyes. That isn't a litmus test
for what constitutes credible evidence.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > For example, you could look at the fact that Oswald owned the murder
> > > > weapon and you could make a reasonable argument that someone else fired
> > > > the shots and it would not be all that far fetched. But when you combined
> > > > it with the fact that he made a special trip to Irving the night before,
> > > > that he brought a long package into work with him the next day, that long
> > > > empty bag was found near the sniper's nest, that the bag had his
> > > > fingerprints on it, that it had fibers matching his rifle blanket in it,
> > > > that his palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could have
> > > > only been placed with the rifle disassembled, that fibers matching his
> > > > shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, that his fingerprints
> > > > were found in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if he was
> > > > looking down Elm St., and an eyewitnesses IDed him, reasonable arguments
> > > > for his innocence evaporate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The rifle belonged to Oswald. Most of that so-called evidence
> > > above was there because he owned the rifle. Therefore it's not really
> > > evidence.
> >
> > The fact the murder weapon was his rifle is evidence. Given the nonsense
> > you think is evidence it is not surprising you don't recognize real
> > evidence when you see it.
> >
>
>
> Saying it over again that the rifle belonged to Oswald does NOT make it
> evidence of murder. It is only evidence that it belonged to Oswald. No
> bullet from the rifle was found inside any injured or dead person.
>

No bullet from any rifle was found inside the victims. Should we conclude
they weren't really shot?

>
>
> > > There are any number of reasons why someone would bring their
> > > rifle in to work, just as Truly did, to show off his guns.
> >
> > No, somebody else brought a couple rifles into the TSBD to show Truly
> > earlier in the week. No bullets or shells were recovered from those rifles
> > or any other rifle other than Oswald's.
> >
>
>
> So what? Finding bullets or shells to a rifle may prove that it was
> fired, but whether the bullets hit anyone, is unprovable in this case.
>

In just about any case where the bullets don't remain lodged in the
victim. That's not an element that is required in prosecuting any murder
case. It is enough to demonstrate to a jury the wounds the victims and
where bullets were recovered from and allow them to make a reasonable
judgement as to whether they believe the bullets recovered were the ones
that killed the victim. That's the way it was done in the murder trial in
which I was a juror. We convicted the guy even though the prosecutor
didn't meet your standard by proving the recovered bullets killed the
victim.

>
>
> > > Using a paper
> > > bag to hide the rifle in also is reasonable if the worker didn't want to
> > > be caught spending his work time showing or selling his rifle.
> >
> > Or if he didn't want to be seen bringing a rifle to work on a day the
> > POTUS would be riding by in a slow moving open top car.
> >
>
>
> There's no proof of a connection in the mind of Oswald. That's just
> opinion.
>

I suppose you think it is necessary to prove what was in the mind of a
murderer. It isn't. It is only necessary to prove his actions.

>
>
> > > Fibers
> > > also are a natural result of the owner of a rifle when they might try the
> > > rifle to the shoulder. I could make a list of 'evidence' like that, and
> > > find someone guilty too.
> >
> > You're welcome to try.
> >
> > > For example, I know a fellow that wears a blue
> > > shirt on Fridays, and he owns a rifle and he works at the TSBD and he eats
> > > his lunch there during a 12 o'clock break. See? He's guilty! I've
> > > proved it! Sheesh! What garbage!
> > >
> >
> > Where are the bullets or shells from his rifle? Where is his rifle? Did he
> > leave the TSBD after the shooting and kill a cop less than 45 mintues
> > later.
> >
>
>
> There is no difference in my list of proof and yours as to whether
> they suggest that murder was done. None at all.
>

One question. Are you serious?

>
>
>
> > > You could look at any one of those pieces and
> > > > you could find a reasonable explanation that doesn't include Oswald being
> > > > the assassin but there is no conceivable way all that evidence would
> > > > coincidentally line up against him if he were actually innocent. But that
> > > > one stop the anybody-but-Oswald crowd. They will go down that list of
> > > > evidence and reach for the least likely of possible explanations because
> > > > the most likely one invariably points to his guilt.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You could find a ham sandwich guilty using thinking like that.
> > >
> >
> > So now you are mimicking Marsh. Not something to be proud of.
> >
>
>
> The term came from a prosecutor long ago. The phrase a that you could
> indict a haw sandwich if you wanted to with a grand jury.
>
>
>
> > > > I have no doubt by the time this posts, one or more of the conspiracy
> > > > hobbyists will have posted a rebuttal in which they do exactly what I said
> > > > they always do. Dismiss each piece of evidence individually rather than
> > > > looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To make you feel better, I hereby reject your thinking and phony list
> > > of 'evidence' "as a whole". I will also do it individually if you need
> > > lots of rejection.
> > >
> >
> > Rejecting evidence is what conspiracy hobbyists do. If they actually tried
> > to explain the evidence the only explanation available to them is that
> > Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.
>
>
> WRONG! I've explained all of the above and I don't reject evidence
> like you do. You're an LN conspiracy hobbyist.
>

I am an anti-conspiracy hobbyist.

[Jason Burke]

Actually, Chris is technically correct here.
It was the missiles from the MC that did in JFK and did a number on JBC,
not the MC itself.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Bullet fragments were found inside the victims. How else did they
get there if not left by a bullet hitting them? You could make up a theory
that they were shrapnel from a shot hitting the chrome topping.

[bigdog]

I have admit for once he is right. Oswald did NOT throw the MC at JFK.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

"[I]n the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no evidence of guilt is

stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald."

Damned, that is so true.

EVERYBODY'S behavior is suspicious or strange except for Oswald's. All of
his behavior, his acts prior to, during and after the assassination, must
be judged in isolation from one another and each act pointing to his
culpability can be explained away as innocent ones. "Hey, he always left
money for Marina. And he just forgot his ring. And he needed curtain rods.
And the stores wrap them that way."

How many acts can be dismissed with these explanations? As many as they
need.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/10/2017 1:24 AM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:01:41 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> "Perhaps the most famous...of the "other" assassins are the "three
>> tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their guilt
>> is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there was one big
>> piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: they weren't Lee
>> Harvey Oswald! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no
>> evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee
>> Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi
>
> "[I]n the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no evidence of guilt is
> stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald."
>
> Damned, that is so true.
>
> EVERYBODY'S behavior is suspicious or strange except for Oswald's. All of
> his behavior, his acts prior to, during and after the assassination, must
> be judged in isolation from one another and each act pointing to his
> culpability can be explained away as innocent ones. "Hey, he always left
> money for Marina. And he just forgot his ring. And he needed curtain rods.

False. I explained why he left his ring. I explained why he needed the
curtain rods. And he did always leave money for Marina. I quoted her
testimony. But maybe you think she lied or the WC lied.

> And the stores wrap them that way."
>

That's what Buell Frazier said.

> How many acts can be dismissed with these explanations? As many as they
> need.
>

I'm sure you can make up a million more from your over-active imagination.

>
>
>