Bizarre
Kenneth A. Rahn
Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
Ken Rahn
--
Kenneth A. Rahn
Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
RICLAND
> To All,
>
> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
> attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>
> Ken Rahn
No more bizarre than people promoting it before they've read it or
attacking your Rube Goldberg explanations of how a bullet that pushes
the victim backward and sprays people in back of him with his brain
matter actually came from the rear.
Like you, Bugliosi is an ideologue, not true researcher, a man who never
stopped being a prosecutor, a man who thinks badgering witnesses is the
way you obtain truth, a man who tells us the testimony of Marina Oswald
right after the assassination is the truth, no matter that she's since
come forth and said she only gave that testimony because she feared
being deported.
Bizarre?
No, not at all.
ricland
--
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
Anthony Marsh
> To All,
>
> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
> attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>
> Ken Rahn
No. FYI, some books are reviewed even before they have been released to
the public. It's called advance copies, or galley proofs. Some people
have even smuggled out manuscripts to attack a book before it is
published. WC defenders have never complained when their fellow WC
defenders have attacked conspiracy books before they were released.
Kenneth A. Rahn
So because others do things you think are bizarre, it's OK to be bizarre
regarding Bugliosi's book. Do I have that right? The lowest common
denominator is now your standard?
Ken Rahn
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:baydnSQWWMPW0rLb...@comcast.com...
Ben Holmes
>
>To All,
>
> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
>attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>
>Ken Rahn
The book would not be discussed *AT ALL* were it not for the LNT'ers who are
already using his tome to "prove" their points.
Did it occur to you to ask how bizarre it is to depend on a book that hasn't
been published yet?
And, of course, the most important question of all - will *you* defend
Bugliosi's tome when it comes out?
gjj...@aol.com
wrote:
>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>> To All,
>>
>> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
>> attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>>
>> Ken Rahn
Kinda reminds you of what they did to Oliver Stone's JFK, doesn't it
?
RICLAND
Actually, Rahn did some interesting work with the JFK shooting sequence.
Perfectly un-usable in a court of law or to any serious researcher, but
interesting in that it showed how thorough his primary school math
education was.
The problem, though, is Bugliosi doesn't know Rahn from Adam. Nor does
Bugliosi know any of the members of Rahn's Rogue galley -- JFK
Assassination buffs all -- on Rahn's site. Mind you, these are all
people who share Bugliosi's lone gunman theory, many of whom like
Professor Rahn have respectable academic backgrounds.
Bugliosi has never heard of any of them.
What does that tell us about Bugliosi, Prof Rahn?
tomnln
What I DO find "bizarre" is your "Double Standard".
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f0nh9...@news4.newsguy.com...
RICLAND
> No more "bizarre" than the attacks on Mark Lane.
>
> What I DO find "bizarre" is your "Double Standard".
>
Right, and that's the problem with tenure, isn't it?
Once these guys go loopy, there's nothing to be done about them.
ricland
>
>
> "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:f0nh9...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> To All,
>>
>> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people
>> here attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>>
>> Ken Rahn
>> --
>> Kenneth A. Rahn
>> Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies
>> University of Rhode Island
>> Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
>>
>
Ben Holmes
Beat me to it.
But actually, there hasn't been much "attacking" being done. (If there has
been, I've sadly missed it.) Stone's film, on the other hand, *was* seriously
attacked by virtually the entire mass media - as Ken knows full well. But don't
ask him to be less than the hypocrite that he is.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Ken my theory is that what's left of the
"There's Something Fishy Here" gang is a
combination of jealous, apprehensive with some
sour grapes syndrome in there as well. The
hard-core TSFH gang (down to a mere hand
full) will always be with us.. If you'll notice
only Cter Anthony Marsh actually has a
conspiracy theory.. The other est 4 are still
around because they like to argue and ask
questions in my view..
I suspect VB's excellent upcoming most likely
book is very frustrating to them.. It's kind
of like kicking them while they are down.. Even
Barb and Canal's meaningless LGBOH wound theory
and the government *planted* a 6.5 mm spot"
yarn are now kaput..
The CTers are beaten and frustrated that VB
would write what I know will be an excellent
book.* The LN positions grows.. The CT position
declines yearly especially among knowledgeable
researchers/buffs.
Ed Cage 0024Apr2607
* I have followed VB for some time now and I have
read other material (including a book) by him so I
know his standards.
David Von Pein
Don't you ever get tired of saying unsupportable kookshit? Ever??
Mr. Bugliosi has positively "heard" of many of the distinguished
individuals on this list.....
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/list.html
Ricland actually seems to think that Vince B. has never even heard of
Robert Frazier, Dale Myers, Jean Davison, or Larry Sturdivan.
Ricland's laughable posts just got more laughable.
But one thing's a certainty....Mr. "Ricland" didn't have the foggiest
idea that Mr. Bugliosi was involved in any way with the JFK case until
March 2007 (when somebody here told him--me).
And I have my doubts as to whether Ric had ever heard of Vincent
Bugliosi (period) prior to joining this asylum/forum last month.
cdddraftsman
least to say , make the least amount of sense and score the
lowest in the Ratings Posts ! That's why Ricland is dragging
his ass in last place with a Big Old 1 on the Big Old Score
Board ! And man is he boring people to death ! Hehehehh !
..........................tl
Martin Shackelford
new information. This was particularly true of Albert Newman's book.
Martin
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f0nh9...@news4.newsguy.com...
RICLAND
>>>> "The problem, though, is Bugliosi doesn't know Rahn from Adam. Nor does Bugliosi know any of the members of Rahn's Rogue galley -- JFK Assassination buffs all -- on Rahn's site. Bugliosi has never heard of any of them. " <<<
>
> Don't you ever get tired of saying unsupportable kookshit? Ever??
>
> Mr. Bugliosi has positively "heard" of many of the distinguished
> individuals on this list.....
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/list.html
More smoke and mirrors from David.
He makes the claim Bugliosi has "positively heard" of Prof Rahn's lone
nutter pals then supports this claim by listing Prof. Rahn's lone nutter
pals as if this is proof positive Bugliosi has heard of them.
Of course the wonder is that while admiring himself in the mirrors at
what a clever chap he is, David hasn't yet choked to death on all the smoke.
ricland
[...snip...]
RICLAND
Save, Ed, why don't you cut to the chase by getting Ken's number and ask
him for a date?
ricland
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 7:24 am, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <k...@uri.edu> wrote:
>> To All,
>>
>> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
>> attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>>
>> Ken Rahn
>> --
>> Kenneth A. Rahn
>> Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies
>> University of Rhode Island
>> Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
>
>
aeffects
I'm assuming you think you're doing a public service being here? Or is
this just an extended midnight break from writing oldtime TV program
*internet* reviews? Warming up for something big, a Pete Rose expose
covering the tv promotion-selling auto pink slip loans?
Holding Bug's jockstrap doesn't help matters David, it shows how
unreliable your objectivity is, which renders you and your Nutter
team's *posts*, useless!
so tell us, David.... does Bugliosi answer any/ALL of Ben Holmes 35
questions?
Hell, can YOU find the balls [pardon the pun], and answer any of them?
Kenneth A. Rahn
Thanks for displaying the proper attitude for all to see. I have learned
from conspiracy books, too.
(I have Albert Newman's book, and liked it very much.)
Ken Rahn
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yDYXh.3450$H_....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Walt
> To All,
>
> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
> attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
What's so strange about that?.... Isn't it a well known fact that Da
Bug is a Warren Commission apologist? He obviously will be attempting
to resuscitate a moribund tale. Basically he's gonna be whipping a
dead horse, and who wants to witness that?
Walt
eca...@tx.rr.com
fact that you don't know shit from ShineOla when
it comes to 11-22-63. As per always you just
got your chicken-necked head boinked again..
This time by DVP and myself..
Where would we be without your informative posts
that "Beverley Oliver saw a GK shooter" and "18
(Eighteen) observers saw that the neck wound was
actually an entry wound?"
Ric you are basically obnoxious with a little
just plain sTeWpiT mixed in, along with a not so
healthy ethics code similar to sewer rat
requirements.. Why can't you just go back to
your JFK site where the grass is greener and you
are the King in your size 6 noggin? Your
continual bogus information fools only raw
newcomers and cHucKLe:-)heaDs like Question Man
Healy?
Even Chico and Sak.O.Nutz are no longer
fooled by your taunting bogus posts.
You may go now Ric..
MR ;~D 1113Apr2507
(NFL DRAFT IN 48 HOURS!!!)
On Apr 26, 7:58 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
ed cage has a "THEORY"
ed cage has a "THEORY"
ed cage has a "THEORY"
ed cage has a "THEORY"
ed cage has a "THEORY"
No wonder he DODGES 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
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1177564992....@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1177604360....@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> >> To All,
>
> >> Does anybody besides me consider it bizarre to see so many people here
> >> attacking a book (Bugliosi's) before they have even read it?
>
> >> Ken Rahn
>
> > The book would not be discussed *AT ALL* were it not for the LNT'ers who are
> > already using his tome to "prove" their points.
>
> > Did it occur to you to ask how bizarre it is to depend on a book that hasn't
> > been published yet?
>
> > And, of course, the most important question of all - will *you* defend
> > Bugliosi's tome when it comes out?
>
> Actually, Rahn did some interesting work with the JFK shooting sequence.
> Perfectly un-usable in a court of law or to any serious researcher, but
> interesting in that it showed how thorough his primary school math
> education was.
>
> The problem, though, is Bugliosi doesn't know Rahn from Adam. Nor does
> Bugliosi know any of the members of Rahn's Rogue galley -- JFK
> Assassination buffs all -- on Rahn's site. Mind you, these are all
> people who share Bugliosi's lone gunman theory, many of whom like
> Professor Rahn have respectable academic backgrounds.
>
> Bugliosi has never heard of any of them.
This is simply ridiculous!
How do you know who Bugliosi does and does not know?
Is this yet another example of your inability to comprehend what you
read, or is it an example of your ability to lie on cue?
>
> What does that tell us about Bugliosi, Prof Rahn?
>
> ricland
>
> --
> Reclaiming History ...???
Todd W. Vaughan
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "The problem, though, is Bugliosi doesn't know Rahn from Adam. Nor does Bugliosi know any of the members of Rahn's Rogue galley -- JFK Assassination buffs all -- on Rahn's site. Bugliosi has never heard of any of them. " <<<
>
> > Don't you ever get tired of saying unsupportable kookshit? Ever??
>
> > Mr. Bugliosi has positively "heard" of many of the distinguished
> > individuals on this list.....
>
> >http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/list.html
>
> More smoke and mirrors from David.
>
> He makes the claim Bugliosi has "positively heard" of Prof Rahn's lone
> nutter pals then supports this claim by listing Prof. Rahn's lone nutter
> pals as if this is proof positive Bugliosi has heard of them.
LMFAO.
Yet you offer no explanation for how you "know" Bugliosi has "never"
heard of them!
LMFAO.
Getting that case solved?
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177609450.4...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
~yawn~
Already have...and you know damn well I have, because you follow me
around the 'net like a prized pup.
Ben's list of silliness was only "21 Questions" at the time. But his
other 14 add-ons are just as worthless.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
David Von Pein
FIREARMS INVESTIGATOR FOR THE WARREN COMMISSION -- Robert Frazier.
(And Frazier, of course, examined a gob of evidence in the JFK case.)
That assertion by Ricland, alone, paints him (Ricland) as a first-
class kook of some kind (not sure what kind...still haven't fully
figured out what kook drawer to slide this guy into...but there's a
drawer there someplace for him, indeed).
I'll again ask Ricland -- Had you even known of Vince Bugliosi's
involvement (i.e., book; mock trial) with the JFK case prior to March
2007?
RICLAND
David, upgrade your vocabulary. Like Bugliosi, you're using language
that's outdated. We are not the kooks. Eighty-five percent of the
population believes there was a conspiracy.
You're like my grandmother who when she died at 102 kept calling
"jogging" "running. When you'd say to her "We're going out for a jog"
she'd say "What's that?" no matter how many times you explained it to her.
Your use of the term "kooks" is identical.
Your use of the term "Kooks" is also just as out of kilter and out of
step with the rest of the world as your lone nutter theory.
You're the kook.
ricland
David Von Pein
Why? My vocab. is serving me quite well, Mr. Ricland. But thanks for
your concern with my verbiage. I appreciate such concern. ;)
>>> "Like Bugliosi, you're using language that's outdated." <<<
Vince, per the tentative Chapter List for his book, evidently prefers
the term "Zanies" for the CT-Kooks of the world. That's okay too. But
"kook" just has that perfect "ring" to it. Don't ya think?
I can thank Bud, of course, for the term "kook" to describe the
"Rabid, Anybody-But-Oswald CTers". I kinda borrowed the term from
Bud....permanently. ;)
Are you an "Anybody But Oswald" CTer Ricland?
>>> "We are not the kooks." <<<
If you're an "ABO" CTer you are. Sorry. But them's the facts.
>>> "Eighty-five percent of the population believes there was a conspiracy." <<<
Nah. The CTer pct. isn't that high. And it's way, way less than that
when the question "Was Oswald A Shooter?" added into the mix. ....
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
And in the post-"Reclaiming History" era, I expect the pct. of
conspiracy believers (which, in reality, is closer to 70% to 75% as of
this moment) to drop to 55% to 60%. Maybe even less, depending on how
many people can afford the hefty "RH" tome. Let's see if I'm correct.
>>> "Your use of the term "Kooks" is also just as out of kilter and out of step with the rest of the world as your lone nutter theory." <<<
No it's not. It's perfect in every way.
And so is the LN scenario. And do you know why? It's because the LN
scenario FITS THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.....whether you like it or
not. ....
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. 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." -- Vince "CS&L" Bugliosi
>>> "You're the kook." <<<
Okay. But...gee...didn't you just a second ago rake me over the hot
grandmother coals for using that precise word?
But now you apparently think it's good enough to describe me one
second later, huh?
A curious double "kook" standard from the Ric-ster.
Oh, well. Nobody ever accused a CTer of being consistent....did they
now? ;)
lazu...@webtv.net
the pack of lies known as the Warren Report-most people if they read a
book say High Treason, or Crossfire, and get to reason 127 why there was
a conspiracy give up..lone nutters are flat earthers.
aeffects
they'll never know, scared they'll get too close to the edge -- LMAO!
RICLAND
>>>> "David, upgrade your vocabulary." <<<
>
> Why? My vocab. is serving me quite well, Mr. Ricland. But thanks for
> your concern with my verbiage. I appreciate such concern. ;)
>
>>>> "Like Bugliosi, you're using language that's outdated." <<<
>
> Vince, per the tentative Chapter List for his book, evidently prefers
> the term "Zanies" for the CT-Kooks of the world. That's okay too. But
> "kook" just has that perfect "ring" to it. Don't ya think?
>
> I can thank Bud, of course, for the term "kook" to describe the
> "Rabid, Anybody-But-Oswald CTers". I kinda borrowed the term from
> Bud....permanently. ;)
>
> Are you an "Anybody But Oswald" CTer Ricland?
>
>>>> "We are not the kooks." <<<
>
> If you're an "ABO" CTer you are. Sorry. But them's the facts.
>
>
>>>> "Eighty-five percent of the population believes there was a conspiracy." <<<
>
> Nah. The CTer pct. isn't that high. And it's way, way less than that
> when the question "Was Oswald A Shooter?" added into the mix. ....
>
> http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
> And in the post-"Reclaiming History" era, I expect the pct. of
> conspiracy believers (which, in reality, is closer to 70% to 75% as of
> this moment) to drop to 55% to 60%. Maybe even less, depending on how
> many people can afford the hefty "RH" tome. Let's see if I'm correct.
If you think anybody but assassination buffs are going to buy Bugliosi's
silly book, you really aren't dealing with a full deck. Nobody's
interested in the assassination anymore, people just don't care. And
even if the percentage dropped from 75% to 50%, to characterize half the
population as "kooks" makes you a kook.
Mis-using language like that doesn't make strengthen your case. Kooks
are people who believe in little green men, Big Foot, flying saucers.
Seventy-five percent of the population doesn't believe in those things.
There's no hocus pocus involved in our conspiracy theory. There's no
specious conclusions, sweeping generalizations, rejection of the
scientific method or any of the things associated with pseudoscience.
Again, you're simply engaging in puerile name-calling, not the brilliant
debate you obviously think you're doing.
>
>
>
>>>> "Your use of the term "Kooks" is also just as out of kilter and out of step with the rest of the world as your lone nutter theory." <<<
>
> No it's not. It's perfect in every way.
>
> And so is the LN scenario. And do you know why? It's because the LN
> scenario FITS THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.....whether you like it or
> not. ....
So Bugliosi spent 20 years of his life writing a book to silence the kooks?
You spend all of your waking hours here to silence the kooks?
That mock trial they put on, that was to silence the kooks?
The House Assassination Commitee...?
You point is all these things and more were done to silence the kooks?
>
> "There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
> Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. 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." -- Vince "CS&L" Bugliosi
"... one scintilla."
Gawd, did Bugliosi actually say that?
What a crappy primary school education he must have had.
A scintilla is one. Proper usage would have been, "There has not been a
scintilla of proof..."
Oh, and I love the part about Oswald had the "skill" to kill President
Kennedy."
That the part that's going to get America believing he was the lone
assassin, David?
>
>
>
>>>> "You're the kook." <<<
>
> Okay. But...gee...didn't you just a second ago rake me over the hot
> grandmother coals for using that precise word?
You're out of step with 3/4s of the population. You believe in a theory
most accurately called "the Magic Bullet Theory." You think Oswald had
"the skill" to hit his target in the time alloted even though 10 out of
11 Olympic class marksmen couldn't do it.
You say no matter that it was physically impossible for Oswald to get to
the Tippit crime scene in the time required, he somehow managed to get
there.
You say the 30 or 40 people who say they heard shots from the grassy
knoll were wrong.
You say all the people who saw men behind the picket fence were wrong.
You say the people who described a man not fitting Oswald's description
on the wrong end of the 6th floor of the SBD with a "hunting rifle" were
wrong.
You say all the people who say Oswald and Ruby knew each other are
mistaken...
You say the witnesses to the Tippit murder who described killers not
fitting Oswald's description were wrong.
The list goes on and on and you do what kooks do -- you ignore
everything on lists of hard evidence/testimony such as the one above.
In addition, real proof of your kookiness (or ignorance) is how you call
the items on the list above kooky. No? Take the timeline of the Tippit
murder, for example. What's your answer to the CT argument that it was
impossible for Oswald to be at the Tippit murder scene in the time required?
If this question is an example of a kooky assertion, you should have a
objective one to counter it with.
Let's hear it, David.
ricland
>
> But now you apparently think it's good enough to describe me one
> second later, huh?
>
> A curious double "kook" standard from the Ric-ster.
>
> Oh, well. Nobody ever accused a CTer of being consistent....did they
> now? ;)
>
RICLAND
Your point is he knows of Rahn's crew?
ricland
RICLAND
> Ricland don't try to divert attention from the
> fact that you don't know shit from ShineOla when
> it comes to 11-22-63. As per always you just
> got your chicken-necked head boinked again..
> This time by DVP and myself..
>
> Where would we be without your informative posts
> that "Beverley Oliver saw a GK shooter" and "18
> (Eighteen) observers saw that the neck wound was
> actually an entry wound?"
>
> Ric you are basically obnoxious with a little
> just plain sTeWpiT mixed in, along with a not so
> healthy ethics code similar to sewer rat
> requirements.. Why can't you just go back to
> your JFK site where the grass is greener and you
> are the King in your size 6 noggin? Your
> continual bogus information fools only raw
> newcomers and cHucKLe:-)heaDs like Question Man
> Healy?
> Even Chico and Sak.O.Nutz are no longer
> fooled by your taunting bogus posts.
>
> You may go now Ric..
>
> MR ;~D 1113Apr2507
> (NFL DRAFT IN 48 HOURS!!!)
There's an art to trollage, Ed.
I mean, honestly, is there anything you do right?
Anything ...?
ricland
aeffects
Sure he does, he's a world class expert of the photo composite called
Fading AWAY.... N O T roflmfao!
Ben Holmes
says...
Let's not forget the 35 Questions he never dared to answer himself, or the 35
Reasons that he couldn't refute my answers to.
Nor his provable lie about how many of them he *did* manage to respond to...
Why are LNT'ers such liars? It really *is* possible to present a LNT'er case
without lying about the evidence, it just won't be very persuasive.
David Von Pein
=============================================
It appears that Tom-Sack has fixed those links...because they're
working for me now (whereas they were all dead earlier, which would be
for the best, of course).
And what a load of nothingness we have in that batch of links from The
Sack.
Just to pick out one of The Sack's pathetic "This Proves Conspiracy"
links -- his J.D. Tippit link:
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Tom-Sack decides he's going to erase Oswald's obvious guilt in the
Tippit crime based on two things: the "timeline" witnesses and the
"jacket" evidence -- with The Sack saying the jacket wasn't really
Oswald's -- which, of course, would have to mean that TWO people just
happened to shed a jacket along the general escape route taken by
Tippit's killer....Lee Harvey Oswald AND somebody else (either the
"Real Tippit Killer" or someone not connected with the Tippit crime at
all).
We know that Oswald was zipping up a jacket upon leaving 1026 Beckley;
but he was WITHOUT a jacket just 40 minutes later (approx.) when seen
by John Brewer on Jefferson Boulevard. In between those two locations,
what was found? Answer: a light-colored windbreaker jacket just
exactly like the type Mrs. Roberts saw Oswald zipping up as he rushed
out of the roominghouse.
So, per The Ross-Sack's theory, somebody ELSE must have tossed down a
similar jacket at the Texaco Station shortly after the Tippit murder?
Either that: Or the cops just HAPPENED to have a jacket to "plant" at
the gas station to further incriminate the resident "Patsy For All
11/22 Murders".
Logical?
To nutsacks named Tom I guess it's logical. But to people living up
here in reality...it is not.
And as for the always-variable witness timeline evidence that Rossley
puts so much faith in -- He'll believe the "1:06" witnesses until his
dying day...but the place to go for MUCH BETTER and more precise
"timing" of the shooting is totally ignored by CT-Kooks -- that place
to go being the DPD official radio logs...which put the shooting at
shortly before 1:16 PM.
But, as long as The Sack can find SOME way (ANY way) to try and make
his hero ("Patsy Oswald") look like an innocent dupe....he'll continue
to spout his piecemeal kookshit. A whole website of it, no less.
Talk about "Disinfo". Rossley's cornered the (linked) market on that.
David Von Pein
Not entirely, no. .....
"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. ... Every book that comes out alleges a
conspiracy. Someone has got to debunk these absurd conspiracy
theories." -- Vince Bugliosi; January 1988
And the following VB quote deserves a replay every now and again, too
(just because it's so fun...and appropriate as well):
"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." -- Vince Bugliosi;
November 1986
>>> "You spend all of your waking hours here to silence the kooks?" <<<
No. Mainly just to ridicule them. (And to earn my VB-sponsored "shill"
salary. $2000 per week now, btw. Vince is no cheapskate.) ;)
>>> "That mock trial they put on, that was to silence the kooks?" <<<
No. That was done to simulate Oswald's "day in court". And it did
that.
I'm sorry you didn't like the prosecutor, or the "Guilty As Charged"
verdict from the jury. But them's the breaks.
Although you certainly haven't seen anywhere NEAR the entire 5.5-hour
mock trial. You've merely seen the few snippets from YouTube that I
provided through links.
You should try to get a copy of the whole 5.5-hour "trial"....and pay
particular attention to how Gerry Spence presents NO HARD EVIDENCE OF
CONSPIRACY....and then watch Ruth Paine as she spells out her thoughts
on Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a man that Mrs. Paine thought shot the
President and did it alone. .....
RUTH PAINE -- "I do think for the historical record it's important
that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that
people can kill a President without that being something that shows on
them in advance."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
>>> "The House Assassination Commitee [sic; 2 Ts needed here, Professor]..." <<<
The HSCA was a total waste of time and money. It was an unneeded
investigation entirely. It was created mainly because of the
persistent (unfounded) cries of "conspiracy", which were being spouted
by certain CTers around the country.
But the HSCA arrived, of course, at the exact same "Oswald Shot The
President" conclusion as did the WC. And since the Dictabelt crap is
null and void, we're back to a total "LN" conclusion again. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
>>> "Gawd, did Bugliosi actually say that? What a crappy primary school education he must have had. A scintilla is one. Proper usage would have been, "There has not been a scintilla of proof"." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake. Are you serious here?
"One" can be a synonym for "a", Professor.
Any more dictionary hairs you care to split?
BTW, did you really just say "Gawd"?
>>> "Oh, and I love the part about Oswald had the "skill" to kill President Kennedy." <<<
Yeah....me too. Because it's definitely true. And the sum total of
evidence PROVES that to be true, whether you want to believe it or
not.
Oswald was ranked as a "sharpshooter" in the Marines. And, as fellow
LNer Bud has pointed out in past posts, evidently CTers think that
"sharpshooter" equates to "shitty shooter". Seems like a curious
conclusion to jump to, doesn't it?
Of course, the reality is that CT-Kooks WANT Lee Oswald to be a "poor
shot", because such a (false) belief helps them spin their CT fairy
tales.
But the truth is this (via the 1986 TV Docu-Trial):
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Delgado, I believe you testified before the
Warren Commission, that on the rifle range Oswald was kind of a joke,
a pretty big joke."
NELSON DELGADO (served with Oswald in Marine Corps) -- "Yes, he was."
BUGLIOSI -- "You're aware that at the time Oswald was doing poorly on
the range, he was about to be released from the Marines, is that
correct?"
DELGADO -- "Yes, he was."
BUGLIOSI -- "Are you aware that in 1956, when Oswald first joined the
Marines, and was going through Basic Training, he fired a 212 on the
rifle range with an M-1 rifle, which made him a 'sharpshooter' at that
time -- are you aware of that?"
DELGADO -- "Yes."
BUGLIOSI -- "Given the fact that Oswald was about to get out of the
Marines when he was in your unit, and the fact that he showed no
interest in firing on the range -- you don't attribute his poor
showing on the range to his being a poor shot?"
DELGADO -- "No."
BUGLIOSI -- "He could have done better, you felt, if he tried?"
DELGADO -- "Certainly."
>>> "You're out of step with 3/4s of the population." <<<
Thank the Maker.
>>> "You believe in a theory most accurately called "the Magic Bullet Theory"." <<<
There's not a damn thing "magical" about the SBT. It's by far the best
scenario to explain an event that CTers can only GUESS about. Any CT
"version" of the event is filled with so many additional
"unexplainables", it makes the SBT look solid as a rock by comparison.
Why the conspiracists can't see that fact is a bigger mystery than the
SBT and the JFK head snap put together.
"IT'S THE ONLY WAY IT *COULD* HAVE HAPPENED":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
ANOTHER SINGLE-BULLET THEORY ESSAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
>>> "You think Oswald had "the skill" to hit his target in the time alloted even though 10 out of 11 Olympic class marksmen couldn't do it." <<<
I have no idea where this "10 out of 11" business comes from (probably
from some kook book, wherein Oz wears a halo and says his prayers
every night before beddy-by time)....but the fact is that MANY people
have accomplished a "2-for-3" score on a target in less than 6 or 7
seconds while using a Carcano rifle.
In 1967, several gunmen hired by CBS-TV performed the "Oswald feat"
multiple times. One guy scored a 3-for-3...and it WAS on a MOVING
TARGET (60 feet up). One CBS shooter even got off 3 shots in 4.4
seconds, something even the Warren Commission said was impossible.*
* = That shooter managed only 1 "hit", however; but the firing time
was amazingly low, proving that the shooting, with a Carcano, could be
done in LESS time than even the WC claimed. Grain of salt required,
though, since Oswald's exact C2766 rifle was not used in the tests.
Different Carcanos were utilized by CBS-TV.
Oh, by the way, you need a comma after "alloted" above. And you
spelled "allotted" incorrectly. It needs a second T. ;)
>>> "You say no matter that it was physically impossible for Oswald to get to the Tippit crime scene in the time required, he somehow managed to get there." <<<
Why do you even want to start down this crooked street, Ric? Why? It's
a dead end. Always has been.
Obviously, Oswald DID get to 10th St. in time to kill Tippit. He did
it. Every scrap of hard evidence proves that fact, Ric. Every scrap.
Don't let the various "timelines" dominate your thinking with respect
to the Tippit case. If you want the "timelines" of certain witnesses
to dominate your thinking (and OVERRULE the hard evidence that says
LHO killed Tippit), then, sure, you'll be able to get Oswald off scot-
free (I guess).
But such one-dimensional thinking is just plain silly, in light of WHO
it was that some of those SAME witnesses identified as Tippit's
killer. Plus the shells. Plus the jacket. Plus Oswald's behavior in
front of the shoe store. Plus LHO's sneaking into a dark theater WITH
THE TIPPIT MURDER WEAPON (in an obvious effort to hide from the cops).
How much more do you NEED? Do you need a Zapruder Film from Tenth
Street too?
J.D. TIPPIT'S MURDER AND THE ABSURD DEFENSE OF LEE OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90
>>> "You say the 30 or 40 people who say they heard shots from the grassy knoll were wrong." <<<
Yes. They were wrong. All of them. Here's why....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
>>> "You say all the people who saw men behind the picket fence were wrong." <<<
Name a single witness who saw "men behind the picket fence" (WITH A
GUN OR GUNS!) during the shooting of JFK.
Not even Lee Bowers said that. He saw some people near the picket
fence...but he SAW NO GUNS AT ANY TIME. None.
Bowers, in actuality, is a fairly-decent "LN" witness. Here's why....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/617cf567207b9159
>>> "You say the people who described a man not fitting Oswald's description on the wrong end of the 6th floor of the SBD with a "hunting rifle" were wrong." <<<
Oh, dear. It looks like Walt has gotten to you. That's truly a shame.
For, it appears you'll believe ANYBODY (as long as that "anybody"
resides in the "Anyone Except LHO" club, which is where Walt resides,
of course).
The word "people" is incorrect in your last sentence too. Only Arnold
Rowland saw a man with a rifle on the WEST end of the TSBD. And the
"hunting rifle" bit you got straight from Walt. Here's what Rowland
said about the rifle he saw:
ROWLAND -- "In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-
odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."
Key phrase there -- "It appeared to me to be". Rowland was about half-
a-block away from the window and the window was 60 feet up.
>>> "You say all the people who say Oswald and Ruby knew each other are mistaken." <<<
No credible evidence has ever surfaced to back up the idea that Ruby
knew the man he murdered. None.
If you've got some evidence...please present it.
Plus: Within the type of grandiose "Mob hit" that many CTers like to
suggest re. LHO's murder, do you truly think it would have been a WISE
move on the Mob's part (or whoever's) to assign Ruby to kill Oswald IF
IT COULD VERY EASILY BE PROVEN LATER ON THAT RUBY AND OSWALD KNEW EACH
OTHER?
Pretty careless, don't you think? Couldn't they have gotten a total
stranger (from Oswald's POV) to rub out the patsy in the police
station? Why would they have knowingly used an acquaintance of the
patsy?
They certainly didn't need an expert marksman to get rid of LHO at
point-blank range, right? Heck, an old lady with arthritis in both
hands could have pulled that off for Marcello & Company...or whoever
the hell the kooks want to put in the "_____ Did It" blank.
>>> "You say the witnesses to the Tippit murder who described killers not fitting Oswald's description were wrong." <<<
Wrong use of the plural again. One witness, Acquilla Clemons, said she
saw two men running from the scene. But Clemons did not see the actual
shooting, remember. She only saw the aftermath.
Clemons might very well have seen Ted Callaway and another WITNESS
running toward Patton Avenue from the area of Tippit's squad car. The
timing would seem to be off in that scenario, though, since Callaway
wasn't at the scene immediately after the shooting took place.
But one thing's a certainty (given the totality of evidence): If
Clemons DID see the "killer", she saw Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>> "The list goes on and on and you do what kooks do -- you ignore everything on lists of hard evidence/testimony such as the one above." <<<
Oh, come now, my good man. You've provided NOTHING of a hard and
definitive nature to support your CT claims. Nothing. You've only
recycled the already-trampled kookshit spewed by other CTers here
(mainly Walt, who's a MEGA-kook, btw).
Come up with your OWN theories. Those you've used are really
weak...and have been trashed by other, harder evidence (esp. relating
to Tippit). How anyone with a brain cell can still be arguing in favor
of Oswald's possible innocence in the Tippit murder is just simply
staggering.
Given the evidence against him, it is literally impossible (from EVERY
P.O.V.) for Oswald to be innocent of murdering Patrolman Tippit.
Live with that fact...or be a Mega-Kook. The choice is yours to make
there.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bdb7e56f0427853
>>> "What's your answer to the CT argument that it was impossible for Oswald to be at the Tippit murder scene in the time required?" <<<
The "time" issue is a moot point re. Tippit's death and his killer's
identity, and everybody knows why (or should know). We don't know if
Oswald RAN part of the way to 10th St., or whether he trotted/jogged
part of the way. But what we DO know, based on gobs of evidence, is --
Oswald WAS at 10th St. when Tippit was killed, because Oswald and
Oswald's own gun murdered J.D. Tippit (regardless of whether it was
1:06, 1:10, 1:14, 1:16, or 10:00).
Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the Tippit slaying could not possibly be
any clearer. CTers who try to make excuses for Oswald with respect to
Tippit's murder are truly reprehensible in my book.
And, in addition to my previous answers re. the Tippit murder (and the
links provided), here's yet another batch of "Oz Did It" stuff
concerning J.D. Tippit....
VARIOUS DVP POSTS RE. THE TIPPIT MURDER "TIMELINE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9456c10c7229bbd
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/038d2ea4f25dc75a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d499a8cd7d96909
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ef349732b8e8bdb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b76b91b5466cc213
THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8
THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3959008382f45641
tomnln
The jacket was NOT Oswald's.
THOSE "Links" are fromn the Official Evidence/Testimony of the 26 Volumes.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177743538.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
It should be very Easy for you to explain WHY the authorities "Altered" the
Walker
back yard photo THREE (3) times.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
ALLO THREE (3) times are FELONIES.
Are you gonna address them? OR, RUN AGAIN?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177747868.5...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
NO!
My point is this - you made a claim that "Bugliosi doesn't know Rahn
from Adam. Nor does Bugliosi know any of the members of Rahn's Rogue
galley -- JFK Assassination buffs all -- on Rahn's site"
How do you know who Bugliosi does and does not know?
>
> ricland
>
>
>
> >> What does that tell us about Bugliosi, Prof Rahn?
>
> >> ricland
>
> >> --
> >> Reclaiming History ...???
> >> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
aeffects
Perhaps narrowing the question helps: knows him (Rahn) over cocktails,
as a scientific topic expert?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ken Rahn's specialty is oceanographic studies
studies, yes? If that's the case, Ken Rahn validates WHAT when it
comes to JFK related evidence, SPECIFICALLY ?
Here's a question you have to ask yourself: would Ken Rahn, PhD., be
asked to take the stand, as a NAA expert in a case again LHO?
If you can't come up with a YES, INDEED he would take the stand as a
NAA expert, then Ken Rahn is *irrelevant*. He (Rahn) becomes just
another opinion/voice in the wilderness, just like all the rest of the
Nutter assholes...
Nutter's have less of a case than even CT's realize
>
>
> > ricland
>
> > >> What does that tell us about Bugliosi, Prof Rahn?
>
> > >> ricland
>
> > >> --
> > >> Reclaiming History ...???
> > >> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
I love it.
Double Standard Healey.
Well, let's apply the David Healey rationale for JFK assassination
research contributions to a few of those your surrounded with in the
Fetzer books, shall we?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. David Mantik specializes in Radiation
Oncology, yes? Would he be asked to take the stand as an expert in
Forensic Pathology in a case against LHO?
If you can't come up with a YES, INDEED he would take the stand as a
Forensic Pathology expert, then Dr. David Mantik is *irrelevant*. He
(Mantik) becomes just
another opinion/voice in the wilderness, just like all the rest of the
CT Kooks...
Correct me if I'm wrong, all his life Jack White has specialized in
advertising photography/copy, yes? Would he be asked to take the stand
as an expert in PHOTOGRAMMETRY in a case against LHO?
If you can't come up with a YES, INDEED he would take the stand as an
expert in photogrammetry , then Jack White is *irrelevant*. He (White)
becomes just
another opinion/voice in the wilderness, just like all the rest of the
CT Kooks...
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Gary Aguilar specializes in
Ophthalmology, yes? Would he be asked to take the stand as an expert
in Forensic Pathology in a case against LHO? How about even if JFK was
shot in the right eye, would he be called then?
If you can't come up with a YES, INDEED he would take the stand as a
Forensic Pathology expert, then Dr. Gary Aguilar is *irrelevant*. He
(Aguilar) becomes just
another opinion/voice in the wilderness, just like all the rest of the
CT Kooks...
CT'ers have less of a case than even Nutters realize
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ricland
>
> > > >> What does that tell us about Bugliosi, Prof Rahn?
>
> > > >> ricland
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Reclaiming History ...???
> > > >> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequotedtext -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
> > > Reclaiming History ...???
> > > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bump