"LIES" OR INNOCENT "MISTAKES"? (A CONSPIRACY KOOK WILL ALWAYS CHOOSE THE FORMER)
David Von Pein
>>> "Fascinating interview {linked above}...particularly for anyone who actually knows the facts. It's fun to count how many times Bugliosi simply lies." <<<
Which, of course, is zero.
Vince does get a few things wrong in most of his radio interviews. But
he's not "lying" (i.e., he's not exhibiting a willful "intent to
deceive"), and you can't prove he is.
I fear VB's memory is not as good as it once was...in fact, he tells
us that fact point-blank right straight out during his interviews when
he insists on taking only one question at a time....because by the
time he gets around to answering the second question--he's totally
forgotten it.
The same thing, I think, applies to certain small, relatively-
unimportant matters regarding his book and the JFK case
overall.....like the "Oz never went to Irving on a weekday other than
Nov. 21" topic. Or another time in the book where Vince suggests that
JFK's limo was decked out with "heavy armor".
Or another location in the book when he says that Dr. Gregory never
provided additional details regarding the precise number of fragments
that Gregory removed from Governor Connally's wrist (Vince apparently
forgot to read an entire day's worth of Gregory's WC testimony).
And that particular "error" (or "oversight" would be a better word)
involving Dr. Gregory, which is certainly not a "lie" by any means,
definitely is to the distinct DETRIMENT of VB's overall "LN" position
re. the case. Because, when this error is CORRECTED, the corrected
version of Gregory's testimony tends to bolster (even more) the
general "Lone Assassin" conclusion reached by the WC and by Vincent
Bugliosi as well.
Vince also has made the "mistake" (not a deliberate "lie", as Holmes
probably wants to believe) of saying that "Reclaiming History" is the
"only book out there" that contains photos of both Zapruder Film
frames 312 and 313. That is obviously wrong, and is merely a
misconception Vince (for whatever reason) has with respect to those
two Z-Film frames and the vast number of books connected with the JFK
case (many of which do, indeed, contain Z312 and Z313 in them,
including some books that I know for a fact have been read by Vince
himself -- Mark Fuhrman's 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder" to name
just one example).
But that's called an honest "mistake" or "goof". It's not a "lie". But
I doubt that a mega-kook named Ben agrees with me. Do you, Benji?
Getting back for a moment to the small error Vince made about Oswald's
"weekday" vs. "weekend" visits to Irving in October and November of
1963 --- As far as I am able to determine (via the records and witness
statements of Wes Frazier, Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald), the only
time Lee Oswald went to Irving to see his wife on a weekday (vs. a
Friday or Saturday) was on Monday, October 21, 1963, which was a
special occasion for Lee because Marina had just given birth to LHO's
second child the previous night (October 20th). Lee then travelled
back to Dallas with Buell Wesley Frazier on Tuesday morning, October
22nd.
There was one instance (on Veterans Day, Monday, 11/11/63) which had
LHO staying at the Paine house one extra day, because of the National
holiday on Monday, November 11th. But he didn't travel TO the Paine
home on a weekday in that instance....he merely extended his weekend
visit by one extra day.
Small errors made by VB, like the ones brought up by Ben "I Love
Chaff" Holmes, are completely meaningless in the grand scheme of
things. But those types of tiny, innocent errors that appear in
Bugliosi's book, or that might come out of VB's mouth during an
interview, are just the kind of honest mistakes (as opposed to "lies")
that tend to make a CTer like Benjamin Holmes salivate, with the
conspiracy kook then proceeding to shout "victory" by being able to
claim that Vince Bugliosi "lied" about something that is completely
insignificant in the long run.
But Vince B. never ONCE told a "lie" in "Reclaiming History" -- based
on the following (and most common) definition of that word:
LIE [noun] -- 1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the
speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
Vince has a few "errors" in his book, yes. I don't deny that for a
moment. Any book of that size (almost 2,800 total pages) is bound to
have its share of "errors". But does Bugliosi tell any "lies" (via the
above-mentioned definition)? No way.
I've openly talked about a number of mistakes that reside in VB's
book:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4e4aabdc48feb464
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4bc2f7ff046d4c49
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2356cba7309fcec3
And just the other day I found another small error in "RH" (of a
spelling nature only) -- VB spells "Jaggars" (of Jaggars-Chiles-
Stovall) incorrectly in many places in the book and on the CD-ROM
disc. He spells it "Jaggers", a common and excusable error, of course,
that I'm guessing hardly anyone has noticed (I didn't even notice it
until April 2008). But, interestingly, Vince also spells it right
(once) on the CD.
Kook Holmes probably wants to string Vince up by the strongest tree
limb because of these "Jaggars/Jaggers" errors too.....right Ben?
(Prob'ly so.)
But all of these mistakes/errors in Vincent's book are very minor in
nature and certainly do not undercut, in any way whatsoever,
Bugliosi's bottom-line conclusion of LHO acting alone in the murders
of JFK and J.D. Tippit.
Ben and other CT-Kooks no doubt vehemently disagree with my paragraph
above. Well, so be it. But, as we all know, a Conspiracy Super Kook
like Benjamin is going to continue to believe whatever the hell he
wants to believe when it comes to the death of John Kennedy, despite
the vastness of the forest in front of him that says he's dead-wrong.
>>> "If VB had any balls, [he'd] try his hand here -- where there are people who know the evidence as well as he claims to know it." <<<
<smirk>
I doubt Vince has the patience, or the stomach, or (if he's anything
like me) a strong-enough bladder to listen (for more than three-and-a-
half minutes) to the unsupportable, piecemeal ramblings of a bunch of
conspiracy-desiring nutjobs at an Internet forum.
But I can always ask him (through his secretary, who has been
extremely nice to me). :)
And if Ben is lucky, maybe he too can get Vince angry enough to
threaten Benji with a lawsuit, based on the stupid shit Ben continues
to spout about VB over the Internet airwaves. (A la: Ric Landers, Joan
Mellen, and David S. Lifton.)
That'd be kinda fitting (and sweet), wouldn't it now?
<chuckle>
>>> "But LNT'ers can't survive without lying about the evidence." <<<
Kook Holmes is preaching about LNers "lying about the evidence". Can
it GET any better (and hilarious) on the Pot/Kettle scale than that? I
kinda doubt it.
>>> "Everything *does* point to a frontal shot." <<<
Oh, you mean like the X-ray linked below (which is a picture that was
deemed "unaltered in any manner" by the HSCA)?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
REPLAY:
>>> "Everything *does* point to a frontal shot." <<<
What was it I was just saying above about "pots" and "kettles" (and
"lies"). Now is a good time to emphasize those three words again, it
would seem.
>>> "Exculpatory evidence just fries Bugliosi." <<<
But the 53 things that lead inexorably to Lee Harvey Oswald's GUILT
are supposed to be totally ignored....right Ben-Kook?
Tell me, Ben, do you agree or disagree with Vince Bugliosi (who is a
lawyer who has had a great amount of experience dealing with ACTUAL
criminal cases in ACTUAL courtrooms) when he says this:
"As a prosecutor, I found out something...if you are innocent of
a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward
your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But every once in a
while there might be one or two things that point toward your guilt,
even though you're innocent. And in very rare situations, there might
even be THREE things that point toward your guilt even though you're
completely innocent." -- VB
Does anyone here disagree with the above common-sense statement put
forth by Mr. Bugliosi?
If you DO disagree with the VB words I just typed above....you're
totally nuts.
Now, with that obvious observation out of the way, we can move on the
specifics of the JFK murder case......
"In 'Reclaiming History', I set forth 53 separate pieces of
evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt. And under those
circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be
innocent. Because you cannot have fifty-three separate pieces of
evidence pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent....at least
not in the real world in which we live. Only in a fantasy world can
you have fifty-three pieces of evidence pointing to your guilt and
still be innocent." -- VB
Good luck, Ben, with your "exculpatory" evidence that is somehow going
to overcome the carload of "Oswald's Guilty" evidence that undeniably
exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.
I think author and former LAPD cop Mark Fuhrman said it very nicely,
too, in his JFK assassination book when he said this:
"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated
proof against him {Lee Harvey Oswald}." -- Mark Fuhrman; Page 89 of "A
Simple Act Of Murder" (c.2006)
REPRISE:
>>> "It's fun to count how many times Bugliosi simply lies." <<<
There isn't a person alive who can prove that Vincent Bugliosi told a
deliberate "LIE" (with the "INTENT TO DECEIVE" attached) within his
2007 book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy".
Mr. Bugliosi, over the course of a two-decade period, wrote what is
now (by far) the most comprehensive book on the assassination of JFK.
He analyzes the evidence (the REAL evidence, that is) and uses a great
deal of ordinary common sense--which IS allowed to be used when
writing a JFK book--and comes to the only possible rational,
reasonable, BASED-ON-THE-EVIDENCE conclusion that a truly-reasonable
person can reach at the end of those 2,700-plus pages -- i.e., that
Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty (alone) of the two murders he was accused
of committing in 1963.
And the Internet ramblings of a mega-kook like Ben Holmes certainly
are of no major (or minor) consequence whatsoever when placed up
against the huge number of things (which number in the DOZENS) that
indicate the fact that Lee Oswald was performing a solo act in Dallas
on November 22nd.
"For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren
Commission critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986
The above words spoken by VB couldn't be more accurate, in my view. If
truer words have ever been uttered in reference to anti-WC conspiracy-
happy theorists, I've yet to hear them.
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=8asjq3j40c&v=1
aeffects
David Von Pein
Yeah...I agree. Gil is dumb.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9003ebc64f027518/000139a4f5904780?#000139a4f5904780
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4e4aabdc48feb464
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4bc2f7ff046d4c49
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2356cba7309fcec3
<smirk>
<chuckle>
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
REPLAY:
Now, with that obvious observation out of the way, we can move on to
aeffects
aeffects
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Say, that's FUNNY!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
ps Interesting how Healy couldn't cobble together such a short
response without an error in it... TB
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9003ebc6...
Yer a fraud Pea Brain........ Simply a bare faced liar with no
conscience. Da bug's whole book is based on a lie, but you ignore
that, and attempt to divert attention away from that fact by pointing
out a few "minor errors". If Any CT so much as spells a word
incorrectly you rant and rave like we're imbeciles who are nothing but
"kooks" and liars.
Fortunately, most folks have enough commonsense to see right through
your smoke screen, and since they can see through your subtrafuge they
can see you for the lying cottonmouth snake that you are.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
> Mr. Bugliosi, over the course of a two-decade period, wrote ...
>
> read more »
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 6 Apr, 22:32, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9003ebc6...
>>
>> www.box.net/shared/9qcb7x9cg0
>>
>tually knows the facts. It's fun to count how many times Bugliosi simply lie=
>s." <<<
>>
>> Which, of course, is zero.
>>
>> Vince does get a few things wrong in most of his radio interviews. But
>> he's not "lying" (i.e., he's not exhibiting a willful "intent to
>> deceive"), and you can't prove he is.
He spent "20 years" researching the case and still thinks that only Oswald left
the TSBD???
You have to be dishonest to believe that.
>> I fear VB's memory is not as good as it once was...in fact, he tells
>> us that fact point-blank right straight out during his interviews when
>> he insists on taking only one question at a time....because by the
>> time he gets around to answering the second question--he's totally
>> forgotten it.
>>
>> The same thing, I think, applies to certain small, relatively-
>> unimportant matters regarding his book and the JFK case
>> overall.....like the "Oz never went to Irving on a weekday other than
>> Nov. 21" topic.
It's not "relatively unimportant" if he needs to lie about it, is it?
>> Or another time in the book where Vince suggests that
>> JFK's limo was decked out with "heavy armor".
>>
>> Or another location in the book when he says that Dr. Gregory never
>> provided additional details regarding the precise number of fragments
>> that Gregory removed from Governor Connally's wrist (Vince apparently
>> forgot to read an entire day's worth of Gregory's WC testimony).
>>
>> And that particular "error" (or "oversight" would be a better word)
>> involving Dr. Gregory, which is certainly not a "lie" by any means,
>> definitely is to the distinct DETRIMENT of VB's overall "LN" position
>> re. the case. Because, when this error is CORRECTED, the corrected
>> version of Gregory's testimony tends to bolster (even more) the
>> general "Lone Assassin" conclusion reached by the WC and by Vincent
>> Bugliosi as well.
>>
>> Vince also has made the "mistake" (not a deliberate "lie", as Holmes
>> probably wants to believe) of saying that "Reclaiming History" is the
>> "only book out there" that contains photos of both Zapruder Film
>> frames 312 and 313.
And yet, strangely enough, I never once addressed this.
Trolls need to lie to make their points... how sad!
>> That is obviously wrong, and is merely a
>> misconception Vince (for whatever reason) has with respect to those
>> two Z-Film frames and the vast number of books connected with the JFK
>> case (many of which do, indeed, contain Z312 and Z313 in them,
>> including some books that I know for a fact have been read by Vince
>> himself -- Mark Fuhrman's 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder" to name
>> just one example).
>>
>> But that's called an honest "mistake" or "goof". It's not a "lie".
Nor did I label it such.
I only labeled actual lies as lies.
Bugliosi is a liar, just like this troll...
>> But
>> I doubt that a mega-kook named Ben agrees with me. Do you, Benji?
Strangely, for being a "mega-kook", I was able to pinpoint absolute lies on the
part of Bugliosi.
>> Getting back for a moment to the small error
"small error?" Why not call it for what it was? An outright lie?
>> Vince made about Oswald's
>> "weekday" vs. "weekend" visits to Irving in October and November of
>> 1963 --- As far as I am able to determine (via the records and witness
>> statements of Wes Frazier, Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald), the only
>> time Lee Oswald went to Irving to see his wife on a weekday (vs. a
>> Friday or Saturday) was on Monday, October 21, 1963,
That's because *YOU'RE* a liar too. I've documented a Thursday, for example...
and you couldn't have forgotten about it.
>> which was a
>> special occasion for Lee because Marina had just given birth to LHO's
>> second child the previous night (October 20th). Lee then travelled
>> back to Dallas with Buell Wesley Frazier on Tuesday morning, October
>> 22nd.
>>
>> There was one instance (on Veterans Day, Monday, 11/11/63) which had
>> LHO staying at the Paine house one extra day, because of the National
>> holiday on Monday, November 11th. But he didn't travel TO the Paine
>> home on a weekday in that instance....he merely extended his weekend
>> visit by one extra day.
>>
>> Small errors made by VB,
Not "small" at all for someone who is alleged to have studied the case for "20
years"...
>> like the ones brought up by Ben "I Love
>> Chaff" Holmes, are completely meaningless in the grand scheme of
>> things. But those types of tiny, innocent errors that appear in
>> Bugliosi's book, or that might come out of VB's mouth during an
>> interview, are just the kind of honest mistakes (as opposed to "lies")
>> that tend to make a CTer like Benjamin Holmes salivate, with the
>> conspiracy kook then proceeding to shout "victory" by being able to
>> claim that Vince Bugliosi "lied" about something that is completely
>> insignificant in the long run.
Sadly, there's no known example of a pro-WCR book that doesn't employ lies about
the evidence to further their goals.
>> But Vince B. never ONCE told a "lie" in "Reclaiming History" -- based
>> on the following (and most common) definition of that word:
Of course he did. Many examples have been provided...
Strawmen to the left... strawmen to the right...
>> But all of these mistakes/errors in Vincent's book are very minor in
>> nature and certainly do not undercut, in any way whatsoever,
>> Bugliosi's bottom-line conclusion of LHO acting alone in the murders
>> of JFK and J.D. Tippit.
>>
>> Ben and other CT-Kooks no doubt vehemently disagree with my paragraph
>> above. Well, so be it. But, as we all know, a Conspiracy Super Kook
>> like Benjamin is going to continue to believe whatever the hell he
>> wants to believe when it comes to the death of John Kennedy, despite
>> the vastness of the forest in front of him that says he's dead-wrong.
>>
>> >>> "If VB had any balls, [he'd] try his hand here -- where there are peop=
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "As a prosecutor, I found out something...if you are innocent =
>of
>> a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward
>> your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But every once in a
>> while there might be one or two things that point toward your guilt,
>> even though you're innocent. And in very rare situations, there might
>> even be THREE things that point toward your guilt even though you're
>> completely innocent." -- VB
>>
>> Does anyone here disagree with the above common-sense statement put
>> forth by Mr. Bugliosi?
>>
>> If you DO disagree with the VB words I just typed above....you're
>> totally nuts.
>>
>> Now, with that obvious observation out of the way, we can move on the
>> specifics of the JFK murder case......
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "In 'Reclaiming History', I set forth 53 separate pieces of
>> evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt. And under those
>> circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be
>> innocent. Because you cannot have fifty-three separate pieces of
>> evidence pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent....at least
>> not in the real world in which we live. Only in a fantasy world can
>> you have fifty-three pieces of evidence pointing to your guilt and
>> still be innocent." -- VB
>>
>> Good luck, Ben, with your "exculpatory" evidence that is somehow going
>> to overcome the carload of "Oswald's Guilty" evidence that undeniably
>> exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.
>>
>> I think author and former LAPD cop Mark Fuhrman said it very nicely,
>> too, in his JFK assassination book when he said this:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulat=
>ed
>> proof against him {Lee Harvey Oswald}." -- Mark Fuhrman; Page 89 of "A
>> Simple Act Of Murder" (c.2006)
>>
>> REPRISE:
>>
>> >>> "It's fun to count how many times Bugliosi simply lies." <<<
>>
>> There isn't a person alive who can prove that Vincent Bugliosi told a
>> deliberate "LIE" (with the "INTENT TO DECEIVE" attached) within his
>> 2007 book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
>> Kennedy".
>>
>> Mr. Bugliosi, over the course of a two-decade period, wrote ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> LOL! Say, that's FUNNY!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> ps Interesting how Healy couldn't cobble together such a short
> response without an error in it... TB
well id it isn't one of the boobsey twins from down-undah... the troll
is here to see me off... pardon me if I declare: "you got your fucking
Lone Nut asses kicked this weekend, asshole.... ROTFLMFAO"
Maestro! Music up 20db, my car and to the airport, please.... See you
Lone Nutter's and trolls next weekend.... as they say in Sydney and
Melbourne, **ta** LMFAO!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Amen!!! He's being admitted back to detox for a week....we'll await
your incoherent bullshit when you return Healy, thats if they left you
out for the weekend after seeing your drug induced display this past
weekend.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!! Ta Ta Toots!
Gil Jesus
> Yeah...I agree. Gil is dumb.
Gee, guy, don't you EVER get tired of apologizing for your side ?
WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA
Warrenati apologist
Posner apologist
now Bugliosi apologist
20 years in the making including the "errors". Wasn't this book
supposed to be factual ?
It's either the TRUTH or it's not. Quit crying already.
YoHarvey
The mere fact that every CT kook on earth, 10 months after publication
are still attacking VB and his "book for the ages"
is evidence of its impact on the research community in general. Every
CT book on the shelves today is business as usual; has been for 44
years. Hanks miniseries will be the final nails in the coffin.
Speaking of coffins, has Rossley gotten up yet today? :-)
tomnln
> On Apr 6, 11:55�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah...I agree. Gil is dumb.
>
> Gee, guy, don't you EVER get tired of apologizing for your side ?
>
> WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA
>
> Warrenati apologist
> Posner apologist
> now Bugliosi apologist
>
> 20 years in the making including the "errors". Wasn't this book
> supposed to be factual ?
>
> It's either the TRUTH or it's not. Quit crying already.
The mere fact that every CT kook on earth, 10 months after publication
are still attacking VB and his "book for the ages"
is evidence of its impact on the research community in general. Every
CT book on the shelves today is business as usual; has been for 44
years. Hanks miniseries will be the final nails in the coffin.
Speaking of coffins, has Rossley gotten up yet today? :-)
YoHarvey
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:18a2d78b-91a1-40ac...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Apr 7, 3:49 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 11:55�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah...I agree. Gil is dumb.
>
> > Gee, guy, don't you EVER get tired of apologizing for your side ?
>
> > WAAAA WAAAA WAAAA
>
> > Warrenati apologist
> > Posner apologist
> > now Bugliosi apologist
>
> > 20 years in the making including the "errors". Wasn't this book
> > supposed to be factual ?
>
> > It's either the TRUTH or it's not. Quit crying already.
>
> Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
>
> The mere fact that every CT kook on earth, 10 months after publication
> are still attacking VB and his "book for the ages"
> is evidence of its impact on the research community in general. Every
> CT book on the shelves today is business as usual; has been for 44
> years. Hanks miniseries will be the final nails in the coffin.
> Speaking of coffins, has Rossley gotten up yet today? :-)
>
> I write;
>
> NOT YET! ! !
>
> I'm still gettin my pipes cleaned from your "Plumber" wife.
>
> At $0.35 a whack, it's hard to pass up.
>
> Especially when I got PASSED the Used Part.
>
> FOLKS'
> Notice Yo(Momma)Harvey STILL RUNS from his own evidence/testimony>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> - Show quoted text -
I run from NO evidence. I simply ignore the ignorant. Questions
Rossley?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d840f5cabcd82d23
And just think...I've been "killfiled" by the kook named
Benjamin....and yet I get a lengthy reply from the kook anyway.
~shrug~
>>> "I've documented a Thursday [when LHO visited his wife in Irving]." <<<
Lee Oswald only visited Irving on ONE single Thursday after returning
from Mexico City in early October 1963, and that Thursday was
11/21/63.
No other "Thursday" visit has been "documented" (i.e., "proved") by
Ben-Kook or by anybody else....mainly because no such additional
Thursday visit ever took place. Period. Ruth Paine's ultra-detailed
testimony proves this to be true.
Still waiting for Ben The Kook to prove that Vincent T. Bugliosi
"lied" under the following definition of that word (which, naturally,
is the definition of the word that Ben is referring to, and is also
the only definition of the word that really matters here):
tomnln
Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
I run from NO evidence. I simply ignore the ignorant. Questions
Rossley?
tims...@gmail.com
Leaving so soon, Toots?
Ms Yellow Legs never got her dance!
Still, I expect she'll be waiting here faithfully for you next
weekend, when you get back from Fresno, Toots-E-Roll! :-)
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > Yeah...I agree. Gil is dumb.- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> Yeah...I agree. Gil is dumb.
Maybe someday, when I've been thrown out of as many forums as you have
been,
I'll be as smart as you are.
Walt
Gil..... Von Pea Brain only "thinks" he's smart. If all of the
LNer's were to give him just 10% of their brains he'd still only have
an IQ comparable to his age.