Bugliosi Lied, Francois Carlier And Other LNT'ers Cover Up and Run Away
Ben Holmes
tome... so many examples of outright lies about the evidence that Bugliosi will
*NEVER* stand up and defend"
The point, of course, is that in writing a book, one doesn't have to face any
rebuttals. Francois Carlier was attempting to offer written articles, a website,
and a book in place of defending the evidence where others can instantly point
out omissions and lies.
Such as in a news forum such as this, where *YOU DO HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS*
Rather than understanding the point being made, Carlier decided to take offence,
since he can't actually defend the truth.
So Francois Carlier replied: "Now, that's the last straw. When someone is
capable of writing such a stupid, wrong, erroneous thing, it is not only a big
lie, it is an insult."
So the truth is now an "insult?" Bugliosi PROVABLY DID LIE, and there's
certainly no chance of him appearing in any forum to defend his lies...
I provided just *one* example of an outright lie on Bugliosi's part below, and
my prediction is that *NO-ONE* will offer any credible explanation for
Bugliosi's obvious lie.
My response to Carlier's assertion of an "insult" follows:
Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
this anywhere?
What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or you
can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
Which will it be?
P.S. *STILL* no quote of Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
> Francois Carlier was upset that I wrote: "Take, as one example, Bugliosi's
> tome... so many examples of outright lies about the evidence that Bugliosi will
> *NEVER* stand up and defend"
And Ben will never be able to contest Bugliosi`s conclusions that
Oswald alone killed Kennedy.
> The point, of course, is that in writing a book, one doesn't have to face any
> rebuttals. Francois Carlier was attempting to offer written articles, a website,
> and a book in place of defending the evidence where others can instantly point
> out omissions and lies.
Like you did when you offered dw article to show that Oswald had an
alibi. Yet you cannot defend the ideas behind the article.
> Such as in a news forum such as this, where *YOU DO HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS*
<snicker> ironic coming from a pussy who hides from other posters so
he DOES NOT HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS.
> Rather than understanding the point being made, Carlier decided to take offence,
> since he can't actually defend the truth.
>
> So Francois Carlier replied: "Now, that's the last straw. When someone is
> capable of writing such a stupid, wrong, erroneous thing, it is not only a big
> lie, it is an insult."
>
> So the truth is now an "insult?" Bugliosi PROVABLY DID LIE, and there's
> certainly no chance of him appearing in any forum to defend his lies...
>
> I provided just *one* example of an outright lie on Bugliosi's part below, and
> my prediction is that *NO-ONE* will offer any credible explanation for
> Bugliosi's obvious lie.
>
> My response to Carlier's assertion of an "insult" follows:
>
> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
As shown numerous times, the answer to both of these questions is
"yes". Yet Ben chooses to continue to lie about this.
aeffects
my goodness dudster... here I thought you might, just might grow some
nads -- the lone nut trolls have been challenged yet again, they
RUN.... and psssst! Francosi da french-weenie has removed himself from
the discussion, he simply has no clue concerning the evidence, simply
another lone nut troll **APER**
Carry on Dudster... the more you post the more you look the .john,
screw the evidence troll....
Bud
I suppose Ben instructed you to reply to this so he could "see" it,
eh? Sucks to be a side kick, doesn`t it? Anyway, while you await your
next orders you can check out this painful to look at attempt at
humor. See if you can guess the nimrod that created this embarrassment
(instructions in three languages no less!)...
http://www.bestjudo.com/sites/default/files/redneck/index.html
timstter
What a COWARDLY post this is, particularly as Carlier signed off from
this group qute some time ago.
As has been explained MANY TIMES before, Carrico described the wound
in the trachea as ragged and the trachea is a part of the throat,
hence the throat wound is ragged in nature.
It's easy to miss stuff skulking behind your killfilter, Benny.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
David Von Pein
Here's my take on this "ragged" thing that Ben Holmes just will not
let go of:
At one point when discussing the issue of the throat wound in his book
"Reclaiming History", Vincent Bugliosi is definitely incorrect when he
used the word "ragged" while describing what Dr. Charles J. Carrico's
opinion was of the OUTER (SKIN) WOUND in President Kennedy's throat.
That error occurs on Page 413, when Vince says this:
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat
wound was an entrance or
exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
sure sign of an exit
wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and
devoid of ragged edges."
But Bugliosi is not incorrect on Page 60 of his book when he uses the
word "ragged" in conjunction with Carrico's statements. Because on
Page 60, Bugliosi is talking only about the trachea damage, and not
about the wound on the outer skin of JFK.
BTW, Dr. Malcolm Perry also used the word "ragged" when describing the
trachea wound. Perry said this in his Warren Commission testimony:
"I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the
anterior lateral right side."
But, just like Carrico did, Perry described the outer skin wound in
the President's throat in a different manner:
DR. PERRY -- "This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the
neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter. It was exuding blood slowly
which partially obscured it. Its edges were neither ragged nor were
they punched out, but rather clean."
But we must also realize that Dr. Perry also said this:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone,
could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."
Interestingly, I found another page in Bugliosi's book where Vince is
putting the word "ragged" in a doctor's mouth where I do not think it
belongs. It's on Page 207, when Vince says this about the conversation
that Dr. Humes had with Dr. Perry on Saturday morning, November 23rd:
"The light flashes on for Humes when Dr. Perry tells him that he
performed his surgery on an existing wound there, a small, round
perforation with ragged edges."
There are two possible references given for the above quote from Page
207 in "Reclaiming History". One of them is ARRB MD58, p.9, and the
other is Page 257 of HSCA Volume 7. Neither source, however, has the
word "ragged" in them anywhere.
My opinion is that Vince has somehow confused himself into thinking
that the "ragged" quotes that definitely did come from both Dr.
Carrico and Dr. Perry are quotes that he feels confident enough to
utilize in his book to explain the way the wound in JFK's throat (on
the whole) looked to each of those doctors (Carrico and Perry).
When, in fact, Vince is incorrect when he tries to merge the two
wounds. Because he surely also knows (or he should know by reading the
testimony of both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry) that those doctors were
referring to two DIFFERENT wounds in the President's throat when they
testified and when the Parkland Hospital report was written.
I must say, though, that I was also confused about the "ragged"
remarks when I went to the official records to check up on this matter
the other day. In fact, I had a nice long message ready to post at
this forum (complete with citations and WC page numbers, etc.) that I
was going to use to try and counter Ben Holmes' assertion that Vince
Bugliosi had "lied" about Carrico's description of Kennedy's throat
wound.
But I then looked at more passages of testimony, and I realized that
Carrico was talking about TWO separate wounds in the President's
throat/neck. The wound that he definitely did describe as "ragged" was
the wound of the trachea itself (under the skin, of course, of JFK).
But the wound that would have been visible to the naked eye on the
outer skin of Kennedy was described by Carrico as having "no jagged
edges or stellate lacerations".
Ben Holmes, however, was not entirely clear in a thread-starting post
that he made recently, in which he asserted that Mr. Bugliosi was a
liar and that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word "ragged" to
describe a wound in JFK's throat. And that declaration, as stated by
Holmes, just simply is not true.
Holmes should have been more precise about WHICH wound he was
referring to--the wound in the skin of JFK, or the wound in the
underlying trachea.
In the final analysis of this "ragged" matter -- Vince Bugliosi is
definitely wrong in at least two places in his book regarding the
purported testimony of the Parkland doctors concerning the nature of
JFK's outer-skin throat/neck wound.
But I also truly believe that these errors are not intentional "lies".
Given the fact that there was, indeed, a wound associated with
President Kennedy's neck/throat injury that was described by more than
one doctor as being "ragged" in nature, Bugliosi's utilization of the
word "ragged" could very well be--I'm sorry to say--a bit of a "senior
moment" on the part of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi.
Why do I say that?
Well, if anyone has ever listened to any of Mr. Bugliosi's several
radio interviews that he did when he was on his book tour for
"Reclaiming History" in 2007, then my above "senior moment" comment
just might make a little more sense and have a bit more credence.
Because on many occasions, Vince just loses track of his line of
thought and simply cannot remember a question that was asked a minute
earlier. (I will say, too, that even I, at age 49, have had many
similar "senior" moments myself. My memory sucks lately, and it
bothers me a lot sometimes. It drives me crazy when I can't for the
life of me remember the name of a particular witness in the JFK case,
or what a witness said, etc.)
Now, I'm not excusing any "ragged" errors that Vince Bugliosi has made
in his JFK book, I'm merely attempting to provide a POSSIBLE
explanation for why those errors appear on Pages 207 and 413 of
"Reclaiming History".
And I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an
outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to
print something in a book he is writing that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT
LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr.
Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from
that sort of devious cloth.
If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment,
so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said.
Also:
I can point to multiple additional errors in Vincent's JFK book that
could (conceivably) be the result of simply a failing memory, or
(quite possibly) a result of the way in which I know Vince wrote
"Reclaiming History", which is a book that was written over the course
of 20 years and was written so that large chunks of "yellow page
inserts" (as Vince calls them) had to be included into almost every
chapter of the book after a period of time had elapsed since the
chapter was initially written.
That type of "inserting" of additional material could very well be the
reason we find a few inconsistencies and incongruities within the huge
tome known as "Reclaiming History".
Yes, such errors should have been caught in the proofreading process
before the book went to print. But, people being what they are (human,
and not robots or machines), mistakes can occur. And Mr. Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" is no exception.
David Von Pein
July 14, 2011
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Vincent-Bugliosi
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 14, 8:29=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 10:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Francois Carlier was upset that I wrote: "Take, as one example, Bugliosi's
>> > tome... so many examples of outright lies about the evidence that
>> > Bugliosi will *NEVER* stand up and defend"
>>
>> And Ben will never be able to contest Bugliosi`s conclusions that
>> Oswald alone killed Kennedy.
Of course I can.
What the troll can't explain is why lies are needed to support the "truth"...
>> > The point, of course, is that in writing a book, one doesn't have to
>> > face any rebuttals. Francois Carlier was attempting to offer written
>> > articles, a website, and a book in place of defending the evidence where
>> > others can instantly point out omissions and lies.
>>
>> Like you did when you offered dw article to show that Oswald had an
>> alibi. Yet you cannot defend the ideas behind the article.
Why should I, moron?
Donald Willis does better than I on the same topic... He understands the
specific evidence in more detail than I.
What everyone should note is that you've lied about that evidence, and haven't
been able to refute A SINGLE THING than Donald Willis stated.
>> > Such as in a news forum such as this, where *YOU DO HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS*
>>
>> <snicker> ironic coming from a pussy who hides from other posters so
>> he DOES NOT HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS.
Anytime a troll can come up with a rebuttal, someone will surely remark on it,
and I'll see it.
What I avoid is the meaningless drivel that most trolls live their lives by.
You're simply whining because you seem to think that you have a right to my
opinion on your thoughts...
You don't.
>> > Rather than understanding the point being made, Carlier decided to
>> > take offence, since he can't actually defend the truth.
>>
>> > So Francois Carlier replied: "Now, that's the last straw. When someone
>> > is capable of writing such a stupid, wrong, erroneous thing, it is not
>> > only a big lie, it is an insult."
>>
>> > So the truth is now an "insult?" Bugliosi PROVABLY DID LIE, and there's
>> > certainly no chance of him appearing in any forum to defend his lies...
>>
>> > I provided just *one* example of an outright lie on Bugliosi's part
>> > below, and my prediction is that *NO-ONE* will offer any credible
>> > explanation for Bugliosi's obvious lie.
>>
>> > My response to Carlier's assertion of an "insult" follows:
>>
>> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>> > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound
>> > was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
>> > "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an
>> > entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges."
>> > (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>> > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
>> > actually *say* this anywhere?
>>
>> As shown numerous times, the answer to both of these questions is
>> "yes". Yet Ben chooses to continue to lie about this.
You're lying Bud. And what's worse, you *KNOW* you're lying.
You see, this is why you aren't worth my time.
>> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
>> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
>> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > Which will it be?
>>
>> > P.S. *STILL* no quote of Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said...
>
>my goodness dudster... here I thought you might, just might grow some
>nads -- the lone nut trolls have been challenged yet again, they
>RUN.... and psssst! Francosi da french-weenie has removed himself from
>the discussion, he simply has no clue concerning the evidence, simply
>another lone nut troll **APER**
>
>Carry on Dudster... the more you post the more you look the .john,
>screw the evidence troll....
Bud simply has no shame... he's willing to lie at the drop of a hat, just for
the fun of it.
It's interesting to note that despite my quote and citation of Bugliosi, NO-ONE
HAS PROVIDED CARRICO'S STATEMENT THAT SUPPORTS WHAT BUGLIOSI CLAIMED.
David Von Pein
AN AMUSING "SENIOR MOMENT" ADDENDUM:
As an illustration of a possible "senior moment" involving author and
lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, I can point to something that Bugliosi said
during a radio interview in 2007. And this one is a real doozy, too,
but it's obviously not an illustration of a "lie" or of Bugliosi's
ignorance of the subject matter; it's more of a temporary "brain
cramp", for lack of a better term:
On November 21, 2007, on a program called "Culture Shocks", radio host
Barry Lynn asked Vince a question about New Orleans District Attorney
Jim Garrison. The question was: "How did Garrison get into this?"
And Vince Bugliosi's answer, incredibly, was this:
Vince said that Jim Garrison, like millions of other Americans, had
seen the Zapruder Film being shown on Geraldo Rivera's ABC-TV late-
night talk show, "Good Night America", in 1975, and after seeing the
violent rearward movement of President Kennedy's head in the Zapruder
home movie, Garrison then went off "half-cocked" about conspiracy in
the JFK case, with Garrison ultimately prosecuting an innocent man
(Clay Shaw) on the charge of conspiracy to murder the President of the
United States.
Now, quite obviously, if Vince had thought about his answer for a few
more seconds before responding to the interviewer's question, Vince
would have realized that his answer was totally crazy -- because the
Clay Shaw trial had taken place more than six years before the
Zapruder Film was broadcast on Geraldo Rivera's 1975 TV show. The Shaw
trial ended in early 1969.
The 11/21/2007 radio program that I've been talking about can be heard
below:
http://www.box.net/shared/4ri15pocv1i4qvr40k94
That was an embarrassing moment for Vincent Bugliosi. But, however, it
probably wasn't too embarrassing for Vince, because his answer about
Garrison first getting involved in the JFK case in 1975 sailed right
over the head of the interviewer, Barry Lynn. I have no idea how many
listeners picked up on Vincent's obvious gaffe about Garrison, but
it's something I noticed right after he said it.
But, again, that tends to illustrate how even a person who knows a
topic's details inside and out can sometimes say something that's very
bizarre and inaccurate concerning that particular topic. But it
certainly cannot be labelled a deliberate "lie" that was designed to
deceive anyone who was listening to Bugliosi. It was merely an
inexplicable brain cramp. Because there can be no doubt that Vince
Bugliosi knows that the Clay Shaw trial actually occurred six years
prior to America first being shown the Zapruder Film on television in
1975. We know that Vince knows the date of the Shaw trial, because he
has a long chapter on that trial and Oliver Stone's movie in his book,
including this passage on Page 1375:
"The all-male jury returned its verdict of not guilty at one in
the morning on March 1, 1969, two years to the day after Shaw had been
arrested in the case."
And I'm thinking that Vincent's use of the word "ragged" in a couple
of places in his JFK book could also be placed in the "brain cramp"
category as well.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
aeffects
why are lies needed to support the "truth" -- Mr. Von Pein -- we
already know Bugliosi is a crackpot!
Bud
> In article <7712fe48-5680-4745-8380-3333ba700...@p29g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Jul 14, 8:29=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 10:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Francois Carlier was upset that I wrote: "Take, as one example, Bugliosi's
> >> > tome... so many examples of outright lies about the evidence that
> >> > Bugliosi will *NEVER* stand up and defend"
>
> >> And Ben will never be able to contest Bugliosi`s conclusions that
> >> Oswald alone killed Kennedy.
>
> Of course I can.
No, you really can`t. You can only make meaningless claims.
> What the troll can't explain is why lies are needed to support the "truth"...
Like this.
> >> > The point, of course, is that in writing a book, one doesn't have to
> >> > face any rebuttals. Francois Carlier was attempting to offer written
> >> > articles, a website, and a book in place of defending the evidence where
> >> > others can instantly point out omissions and lies.
>
> >> Like you did when you offered dw article to show that Oswald had an
> >> alibi. Yet you cannot defend the ideas behind the article.
>
> Why should I, moron?
Because you offered in support of your ideas. Duh!
> Donald Willis does better than I on the same topic... He understands the
> specific evidence in more detail than I.
Why would you hold dw article up as an alibi if you didn`t
understand it?
> What everyone should note is that you've lied about that evidence, and haven't
> been able to refute A SINGLE THING than Donald Willis stated.
Mostly I`ve been pointing out that dw can`t support A SINGLE THING
he asserted.
> >> > Such as in a news forum such as this, where *YOU DO HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS*
>
> >> <snicker> ironic coming from a pussy who hides from other posters so
> >> he DOES NOT HAVE TO FACE REBUTTALS.
>
> Anytime a troll can come up with a rebuttal, someone will surely remark on it,
> and I'll see it.
What do you base your confidence on?
> What I avoid is the meaningless drivel that most trolls live their lives by.
What you avoid is having to going into that dance you do when called
on to support your ideas.
> You're simply whining because you seem to think that you have a right to my
> opinion on your thoughts...
I don`t hide from your ideas or opinions, coward. I know I can show
them to be meaningless. So do you.
> You don't.
Cowards hide. Thats what they do.
>
>
>
> >> > Rather than understanding the point being made, Carlier decided to
> >> > take offence, since he can't actually defend the truth.
>
> >> > So Francois Carlier replied: "Now, that's the last straw. When someone
> >> > is capable of writing such a stupid, wrong, erroneous thing, it is not
> >> > only a big lie, it is an insult."
>
> >> > So the truth is now an "insult?" Bugliosi PROVABLY DID LIE, and there's
> >> > certainly no chance of him appearing in any forum to defend his lies...
>
> >> > I provided just *one* example of an outright lie on Bugliosi's part
> >> > below, and my prediction is that *NO-ONE* will offer any credible
> >> > explanation for Bugliosi's obvious lie.
>
> >> > My response to Carlier's assertion of an "insult" follows:
>
> >> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> >> > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound
> >> > was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
> >> > "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an
> >> > entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges."
> >> > (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> >> > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
> >> > actually *say* this anywhere?
>
> >> As shown numerous times, the answer to both of these questions is
> >> "yes". Yet Ben chooses to continue to lie about this.
>
> You're lying Bud. And what's worse, you *KNOW* you're lying.
>
> You see, this is why you aren't worth my time.
Because I show you to be a liar. Carrico did indeed call the wound
to Kennedy`s trachea "ragged". Why do you continue to lie about this?
> >> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> >> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
> >> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> >> > Which will it be?
>
> >> > P.S. *STILL* no quote of Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said...
>
> >my goodness dudster... here I thought you might, just might grow some
> >nads -- the lone nut trolls have been challenged yet again, they
> >RUN.... and psssst! Francosi da french-weenie has removed himself from
> >the discussion, he simply has no clue concerning the evidence, simply
> >another lone nut troll **APER**
>
> >Carry on Dudster... the more you post the more you look the .john,
> >screw the evidence troll....
>
> Bud simply has no shame... he's willing to lie at the drop of a hat, just for
> the fun of it.
>
> It's interesting to note that despite my quote and citation of Bugliosi, NO-ONE
> HAS PROVIDED CARRICO'S STATEMENT THAT SUPPORTS WHAT BUGLIOSI CLAIMED.
But I did produce the quote that showed you to be a liar. Here it is
again...
"Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around
the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
tracheal injury."
So Carrico *did* call the throat wound "ragged" (at least the throat
wound that *I* am reffering to), and he did say it somewhere. If you
mean a *different* throat wound than the one I am referring to, I
suggest you specify.
Bud
First establish that Bugs lied.
David Von Pein
>>> "why are lies needed to support the "truth" -- Mr. Von Pein -- we already know Bugliosi is a crackpot!" <<<
I should have earned a few bonus brownie points from you, Mr.
Crackpipe, for informing your boss (B. Holmes) about Page 207 of "RH".
Right?
"The light flashes on for Humes when Dr. Perry tells him that he
performed his surgery on an existing wound there, a small, round
perforation with ragged edges." -- Pg. 207; "RH"
That "ragged" remark, which is totally inaccurate and totally
misrepresents what Dr. Perry said about the outer (skin) throat wound,
gives Holmes yet another reason to call Bugliosi a liar. I look
forward to that.
Gil Jesus
> But, again, that tends to illustrate how even a person who knows a
> topic's details inside and out can sometimes say something that's very
> bizarre and inaccurate concerning that particular topic.
It also tends to illustrate how someone who doesn't know his ass from
his elbow can say something off the top of his head without knowing
what he's talking about.
> Because there can be no doubt that Vince
> Bugliosi knows that the Clay Shaw trial actually occurred six years
> prior to America first being shown the Zapruder Film on television in
> 1975.
If he knew it, he wouldn't have said that.
> We know that Vince knows the date of the Shaw trial, because he
> has a long chapter on that trial and Oliver Stone's movie in his book,
> including this passage on Page 1375:
>
> "The all-male jury returned its verdict of not guilty at one in
> the morning on March 1, 1969, two years to the day after Shaw had been
> arrested in the case."
Maybe, then he should have read his own book, huh ?
> And I'm thinking that Vincent's use of the word "ragged" in a couple
> of places in his JFK book could also be placed in the "brain cramp"
> category as well.
That's YOUR opinion.
David Von Pein
>>> "If he knew it, he wouldn't have said that." <<<
So, Gil, are you suggesting that Bugliosi really DOESN'T have any clue
when the Clay Shaw trial occurred, even though we find the following
words on page 1375 of his JFK book? .....
"The all-male jury returned its verdict of not guilty at one in
the morning on March 1, 1969, two years to the day after Shaw had been
arrested in the case."
Let me guess -- Gil Jesus will now claim that some mystery
"ghostwriter" penned the above words that we find on page 1375 of RH.
Right, Gil?
Gil Jesus
>
> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
>
> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or you
> can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> Which will it be?
>
> P.S. *STILL* no quote of Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
It's difficult to accept that a book as large as this, 20 years in the
making, would contain so many "brain farts" as idiots like DVP would
like us to believe.
Didn't they have any fact checkers or proof readers ?
A SENIOR MOMENT ?
ROFLMAO
David Von Pein
>>> "A SENIOR MOMENT?" <<<
Yep. That's almost certainly what happened. And that's because Mr.
Bugliosi is not a liar. Nor would he ever be dumb enough to put
himself in the precarious position of printing a willful and
deliberate falsehood in his book, only to know that there are many,
many "people around the country working full-time on this case,
looking for some inconsistency, some discrepancy, some hint of a
conspiracy" (a direct Bugliosi quote).
By deliberately lying about ANYTHING in his JFK book (of all books,
what with all of those conspiracy retards just looking for something
to jump on), Vince would be shooting himself in both feet. Because he
knows that those conspiracy kooks of the world would be scouring every
word of his book for any and all irregularities. And they HAVE done
just that, too.
Do you actually think Vince B. would DELIBERATELY place himself in a
position where he'd have to worry, 24/7, about some industrious
conspiracist discovering his lies...thereby totally tarnishing any
reputation he previously had for telling the truth?
He'd have been totally nuts to do that. And, IMO, anyone is nuts to
even begin to THINK that Vincent Bugliosi would deliberately tell a
bunch of lies in his JFK book.
Another one of Vince's "errors" in RH is the pretty big mistake he
tells about the "seven or eight fragments" that were left inside
Governor Connally's body after the assassination. Vince leaves his
readers with the impression that those 7 or 8 fragments were METAL
(bullet) fragments, when it's quite obvious, via Dr. Gregory's WC
testimony, that those 7 or 8 fragments were BONE fragments, not bullet
pieces.
Therefore, Vince is leaving his readers with the impression that John
Connally went to his grave in 1993 with a minimum of EIGHT bullet
fragments in his body (counting the one fragment of lead left in his
left thigh), when in actuality, Connally very likely died with only a
paltry TWO metal fragments left in him (per Gregory's testimony).
So, as we can see, Vince's errors (or senior moments) go BOTH ways. In
the instances where Vince mangles Dr. Perry's and Dr. Carrico's
"ragged" remarks, the conspiracy theorists can, indeed, accuse Vince
of lying.
But in the "brain cramp" example I just provided about the Connally
fragments, no conspiracist on Earth is going to say that that
particular mistake is an outright lie. It's a mistake, yes. But it's
certainly not something Vince would want to lie about, because it
hurts Bugliosi's overall "lone assassin" position.
And you could even go so far as to say that that "fragment" error
hurts his pro-SBT arguments pretty badly too. Because, as it's written
in RH, people can now argue that there's no way in hell that CE399
could have ever been inside Governor Connally--not with SEVEN OR EIGHT
metal fragments still left in his right wrist! No way!
So, Vincent's "brain farts" work both FOR him and AGAINST him
throughout "Reclaiming History".
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Yep, it's one thing to make a stupid comment on a moments notice, it's a
completely different thing to spend 20 years on a written tome and produce a
well-crafted *LIE* about the evidence.
My guess is that DVP refuses to even *try* to quote Carrico saying what Bugliosi
claimed he'd said... and so recognizes the lie.
But he can't admit that it's a lie. Is it the best he can do to imply that it
was a "Senior moment?"
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Jul 14, 10:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
>ally a
>> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usua=
>lly
>> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>*say*
>> this anywhere?
>>
>> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
> or you
>> can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> Which will it be?
>>
>> P.S. *STILL* no quote of Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said...
>
>making, would contain so many "brain farts" as idiots like DVP would
>like us to believe.
DVP is a liar too.
He's willing to imply that Bugliosi's assertion was wrong, but unwilling to
label it for what it is, an outright lie.
It's either that, or Bugliosi simply isn't familiar with the evidence.
Or too stupid to understand what a "trachea" is.
>Didn't they have any fact checkers or proof readers ?
>
>A SENIOR MOMENT ?
>
>ROFLMAO
aeffects
> In article <041312b9-999c-458b-aa03-d08ac98d3...@m3g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
perhaps DVP has OD'ed on KFC?
aeffects
> >>> "A SENIOR MOMENT?" <<<
>
> Yep. That's almost certainly what happened. And that's because Mr.
> Bugliosi is not a liar. Nor would he ever be dumb enough to put
> himself in the precarious position of printing a willful and
> deliberate falsehood in his book, only to know that there are many,
> many "people around the country working full-time on this case,
> looking for some inconsistency, some discrepancy, some hint of a
> conspiracy" (a direct Bugliosi quote).
Davey-troll, you, as thee 'internet' marketer and fuck-up of
Bugliosi's boat anchor ta-da: Reclaiming History-- You are not going
to get back into Bugliosi's good graces with the above and below in-
the-know pandering. The Bugliosi guy had a substantial windfall, had
others ghost write a good portion of his book, attached his name,
claimed victory and made a trip to the bank, simple as that. (as did
Bug's chief ghost writer Dale 'hey look at my Emmy' Myers). The
Reclaiming History TV show is in the tank-- deal with it.
David Von Pein
>>> "My guess is that DVP refuses to even *try* to quote Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said... and so recognizes the lie." <<<
Of course I can never quote Carrico (or Perry) saying what Bugliosi
has them saying about the outer-skin throat wound on Pages 207 and 413
of "Reclaiming History". And that's because Bugliosi IS wrong--the
doctors never, ever said "ragged" when it comes to that particular
outer-skin throat wound. I admit that. Bugliosi's dead wrong on that
issue. Without question.
But "wrong" does not always equal "lie", Pussy Ben. Not ALWAYS. And in
VB's case, it does not, IMO, equal a "lie" (i.e., it does not equal a
statement that is designed to deliberately mislead and deceive the
reader).
Bugliosi, for some reason unknown to me, has it in his head that ALL
of the doctors' "ragged" statements somehow equate to JFK's outer-skin
throat wound, which is definitely incorrect. So, I guess I'll have to
choose one of the two options below to explain this incorrect
assumption by Mr. Bugliosi:
1.) VB is totally ignorant of the facts re the "ragged" testimony
provided by BOTH Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico.
or
2.) VB had a senior/senile moment when he wrote what he wrote on Pages
207 and 413.
The third option -- Bugliosi is a rotten liar -- is not even on the
radar screen for me. And I explained the reasons why in an earlier
post.
>>> "But he [DVP] can't admit that it's a lie. Is it the best he can do to imply that it was a "Senior moment?" " <<<
Yep. That's the best I can do under these circumstances, Mr. Pussy.
Because, as stated in a recent post above this one, to believe that
Vince Bugliosi would even BEGIN to want to deliberately tell a bunch
of willful lies in his JFK book is to believe that Mr. Bugliosi has
the I.Q. of an earthworm. And I know VB's I.Q. is a little higher than
that.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 15, 6:35=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "A SENIOR MOMENT?" <<<
>>
>> Yep. That's almost certainly what happened. And that's because Mr.
>> Bugliosi is not a liar. Nor would he ever be dumb enough to put
>> himself in the precarious position of printing a willful and
>> deliberate falsehood in his book,
Then simply quote Carrico's statement that Bugliosi was referring to.
But you won't... you can't.
Bugliosi lied.
>> only to know that there are many,
>> many "people around the country working full-time on this case,
>> looking for some inconsistency, some discrepancy, some hint of a
>> conspiracy" (a direct Bugliosi quote).
>
>Davey-troll, you, as thee 'internet' marketer and fuck-up of
>Bugliosi's boat anchor ta-da: Reclaiming History-- You are not going
>to get back into Bugliosi's good graces with the above and below in-
>the-know pandering. The Bugliosi guy had a substantial windfall, had
>others ghost write a good portion of his book, attached his name,
>claimed victory and made a trip to the bank, simple as that. (as did
>Bug's chief ghost writer Dale 'hey look at my Emmy' Myers). The
>Reclaiming History TV show is in the tank-- deal with it.
>
>> By deliberately lying about ANYTHING in his JFK book (of all books,
>> what with all of those conspiracy retards just looking for something
>> to jump on), Vince would be shooting himself in both feet.
He did that when he chose to defend the LNT'er side.
>> Because he
>> knows that those conspiracy kooks of the world would be scouring every
>> word of his book for any and all irregularities. And they HAVE done
>> just that, too.
Truth is like that...
>> Do you actually think Vince B. would DELIBERATELY place himself in a
>> position where he'd have to worry, 24/7, about some industrious
>> conspiracist discovering his lies...thereby totally tarnishing any
>> reputation he previously had for telling the truth?
He's lost what reputation he had.
>> He'd have been totally nuts to do that. And, IMO, anyone is nuts to
>> even begin to THINK that Vincent Bugliosi would deliberately tell a
>> bunch of lies in his JFK book.
And yet, that's precisely what happened. Why is it "nuts" to accept the truth?
David Von Pein
And to think, a pussy named Benjamin has me killfiled, too. Whoda
thunk?
Rob Caprio
You do realize JFK was given a tracheotomy don't you? What did they
use to perform this? The bullet wound in his throat is the correct
answer. You can't use this wound POST-tracheotomy as proof of
anything since it was not how it was seen initially in the PH
emergency room.
By the way, can you provide any evidence that shows the back and
throat wound connecting?
Baffled Regards,
Robert