Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A Few Examples From "The VB 53"

20 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 18, 2007, 4:30:34 PM10/18/07
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82c732a45723ceae


>>> "Certainly nothing new there {amongst the first 20 of Vincent Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence" that prove Oswald's guilt}. I won't bother parting with my cash." <<<


And if it's not brand "new", it's not good enough evidence against
Oswald...is that it?

Did you expect the #1 item on VB's list to say: "OSWALD CONFESSED TO
FRITZ! AND ONLY I (VINCE BUGLIOSI) HAVE THIS INFORMATION!" ??

Actually, in a way, Vince DOES kind of think Oswald DID confess....via
the many, many lies that came from Oswald's own lips. And Vince told
the jury just that at the 1986 Mock Trial too. Here's an excerpt.....

"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he 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?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, 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'!!!" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.; July 1986; Via TV Docu-
Trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"); c.1986, LWT

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91

Back to Bugliosi's "53 Pieces Of Evidence"........

Among the "VB 53", I can think of only ONE item that really doesn't
belong there (and even THAT item has an asterisk beside my explanation
of why I think that)....that item being the paraffin test.

FROM MY "RECLAIMING HISTORY" BOOK REVIEW:

=======================================

DVP: In {the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"} chapter, Vincent
Bugliosi lists every one of his "53 pieces of evidence" that point
toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination. The only
item on Vince's list that I think really doesn't belong there is #41,
where VB talks about the results of the paraffin test on Oswald's
hands being positive.

In my opinion, it was a mistake for Vince to have placed that
particular item on his list because he knows that paraffin tests are
not considered very reliable. And VB even discusses the unreliability
of such tests on page 164 of this book.

However, in VB's defense of including the paraffin test results
on his 53-item list, I'd like to add this .... While it is, indeed,
true that paraffin tests are inherently unreliable (since the presence
of nitrates on a person's hands can be caused by various other things
besides just gunpowder residue) -- I'd also ask this question with
respect to Lee Oswald's "positive" paraffin results in this case:

What do you suppose the odds are of something OTHER than
gunpowder residue causing that "positive" result in his paraffin test
when we also know that Lee Oswald was CARRYING A GUN ON HIM when he
was apprehended in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, 1963?

I'd say, given these circumstances (plus the fact that the very
gun Oswald had on him when he was arrested was determined beyond all
doubt to be the weapon that killed Officer J.D. Tippit), the odds
would be pretty doggone low that something other than gunpowder
resulted in that positive paraffin conclusion.

I think Vince Bugliosi should have probably included the above
"What are the odds?" argument as an addendum to his 41st item on page
965, but he did not include any such addendum.

But other than that one quibble I have with #41, VB's large list
is excellent, with several "powerful new inferences" (as Bugliosi
would say) emerging along the way.

Here's a sampling of some of the things listed on "The VB 53":

>>> "Before Oswald got into Frazier's car that Friday morning, the day of the assassination, he placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat, telling Frazier it contained...curtain rods." -- VB; Page 956 <<<

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

>>> "During Sunday's interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. .... In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined. .... He said before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "WENT DOWNSTAIRS," a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one of their employees. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM? {Answer:} The sixth floor." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- VB; Page 957 <<<

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

>>> "There is another very powerful reason why we can know that Oswald, at the time of his confrontation with Baker in the second-floor lunchroom, had just come down from the sixth floor, not up from the first floor, as he claimed. .... Indeed there was a Coca-Cola machine in the {second-floor lunch} room. But to my knowledge, there is no direct reference in the assassination literature to a SECOND soft drink machine in the Book Depository Building. .... Neither Williams nor Frazier expressly said what floor this machine was on. .... Through a few phone calls I was able to reach Wesley Frazier, whom I hadn't talked to since 1986, when he testified for me at the London trial. Still living in Dallas, he told me that "there was a Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor." Where, specifically, was it? "It was located by the double freight elevator near the back of the building." .... And indeed, I subsequently found proof of the existence of the machine, with the words "Dr. Pepper" near the top front of it, in an FBI photo taken for the Warren Commission of the northwest corner of the first floor, and it is located right next to the refrigerator. .... So we see that apart from all the conclusive evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy from the sniper's nest, and therefore HAD to have descended from there to the second floor, his story about going UP to the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense. Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a soft drink machine on the first floor, the floor you say you are already on, particularly when the apparent drink of your choice {Dr. Pepper by all accounts} is on this first floor, not the second floor?" -- VB; Pages 957-958 <<<

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

DVP: Via a source note Vince provides, I located the WC photo in
question....and sure enough, there's the forgotten-about Dr. Pepper
machine, in "Warren Commission Document CD496; Photo 7". Here's a
direct link to that photograph:

www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12

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

>>> "There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" -- VB; Page 958 <<<

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

DVP: This is yet another very good common-sense inference made
by VB here. In fact, even from the point-of-view of Oswald being
merely a "patsy" (as he is portrayed in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie),
i.e., he knows SOMETHING about the assassination plot but Oswald,
himself, wasn't one of the triggermen, his story about going UP to the
second floor (a floor NEARER THE DEPOSITORY ASSASSIN) to get a drink
at that critical time is totally unbelievable. Oswald was obviously
telling a lie when he told the police he went UP to get a Coke.

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

>>> "Forty-five minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, out of the close to three-quarters of a million or so people in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald is the one who just happened to murder Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit. .... For all intents and purposes there were...ten witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer {including the several witnesses who watched Oswald flee the Tippit murder scene, gun in hand}." -- VB; Pages 960-961 <<<

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

>>> "No one knew Oswald as well as his wife, Marina. .... Marina told {author Priscilla} McMillan that when she visited her husband in jail on the day after the assassination, she came away knowing he was guilty. .... She said she knew that had he been innocent, he would have been screaming to high heaven for his "rights," claiming he had been mistreated and demanding to see officials at the very highest levels." -- VB; Page 962 <<<

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

>>> "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- VB; Page 964 <<<

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

>>> "When he {Oswald} was asked {by police} to furnish all of his previous residences since his return from Russia...he gave all of them...with one notable exception. He omitted any reference to the Neely residence, the residence, of course, where he knew his wife had photographed him with the murder weapon in the backyard. .... Oswald flat-out denied ever living there." -- VB; Page 966 <<<

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

>>> "Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles." -- VB; Page 966 <<<

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

DVP: Yes, indeed. Even though Oswald was caught red-handed with
the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the Texas Theater, he still felt
the need to distance himself from the revolver he used to kill Officer
Tippit (just as he had done by continuously trying to distance himself
from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle he had used to assassinate President
Kennedy).

Lee Harvey Oswald's lies were almost non-stop from the moment he
was arrested in the theater on November 22, 1963. If you want to see
just how many more lies Oswald told, check out my essay below:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d

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

>>> "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; Page 969 <<<

==============================================

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

Papa Andy

unread,
Oct 18, 2007, 6:48:28 PM10/18/07
to
On Oct 18, 4:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82c73...
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relP...

at the risk of emulating Dave and quoting myself:

Now that I've read RH from cover to cover, here are a few points:

1) VB's lists are not that convincing. His list of proofs that LHO is
guilty contains 2 items that do no such thing. This is without
checking, just reading the list.
Not taking a lie detector test is not proof of anything
Not doing any work that day is not proof of murder

several of the others look dubious as well

2) VB claims that since it is beyond doubt that LHO was the LN killer,
that therefore there is no reason to discuss much of the evidence that
the critics have uncovered
Since LHO did it, it must have been possible -- the end
This is very self-serving and a prime example of circular logic
It makes very little sense in a 1500+ page book to eliminate all
discussion
It gives the impression that VB is not serious, especially since he
has time for Martians, Venusians and CTs that few have heard of and
certainly are not influential

3) VB claims his book is different from other LN books because his is
an anti-conspiracy book. He means that he is opposed to various
conspiracy theories and he claims to have dismissed all of them.

In attempting this, he often claims to be applying logic

He says things like 'if you were going to kill the President of the
United States, you would never employ anyone like LHO' or 'if you
were......, you would arrange a better escape route' or alternatively
'you would kill the killer as soon as possible'

How you or I or VB might kill a president is truly irrelevant

Defense attorneys often claim that no sensible person (their client)
would commit a crime in the manner of the crime they are charged
with. This never convinces the DA (VB was a DA) and doesn't do that
well with juries either

In the same vein, if a defense attorney said that the character of a
witness was bad, the DA might retort that nuns and Nobel Prize winners
are seldom around to witness such crimes

So, if per VB, LHO was a 'bad' choice, this does not mean he wasn't
chosen

Choices may be limited

4) VB has a double standard for people who change their story. If
they change to an LN perspective they are OK, otherwise they are
either liars or silly

The same applies to those who come forward years later with their
stories

5) In his 1.5 million words (his figure, I didn't count), VB says a
few favorable things about Harold Weisberg. He finds bits that seem
to endorse the LN side and uses them against any CT

Yet, he never discusses (yet alone explains) why Weisberg had to spend
years in court just to get a look at important evidence in the case.
If it is proven beyond doubt that LHO was the LN, why bother hiding
the evidence?

VB then ignores the evidence that was uncovered. VB claims that CE399
is not pristine and shows us the bottom of the 'magic' bullet.
Weisberg discovered that the missing metal was removed by the FBI for
testing and had nothing to do with any wounds.

VB mentions the nick on JFK's tie, but not the evidence that shows
that nurse cut the tie or the evidence that no bullet residue was
found in the 'nick'

If RH was the only book you read on the case, you'd never even know
about this sort of evidence suppression. All you would hear about is
Oliver Stone and the demand to open up the evidence afer the movie JFK

6) RH does not add any new evidence to the WCR. Even LNs are not
persuaded by VB's analysis of when the shots were fired

7) VB ignores the real controversy about the wound in JFK's. He only
mentions the location of the wound described by the FBI agents at the
autopsy -- below the shoulder -- in a caption to one of the pictures

If that was the true location of the wound and Weisberg again spent
years in court to get a look at some of the evidence that indicates
that it was, then a lot more than the SBT goes out the windows.

Yet VB goes on for pages about how the pictures and x-rays show that
the autopsy docs were off by small amounts here and there in their
description of the wound

8) VB loves to triumphantly proclaim that any claims of ther shots
fail because there are no other bullets found

Yet he claims 3 shots and only has 2 bullets to show for it

In the end, RH contributes nothing to the controversy. If people read
it, which seems unlikely because of its great length, it may damage
the LN cause as its slipshod reasoning is exposed

A

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 18, 2007, 7:02:59 PM10/18/07
to
>>> "In the end, RH contributes nothing to the controversy. If people read it...it may damage the LN cause as its slipshod reasoning is exposed." <<<


Only a complete moron would post the above absurdly-inaccurate
paragraph regarding VB's incredibly-well-reasoned JFK book.

It doesn't surprise me in the least, though, that a CTer who posts at
this forum isn't satisfied with Vincent's "53 items of evidence".

Most of the CTers here wouldn't be satisfied with 8,853 solid pieces
of evidence favoring Oswald's guilt (and probable lone guilt, too, of
course, given Oswald's obviously-"solo" actions after 12:30 on 11/22).

No amount of hard evidence and regular common sense satisfies
conspiracy-loving kooks.

With respect to the SBT specifically, I truly believe that a rabid
CTer wouldn't accept the SBT even if the bullet had been captured on
film, showing the missile slicing methodically through both JFK & JBC.

In such a case, the standard CT-Kook reply would probably be -- "Nah,
that SBT Film is fake too!"

Papa Andy

unread,
Oct 19, 2007, 11:56:28 AM10/19/07
to

a perfect example of a non-answer using no evidence

A

mnhay27

unread,
Oct 19, 2007, 12:34:01 PM10/19/07
to

What surprises me, Mr. Von Pein, is that you can take a bunch of
circumstantial evidence and turn it into proof-positive of Oswald's
lone guilt despite the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a plausible
motive for Oswald without resorting to unqualified psycho-babble. If
Oswald had no motive but his rifle was found at the scene, perhaps
someone with a motive used Oswald's rifle and left it there to set him
up. Is that really so far-fetched? Thousands of people think not.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 19, 2007, 5:00:33 PM10/19/07
to
>>> "NO ONE has ever produced a plausible motive for Oswald without resorting to unqualified psycho-babble." <<<

You're crazy to say such a silly thing. Plenty of people have put
forth plausible motives for LHO wanting to kill President Kennedy.

The fact that JFK hated Castro and Oswald loved Fidel is a good motive
right there. And when Oswald's efforts to GET TO CUBA AND FIGHT FOR
THE CASTRO "REVOLUTION" are included in this "motive mix", it makes
even more sense.

1.) Oswald hated his home country.

2.) Oswald admired Castro greatly.

3.) Oswald was very, very upset when he was denied a visa to get to
Cuba in Sept. 1963.

4.) Oswald had a rifle.

5.) Oswald TOLD his wife he had taken a potshot at Gen. Walker in
April, showing his willingness to use that rifle on a human
(political) target.

6.) Oswald, by a stroke of pure luck and good fortune, found himself
in a perfect spot (his workplace at the TSBD) to shoot at JFK, impress
Castro, and become famous on 11/22/63.

#1 through #6 above = A successful Presidential assassination attempt
on Elm Street.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66803e710380d800

mnhay27

unread,
Oct 20, 2007, 12:15:31 PM10/20/07
to

Congratulations! You've just presented possibly the weakest case for
Oswald's motives I've ever read. LMAO Well done!

1) Pure conjecture. There is no evidence to support this claim.

2) An abundance of evidence indicates that Oswald's "admiration" for
Castro was, in fact, a cover.

3) Have you simply ignored the Lopez report and the clear implications
that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico?

4) LMAO yet again. Him and just about everyone else in Texas. LOL
Can't believe you bothered listing that.

5) No evidence. Marina is a pathological liar who will say whatever it
takes to please her interviewer (Norman Mailer's book is full of
examples of Marina being asked a question, saying one thing, waffling
for a bit and then saying the opposite to please Mailer). Around the
time of Stone's movie I seem to remember her babbling on about how she
now knew Oswald was innocent.

6) Garbage. If Oswald was looking for recognition, why would he not
only vehemently protest his innocence at every opportunity but also
label himself as the last thing any man would want go down in history
as, "a patsy?"

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 20, 2007, 3:21:23 PM10/20/07
to
1. How come the Dallas Post office could not produce any records on
outer state tranference which by law aresupposed to be kept for 3 years
on the alleged Oswald rifle?
2. Nobody remembers Oswaldpicking up the rifle.
3. We already know that the only witnessess to see the package said it
was too short-two feet, but not more than 28 inches-Oswald could not
have carried a 3 foot package under his arm(35 inches minimum on the
broken down Mannlicher Carcano).

Gil Jesus

unread,
Oct 20, 2007, 4:31:17 PM10/20/07
to

ROFLMAO, Von Pinhead, you are a joke.

1.) He hated the US so much that he came back here in 1962 AND brought
his family. Why didn't they go straight to Cuba from the USSR ?

2.) He loved Castro so much that he VOLUNTEERED to help Carlos
Bringuier's group fight AGAINST Castro.

3.) Oswald was very, very upset that he didn't get a VISA to get to
Cuba in 1963.

Who denied it to him ? Cuba and the USSR. Why didn't he kill
Khrushchev ?

4.) Oswald had a rifle. How many Americans have rifles ? THAT'S A
MOTIVE for murder ?

5.) Anything Marina said she said under duress. She was threatened
with deportation.

6.) If he was seeking fame and acceptance from Castro, why did he
REPEATEDLY deny the killing ?

all of your motives are bullshit Von pein, just like you.

And EVERYONE knows it.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 20, 2007, 4:39:21 PM10/20/07
to

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9582137cfc92ccaa


>>> "Congratulations! You've just presented possibly the weakest case for Oswald's motives I've ever read. Well done!" <<<


Congrats back! You've earned your spot as "Kook Of The Week" with your
incredibly-stupid reply in your last post. Well done!

Just for laughs, let's examine it......

>>> "1) Pure conjecture. There is no evidence to support this claim {that Oswald hated America}." <<<


Bullshit (multiple times over). .....

"Having lived under both Communism and Capitalism, I despise the
representatives of both systems." -- Lee Harvey Oswald

"In the event of war, I would kill ANY American who put a
uniform on in defense of the American government -- any American." --
Lee Harvey Oswald


Yeah, Sweet Lee just LOVED America, didn't he?

>>> "2) An abundance of evidence indicates that Oswald's "admiration" for Castro was, in fact, a cover." <<<


Which is why he told Marina on more than one occasion that he wanted
to go to Cuba and fight for Castro's Revolution, right?

And he hated Castro and Cuba so much, he once was planning to hijack a
plane to Cuba, with the help of his pregnant wife.

(Oh, yes, Marina's a lying bitch...I forgot. So that speculation about
Marina gets pathetic kooks like you off the hook, doesn't it? Lovely.)

>>> "3) Have you simply ignored the Lopez report and the clear implications that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico?" <<<


Of course I have ignored the silly "Lopez Report". What rational
person wouldn't (who's got some common sense and a functioning
brain)? .....

"It's always assumed, of course, that the imposter would
impersonate Oswald {in Mexico City} without his knowledge, that he
would be someone Oswald did not know. But {HSCA investigator Edwin}
Lopez raises the possibility--are you seated?--that maybe the
impersonator was "one of his [Oswald's] companions" in Mexico City. To
think that our tax money went into the preparation of the Lopez
Report." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1053 of "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

>>> "4) LMAO yet again. Him and just about everyone else in Texas {owned a gun}. LOL. Can't believe you bothered listing that." <<<


Hint: The RIFLE was the thing that enabled Mr. Oswald to shoot
President Kennedy. It usually helps to have a RIFLE available if you
want to SHOOT somebody from the sixth floor of a building.

(Can I start my laugh-fest now? Or should I wait until I finish the
rest of your hilarious rebuttals?)


>>> "5) No evidence {that LHO shot at Walker}. Marina is a pathological liar..." <<<


Oh, yes. Naturally. Because if she weren't a "pathological liar", then
Oswald would look like a bitter and pathetic loner/wife-beater/loser,
who took a shot at General Edwin Walker in April 1963 and who owned a
rifle and sat on his porch dry-firing it for hours in the middle of
the night.

And we certainly could NEVER have any of those things being true.
Right, kook?

>>> "6) Garbage. If Oswald was looking for recognition, why would he not only vehemently protest his innocence at every opportunity but also label himself as the last thing any man would want go down in history as, "a patsy"?" <<<


Hint: Oswald's one-man plan WORKED. He DID kill the President with his
own cheap rifle from his own workplace....and he DID become famous,
even while claiming to gullible kooks like you that he was nothing but
a patsy.

It's hard to argue with a successful venture like Oswald's 11/22/63
venture. But, right on cue, the conspiracy-loving kooks in the
"Anybody But Oswald" clique will, indeed, argue it was a rotten plan
on Oswald's part.

Go figure.

(Let the laughing commence. I've held back long enough....)


lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 20, 2007, 8:53:29 PM10/20/07
to
When you look at the VB case against oswald-many are easiy
debunked-several are irrelevant-and others are open to interpretation...

mnhay27

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 5:53:23 AM10/21/07
to

What strong words you use! LOL Could it be I've hit upon a nerve? I
suspect that even you know what a big pile of crap you're spewing. Of
course, the question of motive has always been the fatal flaw of the
lone assassin theory. And you're little list would not convince even
the most dim-witted of individuals. I'm not really sure why you insist
upon ignoring evidence that Oswald's pro-Castro/anti-American stance
was a cover. I should think that his New Orleans associations are more
that ample evidence of this. But of course, you are bound to ignore
those, and brand every single one of the many witnesses who saw Oswald
with the likes of Guy Bannister and David Ferrie as liars. Hey,
whatever supports your theory, right?

You're quick to jump on me for calling Marina a liar so I assume that
it is your opinion that Marina has always been entirely honest? Just
out of curiosity, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy? Only a complete idiot would come to
Marina's defence, Mr. Von Pein. And, to be honest, I don't think you
are an idiot. Which I guess makes you a first class cherry-picker.

BTW Your hero-worship of Bugliosi is sickening. I seem to remember a
little over a decade ago, you lone-nutters felt the same adoring
admiration for Gerald Posner before honest researchers ripped his book
to shreds. But don't worry, I'm sure once the same has been done to
Bugs, there will be another "definitve" lone nut book for you to take
to bed at night while you sleep safe in the knowledge that you alone
know the answer to the "Great American Murder Mystery."

Us "kooks" will just have be content with actively searching for the
truth.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 8:27:28 AM10/21/07
to
On Oct 21, 5:53?am, mnhay27 <mnha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> BTW Your hero-worship of Bugliosi is sickening. I seem to remember a
> little over a decade ago, you lone-nutters felt the same adoring
> admiration for Gerald Posner before honest researchers ripped his book
> to shreds. But don't worry, I'm sure once the same has been done to
> Bugs, there will be another "definitve" lone nut book for you to take
> to bed at night while you sleep safe in the knowledge that you alone
> know the answer to the "Great American Murder Mystery."

I think it goes beyond hero-worship. I call it an unhealthy man-love
for Bugliosi.

And yes, it IS disturbing.

mnhay27

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 8:49:38 AM10/21/07
to

LOL Unhealthy man-love. I really don't want get into insulting people
and I actually have more respect for Mr. Von Pein than 99% of the
idiots that find their way onto this forum - but that is funny!

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 2:35:29 PM10/21/07
to
>>> "You're quick to jump on me for calling Marina a liar, so I assume that it is your opinion that Marina has always been entirely honest?" <<<


No, not at all. When she jumped shipped and did her 180 after spending
20+ years in the "MY HUSBAND'S GUILTY" camp, she showed a little
dishonesty....or, at the very least, quite a bit of bad judgment
(which was undoubtedly brought on by reading and/or being exposed to
the wealth of kooks who were telling her that her wonderful hubby was
nothin' but a patsy).

So, you're right, Marina isn't ALWAYS 100% correct in what she says.

>>> "Just out of curiosity, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy?" <<<


No. I stopped believing in them the same day I stopped believing in
David Lifton's fable. (I decided to shed all the "Couldn't Have
Happened" fables all at once, you see.)

You CT-Kooks believe in a fairy tale that's even more miraculous than
Santa though -- i.e., you believe that THREE separate rifle bullets
did the work of the single bullet of the SBT, with this trio of
missiles performing so many "SBT"-like parallels (plus the fact all of
these bullets VANISHED without a trace), it SHOULD make any conspiracy
theorist blush at the thought of actually buying into such a "three-
shot replacement" for the SBT.

But will it make the kooks blush? No. Because in order to be
embarrassed by something, you must first possess some common sense and
realize that the thing you're believing in is just plain silly and
impossible. And kooks can't elevate themselves to that common-sense
level with respect to the Single-Bullet Theory (even AFTER watching a
bullet similarly slice through two mock "victims" in slow motion in
2004 on TV, via the Discovery Channel's well-done documentary "JFK:
Beyond The Magic Bullet").

Go figure kooks. They're harder to believe in than Kris Kringle.

>>> "Only a complete idiot would come to Marina's defence, Mr. Von Pein." <<<


But you'll do it today, I'll bet. (Due to that 180 she did with
respect to her husband's guilt.) Do you "defend" her current belief
that LHO was just a "patsy", or not?

>>> "And, to be honest, I don't think you are an idiot. Which I guess makes you a first-class cherry-picker." <<<

Actually, my current title is this one......

"HARVESTER OF JFK WHEAT; DISPOSER OF CHAFF."

>>> "BTW, your hero-worship of Bugliosi is sickening." <<<


Would you say the same thing if my allegiance was placed mainly in the
basket of one Harold Weisberg? Or Mark Lane? (Would you find such
allegiance "sickening" then? I'd bet not.)

So, it's all in how you look at things, isn't it? You kooks prefer
Weisberg, Marrs, Fetzer, Garrison, Stone, Waldron, Lane, and
Armstrong, etc.

I, OTOH, prefer non-kooks like Mr. Bugliosi who can assess and
evaluate the SUM TOTAL of the hard evidence (and the circumstantial
evidence) in the JFK case. And VB has done just that, over the course
of 21 years and 2,792 pages.

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858


>>> "I seem to remember a little over a decade ago, you lone-nutters felt the same adoring admiration for Gerald Posner before honest researchers ripped his book to shreds." <<<


I still have a HUGE amount of respect and admiration for Gerald
Posner. All the more so since he decided, in 1993, to buck the
enormous "Oliver Stone" tide after Stone's fairy-tale motion picture
came out in December 1991.

Posner had to know, of course, that "Case Closed" was going to be
ridiculed incessantly by the "Stone Got It Right" crowd. And "CC" was
still a national best-seller and proceeded to make a lot of people see
the LN light and to realize that Stone's film was filled with
unsupportable non-evidence and NONsense from start to finish.

>>> "But don't worry, I'm sure once the same has been done to Bugs, there will be another "definitive" lone-nut book for you to take to bed at night while you sleep safe in the knowledge that you alone know the answer to the "Great American Murder Mystery"." <<<


That's odd....I seem to recall (via recent Forum postings) that it is
some kook named Thomas H. Purvis who (alone) knows the answer to the
JFK "mystery".

Don't tell me that Tom "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purv-man is
wrong??? Surely not!

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bac6812ff9d8f836

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bbcd3f516de37fa


REALITY BREAK..................

"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." -- Vincent Bugliosi

~~~~~~~

"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." -- Vincent
Bugliosi

~~~~~~~

[END: REALITY BREAK.]

~~~~~~~

>>> "Us "kooks" will just have be content with actively searching for the truth." <<<


And you'll "find" that conspiracy-tinged "truth" in scattered,
incoherent piecemeal form, too (whether it's really there or not),
right?

Talk about "sickening".

The "truth", of course, was arrived at in November of 1963. But when
someone as rabid as a CT-Kook doesn't like the taste of something,
they usually spit it out and place something in their mouth that's a
little more tasty. And "chaff" seems to be a kook's delicacy of choice
when it comes to things relating to the death of the 35th U.S.
President (and has been their favorite food for 40+ years).

www.ambackforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=50341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=9a9bd2227342327631ce6f14cbf9f080


mnhay27

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 3:26:06 PM10/21/07
to
On Oct 21, 7:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You're quick to jump on me for calling Marina a liar, so I assume that it is your opinion that Marina has always been entirely honest?" <<<
>
> No, not at all. When she jumped shipped and did her 180 after spending
> 20+ years in the "MY HUSBAND'S GUILTY" camp, she showed a little
> dishonesty....or, at the very least, quite a bit of bad judgment
> (which was undoubtedly brought on by reading and/or being exposed to
> the wealth of kooks who were telling her that her wonderful hubby was
> nothin' but a patsy).
>
> So, you're right, Marina isn't ALWAYS 100% correct in what she says.

You may feel differently, but I simply cannot accept anything that
woman says. Pro or anti-conspiracy.

>
> >>> "Just out of curiosity, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy?" <<<
>
> No. I stopped believing in them the same day I stopped believing in
> David Lifton's fable. (I decided to shed all the "Couldn't Have
> Happened" fables all at once, you see.)

Well, at least you and I agree on something. Lifton's theory is
garbage.

>
> You CT-Kooks believe in a fairy tale that's even more miraculous than
> Santa though -- i.e., you believe that THREE separate rifle bullets
> did the work of the single bullet of the SBT, with this trio of
> missiles performing so many "SBT"-like parallels (plus the fact all of
> these bullets VANISHED without a trace), it SHOULD make any conspiracy
> theorist blush at the thought of actually buying into such a "three-
> shot replacement" for the SBT.
>
> But will it make the kooks blush? No. Because in order to be
> embarrassed by something, you must first possess some common sense and
> realize that the thing you're believing in is just plain silly and
> impossible. And kooks can't elevate themselves to that common-sense
> level with respect to the Single-Bullet Theory (even AFTER watching a
> bullet similarly slice through two mock "victims" in slow motion in
> 2004 on TV, via the Discovery Channel's well-done documentary "JFK:
> Beyond The Magic Bullet").
>
> Go figure kooks. They're harder to believe in than Kris Kringle.

I would have no problem in accepting the SBT if it was supported by
the evidence. You know, it's actually not that unusual for bullets to
be missing in a homicide investigation. The shot that hit JFK in the
back, according to the ONLY physical examination conducted of the
body, did not penetrate any futher than a fingers length. Where did
this shot go? The autopsy surgeons postulated that it worked its way
out at Parkland Hospital during efforts to resuscitate the President.
In the absence of a better explaination, I will accept this one.

And IMO it is clear from viewing the Z film that the two men were hit
by seperate shots.

>
> >>> "Only a complete idiot would come to Marina's defence, Mr. Von Pein." <<<
>
> But you'll do it today, I'll bet. (Due to that 180 she did with
> respect to her husband's guilt.) Do you "defend" her current belief
> that LHO was just a "patsy", or not?

Nope.

>
> >>> "And, to be honest, I don't think you are an idiot. Which I guess makes you a first-class cherry-picker." <<<
>
> Actually, my current title is this one......
>
> "HARVESTER OF JFK WHEAT; DISPOSER OF CHAFF."

Clever.

>
> >>> "BTW, your hero-worship of Bugliosi is sickening." <<<
>
> Would you say the same thing if my allegiance was placed mainly in the
> basket of one Harold Weisberg? Or Mark Lane? (Would you find such
> allegiance "sickening" then? I'd bet not.)

I'm afraid I would. What can I say? Idolizing others just makes me
vomit. The only human being I idolize is my son.

>
> So, it's all in how you look at things, isn't it? You kooks prefer
> Weisberg, Marrs, Fetzer, Garrison, Stone, Waldron, Lane, and
> Armstrong, etc.

Weisberg, Lane and Garrison, maybe, the others can take a run and
jump.

>
> I, OTOH, prefer non-kooks like Mr. Bugliosi who can assess and
> evaluate the SUM TOTAL of the hard evidence (and the circumstantial
> evidence) in the JFK case. And VB has done just that, over the course
> of 21 years and 2,792 pages.

Sum and total? I think you should read this:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History

>
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
>
> >>> "I seem to remember a little over a decade ago, you lone-nutters felt the same adoring admiration for Gerald Posner before honest researchers ripped his book to shreds." <<<
>
> I still have a HUGE amount of respect and admiration for Gerald
> Posner. All the more so since he decided, in 1993, to buck the
> enormous "Oliver Stone" tide after Stone's fairy-tale motion picture
> came out in December 1991.
>
> Posner had to know, of course, that "Case Closed" was going to be
> ridiculed incessantly by the "Stone Got It Right" crowd. And "CC" was
> still a national best-seller and proceeded to make a lot of people see
> the LN light and to realize that Stone's film was filled with
> unsupportable non-evidence and NONsense from start to finish.

I'd say Stone and Posner are on a par in the nonsense stakes.

Sounds like a description of the Warren Commission to me.

>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> [END: REALITY BREAK.]
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "Us "kooks" will just have be content with actively searching for the truth." <<<
>
> And you'll "find" that conspiracy-tinged "truth" in scattered,
> incoherent piecemeal form, too (whether it's really there or not),
> right?
>
> Talk about "sickening".
>
> The "truth", of course, was arrived at in November of 1963. But when
> someone as rabid as a CT-Kook doesn't like the taste of something,
> they usually spit it out and place something in their mouth that's a
> little more tasty. And "chaff" seems to be a kook's delicacy of choice
> when it comes to things relating to the death of the 35th U.S.
> President (and has been their favorite food for 40+ years).
>

> www.ambackforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=50341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&st...

Thanks for your opinions.


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 3:27:13 PM10/21/07
to
On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The point is that the WC sounds like a kid's game. Maybe that is where Specter/Ford came up with the SBT in the first place." <<<
>
> Funny, isn't it, how the majority of the WC members (and its
> associated counsel members and staff members), plus the organization
> known as the "HSCA", fell for a theory as crazy and inept and totally-
> impossible as the SBT?
>
Funny isn't the word I would use. All the poeople on the WC, lawyers
and staffers were such experts on ballistics, right? They didn't
"fall" for anything, they were told this would be the way it was going
to be. Why was a banker on the WC? John J. McCloy? Since when is a
banker part of the investigation in a murder?

> To hear CT-Kooks tell it, there must not have been a single person
> with a functioning brain on the Warren Commission (except Richard
> "Goofball" Russell and one other member who didn't favor the SBT), in
> its staff, or amongst the many members of the House Select Committee
> 15 years later (when the HSCA, too, agreed with the WC that a single
> bullet--CE399--hit both JFK and JBC on November 22).

We never said that (functioning brain) as there brains were
functioning when they decided to join the cover-up. They all made a
decision to lie to the Amercian people. Hale Boggs didn't buy the SBT
either and he wound up dead.
>
> But these amateur sleuths known as Conspiracy Kooks know better. They
> KNOW that the SBT is "impossible", a "fairy tale", a "wet dream", etc.

I think a kindergarten class would tell you the SBT scenario is
impossible. How can a grown adult buy that a bullet can make moves to
make an old barnstormer pilot jealous. Up, down, left, right and
loose only 3 to 4 grams? I have never been prone to use drugs so this
just doesn't compute for me.

> Good thing we have CT-Kooks to keep the record straight, huh?

You took the words right out of my mouth (insult not included).
>
> BTW.........
>
> "From the first moment that I heard that {Arlen} Specter had
> come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
> since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.

You have made the point for me. A pair of lawyers came up with this
theory and we all know they always tell the truth, right? Since when
is Specter a ballistic expert?

> "Since {the members of the WC staff} all knew that the bullet,
> fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
> Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
> president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
> body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
> it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
> lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
> it? ....

This isn't even accurate as they said the bullet entered the base of
the neck (lie - it was actually further down and to the right) and
travelled "up" before exiting the front of the neck. You need to re-
read the account of the SBT. Again, you prove my point for me, why
are a bunch of lawyers "racking their brains" on this when they should
be letting ballistic experts handle it. Probably because no true
"expert" would ever say what the SBT says to be true.
>
> "When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed,
> Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
> exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
> When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
> Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....

That is a bunch of guys who make feel they wouldn't lie about
anything. More lawyers agreeing on a bullet's path with no formal
training. Would you receive surgery from a bunch of lawyers? Hey,
they all talked it over and they think you should have this operation
this way.
>
> "I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
> Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
> all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
> player only interested in doing his job well. ....

You must be broke then.
>
> "If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
> above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
> respond to this issue {via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005},
> and he declined." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of the CD's
> Endnotes within "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
> JOHN F. KENNEDY" (copyright 2007)

Gee, I wonder why. Even he is running from this issue. Now that Ford
is dead he is the only one left.


lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 3:57:29 PM10/21/07
to
The slimy lawyer Specter who concocted the theory wouldn't even confide
in the big enchilada snake oil salesman for the Govt.V. Bugliosi....As
lone nut avatar McAdams says" savor the lunacy folks"...

Sam Brown

unread,
Oct 21, 2007, 9:37:45 PM10/21/07
to

"mnhay27" <mnh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192970978....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

I dont find bigotry in the least bit amusing. Why do you?

>

mnhay27

unread,
Oct 22, 2007, 3:38:48 AM10/22/07
to
On 22 Oct, 02:37, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mnhay27" <mnha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't either. I have plenty of gay friends. If my comment offended
anyone I sincerely apologise.

Sam Brown

unread,
Oct 22, 2007, 3:52:30 AM10/22/07
to

"mnhay27" <mnh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193038728.6...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Cheers, it's nice to see basic human decency making a comeback.

>

tomnln

unread,
Oct 22, 2007, 1:00:45 PM10/22/07
to
Sure sam;
That Filthy mouth of yours is an example of "Human Decency".

Used to Distract everyone away from evidence/testimony.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

Even GOD rejscts your chosen life style.

"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:471c56c2$0$12687$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

0 new messages