"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" By Vincent Bugliosi (To Be Released May 29, 2007)
David Von Pein
AND LOGIC WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR CONSPIRACY THEORISTS TO FIGHT, NO
MATTER HOW LONG THEY'VE EMBRACED THE IDEA OF A CONSPIRACY PLOT WITH
RESPECT TO THE JOHN F. KENNEDY MURDER CASE.....
=================================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY:
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
BY:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI
=================================================
Former Los Angeles, California, Deputy District Attorney Vincent
Bugliosi has believed in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK
assassination for many years. In 1986, Mr. Bugliosi even garnered a
"Guilty" verdict from a sworn-in jury during a 21-hour "mock trial" of
Oswald ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald").
Mr. Bugliosi's soon-to-be-published JFK book, which has now been re-
titled "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (projected U.S. release date of May 29, 2007, which would
have been JFK's 90th birthday), will dive head-first into all aspects
of the Kennedy assassination (per the original 1998 and the updated
2006 publisher's blurbs about the book) and reveal beyond a reasonable
doubt that no conspiracy existed to assassinate President Kennedy, and
that Oswald (alone) murdered President Kennedy in Dallas on November
22, 1963.
And given Mr. Bugliosi's reputation for common sense, preparedness,
thoroughness, and logic -- such "Lone Assassin" arguments will be hard
for anyone to dismiss (IMHO).
Mr. Bugliosi, whom I have the utmost respect for, has a habit of
getting to the full truth of any subject matter he chooses to tackle.
And I have no reason to believe that the John F. Kennedy assassination
will be any different in this regard. "Reclaiming History", in this
writer's pre-release opinion, is bound to be quite an eye-opener.
Vincent's long-awaited JFK book has been in the works since 1986 (the
year that VB "convicted" Lee Oswald in front of that jury during the
TV "Docu-Trial" in London). The book has gone through three titles
during those 20-plus years as well. It was originally to be called
"Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy".
In late 2004 or early 2005, Vince changed it to "Final Verdict: The
Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK". And now it's been changed once
again, to "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy". (A very good title indeed.)
Vince said in late 2005 that the manuscript for his mammoth JFK
publication "could easily fill five volumes". But he has been working
hard on condensing it for the last two or three years now.
The final page count for the book, per the data released by the
publisher (W.W. Norton & Co.), will be 1,632 pages, which is almost
twice the size of the 888-page Warren Commission Report.
Mr. Bugliosi had planned to release his JFK book in two separate
volumes; but evidently he has changed his mind about that 2-book
format, and has decided on just a single volume (plus a CD-ROM, which
will be included with the book, containing hundreds of pages of
endnotes).
The amount of pro-Lone Assassin CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) that will
undoubtedly exist within such a huge Bugliosi-authored tome borders on
the unfathomable.
Here's the official publisher's webpage devoted to "RECLAIMING
HISTORY":
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
The publisher's promotional blurb reads as follows.....
"THE BOOK THAT LAYS ALL QUESTIONS TO REST:
Polls reveal that over 75 percent of Americans believe there was a
conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald; some even believe Oswald was
entirely innocent. In this absorbing and historic book-the first ever
to cover the entire case-Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to
believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history.
The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an
iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his
best-selling Outrage, Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America
capable of "prosecuting" Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy.
His book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, re-
examination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and
nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud
upon the American public.
Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to
draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare.
At last we know what really happened. At last it all makes sense.
32 pages of illustrations.
May 2007 / Hardcover / ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3
7" x 10" / 1632 pages / History"
==================================
The W.W. Norton website has revised its ordering page for VB's book --
adjusting the price (upward) for the massive publication, which was
previously going to be released in November 1998 at 992 pages (a
figure that, obviously, has ballooned significantly since '98).
Norton's previous listing had the 992-page volume priced at $35.00 (US
$); it's now listed at $49.95 (US$):
http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
And here's the Simon & Schuster webpage for the "Audio Book" edition
of "Reclaiming History" (a 15-Disc Audio-CD package, featuring actor
Edward Herrmann as narrator):
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=526698
==================================
SOME PRE-RELEASE REVIEWS FOR "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
The Atlantic Monthly:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c9dbf379635ad87c
Publishers Weekly:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/662810b32524ab39
==================================
MORE INFO:
Here's a glance at the Table of Contents for "Reclaiming History".
This chapter information and the associated chapter titles, however,
are subject to change prior to the book's release in late May of 2007:
Dedication
Introduction
1.) Four Days In November
2.) The Investigations
3.) President Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And
Governor Connally
4.) The Most Famous Home Movie Ever, The "Magic Bullet", And The
Single-Bullet Theory
5.) Lee Harvey Oswald
6.) Oswald's Ownership And Possession Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth
Floor
7.) Identification Of The Weapon
8.) Oswald At The Sniper's Nest And "Evidence" Of His Innocence
9.) Motive
10.) The Grassy Knoll
11.) A Conversation With Dr. Cyril Wecht
12.) Secret Service Agents On The Grassy Knoll
13.) The Zanies (And Others) Have Their Say
14.) Other Assassins
15.) Summary Of Oswald's Guilt
16.) Introduction To Conspiracy
17.) History Of The Conspiracy Movement
18.) Mark Lane
19.) Mysterious And Suspicious Deaths
20.) The Second Oswald
21.) David Lifton And Alterations Of The President's Body
22.) Ruby And The Mob
23.) Organized Crime
24.) CIA
25.) FBI
26.) Secret Service
27.) KGB
28.) Right Wing
29.) LBJ
30.) Cuba
31.) The Odio Incident And Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles
32.) Cover-Up By Federal Agencies Of Alleged Conspiracy To Murder
President Kennedy
33.) Jim Garrison's Prosecution Of Clay Shaw And Oliver Stone's Movie
"JFK"
34.) Conclusion Of No Conspiracy
35.) The Murder Trial Of Jack Ruby
36.) A Conversation With Marina
37.) Kennedy-Lincoln Coincidences
38.) The People And Groups Involved In The Plot To Kill Kennedy
39.) Epilogue
40.) In Memoriam
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
Index
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip079/2007001545.html
==================================
V.B. QUOTE TIME:
The following quotes were spoken by Vincent Bugliosi himself (over a
period of several years), and they give an indication, in brief
"snippet" form, as to what Vincent's general opinions are regarding
the JFK murder and who was responsible for the crime. Not
surprisingly, there's not a single mention in these quotes of how
"Badge Man" on the Grassy Knoll fired the fatal shot.....
-----------------------
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
his sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- VB; 1986
-----------------------
"Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." --
VB; 2007
-----------------------
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can
convince the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." --
VB; April 22, 2004
-----------------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- VB; 1986
(Via the TV Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")
-----------------------
"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all?! Why did he find it
necessary to do that if he's innocent?" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"There may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that
day; but if there were, they all missed; ONLY bullets fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it. ... Because
there's not one tiny grain of evidence; not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VB; 1986 (TV
Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Let's take a look at Oswald .... Can anyone fail to see how utterly
and completely crazy this man here was? Utterly and completely nuts.
Bonkers. And you have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder;
you gotta be crazy; nuts.
"One example, among many....how many Americans, how many people
anywhere in the WORLD, defect to the Soviet Union? That alone shows
how completely and utterly mentally-unhinged this man was. Again,
that's the exact type of person to kill the President.
"I think one thing is pretty obvious, Kennedy almost undoubtedly would
have represented to Oswald the ultimate, quintessential representative
-- that's the key word, 'representative' -- of a society for which he
had a grinding contempt." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"When Mr. Spence argued that Oswald was just a patsy and was framed,
he conveniently neglected to be specific. HOW was Lee Harvey Oswald
framed?! When we look at the mechanics of such a possible conspiracy
in this case -- how COULD he have been framed? ... How, in fact, if
Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within forty-five minutes
of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or was he framed for
THAT murder too?!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"I am at work writing an in-depth book on the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, one that I'm confident will shed a
different light on the tragedy that altered the course of American
history." -- VB; 1991
-----------------------
"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has
not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but
Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy." --
VB
-----------------------
"If Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's
assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant
would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned
out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he
acted alone." -- VB; 2001
-----------------------
"It might sound corny, but the truth is I feel an obligation to write
this book. I've read every book that's been published {re. the JFK
assassination} since 1964, and 85% of them feel that there's been a
conspiracy of some kind. My book will tell the other side, and I feel
I'm equipped to do it." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"I'm 95% sure he {Oswald} acted alone; and if you threw 85% of the
evidence out the window there would still be enough to prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just
theories and motives." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"I'm certainly satisfied, beyond all doubt, that Oswald acted alone.
The Warren Commission might not have done much work, but its staff was
prodigious. He {Oliver Stone} deliberately twisted and warped the
record. .... There was nothing mysterious about Oswald's shots. The
first was from only 57 yards, the second from only 83 yards; all were
fired at a stagnant target with a favorable angle. My firearms guy
says he was a sitting duck." -- VB; February 1992
-----------------------
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.
"And what's happened, is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
"In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that. And this is why the vote coming in will be very,
very heavy in favor of a conspiracy.
"I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- VB; 1988
-----------------------
"Right now I'm working around the clock, almost literally, because I'm
reliving the JFK trial in my dreams." -- VB; 2005
-----------------------
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
VB
-----------------------
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VB; November 1986
-----------------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
VB; 1998
-----------------------
"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
"But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
and techniques used in the movie "JFK" just after the Oliver Stone
movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked
for a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was
an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of
the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I
asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their
hands.
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- VB; April 6, 1997
==================================================
RELATED WEBLINKS:
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-02-21-book-buzz_x.htm
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=9144393
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780743566674&z=y#CRV
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V49969193_.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bugliosi+Assassination&search=Search
http://www.mastermediaspeakers.com/vincent_bugliosi/index.html
http://www.nndb.com/people/807/000023738
http://imdb.com/name/nm0119514
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8c67ab97e0c60c32
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/726d732756a9f915
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0ecd0e48aa5bb396
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b53ad9b218cf8ccf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22b24906f5161446
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/662810b32524ab39
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7674890&postcount=23
www.amazon.com/VINCENT-BUGLIOSI-PROSECUTOR-EXTRAORDINAIRE/lm/2KJFLIXOW29IX
www.amazon.com/FAMOUS-DATES-IN-HISTORY-NOV221963/lm/KQOLQ16IYM9H
==================================================
David Von Pein
March 2005
November 2005
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
lazu...@webtv.net
pap has been released.
David Von Pein
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" is now functioning....
....And we can find some very interesting data and "RH" book excerpts
there, including the complete lengthy "Introduction" to the book,
which almost seems like a whole book unto itself....and it provides
many excellent and astute VB passages (naturally).
HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (and God help all CTers of the world...because they'll need
His devine intervention to escape "Reclaiming History" unscathed):
[V. BUGLIOSI ON...]
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much
more difficult time with me.
As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime
books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master
and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.
The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on
the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments,
and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to
demonstrate their invalidity.
I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally
millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly
references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are
supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never
came across.
Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others
in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy
assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to
write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about
the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon
those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies
and distortions. If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in
the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.
This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all,
if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their
predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to
do this, then who does?
Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I
myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to
bring this to the attention of their readers.
Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be
a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very
heart of this book.
The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although
belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries,
most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his
legacy, and many revere him. How very odd, then, that so many of them
have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed
their hero.
To counter the incontrovertible evidence pointing to the guilt of the
person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with
extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments. They defend Oswald with a
protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.
Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for
them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death. Obviously,
the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend
Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission, but in the process they go
completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.
But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's
findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year
effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to
produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a
different conclusion.
Always believing there was a massive federal effort to
"whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the
assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American
public, and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what
really happened, Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his
third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the
first time he saw 'the shadow of a happy ending'.
Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the
assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting
much of his life to the case, that 'much as it looks like Oswald was
some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence
to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from
being an agent'.
The vast conspiracy community, which disbelieves everything in the
Warren Report except the page numbers, should (but won't) be
influenced in their thinking by such a dramatic admission from their
most esteemed titan, one who relentlessly, obsessively and, as opposed
to most of his peers, honestly put every aspect of the case under a
microscope for almost four decades.
The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once
observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all
that is explained.
All humans make mistakes. But there is no room or allowance in the
fevered world of conspiracy theorists for mistakes, human errors,
anomalies, or plain incompetence, though the latter, from the highest
levels on down, is endemic in our society.
Every single piece of evidence that isn't 100 percent consistent with
all the other evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt and the absence
of a conspiracy is by itself proof of Oswald's innocence and the
existence of a conspiracy. There is also no such thing for these
people as a coincidence.
I want to assure the readers of this book that I commenced my
investigation of this case with an open mind. But after being exposed
to the evidence, I have become satisfied beyond all doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable
doubt that he acted alone.
I am very confident that the overwhelming majority of objective
readers of this book will end up feeling the same way. As one gets
further into this book and starts to learn more about Oswald, it will
become increasingly obvious that if any group such as the CIA or
organized crime had wanted to kill the president, the unreliable and
unpredictable loner and loser Lee Harvey Oswald would have been the
last man on earth whom it would have entrusted with such a monumental
undertaking." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; JANUARY 2007
============================
A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION TO
CONSPIRACY":
"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are
based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to
their logical conclusion. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad
absurdum of their position.
But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of
asking, "Where does this go?"-that is, where does the discrepancy,
contradiction, or whatever, lead them?-they immediately give their
minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a
conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).
The discrepancy or contradiction is the entire story. And being the
entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-six volumes of
the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or even argued."
-- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
============================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3ae26a3befc052b8
David Von Pein
remind you of anyone here in the nuthouse? I can think of a few....)
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once
observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all
that is explained." -- VB
Walt
Hey Pea Brain aren't all CT's "Kooks" and "Nuts"?? I never heard of
you accepting even one CT as a rational, intelligent, person.
Since about 75% of Americans don't buy the Warren Commissions lie,
then it follows that we are a nation of "Kooks" and "Nuts, with only a
select handful of elite citizens ( like yourself) who are intelligent
enough to understand that the Warren Report is infallible.... And they
know that .....not because they used their own superior brains.... but
because "experts" figured it out for them.
Walt
David Von Pein
VB's would strike a chord in CTers.
I've never called ALL CTers "kooks" or "nuts". Only the "rabid" ones
who insist upon mangling a whole lot of the evidence and who insist
that Oswald never fired a shot at anybody on 11/22/63. That type of
assertion is just plain crazy...and people who have seemingly studied
the evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases who think that LHO was a mere
innocent "Never Fired A Shot" patsy ARE, indeed, "nuts/kooks"...yes.
No doubt. And they deserve to be labelled as such, IMHO. (Evidently VB
seems to prefer "zanies", but I'm hoping to find a few "kook"
references in the tome...I'm sure he'll muster a few during the
Garrison/Stone chapter; how could he avoid it there?) ;)
Re. Tippit again -- I'm very surprised that Vince hasn't added a
chapter in his book devoted to J.D. Tippit's murder. That's quite
strange, IMO. Obviously, VB will get into the Tippit murder in great
depth in a comprehensive book of this sort...but a lack of a chapter
heading on that key Tippit crime is a bit of a mystery to me.
==========
"But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren
Commission's
findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year
effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to
produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a
different conclusion." -- VB
Walt
> Yeah, I thought that "provable nut" vs. "normal witnesses" quote of
> VB's would strike a chord in CTers.
>
> I've never called ALL CTers "kooks" or "nuts".
Oh really?..... Would you please name a CT that isn't a "Kook" in
your opinion?
tomnln
the WCR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kb2mUdCZG8&mode=related&search
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1178377988.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
The old evidence in the evidence/testimony PROVES that the authorities>>>
Withheld evidence
Altered evidence
Destroyed evidence
And LIED.
Which of Baker's TWO positions was Baker in when he saw Oswald?
Which of Oswald's THREE positions did Baker spot Oswald in?
as for the name-calling, Get used to RETALIATION.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178378841.9...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
all JFK conspiracy theories will quickly evaporate after he is blistered
by relentless fact-based evidence which even he cannot repudiate,
starting with the medical evidence, with which he must be in a
delusional state of either gross ignorance or denial. The mdical
evidence alone reeks of conspiracy. Bugliosi's self-proclaimed proteges
have not measured up to the task. Why should he do any better?
There is no new inculpatory evidence. LHO was tried and convicted by the
WC after his death, and the prosecution's case has not advanced an iota.
The LN'ers are still using the same tired old evidence, every bit of
which has been in dispute ever since 1964. How can another lawyer settle
all this and put the final nail in the coffin? It can't be done. Among
peole knowledgeable about this case, the Bug will simply replace Posner
as the LN laughingstock, only more long-winded.
-----Old Laz, truer words have never been coughed up.
tomnln
authorities?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
(not a F'n Chance)
Cowards are Always on the Same side.
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12440-463...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
YoHarvey
> How many here believe Da Bug will address these CRIMES by the
> authorities?>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
>
> (not a F'n Chance)
>
> Cowards are Always on the Same side.
>
>
> news:12440-463...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
>
> > The Bug stops here. If he visits this forum, his claim of demolishing
> > all JFK conspiracy theories will quickly evaporate after he is blistered
> > by relentless fact-based evidence which even he cannot repudiate,
> > starting with the medical evidence, with which he must be in a
> > delusional state of either gross ignorance or denial. The mdical
> > evidence alone reeks of conspiracy. Bugliosi's self-proclaimed proteges
> > have not measured up to the task. Why should he do any better?
>
> > There is no new inculpatory evidence. LHO was tried and convicted by the
> > WC after his death, and the prosecution's case has not advanced an iota.
> > The LN'ers are still using the same tired old evidence, every bit of
> > which has been in dispute ever since 1964. How can another lawyer settle
> > all this and put the final nail in the coffin? It can't be done. Among
> > peole knowledgeable about this case, the Bug will simply replace Posner
> > as the LN laughingstock, only more long-winded.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since about 75% of Americans don't buy the Warren Commissions lie,
then it follows that we are a nation of "Kooks" and "Nuts, with only
a
select handful of elite citizens ( like yourself) who are intelligent
enough to understand that the Warren Report is infallible.... And
they
know that .....not because they used their own superior brains....
but
because "experts" figured it out for them.
Here is the fallacy in the above argument. As 75% believe
in conspiracy, one can safely assume 75% of the people
are NOT elite citizens with the ability to discern truth from
fiction. Oliver Stone no doubt influenced this 75% greatly
and it's damn obvious this 75% are not to bright. Were they
a bit smarter and more educated they would no doubt realize
the absolute stupidity of the CT arguments and the mere fact
that common sense has never played a role in CT thinking.
Conspiracy in the JFK case is so outlandish as to be
scoffed at by those with the ability to use reason and logic.
Reason and logic have never been the strong point of the
CT community.
Walt
> Dan Rather himself proclaims that 90% of the American people do NOT believe
> the WCR.
Danny "The Rat" Rather is one of the prime reasons that Hoover and LBJ
were able to cover up the truth.
Eventhough "The Rat" may be correct ..... I would take his word for
anything.
Walt
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kb2mUdCZG8&mode=related&search
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Chuck.... You just repeated what I said....Only you were more
verbose.
You are in the 25% minority who "THINK" they are smarter than most
folks. Basically all of you bastards suffer from a superiority
complex, but in reality you're no smarter than average.....It's just
your egos that are bigger than average.
The fact that you believe the Warren Report is true, may be an
indication that you are in reality below average in intelligence.
Walt
lazu...@webtv.net
pile of dogcrap for a major publication...Jeff
aeffects
*humble* is another word that comes to mind -- ROTFLMFAO! Right on
Walt.....
David Von Pein
If you give me two centuries, I might be able to think of one. Let me
ponder that.
But if you want to limit the candidates to THIS asylum...I'll be
thinking for FOUR centuries before I come up with one.
But....give me time.
Kidding aside, I've run across a few non-CT-Kooks at the IMDB site and
at Lancer in past years. And a few on the moderated side of these
forums. Those would be CTers who believe that LHO killed Tippit (which
they MUST believe before they can shed the "kook" label). And those
semi-sensible type CTers also have to think that Oswald was (at the
very least) firing his own Carcano at JFK too, regardless of whether
the "kill" shot came from C2766, in their opinion.
Walt
Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that you think all CT's are
kooks.... Because you can't name one CT that you believe is as
perceptive, rational, and intelligent as yourself?
Walt
David Von Pein
Yeah. I guess you're right. But I was only trying to be nice. ;)
And it sounds as if you are striving to be "#1 KOOK" on my kook list
too.
You're definitely in the upper tier...that's for darn sure. So, don't
worry, Walt, your Mega-Kook status is safe.
Your unbelievably-idiotic theories re. Brennan's "I SAW A WEST-END
SHOOTER" testimony and "JFK WAS HIT IN THE THROAT AROUND Z161", among
others, easily solidify your status as Mega-Kook...forever. Congrats.
Walt
> >>> "Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that you think all CT's are kooks...because you can't name one CT that you believe is as perceptive, rational, and intelligent as yourself?" <<<
>
> Yeah. I guess you're right. But I was only trying to be nice. ;)
Nice?!!.... I've never heard of a nice asshole.......So you can
abandon that idea.
Walt
David Von Pein
Yeah, you're right...for once. Because you're not very nice. (And
you're a Mega-Kook to boot. Not a very attractive combination at all.)
Now, tell us what Brennan "DESCRIBED" once more. I haven't had my
daily 'kook belly-laugh' today. Please supply it....again.
tomnln
You are as stupid as I said you are...CORRECTION...CROOKED as I thought you
are.
Even your Tuesday night Date DanRather said that 90% (NINETY) of the
American people
do NOT believe the WCR.>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kb2mUdCZG8&mode=related&search
Swallowing too many NUTASACKS can be Hazardous to your choice of Dates.
Ain't you the guy who said you were gonna VISIT me?
(so you're also a COWARD)
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178388017.4...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much
more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and
an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything
to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and
objectivity. I have no others." -- Vince B.
>>> "There is no new inculpatory evidence." <<<
Why would there necessarily be any "new" evidence?
Do you expect the Tague bullet to drop from heaven after 43 years?
(Yes, that'd be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Wouldn't matter
anyway...kooks would just claim that God was a plotter too, or that
Moses planted the Tague bullet on some kid's stretcher.)
>>> "LHO was tried and convicted by the WC after his death, and the prosecution's case has not advanced an iota." <<<
It would take a loon to say something so stupid. I guess you qualify.
Your above declaration is totally untrue, of course. The newer
technologies employed by FAA and MPI and Dale Myers and others have
certainly not harmed the LNer case at all.
They've ALL "advanced" the idea that LHO was probably a lone killer.
That's what they've done. It's not "new physical evidence", per se.
But it's a newer way to evaluate and assess the current evidence
that's on the table....and none of it has raised the red flag of
"conspiracy".
And don't you think that's a tad odd if a multi-shooter conspiracy DID
exist in DP on 11/22/63? If not, why not?
This "newer" stuff would certainly also include the Discovery
Channel's SBT test in 2004. That test bullet behaved remarkably
similar to the SBT bullet (399). But a CT-Kook tosses up his hands and
exclaims "Not good enough! This test proves the SBT is wrong!".
To that CTer, who believes that up to THREE separate bullets did all
of this damage to two victims, it was just a miraculous coincidence
that the test bullet fired in 2004 through two dummies just happened
to take a pretty good general course that CE399 is said to have taken,
hitting the same bones in a mock Connally, "tumbling" sideways into
Connally's back, and emerging COMPLETELY INTACT after doing all of
this damage and going completely through two "bodies"....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
But to a reasonable, sensible person looking at that Discovery Channel
simulation of the SBT, it would have taken a series of conspiracy-
tinged miracles in order for two (and probably THREE) bullets to have
mirrored even a halfway decent-looking "SBT" pattern....right down to
the INTACT bullet that just happened to bounce off of the same area of
the JBC mock-up (the thigh) that was actually struck in the real JBC
by the spent bullet in 1963...and right on down to the elongated entry
hole on the mock Connally back.
Talk about "magic". The CTers have up to three bullets performing an
act that the WC reconciled (very nicely too) into just one missile.
How is that even REMOTELY possible if three bullets did all of the
damage?
AND: All of the CTer bullets GET LOST, too!
Can anyone not see the idiocy of the anti-SBT CTer position here? How
is it possible to not see it?
>>> "The LN'ers are still using the same tired old evidence..." <<<
~laugh~
"Same tired old evidence" -- like all of those LHO bullets, fragments
(right INSIDE THE LIMO!), shells, and guns. Yeah, that DOES get
tiresome looking at all that "LHO WAS HERE" stuff day after day.
Why don't you show us a Mauser instead. That'll spice up the
proceedings. And then you can tell us (via the "Patsy" plot that so
many Stone-lovers believe) WHY the dopey plotters would want to plant
a Mauser on the 6th Floor...even though their "Patsy" can never be
tied to it?
Were the plotters cunning....or crackpots?
>>> "How can another lawyer settle all this and put the final nail in the coffin?" <<<
By studying the actual evidence in the case (and by studying the CT-
Kooks and their worthless theories) for 21+ years. And by being
Vincent T. Bugliosi.
Next?....
>>> "It can't be done." <<<
It's already been done. You just don't realize it yet.
A reviewer of VB's book (not related to me, honest) writes:
"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
>>> "Among people knowledgeable about this case, the Bug will simply replace Posner as the LN laughingstock." <<<
What the above really means is: "Among conspiracy-loving, Anybody-But-
Oswald Mega-Kooks", of course.
>>> "Old Laz..."
"Old Laz" is an "Old Idiot".
Phil Ossofee
The dude is a certified nutjob lone nutter. he's smart and can talk
really well that's all ths book has going for it. His book would only
have credibility if he was on the fence and took no position for the
last 20 years.
David Von Pein
FRAGMENTS would have disappeared (or would have been viewed completely
differently) if Vince had been "on the fence" since 1986.
Right, kook?
David Von Pein
>>> "{VB's book excerpts} Actually read like an endless David VP post." <<<
Thank you. I'm honored.
>>> "I've cancelled my order for the book." <<<
Nice. You've cancelled your order based on a few snippets I elected to
cull from a mere 55 pages of free online material, available here:
http://reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=11
>>> "I suggest CTs boycott this book." <<<
Yeah, who would want THIS MUCH common sense re. the JFK case all in
one place, right? Best just to boycott/ignore it, correct?
Nice.
>>> "Borrow it from a library." <<<
LOL. I thought you just said you wanted people to "boycott" it. Now
you're suggesting CTers borrow it from a library?? How is READING the
book BOYCOTTING it??
Boycott = AVOID.
http://webster.com/dictionary/boycott
>>> "Why pay good money to have someone rant at you?" <<<
Yeah...especially when you can get it on these forums for free via "an
endless David VP post", right?
(Wait till you see my full-length review for VB's book. Talk about
"endless".) ;)
>>> "I suggest CTs buy David Talbot's new book instead." <<<
Yeah...just ignore Bugliosi's 21 years' worth of undoubtedly solid and
authoritative research, right?*
* = Based on VB's past impeccable reputation.
>>> "Please let me know if David VP has fabricated these apparent quotes from VB's book, Chad." <<<
Why does Chad have to check on this matter? Why can't you just click
your mouse and look for yourself?
You obviously are interested in VB's opinion (or you wouldn't have pre-
ordered his book in the first place). And yet you won't even click on
the FREE chapters available online?! (Which you HAD to know were
available, because I've provided the free links in my posts.)
I think what Peter really is saying is --- Let's silence all really
good and solid LN arguments and remain sheltered within our own CT
cocoons for life.
(Good plan too....if you're a dedicated, lifelong CTer. If I were one
of those, I couldn't bear to open up "Reclaiming History" either. I
can imagine the dread of confronting more than 2,500 pages of logical
LN thinking.)
aeffects
> PETER F. WROTE:
>
> >>> "{VB's book excerpts} Actually read like an endless David VP post." <<<
>
> Thank you. I'm honored.
>
> >>> "I've cancelled my order for the book." <<<
>
> Nice. You've cancelled your order based on a few snippets I elected to
> cull from a mere 55 pages of free online material, available here:
ouch..... this has got to hurt, David
David Von Pein
Why? Because some CT-Kook cancelled his order for the JFK Bible??
Why would that "hurt" me greatly?
I think it's quite humorous in fact.
aeffects
> >>> "Ouch...this has got to hurt, David." <<<
>
> Why? Because some CT-Kook cancelled his order for the JFK Bible??
>
> Why would that "hurt" me greatly?
well, look on the bright side David, by CT calculation there's going
to be 30 additional copies you can purchase [2009 Xmas gifts,
perhaps?], available soon... Bugliosi wants to slam CT researchers he
could of got up off his ass and showed up here, but alas, he has you
doing his grunt work, for free noless...
> I think it's quite humorous in fact.
so do I, David so do I!
Walt
Ok, Thanks......for the opportunity to refresh your short memory.
Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the sixth floor gunman as in his early
thirties ( How old was Oswald?) He also DESCRIBED the gunman as
weighing about 165 to 175 pounds ( What is Oswald's weight on his
booking sheet?)
And he said the gunman was wearing a light colored shirt and light
colored trousers ( Was Oswald's shirt and trousers "light colored? )
In addition to DESCRIBING a gunman who did NOT fit Oswald's
description, he DESCRIBED the window where he saw the gunman. He
said the gunman was STANDING and aiming the HIGH POWERED rifle out of
the window. He said he could see ALL OF THE BARREL because there was
as much of the rifle outside of the window asthere was inside the
window. He estimated that he couls see as much as 70 to 85 % of that
HIGH POWERED rifle. The only wat that Brennan could have seen the man
STANDING and aiming the rifle as he DESCRIBED is if the window was
WIDE OPEN.....and the only window that was wide open on the sixth
floor was at the far WEST end of the building. Another witness,
Arnold Rowland, verified Brennan's sighting and descriptions.
Walt
David Von Pein
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything
perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; 2007
David Von Pein
(Best part:)
"One can't help but suspect that, however thorough and persuasive the
book is, it will have little effect on the public's view of this
event, and certainly will only encourage the conspiracy nuts, who
always rise to a challenge. That is the nature of paranoia."
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/blog/2007/05/the_weight_of_e_1.html
Walt
> Thanks for taking the bait, Walt-Kook. Right on cue. .....
Yer welcome Pea Brain...... Please invite me to refresh yer short
memory anytime. I enjoy posting the FACTS, because it makes you
maggots squirm.
Walt
David Von Pein
Below is the entire section of the "Introduction" to Vince Bugliosi's
book that includes the remark about Ruth Paine. And it's fairly
obvious (at least to me) that Vince is talking ONLY about "testimony"
given at the '86 TV Trial within these comments here.....
"Although Oswald's widow, Marina, declined to testify, I can't think
of one ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL witness I would have needed--were Oswald
alive and I had prosecuted him--whom I did not have at the London
trial. (When you have witnesses like the lady at whose home Oswald
spent the night before the assassination with his wife, and who
testified to Oswald's storing the murder weapon on the garage floor of
her home; the witness who drove Oswald to work on the morning of the
assassination and saw Oswald carry a large bag into the Texas School
Book Depository Building, Oswald's place of employment; the witness
who was watching the presidential motorcade from a window right below
where Oswald was firing his rifle at Kennedy and actually heard the
cartridge casings from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle falling to
the floor directly above him; a witness who saw Oswald shoot and kill
Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit just forty-five minutes after the
assassination; expert witnesses from the HSCA, as well as one from the
Warren Commission, who conclusively tied Oswald to the assassination
by fingerprint, handwriting, photographic, neutron activation, and
firearm analyses; and so on, you know you're dealing with the real
thing.)" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (INTRO. CHAPTER)
===========
Now, since it's fairly obvious (IMO) that VB is talking only about
Ruth Paine's testimony at the TV Trial in the above passage, let's
examine exactly what Mrs. Paine said re. the rifle and her garage at
that Docu-Trial (verbatim quotes below):
VINCE BUGLIOSI -- "While in the garage, did the officers ask you if
Oswald had any guns or weapons?"
RUTH PAINE -- "One of the officers asked if he had any guns. And I
said no; and then I translated the question to Marina, who said yes,
that he had a gun. And she indicated a blanket roll on the floor in
the garage and pointed to it."
The above '86 testimony verifies that Ruth Paine knew (through
Marina's knowledge) that Oswald had a rifle and that a rifle had been
stored in Mrs. Paine's garage in a blanket on the floor.
When re-watching Gerry Spence's cross-examination of Mrs. Paine at the
Mock Trial, it's interesting to note that Spence, in effect, is
STIPULATING to the fact that the weapon that was identified as the
probable Kennedy murder weapon WAS, indeed, stored in Paine's garage
just before the assassination.
Spence is pretty much ADMITTING to the jury that even the defense
counsel in the case thinks that Oswald's Carcano rifle was stored at
Ruth Paine's house when Spence asked this question of Mrs. Paine....
"And it's just a coincidence that the gun that supposedly killed the
President was located in your house?"
To which a confused Mrs. Paine replied:
"What do you mean 'coincidence'?"
Spence then continues:
"I mean it just HAPPENED. All of these things just sort of HAPPENED
all around YOU."
But, by the same token, Spence also did a good job at getting Mrs.
Paine to readily admit that she had never seen (with her own eyes) a
rifle in her house at any time. Which actually seems directly contrary
to this comment made by Spence just a few minutes earlier.....
"And it's just a coincidence that the gun that supposedly killed the
President was located in your house?"
CTers should probably be focusing more attention on this inaccuracy
within that very same section of VB's book Intro., which I caught
immediately.....
"A witness who saw Oswald shoot and kill Dallas police officer J. D.
Tippit just forty-five minutes after the assassination."
The above statement implies that Ted Callaway actually SAW Tippit
being killed by Lee Oswald. But Callaway only saw Oswald fleeing the
murder scene, gun in hand.
And I think Vince has to be referring to Callaway in that quote,
because (unless I'm mistaken) he was the only "Tippit murder" witness
called to the stand at the '86 Mock Trial.
Vince, in his book Intro., is merely painting the BROAD picture of the
vast evidence and pro-LN witnesses he had to work with when VB
"prosecuted" Oswald at the Docu-Trial in 1986.
Unfortunately, he chose his words poorly in a couple of instances
there, it would seem (especially the Callaway example). And he'll
probably have certain CTers calling him a "liar" (etc.) re. those
errors too, and accusing him of not knowing the case at all (or some
such unreasonable exaggeration or accusation, which is what CTers are
best known for, of course). And that very thing has already happened
to an extent right here at Google Groups.
But I'm willing to bet that the total number of slight errors in
Vincent's lengthy tome will pale in number when placed up against the
barnful of errors and misrepresentations set forth by CTers the world
over since 1963.
Any takers on that wager?
David Von Pein
>>> "So, that is his {Mr. Bugliosi's} only purpose, to defame conspiracy believers, not look for the truth?" <<<
DVP RETORTS:
LOL. When did I ever imply that the "only purpose" for VB's LN book
was to "defame conspiracy believers"?
Answer -- Never.
Yes, a major reason (probably THE major reason) for VB writing his
"Reclaiming" tome is to trash all the CTs that have filled the
landscape since '63. Vince has pretty much said that very thing
himself (in 1988, via the article below).....
So, yes, stripping away all the false theories is a major reason for
the book's existence indeed. And once all the conspiracy theories are
debunked...what remains?
Answer -- Oswald and Oswald alone (of course).
But that's not to say that the immensely-enjoyable-to-read CT bashfest
is the ONLY type of thing that will show up in "Reclaiming History".
In fact, per the blurbs I've seen thus far, the book contains a large
"biography" type section on Lee Oswald himself, plus hundreds of pages
of chronological-type 11/22/63 narrative of events in the first
chapter (317 first-chapter pages to be precise; I just checked).
And all that stuff comes well before he even starts hammering the
CTers (in detail) in the second half of the book (which Vince is
calling "BOOK TWO--DELUSIONS OF CONSPIRACY: WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN"). ....
http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistTOC.pdf
>>> "No, it is exactly the insults which he {The Bug-man} uses to impress people like you {the DVP-meister}." <<<
Well, chalk one up for The Bug then! It worked. Because I am impressed
indeed. So sue me. And that's just 55 pages worth of "impressed".
Another 1,575+ pages of such "impression" could prove too much
happiness for one man to absorb. Any ideas how I can vent all that
anti-kook joy? <g>
In any event, it seems as though Tony is smart enough to see through
Vinny's little "Insult The CTers" scheme. Right, Anthony? Tony's got
VB's number...right?
<gag>
>>> "Creating false controversies via straw man arguments." <<<
You love that silly word "strawman", don't you? All CTers do. Almost
as much as you enjoy casting aside many LN arguments with the use of
your other all-encompassing, meaningless one-word retort --
"Nonsense".
Get some more one-word arguments, Tony. Those are getting worn to a
frazzle.
And while you search the CT dictionary for more meaningless crap,
allow VB to take center stage for a moment.....
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged {Gerald} Posner in their books that they're going to have a
much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of
a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant
everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts
and objectivity. I have no others." -- VB
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded
in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core-Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone-into its present form of the most
complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history." -- VB
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
>>> "He {Vin.Bug.} hadn't written it yet in 1990." <<<
He was three to four years into it by that date, that's for sure. And
that's longer than it took Posner (2 years) to write "Case
Closed"....and longer than it took Mark Fuhrman to write his "A Simple
Act Of Murder" (2.5 to 3 years, per Fuhrman himself).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
It only took Vince 6 months (approx.) to write the definitive book
(IMO) on the O.J. case ("Outrage").
If he had really wanted to, VB could probably have whipped out a
pretty decent pro-LN book by 1989 (while basing such a book almost
entirely on the five months' worth of 110-hour work weeks he put in
researching the case from March 1986 to July 1986...in preparation for
the TV Docu-Trial).
David Von Pein
I shall save the above hunk of "nonsense" by A. Marsh for reference.
I'd advise Mr. Marsh to refrain from calling Mr. Bugliosi a "liar" in
the future. Call him "incorrect" or "misinformed" or "stupid" or
whatever (from your skewed CT POV, of course; certainly not from
anyone else's).
But if you call him a "liar", you're only making yourself look like an
outright fool.
Vincent Bugliosi is not a liar. Never has been. Never will be.
So you can stuff the "L" word (re. VB) where the sun ain't liable to
shine anytime soon. (And, please do stuff it there. Because that's
where it belongs.)
aeffects
> >>> "Bugliosi's lies are an enormous offense against the American people." <<<
>
> I shall save the above hunk of "nonsense" by A. Marsh for reference.
are you David, writing a book now?
> I'd advise Mr. Marsh to refrain from calling Mr. Bugliosi a "liar" in
> the future. Call him "incorrect" or "misinformed" or "stupid" or
> whatever (from your skewed CT POV, of course; certainly not from
> anyone else's).
by your own admission your position/support of-for Bugliosi is skewed
-- The theatrics aren't necessary save it for Vince's book tour
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On May 11, 11:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Bugliosi's lies are an enormous offense against the American people." <<<
>>
>> I shall save the above hunk of "nonsense" by A. Marsh for reference.
>
>are you David, writing a book now?
>
>> I'd advise Mr. Marsh to refrain from calling Mr. Bugliosi a "liar" in
>> the future. Call him "incorrect" or "misinformed" or "stupid" or
>> whatever (from your skewed CT POV, of course; certainly not from
>> anyone else's).
>
>by your own admission your position/support of-for Bugliosi is skewed
>-- The theatrics aren't necessary save it for Vince's book tour
>
>
>> But if you call him a "liar", you're only making yourself look like an
>> outright fool.
>>
>> Vincent Bugliosi is not a liar. Never has been. Never will be.
I will be surprised indeed if I'm not able to *document* Bugliosi lying in his
book, whenever it's published.
David Von Pein
Wow! A 4 MPH slowdown of a car that's crawling along in the first
place! How did anyone in the limo survive it?! It's a wonder Jackie
and the Connallys weren't thrown violently through the windshield with
4-MPH slowdown forces like this at work against them!
>>> "There was no sudden jerk {forward of JFK's head at Z313}." <<<
Yes, there was. Deny it if you wish. But denying it doesn't do your
credibility any favors, IMO.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
>>> "The forward movement {of JFK's head} was not 2.3 inches." <<<
I don't really care how many inches his head moved precisely. The main
point is: his head jerks forward (very fast) at the exact same moment
a bullet hits him in the head. Shouldn't that be telling you
something? (It certainly is telling me something; and it has nothing
to do with that vicious "12 to 8 MPH slowdown".)
>>> "You make the mistake in logic of looking ONLY at frames Z-312 and Z-313, not before and after." <<<
And you, Tony, make the mistake of letting your "inertia" get in the
way of your common sense. JFK's head snaps forward, not backward, at
the precise moment of impact. That's a critical observation. And it's
a very rapid head snap forward, too. (Despite your denials.)
If JFK has just been shot from the front...where's the TO-THE-REAR
MOVEMENT AT THE EXACT POINT OF IMPACT? Where is it?
Or don't you think there should be any FRONT-to-BACK point-of-impact
movement (even a little bit) when a 2,000fps bullet hits a human head?
Or is your "inertia" movement so forceful and constant that it
completely MASKED any backward point-of-impact movement of Kennedy's
cranium after it was struck by a high-powered bullet moving at
thousands of feet-per-second?
David Von Pein
Clarification for the uninformed "lurker" ---
"Case-Knowledgable Folks" = "Conspiracy-Hungry Kooks".
But, back in the land of "reasonable" people who don't really need to
know what color shoes Mary Moorman was wearing on Nov. 22nd -- VB's
tome will "reclaim history" from the rabid, unreasonable conspiracy
kooks (aka "zanies"). Without much doubt.
And I'm still awaiting your Shot-By-Shot (logical & doable) shooting
scenario that replaces the 3-Shot LHO scenario, David H.
Any chance you might let us mere mortals in on that? I'd like to hear
Ben's scenario (shot-for-shot) too. I've yet to hear/see it. Have you?
After all, those guys WERE wounded, weren't they? Somebody shot 'em.
Why not tell the world WHO....and pull the rug right out from under
daBug?! Give it a shot.
>>> "This isn't Helter-Skelter!" <<<
Bravo. You got one right!
>>> "This isn't 1980." <<<
Make that two.
>>> "This isn't "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - The Conspiracy and Coverup"" <<<
Hat trick!
BTW, VB's belief in a possible (but by no means certain) conspiracy in
the RFK case, IMO, should bode well for his GENERAL credibility re.
his JFK book. That is to say--It's fairly obvious that VB is NOT
averse to the word "conspiracy" should he see evidence to support that
word.
Obviously he DID see something in the RFK/Sirhan evidence that took
him down a possible "conspiracy" path, and he said so (although I
don't think he believes in an RFK plot today).
But the JFK murder is a totally-different case...not to be linked in
any way to RFK....and VB has seen nothing substantial to make him
stray from these 1986 words......
"As surely as I am standing here, and surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy." -- VB
eca...@tx.rr.com
Nicely done DVP.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179870674.8...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> An interesting observation (which ties into a previous NG discussion
> re. possible Vince Bugliosi errors in his book).......
>
> It's hard to catch Vince Bugliosi in an error (even why *I* myself
> thought he had certainly made one). This portion of VB's book shown
> below verifies that I was wrong when I assumed VB had made a mistake
> in the Intro. to the book when he said that a witness at the '86 Mock
> Trial had actually SEEN Tippit being shot. I had no idea that Jack
> Tatum testified at the Mock Trial; but obviously he did. .....
>
> "Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in Tatum's
> direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step back into
> the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of the officer
> on the ground. .... [VB's Footnote:] I asked Tatum at the London trial
> if he got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he
> identified at the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if
> there was "any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None
> whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.
> 200)" -- Pg. 79; "Reclaiming History"
>
> ========
>
> The above information confirms that I was wrong (and Vince wasn't)
> when I said the following earlier this month.....
>
> "And I think Vince has to be referring to Callaway in that quote,
> because (unless I'm mistaken) he was the only "Tippit murder" witness
> called to the stand at the '86 Mock Trial." -- DVP
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1ddf0d7a0e0aa25
>
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179872844.3...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Bugliosi, btw, has the Tippit murder occurring at 1:12 PM.
>
David Von Pein
Master Kook.
David Von Pein
re. possible Vince Bugliosi errors in his book).......
It's hard to catch Vince Bugliosi in an error (even when *I* myself
thought he had certainly made one). This portion of VB's book (shown
below) verifies that I was wrong when I assumed VB had made a mistake
in the Intro. to the book when he said that a witness at the '86 Mock
Trial had actually SEEN Tippit being shot. I had no idea that Jack
Tatum testified at the Mock Trial; but obviously he did. (But since
73% of that whole "trial" was left on the cutting-room floor, it's no
wonder a lot of stuff is unknown about it) .....
"Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in Tatum's
direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step back into
the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of the officer
on the ground. .... [VB's Footnote:] I asked Tatum at the London trial
if he got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he
identified at the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if
there was "any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None
whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.
200)" -- Pg. 79; "Reclaiming History"
========
The above information confirms that I was wrong (and Vince wasn't)
when I said the following earlier this month.....
"And I think Vince has to be referring to Callaway in that quote,
because (unless I'm mistaken) he was the only "Tippit murder" witness
called to the stand at the '86 Mock Trial." -- DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1ddf0d7a0e0aa25
tomnln
Wanna try These Felon Supporter?>>>
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
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179890344....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> PIMP!" <<<
>
> Master Kook.
>
David Von Pein
Master Mega-Kook.
tomnln
KOOK-SUCKERS Refuse to address evidence/testimony.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
CHICKENSHIT FELON SUPPORTERS
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179893198.5...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "MASTER KOOK-SUCKER." <<<
>
> Master Mega-Kook.
>