"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" By Vincent Bugliosi (Published May 2007)
David Von Pein
AND LOGIC WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR CONSPIRACY THEORISTS TO FIGHT, NO
MATTER HOW LONG THEY'VE EMBRACED THE IDEA OF A CONSPIRACY PLOT WITH
RESPECT TO THE JOHN F. KENNEDY MURDER CASE.....
=================================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY:
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
BY:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI
=================================================
Former Los Angeles, California, Deputy District Attorney Vincent
Bugliosi has believed in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK
assassination for many years. In 1986, Mr. Bugliosi even garnered a
"Guilty" verdict from a sworn-in jury during a 21-hour television
"Docu-Trial" ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald").
Text and video highlights from that '86 "mock trial" can be found at
the link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
Mr. Bugliosi's soon-to-be-published JFK book, which has now been re-
titled "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (projected U.S. release date of May 15, 2007, which has been
moved up two weeks from the originally-planned publishing date of
5/29/07), will dive head-first into all aspects of the Kennedy
assassination (per the original 1998 and the updated 2006 publisher's
blurbs about the book) and reveal beyond a reasonable doubt that no
conspiracy existed to assassinate President Kennedy, and that Oswald
(alone) murdered JFK in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.
And given Mr. Bugliosi's reputation for common sense, preparedness,
thoroughness, and logic -- such "Lone Assassin" arguments will be hard
for anyone to dismiss (IMHO).
Mr. Bugliosi, whom I have the utmost respect for, has a habit of
getting to the full truth of any subject matter he chooses to tackle.
And I have no reason to believe that the John F. Kennedy assassination
will be any different in this regard. "Reclaiming History", in this
writer's pre-release opinion, is bound to be quite an eye-opener.
Vincent's long-awaited JFK book has been in the works since 1986 (the
year that VB "convicted" Lee Oswald in front of that jury during the
TV Docu-Trial in London). The book has gone through three titles
during those 20-plus years as well. It was originally to be called
"Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy".
In late 2004 or early 2005, Vince changed it to "Final Verdict: The
Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK". And now it's been changed once
again, to "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy". (A very good title indeed.)
Vince said in late 2005 that the manuscript for his mammoth JFK
publication "could easily fill five volumes". But he has been working
hard on condensing it for the last two or three years now.
The final page count for the book, per the data released by the
publisher (W.W. Norton & Co.), will be 1,632 pages, which is almost
twice the size of the 888-page Warren Commission Report.
Mr. Bugliosi had planned to release his JFK book in two separate
volumes; but evidently he has changed his mind about that 2-book
format, and has decided on just a single volume (plus a CD-ROM, which
will be included with the book, containing more than 1,100 pages of
endnotes and searchable supplementary material).
The amount of pro-Lone Assassin CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) that will
undoubtedly exist within such a huge Bugliosi-authored tome borders on
the unfathomable.
Here's the official publisher's webpage devoted to "RECLAIMING
HISTORY":
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
The publisher's promotional blurb reads as follows.....
"THE BOOK THAT LAYS ALL QUESTIONS TO REST:
Polls reveal that over 75 percent of Americans believe there was a
conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald; some even believe Oswald was
entirely innocent. In this absorbing and historic book-the first ever
to cover the entire case-Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to
believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history.
The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an
iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his
best-selling Outrage, Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America
capable of "prosecuting" Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy.
His book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, re-
examination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and
nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud
upon the American public.
Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to
draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare.
At last we know what really happened. At last it all makes sense.
32 pages of illustrations.
May 2007 / Hardcover / ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3
7" x 10" / 1632 pages / History"
==================================
The W.W. Norton website has revised its ordering page for VB's book --
adjusting the price (upward) for the massive publication, which was
previously going to be released in November 1998 at 992 pages (a
figure that, obviously, has ballooned significantly since '98).
Norton's previous listing had the 992-page volume priced at $35.00 (US
$); it's now listed at $49.95 (US$):
http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
And here's the Simon & Schuster webpage for the "Audio Book" edition
of "Reclaiming History" (a 15-Disc Audio-CD package, featuring actor
Edward Herrmann as narrator):
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=526698
==================================
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (which includes the full
text from the two "Introductory" chapters of the book; 55 total
pages):
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com
http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntro.pdf
http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntroCnsprcy.pdf
==================================
A 29-MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI RE. HIS JFK BOOK (RECORDED
APRIL 30, 2007):
http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=917
(Click on the image of Mr. Bugliosi at the above link to access the
interview.)
==================================
SOME PRE-RELEASE REVIEWS FOR "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-newton13may13,1,1717915.story?coll=la-books-headlines
The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/books/14jfk.html
The Atlantic Monthly:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c9dbf379635ad87c
Publishers Weekly:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/662810b32524ab39
==================================
MORE INFO:
Here's a glance at the Table of Contents for "Reclaiming History".....
Dedication
Introduction
1.) Four Days In November
2.) The Investigations
3.) President Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And
Governor Connally
4.) The Most Famous Home Movie Ever, The "Magic Bullet", And The
Single-Bullet Theory
5.) Lee Harvey Oswald
6.) Oswald's Ownership And Possession Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth
Floor
7.) Identification Of The Weapon
8.) Oswald At The Sniper's Nest And "Evidence" Of His Innocence
9.) The Grassy Knoll
10.) A Conversation With Dr. Cyril Wecht
11.) Secret Service Agents On The Grassy Knoll
12.) The Zanies (And Others) Have Their Say
13.) Other Assassins
14.) Motive
15.) Summary Of Oswald's Guilt
16.) Introduction To Conspiracy
17.) History Of The Conspiracy Movement
18.) Mark Lane
19.) Mysterious And Suspicious Deaths
20.) The Second Oswald
21.) David Lifton And Alteration Of The President's Body
22.) Ruby And The Mob
23.) Organized Crime
24.) CIA
25.) FBI
26.) Secret Service
27.) KGB
28.) Right Wing
29.) LBJ
30.) Cuba
31.) The Odio Incident And Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles
32.) Cover-Up By The CIA And FBI In The Warren Commission's
Investigation Of The Assassination
33.) Jim Garrison's Prosecution Of Clay Shaw And Oliver Stone's Movie
"JFK"
34.) Conclusion Of No Conspiracy
35.) The Murder Trial Of Jack Ruby
36.) A Conversation With Marina
37.) The People And Groups Involved In The Plot To Kill Kennedy
38.) Lincoln-Kennedy Coincidences
39.) Epilogue
40.) In Memoriam
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
Index
http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistTOC.pdf
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip079/2007001545.html
==================================
V.B. QUOTE TIME:
The following quotes were spoken by Vincent Bugliosi himself (over a
period of several years), and they give an indication, in brief
"snippet" form, as to what Vincent's general opinions are regarding
the JFK murder and who was responsible for the crime. Not
surprisingly, there's not a single mention in these quotes of how
"Badge Man" on the Grassy Knoll fired the fatal shot.....
-----------------------
"It's my very firm belief--I'm very, very confident--that no
reasonable, rational person -- and let's underline those words
'reasonable' and 'rational' -- no reasonable , rational person can
possibly read this book {"Reclaiming History"} without being satisfied
beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald hit Kennedy and acted alone."
-- VB; April 30, 2007
-----------------------
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
his sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- VB; 1986
-----------------------
"Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." --
VB; 2007
-----------------------
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB; 2007
-----------------------
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged {Gerald} 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." -- VB; 2007
-----------------------
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can
convince the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." --
VB; April 22, 2004
-----------------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- VB; 1986
(Via the TV Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")
-----------------------
"Oswald, from his own lips, 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?" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"There may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that
day; but if there were, they all missed; ONLY bullets fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it. ... Because
there's not one tiny grain of evidence; not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VB; 1986 (TV
Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Let's take a look at Oswald .... Can anyone fail to see how utterly
and completely crazy this man here was? Utterly and completely nuts.
Bonkers. And you have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder;
you gotta be crazy; nuts.
"One example, among many....how many Americans, how many people
anywhere in the WORLD, defect to the Soviet Union? That alone shows
how completely and utterly mentally-unhinged this man was. Again,
that's the exact type of person to kill the President.
"I think one thing is pretty obvious, Kennedy almost undoubtedly would
have represented to Oswald the ultimate, quintessential representative
-- that's the key word, 'representative' -- of a society for which he
had a grinding contempt." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"When Mr. Spence argued that Oswald was just a patsy and was framed,
he conveniently neglected to be specific. HOW was Lee Harvey Oswald
framed?! When we look at the mechanics of such a possible conspiracy
in this case -- how COULD he have been framed? ... How, in fact, if
Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within forty-five minutes
of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or was he framed for
THAT murder too?!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"I am at work writing an in-depth book on the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, one that I'm confident will shed a
different light on the tragedy that altered the course of American
history." -- VB; 1991
-----------------------
"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, 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." --
VB
-----------------------
"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are
based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to
their logical conclusion. ... The discrepancy or contradiction is the
entire story. And being the entire story, it by itself discredits the
entire twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission. Nothing else has
to be shown or even argued." -- VB; 2007
-----------------------
"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'!!!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he
acted alone." -- VB; 2001
-----------------------
"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." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"I'm 95% sure he {Oswald} acted alone; and if you threw 85% of the
evidence out the window there would still be enough to prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just
theories and motives." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"I'm certainly satisfied, beyond all doubt, that Oswald acted alone.
The Warren Commission might not have done much work, but its staff was
prodigious. He {Oliver Stone} deliberately twisted and warped the
record. .... There was nothing mysterious about Oswald's shots. The
first was from only 57 yards, the second from only 83 yards; all were
fired at a stagnant target with a favorable angle. My firearms guy
says he was a sitting duck." -- VB; February 1992
-----------------------
"He {Oliver Stone} did have three things right, and I got to hand it
to Oliver...he had the date of the assassination correct--November
22nd, 1963; he had the victim--John F. Kennedy; and he had the
location--Dallas. ... Beyond that, Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", is one
continuous lie.
"Perhaps the best way of illustrating how bad that movie was, in
"Reclaiming History" I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence, all
of which point towards Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. And in Stone's
movie, 3 hours and 8 minutes, Oliver just couldn't find the time to
mention even ONE of those 53 pieces of evidence." -- VB; April 30,
2007
-----------------------
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.
"And what's happened, is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
"In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that. And this is why the vote coming in will be very,
very heavy in favor of a conspiracy.
"I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- VB; 1988
-----------------------
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
VB
-----------------------
"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." -- VB; November 1986
-----------------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
VB; 1998
-----------------------
"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 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
"But I want to tell you a story. 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 percent 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." -- VB; April 6, 1997
==================================================
RELATED WEBLINKS:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-02-21-book-buzz_x.htm
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=9144393
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780743566674&z=y#CRV
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V49969193_.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bugliosi+Assassination&search=Search
http://www.mastermediaspeakers.com/vincent_bugliosi/index.html
http://www.nndb.com/people/807/000023738
http://imdb.com/name/nm0119514
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbf3c2b05c4451c0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ebbbd63624b86631
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8c67ab97e0c60c32
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/726d732756a9f915
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0ecd0e48aa5bb396
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b53ad9b218cf8ccf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22b24906f5161446
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/662810b32524ab39
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7674890&postcount=23
www.amazon.com/VINCENT-BUGLIOSI-PROSECUTOR-EXTRAORDINAIRE/lm/2KJFLIXOW29IX
www.amazon.com/FAMOUS-DATES-IN-HISTORY-NOV221963/lm/KQOLQ16IYM9H
==================================================
David Von Pein
March 2005
November 2005
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
why it was necessary to write a book of such length.
"The case has become kind of complex as a result of the unceasing,
fanatical obsession of literally thousands upon thousands of
researchers in this case examining every single aspect of this case,
making hundreds upon hundreds of allegations," he said.
"Bugliosi said others who had attempted to tackle the material had
until now been able to concentrate only on specific parts of the case
and parts of the conspiracy theories. In "Reclaiming History," he
attempts to encapsulate every aspect of the case.
"I decided, maybe like a fool, to take on the whole case, and there's
no bottom of the pile in the Kennedy case," he said.
Bugliosi said that in the last seven years he'd worked between 80 and
100 hours a week on the tome, writing every day during that time. He
doesn't own a computer, and while some of his notes were dictated to
an assistant, most of the book was written in longhand on yellow legal
paper."
David Von Pein
"The Leonard Lopate Show", airing on New York City public radio
station WNYC)......
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/05/15/segments/78931
"It is physically impossible for you to be innocent if you have 53
pieces of evidence pointing to your guilt {as Oswald does}." -- Vince
B.
David Von Pein
eca...@tx.rr.com
And I have not read all of it!
You are APPRECIATED and are preforming a great service.
I'll get VB's book (God willing) on June 1st.
Thanks again David.
Ed Cage
1738May1607
> Los Angeles Times:http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-newton13may13,1,1717915.s...
> read more »...
David Von Pein
aeffects
bet he didn't take call-in questions.....LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
says...
Don't have the book yet, but I'll predict right now that this mythical list of
"53 pieces of evidence" is precisely that - mythical. My prediction is that
Bugliosi WILL NOT list these 53 items.
Walt
>
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." ...
Huh??? Are you standing on your head, or looking in a mirror?? cuz
you sure as hell got it backwards. It's not the CT's who have
presented a lie to the public...... It's the LNer's who started the
lie, and propagate, and promote the lie.
CT's sift through the evidence and try to learn the truth.... some
find one tiny piece of the puzzle and think they have found the
truth. Other CT's are more thorough and have pieced together a good
image, but still lack key pieces of the puzzle.
But in any event...It's not the CT's who have lied.
Walt
> read more »
David Von Pein
publication May 20, 2007):
EXCERPTS:
"So this is where one expects the reviewer to savage Bugliosi for all
those wasted years and pages. Well, I can't do it. The fact is, the
darned book is pretty good. Putting aside its ridiculous length, I
have to say "Reclaiming History" is in spots a delight to read.
"Bugliosi is refreshing because he doesn't just pick apart the
conspiracy theorists. He ridicules them, and by name, writing that
"most of them are as kooky as a $3 bill." Bugliosi calls the dean of
conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, "unprincipled" and "a fraud."
"What Bugliosi has done is a public service; these people should be
ridiculed, even shunned. It's time we marginalized Kennedy conspiracy
theorists the way we've marginalized smokers; next time one of your co-
workers starts in about Oswald and the C.I.A., make him stand in the
rain with the other outcasts. "Reclaiming History," though, is more
than a critical analysis.
"The book's best section has to be the 276 pages Bugliosi devotes to
tracing Oswald's life from his birth in New Orleans through dozens of
run-down apartments in Texas and New York--we get an address and a
description of every one--his time in the Marines, his defection to
the Soviet Union and eventually his fateful return to Dallas. A more
intimate portrait of a loser would be hard to find.
"Oswald was a troubled child, a library Marxist, a wife beater and a
delusional paranoiac. It's easy to forget how young he was. At the
time he killed Kennedy, Oswald was 24, a year older than Seung-Hui
Cho, the killer of 32 at Virginia Tech.
"It's in the arguing that Bugliosi, as a former prosecutor, truly
shines. When he gets down to the sweaty business of wrestling the
conspiracy buffs, he charges into the ring as a righteous avenger,
body-slamming everyone from Lane to Oliver Stone; he even throws a
headlock on poor Gerald Posner, who actually agrees with him. No
author is too obscure to escape Bugliosi's attack."
tomnln
ALSO.
Name the Human Being who can read 10 million words in one day PLEASE?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179460626.9...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Burrough (who wrote that review for The Times) didn't just start
reading "RH" yesterday. Burrough has certainly read all (or a
substantial portion) of the book, per his comments.
But, why use common sense when we've got Tom-Sack in the crowd to talk
kookshit 24/7! Right?
tomnln
Here's what you SNIPPED Coward>>>
----
The New York Times Applauded the 26 volumes ONE Day after they were publishe
ALSO.
Name the Human Being who can read 10 million words in one day PLEASE?
----
My Reference was to the Liberal New York Times Stupid.
You Liberal Commies SURE do stick together.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179464137.4...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
(and he took me to task). Tom was talking ONLY about the WCR and some
NYT review (although I'm only assuming that a "review" of the WCR 26
volumes came out in the NYT "one day" after they were published, as
Tom-Sack suggests. I'd have to check on that to see if Tom has his
facts straight...because, as we know, to take the word of a conspiracy
kook is to turn into a kook ourselves).
Anyway, I do apologize to Tom for my misrepresentation earlier. I was
wrong. (Gee, that's the second time in a couple of months I've had to
do that I think. I sure hope it's the last time too.) ;)
David Von Pein
2007):
http://www.wjbc.com/wire2/podsteveid/00248_Bugliosi_154428.htm
NOTE -- The above interview goes into a few more issues than VB had
gone into on previous programs/interviews. One being the shooting
timeline. Vince has the first shot from Oswald being a complete miss
at about Z160. I was glad to hear that, because that perfectly aligns
with my view on the first-shot "miss" as well.
VB has the SBT shot at Z210, which I don't agree with. And that 210
time is very strange to me. I can't fathom how he arrived at 210,
which is a Z-Film frame that isn't even ON the Zapruder Film due to
that frame (plus 208, 209, and 211) being damaged by Life Magazine.
(The "Z210" topic isn't on the above radio interview; that info comes
from another source of mine, who asked Vince himself at a NYC book
signing about the SBT timeline, with Vince responding that the SBT
shot occurred "just after Z210".)
David Von Pein
>>> "How does it {JFK's back wound} get in the neck several inches higher for the Warren Report?" <<<
The actual WOUND itself never "moved". This is CT Myth #35 (of
hundreds of myths). Gerald Ford is said by the conspiracists to have
literally MOVED the back wound up into the neck.
But this is simply not true, and if anyone would bother to take one
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (which shows Arlen Specter
holding a metal rod up against the JFK & JBC stand-ins for the
camera), you'll easily see that as of May 24, 1964 (the date of that
CE903 photo) the wound on JFK's back is NOT up in the "neck"; instead,
it's positively in the upper BACK, just exactly where the autopsy
photo shows the wound on JFK to be located.
And with the wound as depicted (in the upper back) in CE903, the SBT
BULLET PATH WORKS...right down to the end of Mr. Specter's probe being
inserted into the exact same bullet hole on Governor Connally's jacket
(which was being worn by the JBC stand-in inside the car in CE903).
Take a look.....
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
>>> "The Warren Report put the head wound near the EOP, yet in 1968 the head wound entrance was moved 4 inches up to the cowlick." <<<
Sure, there's some debate as to what precise square inch on JFK's head
the entry wound was located. But the KEY to this debate is this --
Even WITH a discrepancy re. the exact head-wound location (and I don't
deny that a discrepancy exists among the experts), THERE WAS ONLY ONE
ENTRY WOUND IN JFK'S HEAD...and that ONE entry wound was positively at
the BACK of Kennedy's head...proving that no other shots hit JFK in
the head.
If there was a frontal head shot...where the heck is the entry wound
on the front of the head? And: why does Kennedy's head move very
rapidly FORWARD at Z313, the point-of-impact frame on Zapruder's film?
There's no other "impact point" that can be discerned on the Z-Film.
How is this possible if there was a frontal head shot?
>>> "Have you ever heard of a magic bullet in any other case worldwide, or a neurospasm?" <<<
The only "magic" bullets in the JFK case are the conspiracists'
MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING MAGIC BULLETS. And they've got a bunch of them,
too (per Oliver Stone, Bob Groden, Jim Garrison, and other assorted
kooks).
How on this Earth did THREE separate bullets hit JFK & JBC (per Oliver
Stone's movie) and have those three bullets ALL VANISH and also have
those three separate shots come together in a "magical" fashion so
that Specter (et al) could even BEGIN to propose that this THREE-
bullet event could be explained via a SINGLE-bullet theory?
There's some "magic" for ya. And it's not "LNer" magic. It's "CTer"
magic, to be sure.
>>> "Do you think a bullet traveling between 2000 & 3000 ft. per second is going {to} be overcome by a neurospasm?" <<<
H-h-huh?? WTF is this? The bullet (moving at an estimated 1,908fps
when it struck JFK's head from behind, per the WC experts who did
tests on LHO's WCC/MC ammunition) had already gone through Kennedy's
head (and then some) by the time the muscles begin to propel his head
rearward (plus, the 'jet effect', per Luis Alvarez' logical theory,
also likely contributes to the rear head movement...but all this
movement is only AFTER the INITIAL forward movement of JFK's head AT
IMPACT).
>>> "The closest witnesses to the limo at Z313...indicated a frontal shot." <<<
But a closer look at the witness stats (which must always be looked at
with many grains of salt nearby) shows that a staggeringly-
overwhelming percentage of the witnesses conform to make up the
following two "majority camps" (so to speak):
1.) 91%+ of the witnesses heard three shots or even FEWER (and that
certainly doesn't aid Mr. Stone's 6-shot ambush theory very much).
2.) The huge majority of witnesses (95%+!) heard shots from just a
SINGLE DIRECTION (be it front or rear, but mostly "rear"). IOW: only 5
out of more than 100 in the poll I'm talking about heard shots from
MULTIPLE directions.
That's an impossibly-low % if shots had truly come from BOTH front and
rear. What that stat (chart below) is telling me is: The witnesses who
heard ALL the shots from the FRONT (and there were several, granted)
were confused by the source of ALL the shots they heard.
It's either that type of explanation, or the CTers are going to have a
tough time explaining how virtually all of the "Knoll" witnesses were,
in essence, ALL WRONG and somehow heard all the frontal shots, but
failed to hear ANY of the TSBD shots from the rear (even though Dealey
Plaza is very, very small).
It doesn't add up for CTers. It never does "add up" for that
crowd...because they are wrong, and they also have no cohesive,
reasonable conspiracy theory to put on the table. (Including Oliver
Stone, whose MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY plot is probably the most ludicrous
of all the theories in existence...save David Lifton's.)
Shot Location Chart:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>>> "Murphy, Holland, Dodd & Simmons...Altgens...Brehm..." <<<
You need to get Brehm and Altgens off that "CT" list. Brehm never said
he heard shots from anywhere except from the Elm/Houston corner. Mark
Lane distorted Brehm's comments...just as Mr. Lane did with other
witnesses, including Helen Markham, whose arm was practically twisted
clean off by Lane's "bushy haired" badgering.
And Altgens isn't in any "CT" camp re. the shot location either. More
on those two witnesses at the link below....
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
>>> "Sitzman gave an interview {and said}: "JFK was shot between the ear and temple"." <<<
LOL. This is a laugh. Of course Sitzman said something like that.
Because that's where ALL THE BLOOD WAS, for Pete sake! She wasn't
talking about where the bullet ENTERED his head. How could Sitzman
possibly have known exactly where the bullet entered the President's
head? Answer: She couldn't have known.
>>> "J.C. Price..." <<<
Another LOL. Mr. Price also said the shooting took--get this--five
MINUTES to complete. 5 minutes! Maybe he misspoke. Ya think? Price
also claimed that Connally and Kennedy were riding in different cars.
A strange witness indeed. But at least the CTers think Price got the
shot location correct.
But, again, he's a ONE-directional (from the knoll) witness. Which
means what? He was WRONG about something re. the shots he heard,
wasn't he? Because at least SOME shots came from elsewhere.
It's amazing how many people hear ONLY the shots that "prove
conspiracy", but miss hearing the Oswald/TSBD blasts. If you think
about WHY that probably is...the case simplifies quite a bit.
>>> "Jean Hill and Mary Moorman thought at least one of the shots came from the knoll." <<<
They are both ONE-directional witnesses too. And that means what? It
means they were WRONG.
>>> "Bill Newman and his wife heard shots come from the knoll area." <<<
Again, they are both ONE-directional witnesses. Which means the
Newmans, too (incredibly) managed to hear ONLY the conspiracy-proving
shots from the "front"...while completely missing any of the known-to-
have-occurred TSBD gunshots. In a word: Impossible.
In reality, all of these people heard ONLY Depository shots...but due
to the echo pattern in the "bowl" that was Dealey Plaza, these
witnesses thought that ALL the shots originated from a location
further WEST than they did originate from (i.e., from a direction that
Oswald's rifle was pointed--west).
>>> "Bugliosi has become as credible as Dubya & Alfredo." <<<
Vince has written a book that will likely smash all the conspiracy
theories (I'll be reading it and reviewing it shortly too)....and as
Vince has said for years, and it applies to the JFK case too.....
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
And in this book ("Reclaiming History") we're treated to 21 YEARS
worth of "support" for his lone-assassin beliefs.
God help the lifelong CTers of the world.
aeffects
> DEBATE FROM AMAZON.COM.......
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md...
hype -- as a one man band, David -- you're failing miserably, perhaps
Eddie, YoHarvey, Chuckie daShoe can help you out, eh? Putting up 5
stars is so juvenile... :)
tomnln
Glad to see that you are indeed Teachable.
Would you now care to address THIS Alteration of evidence?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179467829.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Z" Film
due to the Texas Live Oak tree.
Meaning that Da Bug believes that Someone would fire THROUGH a tree at a
target
that could NOT be seen.
Is Da Bug just Another Posner???
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179468346....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Official records above.
I quote official records.
David quotes Himself.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179479906.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> DEBATE FROM AMAZON.COM.......
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md_plReviewDetail/?ie=UTF8&cdForum=&ASIN=0393045250&cdPage=1&cdItems=10&asin=&store=yourstore&cdSort=ByDateCreated&cdThread=Tx7JREWBI266UP&reviewID=R2XA3AG9AUG8FT&displayType=ReviewDetail&cdSortDir=Ascending#Mx1AY39LRBDCTR1
>
>
> also likely contributes to the rear head movement...but all this
> movement is only AFTER the INITIAL forward movement of JFK's heat AT
> IMPACT).
>
>
>>>> "The closest witnesses to the limo at Z313...indicated a frontal shot."
>>>> <<<
>
> But a closer look at the witness stats (which must always be looked at
> with many grains of salt nearby) shows that a staggeringly-
> overwhelming percentage of the witnesses conform to the make the
> following two "camps" (so to speak):
>
> 1.) The majority (91%+) heard three shots or even FEWER (and that
> doesn't aid Mr. Stone's 6-shot ambush theory).
>>>> "Sitzman gave an interview {and said}: "JFK was shot between ear and
>>>> temple"." <<<
>
> LOL. This is a laugh. OF COURSE Sitzman said something like that.
> Because that's where ALL THE BLOOD WAS, for Pete sake! She wasn't
> talking about where the bullet ENTERED his head.
>
>>>> "J.C. Price..." <<<
>
> Another LOL. Mr. Price also said the shooting took--get this--five
> MINUTES to complete. 5 minutes! Maybe he misspoke. Ya think? Price
> also claimed that Connally and Kennedy were riding in different cars.
> A strange witness indeed. But at least the CTers think Price got the
> shot location correct. But, again, he's a ONE-directional (from the
> knoll) witness. Which means what? He was WRONG about something re. the
> shots he heard, wasn't he? Because at least SOME shots came from
> elsewhere.
>
> It's amazing how many people hear ONLY the shots that "prove
> conspiracy", but miss hearing the Oswald/TSBD blasts. If you think
> about WHY that probably is...the case simplifies a whole lot.
>
>>>> "Jean Hill & Mary Moorman across the street thought at least one of the
>>>> shots came from the knoll." <<<
>
> They are both ONE-directional witnesses too. And that means what? It
> means they were WRONG.
>
>>>> "Bill Newman and his wife Gayle Newman heard shots come right over his
>>>> head from the knoll area." <<<
>
> Again, they are both ONE-directional witnesses. Which means the
> Newmans, too (incredibly) managed to hear ONLY the conspiracy-proving
> shots from the "front"...while completely missing any of the known-to-
> have-occurred TSBD gunshots. In a word: Impossible.
>
> In reality, all of these people heard ONLY Depository shots...but due
> to the echo pattern in the "bowl" that was Dealey Plaza, these
> witnesses thought that ALL the shots originated from a location
> further WEST than they did (i.e., from a direction that Oswald's rifle
> was pointed--west).
>
>>>> "Bugliosi has become as credible as Dubya & Alfredo." <<<
>
> Vince has written a book that will likely smash all the conspiracy
> theories (I'll be reading it and reviewing it shortly too)....and as
> Vince has said for years, and it applies to the JFK case too.....
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
tomnln
conspiracy as "KOOKS".
Once more & Bugliosi will be referred to as a KOOK-SUCKER.
WHY has Bugliosi Refused to take questions on ANY of the radio shows he's
done to Promote his book?
Isn't his position Defensible?
Official Records are HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
tomnln
Those are REVIEWS.
They are NOT "Debates".
Will Bugliosi debate the contents of his book in the future with those who
find FAULT (if any) with it?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179481246.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> rearward (plus, the 'jet effect', per Luis Alvarez' logical theory,
> also likely contributes to the rear head movement...but all this
> movement is only AFTER the INITIAL forward movement of JFK's head AT
> IMPACT).
>
>
>>>> "The closest witnesses to the limo at Z313...indicated a frontal shot."
>>>> <<<
>
> But a closer look at the witness stats (which must always be looked at
> with many grains of salt nearby) shows that a staggeringly-
> overwhelming percentage of the witnesses conform to the make the
> following two "majority camps" (so to speak):
>
> 1.) 91%+ of the witnesses heard three shots or even FEWER (and that
> certainly doesn't aid Mr. Stone's 6-shot ambush theory very much).
> LOL. This is a laugh. Of course Sitzman said something like that.
> Because that's where ALL THE BLOOD WAS, for Pete sake! She wasn't
> talking about where the bullet ENTERED his head. How could Sitzman
> possibly have known exactly where the bullet entered the President's
> head? Answer: She couldn't have known.
>
>>>> "J.C. Price..." <<<
>
> Another LOL. Mr. Price also said the shooting took--get this--five
> MINUTES to complete. 5 minutes! Maybe he misspoke. Ya think? Price
> also claimed that Connally and Kennedy were riding in different cars.
> A strange witness indeed. But at least the CTers think Price got the
> shot location correct.
>
> But, again, he's a ONE-directional (from the knoll) witness. Which
> means what? He was WRONG about something re. the shots he heard,
> wasn't he? Because at least SOME shots came from elsewhere.
>
> It's amazing how many people hear ONLY the shots that "prove
> conspiracy", but miss hearing the Oswald/TSBD blasts. If you think
> about WHY that probably is...the case simplifies quite a bit.
>
>>>> "Jean Hill and Mary Moorman thought at least one of the shots came from
>>>> the knoll." <<<
>
> They are both ONE-directional witnesses too. And that means what? It
> means they were WRONG.
>
>>>> "Bill Newman and his wife heard shots come from the knoll area." <<<
>
> Again, they are both ONE-directional witnesses. Which means the
> Newmans, too (incredibly) managed to hear ONLY the conspiracy-proving
> shots from the "front"...while completely missing any of the known-to-
> have-occurred TSBD gunshots. In a word: Impossible.
>
> In reality, all of these people heard ONLY Depository shots...but due
> to the echo pattern in the "bowl" that was Dealey Plaza, these
> witnesses thought that ALL the shots originated from a location
> further WEST than they did originate from (i.e., from a direction that
> Oswald's rifle was pointed--west).
>
>>>> "Bugliosi has become as credible as Dubya & Alfredo." <<<
>
> Vince has written a book that will likely smash all the conspiracy
> theories (I'll be reading it and reviewing it shortly too)....and as
> Vince has said for years, and it applies to the JFK case too.....
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179481563....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Radio (approx. 30 minutes):
http://www.kmox.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=729008
"The sealing of the JFK records for 75 years had nothing to do with
the Warren Commission. It was a National Archives rule that records
submitted to them from an official Government body, like the Warren
Commission (records that were not made part of that body's report), be
sealed for 75 years. So it was a National Archives RULE...it had
nothing to do with the Warren Commission whatsoever." -- Vince B.
(paraphrased quote)
Walt
>
>
>
> > DEBATE FROM AMAZON.COM.......
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md...
>
> >>>> "How does it {JFK's back wound} get in the neck several inches higher
> >>>> for the Warren Report?" <<<
>
> > The actual WOUND itself never "moved". This is CT Myth #35 (of
> > hundreds of myths). Gerald Ford is said by the conspiracists to have
> > literally MOVED the back wound up into the neck.
>
> > But this is simply not true, and if anyone would bother to take one
> > look at Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (which shows Arlen Specter
> > holding a metal rod up against the JFK & JBC stand-ins for the
> > camera), you'll easily see that as of May 24, 1964 (the date of that
> > CE903 photo) the wound on JFK's back is NOT up in the "neck"; instead,
> > it's positively in the upper BACK, just exactly where the autopsy
> > photo shows the wound on JFK to be located.
CE 903..The photo showing Arlen Specter "proving" the validity of the
single bullet THEORY........Is a crock. Specter attempts to validate
the single bullet THEORY by using a Cadillac that has the stand-in for
JFK seated much higher than JFK was in the Lincoln. In addition to the
higher seat the spacing between the back seat and the jump seat was
different. The jump seat was also adjustable, which allowed Specter
to move the stand-in for Connally as necessary to make the SB THEORY
feasible. Specter uses surveyor tools to make it appear that he was
recreating the event down do a second of a degree of angle, but in
reality he was creating an elaborate lie. He falsely created data
which makes it appear that the feasibility of the single bullet THEORY
is valid. If he would have had a computer back in 64 he could have
created a more convincing lie.
Walt
> > God help the lifelong CTers of the world.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Total bullshit from Walt The Kook, yet again (surprise!).......
"Any differences {between the 100-X limo and the SS Cadillac utilized
for the tests on 05/24/64} were taken into account." -- WCR; Page 97
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061a.htm
===================
WCR footnoted references for a portion of WCR Pg. 97:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0447a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0447b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0448a.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kelley1.htm
THOMAS KELLEY (USSS) -- "The jump seat of the Secret Service car is a
little closer to the right door.
However, the seating arrangement is not exactly the same in these
cars, in that there is a portion of a padding that comes around on the
rear seat. But relatively, when two persons are seated in this car,
one in the rear seat and one in the jump seat, they are in the same
alinement as they were in the President's car."
David Von Pein
(May 17, 2007):
http://www.wusa9.com/video/player.aspx?aid=44729
Vince chimes in briefly on the new NAA-bashing bullet study......
"This {new bullet study} is the silliness that's been going on in this
case for close to 44 years. All this new study is saying is that
Neutron Activation Analysis is not conclusive on the issue of whether
all the fragments came from the same batch. But that's not new...it's
already in my book. It's just someone trying to get in the news
again." (slightly paraphrased) -- Vincent Bugliosi
Walt
> >>> "CE 903...The photo showing Arlen Specter "proving" the validity of the single bullet THEORY......Is a crock. Specter attempts to validate the single bullet THEORY by using a Cadillac that has the stand-in for JFK seated much higher than JFK was in the Lincoln..." <<<
>
> Total bullshit from Walt The Kook, yet again (surprise!).......
>
> "Any differences {between the 100-X limo and the SS Cadillac utilized
> for the tests on 05/24/64} were taken into account." -- WCR; Page 97
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061a.htm
>
> ===================
>
> WCR footnoted references for a portion of WCR Pg. 97:
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kelley1.htm
>
> THOMAS KELLEY (USSS) -- "The jump seat of the Secret Service car is a
> little closer to the right door.
> However, the seating arrangement is not exactly the same in these
> cars, in that there is a portion of a padding that comes around on the
> rear seat. But relatively, when two persons are seated in this car,
> one in the rear seat and one in the jump seat, they are in the same
> alinement as they were in the President's car."
What's the matter with your brain ...... Can't you use it and compile
the photos necessary to make an accurate comparison between the 56
Cadillac and the 62 Lincoln??
You'd be wise to ignore the "experts" and use you little pea
brain.....
Walt
David Von Pein
Cadillac and the 62 Lincoln?" <<<
It was a '61 Lincoln, twithead.
Once again (for Walt's salt-granule-sized brain).......
"Any differences {between Queen Mary and JFK's limo} were taken into
aeffects
re the Warren Commission DP/Elm St. model, the SS/FBI placement of the
limo (at shot 3) on Elm Street. Down by the ascending stairway to the
knoll (at least 30' west of where we see the third shot occuring in
the Zapruder film).... There THAT much 'length' difference between the
Caddie and the Presidential Limo? Can your atom sized brain put its
arms around that?
We know getting beyond Vinnie will be a tough haul for you, perhaps
the abuse you take will garner you a few more back-end points, eh?
Stretch for a moment!
David Von Pein
sure don't.
aeffects
> Anybody have the slightest idea what Healy is rambling on about? I
> sure don't.
of course you don't, the WC exhibits, dufus!
Walt
Walt
>
> > >>> "Can't you use it and compile the photos necessary to make an accurate comparison between the 56
>
> > Cadillac and the 62 Lincoln?" <<<
>
> > It was a '61 Lincoln, twithead.
>
> > Once again (for Walt's salt-granule-sized brain).......
>
> > "Any differences {between Queen Mary and JFK's limo} were taken into
> > account." -- WCR; Page 97
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061a.htm
>
> re the Warren Commission DP/Elm St. model, the SS/FBI placement of the
> limo (at shot 3) on Elm Street. Down by the ascending stairway to the
> knoll (at least 30' west of where we see the third shot occuring in
> the Zapruder film).... There THAT much 'length' difference between the
> Caddie and the Presidential Limo? Can your atom sized brain put its
> arms around that?
Hey Pea Brain.... The difference in overall length btween the
Caddilac and the Lincoln is immaterial....The width of the interior,
the distance beyween the seats and the difference in elevation of the
seats within the interior of the cars is critical. I wager a large
chunk o change that if Specter had used a Lincoln instead of the
Cadillac to "CREATE" the
Single Bullet THEORY....He could NOT have created that B.S. lie.
Walt
David Von Pein
re. possible Vince Bugliosi errors in his book).......
It's hard to catch Vince Bugliosi in an error (even when *I* myself
thought he had certainly made one). This portion of VB's book (shown
below) verifies that I was wrong when I assumed VB had made a mistake
in the Intro. to the book when he said that a witness at the '86 Mock
Trial had actually SEEN Tippit being shot. I had no idea that Jack
Tatum testified at the Mock Trial; but obviously he did. (But since
73% of that whole "trial" was left on the cutting-room floor, it's no
wonder a lot of stuff is unknown about it) .....
"Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in Tatum's
direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step back into
the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of the officer
on the ground. .... [VB's Footnote:] I asked Tatum at the London trial
if he got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he
identified at the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if
there was "any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None
whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.
200)" -- Pg. 79; "Reclaiming History"
========
The above information confirms that I was wrong (and Vince wasn't)
when I said the following earlier this month.....
"And I think Vince has to be referring to Callaway in that quote,
because (unless I'm mistaken) he was the only "Tippit murder" witness
called to the stand at the '86 Mock Trial." -- DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1ddf0d7a0e0aa25
Bugliosi, btw, has the Tippit murder occurring at 1:12 PM.
David Von Pein
VB public appearance and Q&A session re. his JFK book, "Reclaiming
History";
At: Cooper Union, New York City;
Date: May 15, 2007;
Length: 93 minutes. .....
eca...@tx.rr.com
> The target was NOT visable from the 6th floor window Until frame 210 of the
> "Z" Film
> due to the Texas Live Oak tree.
>
> Meaning that Da Bug believes that Someone would fire THROUGH a tree at a
> target
> that could NOT be seen.
>
> Is Da Bug just Another Posner???
>
>
>
>
> > Radio interview with VB (via WJBC-AM; Bloomington, Illinois)(May 16,
> > 2007):
>
> >http://www.wjbc.com/wire2/podsteveid/00248_Bugliosi_154428.htm
>
> > NOTE -- The above interview goes into a few more issues than VB had
> > gone into on previous programs/interviews. One being the shooting
> > timeline. Vince has the first shot from Oswald being a complete miss
> > at about Z160. I was glad to hear that, because that perfectly aligns
> > with my view on the first-shot "miss" as well.
>
> > VB has the SBT shot at Z210, which I don't agree with. And that 210
> > time is very strange to me. I can't fathom how he arrived at 210,
> > which is a Z-Film frame that isn't even ON the Zapruder Film due to
> > that frame (plus 208, 209, and 211) being damaged by Life Magazine.
>
> > (The "Z210" topic isn't on the above radio interview; that info comes
> > from another source of mine, who asked Vince himself at a NYC book
> > signing about the SBT timeline, with Vince responding that the SBT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sad.Sack.O.Nutz:
The shots were circa 160, 224, & 313.
VB does not claim a 210 shot but out
of curiosity, how did you come by
the knowledge that on 11-22-63 the
tree was in the way at 210?
America wants to know Sak.O.Nutz!
MR ;~D 1745May2307
David Von Pein
here too.).....
David Von Pein
"just above" in this quote......
"9:30 p.m. EST {Nov. 22nd} -- At Bethesda Naval Hospital, the three
pathologists have rolled the president onto his left side and are
examining the oval-shaped bullet wound located to the right of his
spine and just above the right shoulder blade..." -- "Reclaiming
History"; Pg. #162
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
30th, 2007......
Walt
> An interesting observation (which ties into a previous NG discussion
> re. possible Vince Bugliosi errors in his book).......
>
> It's hard to catch Vince Bugliosi in an error (even when *I* myself
> thought he had certainly made one). This portion of VB's book (shown
> below) verifies that I was wrong when I assumed VB had made a mistake
> in the Intro. to the book when he said that a witness at the '86 Mock
> Trial had actually SEEN Tippit being shot. I had no idea that Jack
> Tatum testified at the Mock Trial;
A Mock trial 23 years after the event is evidence??.... And you call
CT's "kooks"!!
Yer nuttier than a walnut tree with a similar IQ .
Walt