Battling The Conspiracy-Loving Nuts (Part 171; Approx.)
David Von Pein
=======================================
>>> "It didn't take two weeks to see the lies included {in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History"}." <<<
Name one please.
And I love it when a CTer talks about "lies" from an LN author when it
comes to the JFK case. The pot/kettle analogy is hilarious, what with
"Lie Machines" like Garrison and Lane and Fetzer and Groden and Stone
out there distorting the true facts of the case in every book or movie
they write. Hilarious hypocrisy indeed.
The biggest mistake in Mr. Bugliosi's whole book is, IMO, the
inclusion of the "#41" item on VB's 53-item list of things that
irresistibly lead to Oswald's guilt. #41 is the paraffin test done on
LHO. Vince, who argues against the test's reliability elsewhere in the
book, decided to include it as one of his Big 53 anyway.
However, to be fair to Vince in even this instance, the reality is
that it would be an incredible coincidence if gunpowder WASN'T the
reason LHO's paraffin test showed "positive" on his hands.
Since we know Oswald had a gun on him when arrested, and since we KNOW
he shot Tippit with that gun, what are the chances that something ELSE
other than gun residue resulted in the positive nitrates on the hands?
Those odds are undoubtedly mighty low indeed.
>>> "A blatant attempt to rewrite historical facts." <<<
Bullshit! Vince Bugliosi has "rewritten" nothing! He's "reclaimed" the
historical truth of 11/22/63 in print. That's what he's done here.
CTers, for some reason, think that mere SUSPICION is enough to replace
raw evidence. It's always been that way. And probably always will be
(at least for the 'outer-limits' kooks re. this case).
CTers have no non-LHO bullets, guns, shells, prints, or
witnesses....but (per Oliver Stone) Oz is totally innocent (heck, he
didn't even kill Tippit, per that silly movie and per many other CT-
Kooks too).
>>> "More skullduggery in the whole affair." <<<
Typical CTer reaction...i.e., seeing "skullduggery" where none exists
at all. Kooky.
>>> "This {"R.H."} only makes conspiracy realists want to dig deeper." <<<
And the kooks will "dig" all the way to China in order to "find" that
elusive conspiracy, no matter how stupid the theory has to sound in
order to "find" that plot -- e.g., Oliver Stone's "MULTI-GUN, BUT
SINGLE-PATSY" conspiracy plot. Brilliant plan, huh? (If you're a total
moron, that is.)
Bugliosi said it well......
"In the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no evidence of guilt
is stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." --
Vince B.
>>> "Somebody pulling the strings is still trying to cover this up." <<<
Probably Martha Stewart and George Steinbrenner. (Why should they be
left out of the conspiracy melting pot?)
Allow some CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) to seep in through the cracks,
Mr. Conspiracy Nut. These words from VB should suffice in that regard
(but they probably won't, because you WANT a conspiracy for some
reason)......
"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth
up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core
conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their
illusions, are not going to do any of these things. If these
conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be
invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting
their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense
is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they
WANT there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to
anything that points away from it." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 1437-1438
of "Reclaiming History"
=================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (FULL BOOK REVIEW):
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1f644880e9ae885d
lazu...@webtv.net
make you guys look too good to call people who disagree nuts. We wonder
why are you guys so conspiracy phobic? Everywhere you turn is major
stuff that doesn't add up.. If you lone nutters ever figure out where
the headshot struck let us know> because, not only is their big
disagreements by lone nutters,( cowlick vs. near EOP) but you will have
to ignore a lot of pertinent contrary evidence either way...