>>> "Hi David, My third paragraph, to which you are ostensibly referring, calls attention to a specific and ubiquitous trait of Bugliosi's: childishness, humorless childishness - which, IMO, gets old quickly. I do not state in my review what conspiracy theorists deserve or do not deserve. This appears to be your own construction. To the contrary, I imply that the author's ad hominems do the book and the reader a disservice. Here are two quote samples to aid in spotting the distinction: "Further aggravating the [reader's] slog,...." and "detract from......a serious piece of scholarship". I am criticizing method, not intent and, thus, expressing a personal preference. I prefer reasoning to playground epithets." <<<

That's fair enough, nto62.

I happen to think, though, that Mr. Bugliosi attacks the conspiracists
at just about the right tempo, providing a lengthy series of very-
deserved salvos along the way.

That my "personal preference" re. the matter. ;)

The conspiracy authors deserve to be treated with contempt and
deserve to be attacked incessantly by writers like Bugliosi....because
those CT authors have deliberately mangled the evidence with regard to
the way JFK met his demise, and they should certainly be taken to task
when it comes to such despicable tactics.

I suppose that VB could have used more tactful and less-stinging
remarks than he did throughout his JFK book, but I myself am glad he
didn't sugar-coat things. He blasts (and rightly so, IMO) the
conspiracy authors and their kooky siblings (the "buffs" who didn't
write any books, but inherited the same evidence-mangling habits of
the book authors).

BONUS "VB SALVOS" (some of my personal favorites):

"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- Vince
Bugliosi

"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the
conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved,
in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but
the HSCA came to the same conclusion. But conspiracy theorists, as
suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events
everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong
predilection to believe that the official version is wrong." -- VB

"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in
the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was
set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he
was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- VB

"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented
level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in
the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- VB

"John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in 2003
called "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald", in which he
carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
endnote. .... Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the
things he charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his
only source is his exceptionally fertile imagination." -- VB

"Judyth Baker has been called a "pathological liar." Although her
story is a lie, this might be too harsh an indictment. From what I
have read, she sounds more like a sick puppy to me. .... If anyone
even had the smallest doubt that Judyth is a gold-plated phony, all he
or she has to do to remove that doubt is to read (if you can withstand
the pain) Baker's book {"Lee Harvey Oswald: The True Story Of The
Accused Assassin Of President John F. Kennedy By His Lover"; Volumes 1
and 2}. .... Baker's book is a total, embarrassing failure. Is there
any way to stop Judyth from continuing to propagate her fantasy? Two
volumes of nonsense, at this late date, show that the answer to this
question is no." -- VB

"A substantial majority of the conspiracy community is also extremely
gullible, believing every story they hear without bothering to check
it to see if it is accurate or makes any sense. As long as the story
helps their theory, they buy it. They would improve the quality of
their research appreciably by simply embracing rule number one of the
journalistic profession: "If your mama says she loves you, check it
out"." -- VB

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future
maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill
Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald
or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is
not worthy of serious discussion." -- VB

aeffects

unread,

Apr 23, 2008, 1:14:23 PM4/23/08

here's hop'in your taking "walking on water" lessons from daBUG....
LMFAO

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2008, 1:25:28 PM4/23/08

On Apr 23, 7:37 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/review/R3D0K582YHA2R0/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5...

>
> >>> "Hi David, My third paragraph, to which you are ostensibly referring, calls attention to a specific and ubiquitous trait of Bugliosi's: childishness, humorless childishness - which, IMO, gets old quickly. I do not state in my review what conspiracy theorists deserve or do not deserve. This appears to be your own construction. To the contrary, I imply that the author's ad hominems do the book and the reader a disservice. Here are two quote samples to aid in spotting the distinction: "Further aggravating the [reader's] slog,...." and "detract from......a serious piece of scholarship". I am criticizing method, not intent and, thus, expressing a personal preference. I prefer reasoning to playground epithets." <<<
>
> That's fair enough, nto62.

"I happen to think, though, that Mr. Bugliosi attacks the
conspiracists at just about the right tempo, providing a lengthy
series of very-deserved salvos along the way."

His tempo is duck and run, and you are right, this is perfect for a
guy supporting a theory with NO evidence behind it.

>
> That my "personal preference" re. the matter. ;)
>

"The conspiracy authors deserve to be treated with contempt and
deserve to be attacked incessantly by writers like Bugliosi....because
those CT authors have deliberately mangled the evidence with regard to
the way JFK met his demise, and they should certainly be taken to task
when it comes to such despicable tactics."

Why, because we seek the truth? Because our government's version of
the case makes no sense? The evidence put forth by the WC was pretty
mangled, and useless in convicting LHO by the way, long before any CT
author/researcher got involved. The only despicable tactics are the
ones our government has used in hiding the truth from the American
people. If you you support the government's point of view you are a
betraying this country as it is totally false.

"I suppose that VB could have used more tactful and less-stinging
remarks than he did throughout his JFK book, but I myself am glad he
didn't sugar-coat things. He blasts (and rightly so, IMO) the
conspiracy authors and their kooky siblings (the "buffs" who didn't
write any books, but inherited the same evidence-mangling habits of
the book authors)."

Of course he went on the attack as they always say the best defense is
a good offense when you have no real facts to back you up. Instead of
blasting the CT authors why not prove they are wrong? Why do none of
you LN backers ever PROVE your point of view?

"BONUS "VB SALVOS" (some of my personal favorites):

"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa. -- Vince
Bugliosi"

Good move, he is supporting a BIG lie so he goes on the offensive and
attacks the CT authors as being the liars. The only problem is he
CAN'T prove his version of events, even with a 9 month "investigation"
by the FBI.

This is so ludicrous it is NOT even worth responding to Suffice it to
say, his nose is longer than Pinnochio's.

This is the government's case against LHO, mere speculation and belief
without a SHRED of proof. Remember readers, it is their task to prove
guilt, not the folks who say the evidence is wrong to prove their
theory. The government charged LHO with murder, therefore, they have
to prove their version of events and they failed miserably.

"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented
level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in
the conspiracy community, that's saying something.-- VB"

This is from a man who won a COSPIRACY case against Manson, but in the
death of a president the thought is proposterous to him. What a
joker.

"John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in 2003
called 'Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald', in which he
carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
endnote. .... Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the
things he charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his
only source is his exceptionally fertile imagination.-- VB"

This may be true, or it may not be true, but how does ANY of this show
LHO's guilt based on the "evidence" the WC put forth? It is all a
side-show to distract from the lies of the government.

"Judyth Baker has been called a 'pathological liar.' Although her
story is a lie, this might be too harsh an indictment. From what I
have read, she sounds more like a sick puppy to me. .... If anyone
even had the smallest doubt that Judyth is a gold-plated phony, all he
or she has to do to remove that doubt is to read (if you can withstand
the pain) Baker's book {'Lee Harvey Oswald: The True Story Of The
Accused Assassin Of President John F. Kennedy By His Lover'; Volumes 1
and 2}. .... Baker's book is a total, embarrassing failure. Is there
any way to stop Judyth from continuing to propagate her fantasy? Two
volumes of nonsense, at this late date, show that the answer to this
question is no.'-- VB"

Where is his proof that shows beyond all doubt LHO is guilty? Why
don't you ever post these excerpts Dave?

"A substantial majority of the conspiracy community is also extremely
gullible, believing every story they hear without bothering to check
it to see if it is accurate or makes any sense. As long as the story
helps their theory, they buy it. They would improve the quality of
their research appreciably by simply embracing rule number one of the
journalistic profession: 'If your mama says she loves you, check it
out'. -- VB"

This is baloney as most CTers don't believe any story given. The only
truly gullible people are the ones who believe the official theory
with NO proof or evidence.

" 'I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future

maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill
Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald
or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is
not worthy of serious discussion.' -- VB"

More malarky. Dave, post his summations of the "evidence" for us so
we can see what he has.

aeffects

unread,

Apr 23, 2008, 1:43:57 PM4/23/08

On Apr 23, 10:25 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 23, 7:37 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> More malarky. Dave, post his summations of the "evidence" for us so
> we can see what he has.

David can't, way beyond his purview,. DVP is ONLY allowed to post what
Bugliosi allows. Dave can also repost comments from researchers/
lurkers who have posted to earlier Bugliosi quotes from Reclaiming
History. That's it man.... Bugliosi is no jerk ,as are his followers
over-the-cliff cult....

No summations form daBug, he's hoping Tom Hanks-HBO will deal with
that little problem... LMFAO

0 new messages