WHO and the WHY of Bugliosi
aeffects
Could a ham-sandwich prosecute Charles Manson?
What does Bugliosi know that no other mainline JFK assassination
reseacher knows?
Is this forthcoming issue by: "for the state," Bugliosi -or- "it's of
my learnered opinion that," Bugliosi?
Ben Holmes
says...
Since he's *ALREADY* argued that there was a conspiracy in the JFK (and RFK)
case IN COURT - it's quite clear that he's willing to believe and argue
whichever side will pay him.
Of course, that's what lawyers do. 'Facts' are what they believe that they can
convince a jury of - not necessarily any relation to *real* historical facts.
Once again, I predict that Bugliosi's tome, should it ever actually be
published, will contain omissions, misrepresentations, and almost certainly
outright lies. I plan on purchasing it just for the sheer joy of demonstrating
that Bugliosi cannot present a defense of the WCR without such.
RICLAND
Bugliosi's appeal is to the Joe Sixpacks and Wanda Waitresses of
America. No credible scholar of any stripe will take anything he writes
seriously, at least in terms of what actually happened that day in Dallas.
Instead, serious assassination scholars will read it with the kind of
morbid curiosity we thumb through the National Enquirer while in the
check-out line or watch the pin-head in a circus sideshow swallow hard
boiled eggs.
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman
"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1176213319.065697.117...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
>
>
>
> >Who is this guy?
>
> >Could a ham-sandwich prosecute Charles Manson?
>
> >What does Bugliosi know that no other mainline JFK assassination
> >reseacher knows?
>
> >Is this forthcoming issue by: "for the state," Bugliosi -or- "it's of
> >my learnered opinion that," Bugliosi?
>
> Since he's *ALREADY* argued that there was a conspiracy in the JFK (and RFK)
> case IN COURT - it's quite clear that he's willing to believe and argue
> whichever side will pay him.
Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>
> Of course, that's what lawyers do. 'Facts' are what they believe that they can
> convince a jury of - not necessarily any relation to *real* historical facts.
>
> Once again, I predict that Bugliosi's tome, should it ever actually be
> published,
You doubt it will be published?
JLeyd...@aol.com
Well, one thing we know about Bugliosi is that he's got you CTs
running scared. And the book isn't even published yet. So relax, get
you orders in and hold your comments until you have something to say.
JGL
tomnln
I GUARANTEE he will NOT address THESE>>>
ADDRESS THESE.
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
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
How's that for Prediction?
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176227472.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
why is that, scared? Who are you bullshitting - you have to be
kidding...
Posner, Bugliosi, who cares. Neither one can change one word in the
WCR or the volumes --
Personally I'd like to see Bugliosi make the rounds of every tv
cablenews talk show, twice, THREE times even...
> JGL
David Von Pein
Translation = Rabid asylum-residing kooks will read it in such a
fashion....while they continue to skew the evidence and while they
ignore the hard physical evidence of Oswald's sole guilt. Nothing new
there.
I'm really enjoying the "BUILD-UP" of the anti-Bugliosi sentiments
that I'm finding in the weeks/months just prior to "Reclaiming
History" coming out.
Prior to early 2007, very rarely did I hear even the most rabid of the
CT-Kook faction daring to say a negative thing about Mr. Bugliosi, his
impeccable character, his writing skills, or his JFK investigative
skills (with the possible exception of Ben Holmes, who said negative
things re. VB's JFK book a bit earlier than that timeframe mentioned).
But as the ultimate JFK bible gets ever closer to actual readable
PAGES OF FACT IN PRINT FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AND EVALUATE, the anti-VB
shit is now flowing like the kookcrap that infests this place daily.
An interesting turnaround just prior to the release of VB's book
indeed.
IOW -- Attack the LN messenger IN ADVANCE, and get a one-up on other
people.
Obviously, I have done the same thing in reverse, i.e., pre-praising a
book I've never seen either. Which, granted, is not normally a very
prudent or wise thing to do either (in a "going out on a limb" type of
fashion).
But in this particular instance only, I feel my pre-praise is
justified for several reason I have stated in the past, and that the
21 years VB has put into his massive JFK book will bear out my advance
praise.
Of that, I have very, very little doubt.
But, by all means, continue to rake a good and decent man/lawyer/
author over the hot coals for no legit reason whatsoever. After all,
it's what conspiracy kooks do best (i.e., tear down the CS&L of the
bulk of the LN scenario in the JFK and Tippit cases). Some CT-Kooks
have made a living out of doing that.
But hurling such invective toward Vincent T. Bugliosi shall only make
you look more foolish than you already look re. your pro-CT posture in
the JFK assassination case. Maybe even more foolish than Don Imus
looks at this very moment.
aeffects
if he's just another rubber stamp for the WCR, and all that that
means, in the eyes of many, he's just another fraud, simple as that -
plain as that!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David, ya gotta love this. These kooks are soooooo
worried about Bugliosi they can't stop talking about
him.
Todd W. Vaughan
And what exactly does rubber stamp mean, in your eyes?
>
>
>
> > But hurling such invective toward Vincent T. Bugliosi shall only make
> > you look more foolish than you already look re. your pro-CT posture in
> > the JFK assassination case. Maybe even more foolish than Don Imus
Anthony Marsh
Repeating the Warren Commission lies.
David Von Pein
Todd W. Vaughan
I'm asking David.
Anthony Marsh
I think I saw the Bugliosi book at the Dollar Store today on the Easter
clearance rack selling at 2 for $1.
aeffects
same-o, same-o....reaffirming-mirroring the 1964 WCR and volumes...
avoiding evidence the 1964 Warren Commission omitted for *whatever*
reason ( ludicrious or just plain old inconvenient)
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Apr 10, 9:55 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Who is this guy?
>>
>> Could a ham-sandwich prosecute Charles Manson?
>>
>> What does Bugliosi know that no other mainline JFK assassination
>> reseacher knows?
>>
>> Is this forthcoming issue by: "for the state," Bugliosi -or- "it's of
>> my learnered opinion that," Bugliosi?
>
>Well, one thing we know about Bugliosi is that he's got you CTs
>running scared.
Oh? No CT'er would be discussing him at all except for the mass of LNT'er
references...
What would you care to bet that *YOU* won't be back to defend Bugliosi when we
begin listing the omissions, misrepresentations, and outright lies that will
almost certainly be in his tome? He'll be worse than Posner - if only because
his book will be longer.
I'll just put your name down in my little memory book... and see if you are
willing to defend Bugliosi when his tome *is* published.
My guess is that you'll be nothing but a memory...
>And the book isn't even published yet. So relax, get
>you orders in and hold your comments until you have something to say.
I *do* have something to say... I've predicted it a dozen times now. Bugliosi
will be completely unable to write a defense of the WCR of the length that has
been given without omission of evidence, misrepresentation of evidence, and
almost certainly outright lies.
Considering that Bugliosi has argued *IN COURT* that JFK (and RFK) were
conspiracies - all we are going to get is a lawyer's arguments... and facts be
damned.
But keep your hopes up...
>JGL
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>On Apr 10, 10:20 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1176213319.065697.117...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Who is this guy?
>>
>> >Could a ham-sandwich prosecute Charles Manson?
>>
>> >What does Bugliosi know that no other mainline JFK assassination
>> >reseacher knows?
>>
>> >Is this forthcoming issue by: "for the state," Bugliosi -or- "it's of
>> >my learnered opinion that," Bugliosi?
>>
>> Since he's *ALREADY* argued that there was a conspiracy in the JFK (and RFK)
>> case IN COURT - it's quite clear that he's willing to believe and argue
>> whichever side will pay him.
>
>
>
>Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
>conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
Where have you been? You may search for my Feb 21st post on "Vince Bugliosi
Quotes..."
>>Of course, that's what lawyers do. 'Facts' are what they believe that they can
>> convince a jury of - not necessarily any relation to *real* historical facts.
>>
>> Once again, I predict that Bugliosi's tome, should it ever actually be
>> published,
>
>
>
>You doubt it will be published?
How many years has it been 'about to be released?'
How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book was about to be actually sold?
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1176225705.001975.264...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 10, 10:20 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> In article <1176213319.065697.117...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> >> says...
>
> >> >Who is this guy?
>
> >> >Could a ham-sandwich prosecute Charles Manson?
>
> >> >What does Bugliosi know that no other mainline JFK assassination
> >> >reseacher knows?
>
> >> >Is this forthcoming issue by: "for the state," Bugliosi -or- "it's of
> >> >my learnered opinion that," Bugliosi?
>
> >> Since he's *ALREADY* argued that there was a conspiracy in the JFK (and RFK)
> >> case IN COURT - it's quite clear that he's willing to believe and argue
> >> whichever side will pay him.
>
> >Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
> >conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>
> Where have you been? You may search for my Feb 21st post on "Vince Bugliosi
> Quotes..."
>
> >>Of course, that's what lawyers do. 'Facts' are what they believe that they can
> >> convince a jury of - not necessarily any relation to *real* historical facts.
>
> >> Once again, I predict that Bugliosi's tome, should it ever actually be
> >> published,
>
> >You doubt it will be published?
>
> How many years has it been 'about to be released?'
>
> How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book was about to be actually sold?
The book has already been reviewed in such places as Publishers Weekly
and Library Journal. Publication is forthcoming.
I ask again, do you doubt it will be published?
>
>
>
> >>will contain omissions, misrepresentations, and almost certainly
> >>outright lies. I plan on purchasing it just for the sheer joy of demonstrating
> >> that Bugliosi cannot present a defense of the WCR without such.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
A Holmes lie (re. the "JFK" portion above).
JFK, as of that "RFK Court" date in 1978, hadn't researched the JFK
case in depth at all. His '78 court argument was merely a GENERAL type
statement referring to the "PUBLIC" (not VB himself), and their
suspicions re. possible political-assassination conspiracies. The
"public's" suspicions in general, not Vince's personally.
As per his norm, Ben has skewed the facts yet again.
And even if Vince DID believe in a JFK conspiracy, circa late
1970s....so what?? It was well before his 21-year-long book project
had begun (with the '86 LHO TV Docu-Trial being the genesis of his
research).
Many former "CTers" have since seen the LN light of reason. If Vince
was one of these people, it's all the more reason to pat him on the
back for his willingness to not be bound to the implausible world of
CTism forever.
aeffects
How will we *NOT* know it was published? It HAS to be published! For
your sake, and every Lone Nutter's sake. The Nutter bellow will be
long and loud.... Cter's will waltz around it, kick the tires a bit,
see if it has the same WCR aroma, then start in, probably a month or
so... I wouldn't worry about to many CT questions, on the other hand I
expect a whole bunch of declaritive comments, WITH cites.... It'll be
very sober, SOBER indeed!
Ben Holmes
If you failed to read what I wrote, then there's no sense in repeating it.
Interestingly, you failed to *answer* the questions I raised. Cat got your
tongue?
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1176242752.445861.84...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
Ben,
I don't know for "How many years has it been 'about to be released".
I also don't know "How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book
was about to be actually sold?"
Nor would I find the answers to either of those two questions germane
to your current doubts that the book will be published, in light of
the FACT that the book has already been reviewed in such places as
Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
Publication IS forthcoming.
Now, you claimed I failed to answer the question you raised. But YOU
failed to answer THIS question that I raised:
Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
So, Ben, I ask again, where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court,
"that there was a
conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
Which Bugliosi book, Tony?
Ben Holmes
Then don't you think you should educate yourself? I don't know for *sure* how
long back this goes, but you can find LNT'ers such as yourself speaking of the
impending publication of Bugliosi's book in 1998.
>I also don't know "How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book
>was about to be actually sold?"
Yet you can't figure out why such facts would persuade someone to reserve belief
that *this* time, the book was actually going to be published?
Surely you can't be *THAT* stupid.
>Nor would I find the answers to either of those two questions germane
>to your current doubts that the book will be published,
They are *PRECISELY* germane. I was wrong, you *ARE* stupid!
>in light of
>the FACT that the book has already been reviewed in such places as
>Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
You don't seem to understand how books are hyped.
>Publication IS forthcoming.
When it happens, I'll purchase a copy for the sheer pleasure of rubbing
Bugliosi's omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright lies in LNT'ers
faces. Much as I enjoyed watching the LNT'er squirming when Posner was unveiled
as a fraud.
>Now, you claimed I failed to answer the question you raised. But YOU
>failed to answer THIS question that I raised:
Answered it... you didn't like the answer.
>Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
>conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
I gave you the reference to look it up. Did you?
>So, Ben, I ask again, where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court,
>"that there was a
>conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
Did you check my previous reference? Yes or no...
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1176299036.209769.25...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
I can't speak really to any "...LNT'ers...speaking of the impending
publication of Bugliosi's book in 1998", as I wasn't making those
claims. Further, what would make you think that any of the claims were
based on valid information?
I'm pretty sure that Bugliosi has talked of working on his book, and
trying to finish it up, since before and up to 1998 or so, Ben (yes, I
have a Bugliosi file that has some of this material in it). But I know
publication was not even serious considered by him until later than
that, perhaps even into 2000.
Most of the claims of publication that I've seen over the years have
been by those who have no way of knowing, some CT'ers, and some
LNT'ers.
>
> >I also don't know "How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book
> >was about to be actually sold?"
>
> Yet you can't figure out why such facts would persuade someone to reserve belief
> that *this* time, the book was actually going to be published?
>
> Surely you can't be *THAT* stupid.
No, but I see that you can (see below).
>
> >Nor would I find the answers to either of those two questions germane
> >to your current doubts that the book will be published,
>
> They are *PRECISELY* germane. I was wrong, you *ARE* stupid!
You're quite obviously the one who is being stupid here, Ben.
The point I was making (the one that your pea-brain apparently failed
to grasp) is that given the fact that the book has now been officially
reviewed in such places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, we
know that publication is forthcoming. Therefore, and this is key, you
should have no current doubts based on any past claims of publication.
Show me where in the past that the claims of publication that you say
go back to 1998 have been accompanied by official reviews in such
places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
What's the matter, with you? Take a few shots to the head in the dojo
recently?
>
> >in light of
> >the FACT that the book has already been reviewed in such places as
> >Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
>
> You don't seem to understand how books are hyped.
Come publication in May, we'll ALL see that it's YOU who doesn't
understand.
>
> >Publication IS forthcoming.
>
> When it happens, I'll purchase a copy for the sheer pleasure of rubbing
> Bugliosi's omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright lies in LNT'ers
> faces. Much as I enjoyed watching the LNT'er squirming when Posner was unveiled
> as a fraud.
Knock yourself out.
>
> >Now, you claimed I failed to answer the question you raised. But YOU
> >failed to answer THIS question that I raised:
>
> Answered it... you didn't like the answer.
I missed your reply. I see it now. My sincere apologies for claiming
you did not reply.
>
> >Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
> >conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>
> I gave you the reference to look it up. Did you?
Again, I missed your reply. I see it now. My sincere apologies for
claiming you did not reply.
I've looked it up now, and no where do I see Bugliosi arguing "that
there was a conspiracy in the JFK...case".
>
> >So, Ben, I ask again, where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court,
> >"that there was a
> >conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>
> Did you check my previous reference? Yes or no...
I did not then. I have now.
Again no where do I see Bugliosi arguing "that there was a conspiracy
in the JFK..case".
>
>
>
> >Todd
>
> >> >> >>will contain omissions, misrepresentations, and almost certainly
> >> >>>>outright lies. I plan on purchasing it just for the sheer joy of
> >> >>demonstrating
> >>>>>> that Bugliosi cannot present a defense of the WCR without such.- Hide
> >>quoted
tomnln
Just another PROVEN liar.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176307146.5...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
You assert that you don't know how long it's been that the book was "about to be
released", yet you complain when I provide the information.
You're *beyond* stupid if you think that such information wouldn't provide
evidence that the book might not be published *this time* either.
The only proof that *I* will accept is when I can actually place an order, and
have the book delivered. Until then, it's merely the same promises that we've
heard for close to a decade.
>Further, what would make you think that any of the claims were
>based on valid information?
Yep... LNT'ers were simply lying about it, right?
>I'm pretty sure that Bugliosi has talked of working on his book, and
>trying to finish it up, since before and up to 1998 or so, Ben (yes, I
>have a Bugliosi file that has some of this material in it). But I know
>publication was not even serious considered by him until later than
>that, perhaps even into 2000.
So despite claims from people that his impending book was about to be released,
Bugliosi had no such intent... is *that* what you're arguing?
This is rather silly, Toddy.
I've given you *solid* reasons for refusing to believe that any 'publish date'
is real until it actually arrives.
You can argue the facts until you're blue in the face - but *IF* the book is
actually published this year, *YOU* would have been wrong for close to a decade.
>Most of the claims of publication that I've seen over the years have
>been by those who have no way of knowing, some CT'ers, and some
>LNT'ers.
You clearly have never been on the receiving end of waiting for a book to be
published, and having the date continually moved forward into the future. I
have - and I *know* that such things happen.
>> >I also don't know "How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book
>> >was about to be actually sold?"
>>
>> Yet you can't figure out why such facts would persuade someone to reserve
>> belief that *this* time, the book was actually going to be published?
>>
>> Surely you can't be *THAT* stupid.
>
>
>No,
Yet you argue otherwise...
> but I see that you can (see below).
>
>
>
>>
>> >Nor would I find the answers to either of those two questions germane
>> >to your current doubts that the book will be published,
>>
>> They are *PRECISELY* germane. I was wrong, you *ARE* stupid!
>
>
>
>You're quite obviously the one who is being stupid here, Ben.
All you're doing is arguing that my facts are incorrect. Yet you know for a
fact that they aren't.
>The point I was making (the one that your pea-brain apparently failed
>to grasp) is that given the fact that the book has now been officially
>reviewed in such places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, we
>know that publication is forthcoming. Therefore, and this is key, you
>should have no current doubts based on any past claims of publication.
Tell us about the "reviews" of Stone's film, "JFK"... from the many media
outlets who'd never seen it.
Then try to convince me that "Publishers Weekly" (or whomever) actually has the
book in hand.
>Show me where in the past that the claims of publication that you say
>go back to 1998 have been accompanied by official reviews in such
>places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
Are you seriously trying to argue that publishing dates don't get moved?
That's an argument that isn't worth responding to, Toddy.
>What's the matter, with you? Take a few shots to the head in the dojo
>recently?
You've been wrong for close to a decade, Toddy...
>> >in light of
>> >the FACT that the book has already been reviewed in such places as
>> >Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand how books are hyped.
>
>
>
>Come publication in May, we'll ALL see that it's YOU who doesn't
>understand.
Tell us what changed your mind from your Jan 2006 post where you admitted that
"Or the tentative release date changed." with reference to this book...
Were you lying then?
>> >Publication IS forthcoming.
>>
>> When it happens, I'll purchase a copy for the sheer pleasure of rubbing
>>Bugliosi's omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright lies in LNT'ers
>>faces. Much as I enjoyed watching the LNT'er squirming when Posner was unveiled
>> as a fraud.
>
>
>Knock yourself out.
It's the simple pleasures in life...
>> >Now, you claimed I failed to answer the question you raised. But YOU
>> >failed to answer THIS question that I raised:
>>
>> Answered it... you didn't like the answer.
>
>
>
>I missed your reply. I see it now. My sincere apologies for claiming
>you did not reply.
>
>
>
>> >Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
>> >conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>>
>> I gave you the reference to look it up. Did you?
>
>
>
>Again, I missed your reply. I see it now. My sincere apologies for
>claiming you did not reply.
>
>I've looked it up now, and no where do I see Bugliosi arguing "that
>there was a conspiracy in the JFK...case".
Then I can't help you...
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1176307146.555618.122...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
I'm not "complaining" that you provided the information. That I am is
another one of your distortions.
I'm saying I can't speak to the veracity of their claims. What were
their claims based on? Were they just making it up? Wishful thinking?
Or did Norton or Vince himself tell them. I don't know. Do you?
>
> You're *beyond* stupid if you think that such information wouldn't provide
> evidence that the book might not be published *this time* either.
>
> The only proof that *I* will accept is when I can actually place an order, and
> have the book delivered. Until then, it's merely the same promises that we've
> heard for close to a decade.
LMFAO!
You CAN place an order, STUPID, and have it delivered, STUPID. Just go
to Amazon.
Here's the link...
Place your order, STUPID.
>
> >Further, what would make you think that any of the claims were
> >based on valid information?
>
> Yep... LNT'ers were simply lying about it, right?
I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.
>
> >I'm pretty sure that Bugliosi has talked of working on his book, and
> >trying to finish it up, since before and up to 1998 or so, Ben (yes, I
> >have a Bugliosi file that has some of this material in it). But I know
> >publication was not even serious considered by him until later than
> >that, perhaps even into 2000.
>
> So despite claims from people that his impending book was about to be released,
> Bugliosi had no such intent... is *that* what you're arguing?
Very possibly.
>
> This is rather silly, Toddy.
Why is that silly?
>
> I've given you *solid* reasons for refusing to believe that any 'publish date'
> is real until it actually arrives.
And I've given you solid reasons to believe that the book will be
published in May.
>
> You can argue the facts until you're blue in the face - but *IF* the book is
> actually published this year, *YOU* would have been wrong for close to a decade.
And if the book is published in May, you'll look like the fool that
you are.
>
> >Most of the claims of publication that I've seen over the years have
> >been by those who have no way of knowing, some CT'ers, and some
> >LNT'ers.
>
> You clearly have never been on the receiving end of waiting for a book to be
> published, and having the date continually moved forward into the future. I
> have - and I *know* that such things happen.
Sure I have.
But it's been the publisher making the date and moving it.
>
> >> >I also don't know "How many 'false alarms' have we had that his book
> >> >was about to be actually sold?"
>
> >> Yet you can't figure out why such facts would persuade someone to reserve
> >> belief that *this* time, the book was actually going to be published?
>
> >> Surely you can't be *THAT* stupid.
>
> >No,
>
> Yet you argue otherwise...
>
> > but I see that you can (see below).
>
> >> >Nor would I find the answers to either of those two questions germane
> >> >to your current doubts that the book will be published,
>
> >> They are *PRECISELY* germane. I was wrong, you *ARE* stupid!
>
> >You're quite obviously the one who is being stupid here, Ben.
>
> All you're doing is arguing that my facts are incorrect. Yet you know for a
> fact that they aren't.
No.
What I'm arguing is that you reliance on those facts is in error given
the NEW FACT that that the book has now been officially reviewed in
such places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, AND that it is
availbale for pre-order on Amazon.
And I'm arguing that you're too dumb to see that.
>
> >The point I was making (the one that your pea-brain apparently failed
> >to grasp) is that given the fact that the book has now been officially
> >reviewed in such places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, we
> >know that publication is forthcoming. Therefore, and this is key, you
> >should have no current doubts based on any past claims of publication.
>
> Tell us about the "reviews" of Stone's film, "JFK"... from the many media
> outlets who'd never seen it.
Apples and oranges.
>
> Then try to convince me that "Publishers Weekly" (or whomever) actually has the
> book in hand.
Have you even read the Publishers Weekly review? Yes or no?
>
> >Show me where in the past that the claims of publication that you say
> >go back to 1998 have been accompanied by official reviews in such
> >places as Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
>
> Are you seriously trying to argue that publishing dates don't get moved?
Nope.
Now seriously argue that you now "know" the May date will get changed.
>
> That's an argument that isn't worth responding to, Toddy.
>
> >What's the matter, with you? Take a few shots to the head in the dojo
> >recently?
>
> You've been wrong for close to a decade, Toddy...
Oh, really?
I've never claimed when the book was going to be published, until just
recently.
Lied again, didn't you?
Or was I right in suggesting that you've taken a few shots to the head
in the dojo recently.
>
> >> >in light of
> >> >the FACT that the book has already been reviewed in such places as
> >> >Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.
>
> >> You don't seem to understand how books are hyped.
>
> >Come publication in May, we'll ALL see that it's YOU who doesn't
> >understand.
>
> Tell us what changed your mind from your Jan 2006 post where you admitted that
> "Or the tentative release date changed." with reference to this book...
>
> Were you lying then?
Nope, not a lick.
>
> >> >Publication IS forthcoming.
>
> >> When it happens, I'll purchase a copy for the sheer pleasure of rubbing
> >>Bugliosi's omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright lies in LNT'ers
> >>faces. Much as I enjoyed watching the LNT'er squirming when Posner was unveiled
> >> as a fraud.
>
> >Knock yourself out.
>
> It's the simple pleasures in life...
Enjoy.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Now, you claimed I failed to answer the question you raised. But YOU
> >> >failed to answer THIS question that I raised:
>
> >> Answered it... you didn't like the answer.
>
> >I missed your reply. I see it now. My sincere apologies for claiming
> >you did not reply.
>
> >> >Where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court, "that there was a
> >> >conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>
> >> I gave you the reference to look it up. Did you?
>
> >Again, I missed your reply. I see it now. My sincere apologies for
> >claiming you did not reply.
>
> >I've looked it up now, and no where do I see Bugliosi arguing "that
> >there was a conspiracy in the JFK...case".
>
> Then I can't help you...
Sure you can, Ben. Show me where it says that Bugliosi argued "that
there was a conspiracy in the JFK...case".
You can do that, right?
>
>
>
> >> >So, Ben, I ask again, where and when did Bugliosi argue, in court,
> >> >"that there was a
> >> >conspiracy in the JFK..case"?
>
> >> Did you check my previous reference? Yes or no...
>
> >I did not then. I have now.
>
> >Again no where do I see Bugliosi arguing "that there was a conspiracy
> >in the JFK..case".
Silence.
>
> >> >Todd
>
> >> >> >> >>will contain omissions, misrepresentations, and almost certainly
> >> >> >>>>outright lies. I plan on purchasing it just for the sheer joy of
> >> >> >>demonstrating
> >> >>>>>> that Bugliosi cannot present a defense of the WCR without such.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Todd,
VB's book (which was then to be called "FINAL VERDICT: THE TRUE
ACCOUNT OF THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY", and since changed twice)
was originally planned for a November 22, 1998, release date (35th
anniv.).
But, obviously, it was pulled from the Nov. 1998 release schedule by
Norton sometime between the announcement of that release date in early
June '98 and Nov. '98.
See Dale Myers' copy-&-pasted verbatim pre-release publisher's notice
linked below from 6/5/98.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
I'll once more repeat the following customer (??) review for
"Reclaiming History", posted at the Barnes & Noble website on April
1st, 2007. It appears to me this MIGHT be some kind of pre-release
publisher's type of blurb. But I'm not saying it definitely is or
not....it's not marked as a "Publisher's Review", etc.; I'm just
guessing. In any event, this person certainly liked it.....
A reviewer, 04/01/2007 Customer Rating for this product is 5 out of 5:
"Vincent Bugliosi has written a masterpiece.......This is the work of
a true genius. How did he do this, when he is a mere human? He has
left no stone unturned, including Oliver Stone. 'Reclaiming History'
is an epic book, and as long as people are interested in the J.F.K.
case, even if it is centuries from now, they will look to this
masterpiece as the definitive book on the Kennedy assassination.
Fortunately for the historical record, Bugliosi, this nation's
foremost prosecutor, has successfully taken on the most important
murder case in American history. He has proven Oswald's guilt and the
absence of a conspiracy beyond all doubt. This is definitely Nobel and
Pulitzer Prize material. In setting the record straight, 'Reclaiming
History' couldn't be a more perfect title for this book. No home
library should be without this work of literature."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780743566674&z=y#CRV
David Von Pein
You're right, Todd. There is nothing of that sort there. Ben is nuts
(as usual).
Vince was merely arguing a GERERAL type of "THE PUBLIC BELIEVES IN
POLITICAL ASSASSINATION CONSPIRACIES" there....which is just what I
said to Ben here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1ec68cae18ea6ddd?hl=en&
I'm "killfiled" (naturally) by Ben The Kook, so my messages don't get
through to him unless his servant/lapdog (Dave Healy) should happen to
respond to my post(s). Then Ben-Kook might respond. ;)
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think I saw the Bugliosi book at the Dollar Store today on the
Easter
clearance rack selling at 2 for $1.
Same place you got your education no doubt.
Anthony Marsh
No fair springing the trap early. Shh, I'm hunting wabbits.