When will David VonPein publish to the....
aeffects
points in Bugliosi's up coming release, "Reclaiming... "?
We're looking forward to the "preservers of Dealey Plaza's 1963
history", AND surrounding investigations, especially the *lurkers*!
DavidV.... (we know you have one :) ?
lazu...@webtv.net
ever so familliar-hell, we could have downloaded the best of Von Pein
and saved a lotta dough.
David Von Pein
That is possibly the nicest compliment I have ever received, by
anyone, re. the JFK assassination and my writings about it. Thank you,
Laz. (Even though you really didn't mean it as a compliment, I
know.) ;)
I'd like to think that I have some of the same type of "CS&L" that VB
has, and I think I've hit most of the major issues surrounding the
assassination via my series of Internet essays, reviews, etc.; but I'm
not fooling myself into thinking I have anywhere near the overall in-
depth knowledge of the JFK case that Vincent B. possesses.
Not to mention VB's handy experience from "prosecuting" Oswald in 1986
during the TV Docu-Trial (from which his book sprouted); plus his
personal interviews that he has done over the years with various
witnesses.
My on-line writings will pale by comparison when placed up against
VB's 21-year-long "Reclaiming History" book project.
But to even be partially compared to the brilliant mind and great work
of Vincent Bugliosi (as "Old Laz" seemed to be doing, in a fashion,
via his last post) is a humbling experience indeed. (Even if the
person doing the comparing is a CTer who I vehemently disagree with
24/7.) ;)
But, Laz, there's no need to "download" the material to your hard
drive. It's all right here in one place....at your fingertips; just as
I intended it to be when I formatted things this way. I posted an
updated version just yesterday in fact..... ;)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0bc26b9288c1ccd5
RICLAND
>>>> "What do you wanna bet almost all of Bugliosi's conclusions will sound ever so familiar. Hell, we could have downloaded the best of Von Pein and saved a lotta dough." <<<
>
>
> That is possibly the nicest compliment I have ever received, by
> anyone, re. the JFK assassination and my writings about it. Thank you,
> Laz. (Even though you really didn't mean it as a compliment, I
> know.) ;)
>
I'm going to give you a clue, David, because I like you.
I'm your pal.
First thing, Bugliosi is a has-been. His finest hour came 35 years ago
and that was by accident. Hadn't Charles Mason dropped too much acid
that day and gone on to kill all those people, Bugliosi would be
unknown retiree somewhere in Florida walking around in a Hawaiian shirt
and plaid shorts checking the mail for his Social Security checks.
Second thing, the Kennedy Assassination is a has-been. Nobody really
cares anymore. Hadn't Kennedy been murdered he'd be 90 years old in a
nursing home sitting on the porch with diapers that need to be changed
and a rat in his mouth.
Third thing, Bugliosi is a has-been. His book is exactly 35 years too late.
Fourth thing, what exactly does he mean by "Reclaiming Our History"?
The title makes no sense.
Can you explain it?
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman
"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
tflor...@gmail.com
I've read some of your posts here and if Bugliosi and you have
anything in common then he won't be anymore effective than Posner. I
don't see what the point is in trying a dead man(Oswald). Again! Like
it or not he died with the presumption of innocence and Bugliosi can't
change that. That's the U.S. Constitution. Besides I've heard "Bugsy"
is going to end his book by saying Oswald could never have been
convicted in court! And if that's true, then it's a waste of 1600
pages and $49.95.
David Von Pein
I do. It's because of what Vince Bugliosi, himself, said on this
matter in 1997.....
"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of the American people
believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
"I was speaking in Toronto on tactics and techniques used in the movie
"JFK" just after the Oliver Stone movie was released. After the
speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked for a show of hands of how many
believed the assassination was a conspiracy. It was 80 to 90 percent
of the audience.
"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was
an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of
the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I
asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their
hands.
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- Vince B.; April 1997
>>> "Like it or not he died with the presumption of innocence and Bugliosi can't change that." <<<
How does that actually MAKE Lee Harvey Oswald "innocent"?
Answer: It doesn't. Ruby's bullet doesn't get LHO off the double-
murdering hook....and people who think it does (or that it should!)
are just plain kooky themselves.
The EVIDENCE tells us of Oswald's guilt (times 2 killings). And nobody
can change THAT, whether it was "officially" presented inside a
courtroom or not. Period.
>>> "I've heard "Bugsy" is going to end his book by saying Oswald could never have been convicted in court!" <<<
Where on Earth did you hear that? I'm betting you're wrong
here....especially since Vince, HIMSELF, has already (in essence)
"convicted" Oswald in a court of law. A mock trial, true. But it was a
real courtroom proceeding, bound by the same rules and procedures as a
real trial....with the verdict being "Guilty As Charged".
Now, it is possible that Vince might say in his book that Oswald might
have walked away a free man in TODAY'S "POST-OLLIE STONE MOVIE
ERA"....and that could very well be true. Because Stone's film (made 5
years after the '86 Mock Trial, btw) has skewed and mangled so many
facts and has been the thing that many, many people have now BASED
their "JFK Conclusions" on....that it might, indeed, be very difficult
to find a jury of 12 non-kooks (er...sorry...I should say 12 people
who aren't biased toward a "conspiracy") for a 2007-era court trial.
But that still doesn't make Oswald any more INNOCENT than it did in
1964...or in 1986, when a Dallas jury did determine that Oswald was
guilty. (Just like the O.J. case, which I'm sure VB will be bringing
up numerous times in his book, since there are certainly parallels
that can be made between the two cases.)
David Von Pein
I await your "clue" like a kid awaits Christmas! Have at it....
>>> "I'm your pal." <<<
Then why didn't I get that birthday present from you I was expecting?
(Cheapskate!)
>>> "First thing, Bugliosi is a has-been." <<<
You're not off to a very good start here, "clue"-wise. Better try
again...
>>> "Hadn't Charles Manson dropped too much acid that day and gone on to kill all those people, Bugliosi would be unknown retiree somewhere in Florida walking around in a Hawaiian shirt and plaid shorts checking the mail for his Social Security checks." <<<
Yeah, I guess Vincent's additional non-Manson 104-1 DA's record
(including 20-0 in non-Manson MURDER CASES) should be ignored
entirely. Right?
BTW, Charles Manson actually killed ZERO of the 7 Tate-LaBianca
victims in August 1969. His minions did the killing....which made it
all the more difficult (quite obviously) to convict Manson himself.
Next "clue" please. (It's gotta be better than this first one. The
"Social Security check" thing was a nifty touch though. Cute.)
>>> "Second thing, the Kennedy Assassination is a has-been. Nobody really cares anymore." <<<
Most people don't, I agree. But many people still do "care". And
Vincent Bugliosi is one of them.
Next?....
>>> "Hadn't Kennedy been murdered he'd be 90 years old in a nursing home sitting on the porch with diapers that need to be changed and a rat in his mouth." <<<
This is just plain vulgar and offensive. Why would anyone want to
write the above crap? Why?
Next?....
>>> "Third thing, Bugliosi is a has-been." <<<
I thought this was your "first thing"???
It was so nice you had to say it twice??
~shrugs~
>>> "Fourth thing, what exactly does he mean by "Reclaiming Our History"? The title makes no sense. Can you explain it?" <<<
Really a "third thing", but why should I quibble? ;)
And the word "Our" isn't in the title. Can't you get a simple two-word
main title right?
And the title makes total sense. It's an absolutely-perfect title too.
Vince is "reclaiming history" from the conspiracy kooks of the world
who thought it was wise to skew the truth re. JFK's death in every way
imaginable since 1964 (and especially since Mark Lane showed up with
"Rush To Judgment", circa 1966).
Here's a dictionary "clue" for Ricland. It appears it's needed.....
http://webster.com/dictionary/reclaim
Those "clues" were really bad, Ric. Maybe you should re-organize your
anti-Bugliosi feelings and start again. (Which you no doubt will do,
when your next "Bugliosi Is A Bad Guy" thought crosses your
mind....right?)
aeffects
So, first things first, when are you going to publish the Bugliosi
interview? We see it here first?
David Von Pein
What make-believe "interview" are you talking about exactly?
(Anything like those make-believe anti-SBT bullets we keep hearing
about....but never seeing?)
aeffects
> >>> "So, first things first, when are you going to publish the Bugliosi interview? {Will} we see it here first?" <<<
>
> What make-believe "interview" are you talking about exactly?
C'mon David -- you haven't been elevating Bugliosi to heights he even
can't imagine for LHO/SBT reasons only, have you?
> (Anything like those make-believe anti-SBT bullets we keep hearing
> about....but never seeing?)
let's not change the subject, eh!
David Von Pein
I'd rather just keep you guessing on that one, Davey.
Kinda like the guessing game that revolves around Oswald's "motive"
for killing the President.
IOW---
Is DVP really just a huge VB fan the likes the world has never seen??
--Or:--
Does DVP have a hidden agenda all his own, in order to amass vast
riches and fame and "Reclaiming History" glory?
It's that 'riddle wrapped in an enigma' type of thing that Ferrie/
Pesci was talking about.
RICLAND
>>>> "I'm going to give you a clue, David, because I like you." <<<
>
> I await your "clue" like a kid awaits Christmas! Have at it....
>
>
>>>> "I'm your pal." <<<
>
[...snip...]
>
>>>> "Fourth thing, what exactly does he mean by "Reclaiming Our History"? The title makes no sense. Can you explain it?" <<<
>
> Really a "third thing", but why should I quibble? ;)
>
> And the word "Our" isn't in the title. Can't you get a simple two-word
> main title right?
>
> And the title makes total sense. It's an absolutely-perfect title too.
> Vince is "reclaiming history" from the conspiracy kooks of the world
> who thought it was wise to skew the truth re. JFK's death in every way
> imaginable since 1964 (and especially since Mark Lane showed up with
> "Rush To Judgment", circa 1966).
>
Best I can tell, Bugliosi didn't get the assassination bug (no pun)
until 1985. Mark Lane had begun researching it 22 years earlier when the
trail was still hot. He was hired by Oswald's mother who rightly wanted
her son represented.
Lane represented the family then wrote a book about his findings. The
book happen to become a best seller. Now exactly how you conclude Lane
is a "kook" because of this, is unclear.
So Lane met with the witnesses, filmed them, talked to them a few months
after the event when their memories were fresh. He also interviewed many
witnesses who were long dead by the time Bugliosi came on the scene.
Lane is also a lawyer, but more importantly, a lawyer whose resume is
more impressive than Bugliosi's prosecution of pickpockets and indigent
murderers.
So where's the kook?
Unless your definition of kook is someone who doesn't blindly accept
authority, exactly how does Lane rate as a "kook"?
If the Warren Commission Report is the Bible of the Lone Nutters, Lane's
"Rush to Judgment is the Bible of the Conspiracy Theorists, but here's
the rub: unlike the Warren Report which even Earl Warren later disowned
(see quote in sig) Rush to Judgment still hasn't been discredited some
40 years later.
Meanwhile, here comes Bugliosi who takes 20 years to write a book meant
to "reclaim" the Warren Commission's findings? A book that means to tell
us that in every particular the Warren Commission was exactly right so
much so that anyone who disputes a jot of it is a kook.
And this makes perfect sense to you, David?
aeffects
ricland,
You raise excellent points, points I suspect most Nutter's will avoid
like the plague.
The only thing I find of interest in his upcoming issue is how he
(Bugliosi) deals with Mark Lane's findings and the Zapruder film...
David VP: do you think you could handle a in-depth [read: probing], on-
camera, non-confrontation interview -- supporting Bugliosi's latest
findings/opinions? Get the fiished product posted-aired on YouTube
amongst other many venues? Bet you could sell some Bugliosi books,
PLENTY of books... any interest?
DHealy
aeffects
real world questions David VonPein, real world questions.....
Todd W. Vaughan
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "What do you wanna bet almost all of Bugliosi's conclusions will sound ever so familiar. Hell, we could have downloaded the best of Von Pein and saved a lotta dough." <<<
>
> > That is possibly the nicest compliment I have ever received, by
> > anyone, re. the JFK assassination and my writings about it. Thank you,
> > Laz. (Even though you really didn't mean it as a compliment, I
> > know.) ;)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm going to give you a clue, David, because I like you.
>
> I'm your pal.
>
> First thing, Bugliosi is a has-been. His finest hour came 35 years ago
> and that was by accident. Hadn't Charles Mason dropped too much acid
> that day and gone on to kill all those people, Bugliosi would be
> unknown retiree somewhere in Florida walking around in a Hawaiian shirt
> and plaid shorts checking the mail for his Social Security checks.
>
> Second thing, the Kennedy Assassination is a has-been. Nobody really
> cares anymore. Hadn't Kennedy been murdered he'd be 90 years old in a
> nursing home sitting on the porch with diapers that need to be changed
> and a rat in his mouth.
You're a complete asshole.
Todd W. Vaughan
> >>>> "What do you wanna bet almost all of Bugliosi's conclusions will sound ever so familiar. Hell, we could have downloaded the best of Von Pein and saved a lotta dough." <<<
>
> > That is possibly the nicest compliment I have ever received, by
> > anyone, re. the JFK assassination and my writings about it. Thank you,
> > Laz. (Even though you really didn't mean it as a compliment, I
> > know.) ;)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm going to give you a clue, David, because I like you.
>
> I'm your pal.
>
> First thing, Bugliosi is a has-been. His finest hour came 35 years ago
> and that was by accident. Hadn't Charles Mason dropped too much acid
> that day and gone on to kill all those people, Bugliosi would be
> unknown retiree somewhere in Florida walking around in a Hawaiian shirt
> and plaid shorts checking the mail for his Social Security checks.
>
> Second thing, the Kennedy Assassination is a has-been. Nobody really
> cares anymore. Hadn't Kennedy been murdered he'd be 90 years old in a
> nursing home sitting on the porch with diapers that need to be changed
> and a rat in his mouth.
Wow, what's wrong with you?
eca...@tx.rr.com
Healy, henceforth I shall call you "Healy?"
with a "?" mark at the end.. Your world is
one of frustration knowing (just barely)
that you are not on the same intellectual
level with others.. While DVP posts bold
statements and answers questions repeatedly
and *substantiates* his answers, you come
armed only with ??questions?? Healy?
FACT: You accused me of plagiarism of Clint
Bradford's JFK site yet when I showed you it
was MY OWN article that CB asked to post on his
site you never offered an apology..<=============
Instead just more stewpit questions??? In lieu
of substantive/substantiated input which you
just barely understand is a bad place for you to
take your sub-75 IQ.
Healy?, thou art seriously steWpiT.
MR ;~D
> > Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
Healy, henceforth I shall call you "Healy?"
with a "?" mark at the end.. Your world is
one of frustration knowing (just barely)
that you are not on the same intellectual
level with others.. While DVP posts bold
statements and answers questions repeatedly
and *substantiates* his answers, you come
armed only with ??questions?? Healy?
FACT: You accused me of plagiarism of Clint
Bradford's JFK site yet when I showed you it
was MY OWN article that CB asked to post on his
site you never offered an apology..<=============
Instead just more stewpit questions??? In lieu
of substantive/substantiated input which you
just barely understand is a bad place for you to
take your sub-75 IQ.
Healy?, thou art seriously steWpiT.
MR ;~D
On Apr 12, 10:46 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
aeffects
> Healy, henceforth I shall call you "Healy?"
> with a "?" mark at the end.. Your world is
> one of frustration knowing (just barely)
> that you are not on the same intellectual
> level with others.. While DVP posts bold
> statements and answers questions repeatedly
> and *substantiates* his answers, you come
> armed only with ??questions?? Healy?
>
> FACT: You accused me of plagiarism of Clint
> Bradford's JFK site yet when I showed you it
> was MY OWN article that CB asked to post on his
> site you never offered an apology..<=============
>
> Instead just more stewpit questions??? In lieu
> of substantive/substantiated input which you
> just barely understand is a bad place for you to
> take your sub-75 IQ.
>
> Healy?, thou art seriously steWpiT.
fuck off dipshit -- your name amounts to shit around here - if the
best you can do is Bradford comments, your so fucking far outdated,
your pathetic.... There are however, a few others here interested in
your 4 Bronze Star medals though....car to fill in a few blanks? DD214
blanks specifically?
> > > Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb-Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
My advice to you is to switch bibles. Because yours is badly tainted.
>>> "Rush to Judgment still hasn't been discredited some 40 years later." <<<
Bull. It's been discredited in many ways. Mr. Lane's deception is
blatantly obvious. Within just the first few minutes of the 1967 film
version of Lane's book, the misrepresentations regarding several
topics become quite clear:
1.) The paraffin test is completely misrepresented by Lane. Lane says
in the film that the Warren Commission was confronted with but "one
possible interpretation, {i.e.} that the paraffin test results were
consistent with innocence", and therefore the Commission concluded
that the test was "completely unreliable".
Lane is dead wrong there, because the "consistent with innocence"
conclusion is NOT the only possible interpretation and Lane should
have known that full well. An FBI test confirmed that even after a
person had fired Oswald's exact rifle, the paraffin results can be
NEGATIVE on both of the gunman's hands AND his cheek....and they were
"negative" via the FBI's test.
So the "unreliable" declaration reached by the WC was the proper
conclusion to reach. But Lane never mentions the part about the
negative results on the hands and cheek of the FBI agent after he
fired Oswald's rifle.
THAT is just flat-out misrepresenting the overall facts and is but one
example of Mr. Lane skewing the WC's reasons for their conclusions.
WCR Page 180 (re. paraffin tests):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0102b.htm
2.) Mark Lane next asks in his film, "Was Oswald on the bus?". Lane
props up the fact that driver Cecil McWatters couldn't positively
identify Oswald as the man on the bus. And it's fairly obvious by
those first five words in this section of the film ("Was Oswald on the
bus?") that Lane wants his viewers to think that perhaps--just
perhaps--Oswald was NOT on McWatters' bus after all.
And while Lane is correct in saying that McWatters couldn't positively
I.D. Oswald, Lane leaves out two other VERY important and provable "It
Was Oswald On The Bus" items -- one being Mary Bledsoe's positive
IDing of LHO on the bus; and, just as important, the bus transfer WITH
McWATTERS' DISTINCT PUNCH MARK that was found in Oswald's shirt pocket
by police (a bus transfer dated 11/22/63).
Total deception on Lane's part when he first asks "Was Oswald on the
bus?" -- asked in a way to suggest that the answer to that question
was in doubt...when, of course, it was not in doubt at all.
3.) Lane then makes the usual false "Too Many Fragments Inside
Connally" claim re. Bullet CE399. His claim that more fragments went
into Connally than were missing from 399 is just flat-out wrong, as
Dr. Gregory (one of Connally's doctors) states in his testimony.
Unless Lane thinks that "flakes of metal" (per Gregory) equate to more
than the 2+ grains of lead missing from Bullet 399.
The "Too Many Fragments In JBC" argument is a myth that refuses to die
the death it deserved back in '64. And Lane's film and book certainly
didn't help matters, as he puts this incorrect suggestion of "too many
fragments" in the minds of his readers and viewers. ....
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61fe27a14fb7dd35
4.) And Lane's deception re. "Doorway Man" is all too obvious, as Mr.
Lane definitely wants his viewers/readers to think that Oswald might
very well have been in that doorway (instead of the man who was
positively in the doorway, Billy Lovelady). ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6a27a2aec8c36168
>>> "Meanwhile, here comes Bugliosi, who takes 20 years to write a book meant to "reclaim" the Warren Commission's findings? A book that means to tell us that in every particular the Warren Commission was exactly right; so much so that anyone who disputes a jot of it is a kook." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake....get a grip. You haven't seen a word of VB's book,
and this statement of yours -- "A book that means to tell us that in
every particular the Warren Commission was exactly right" -- is just
silly.
Vincent B. isn't going to suggest that every last word in the Warren
Report is spot-on perfect and accurate. I don't suggest such a thing
either.
But the Commission's bottom-line conclusion of "One Assassin Named
Oswald, And No Credible Evidence Of A Conspiracy" is certainly
accurate, given the sum total of the evidence in the case. And, yes,
Mr. Bugliosi will certainly be saying something along those lines.
================================
More about the deceptive tactics of Mark Lane......
MOVIE REVIEW -- MARK LANE'S "RUSH TO JUDGMENT":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85d4d330812f3728
BOOK REVIEW -- "NOVEMBER 22, 1963: YOU ARE THE JURY" BY DAVID BELIN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3
MARK LANE, VINCENT BUGLIOSI, HELEN MARKHAM, AND THE WC:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f
================================
eca...@tx.rr.com
have finally put together the
$1000 for our bet that would
confirm my VN credentials. It
would also make you look good
for once and really discredit
Mr Ed.
Or..
is this just more simple-minded
saber rattling from Davie-boy
Healy?
Oh, and about your erroneous
plagiarism charge on me, are you
finally admitting you goofed
once again? Have you ever been
right about anything of
substance?
FACT: You accused me of plagiarism of Clint
Bradford's JFK site yet when I showed you it
was my own article that CB asked to post on his
site you never offered an apology..<=============
Instead just more stewpit questions??? In lieu
of substantive/substantiated input which you
just barely understand is a bad place for you to
take your sub-75 IQ.
~~~Healy?, thou art seriously steWpiT~~~
MR ;~D
0311Apr1307
> > > > Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb-Hidequoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
Brilliant David.. (This must be Ricland
you are responding to..) The comments
made by whoever it is, tell me that
you may be talking to a brick wall unfortunately..
However your solace will be that much of
the mainstream is being influenced by your
superb posts.
Here's part of what I may have
known but forgot:
"Mary Bledsoe's positive IDing of LHO
on the bus; and, just as important,
the bus transfer WITH McWATTERS'
DISTINCT PUNCH MARK that was found in
Oswald's shirt pocket by police (a bus
transfer dated 11/22/63)."
Thanks,
MR ;~D
tomnln
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1176451953.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...