WEBSITE FOR VINCE BUGLIOSI'S "RECLAIMING HISTORY" OFFERS UP SOME NICE CONSPIRACY-BASHING TIDBITS

78 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
May 5, 2007, 10:07:35 AM5/5/07
to
The official website for Vincent Bugliosi's "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" is now functioning....

http://www.reclaiminghistory.com

http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntro.pdf

http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntroCnsprcy.pdf


Lots of interesting data and "RH" book excerpts can be found at the
above links, including the complete lengthy "Introduction" to the
book, which almost seems like a whole book unto itself....and it
provides many excellent and astute VB passages (naturally).

HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS THAT I'VE CULLED FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (and God help all CTers of the world...because
they'll need His devine intervention to escape "Reclaiming History"
unscathed):

[V. BUGLIOSI ON...]

"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged 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.

The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on
the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments,
and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to
demonstrate their invalidity.

I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally
millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly
references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are
supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never
came across.

Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others
in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy
assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to
write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about
the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon
those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies
and distortions. If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in
the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.

This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all,
if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their
predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to
do this, then who does?

Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I
myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to
bring this to the attention of their readers.

Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be
a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very
heart of this book.

The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although
belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries,
most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his
legacy, and many revere him. How very odd, then, that so many of them
have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed
their hero.

To counter the incontrovertible evidence pointing to the guilt of the
person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with
extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments. They defend Oswald with a
protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.

Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for
them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death. Obviously,
the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend
Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission, but in the process they go
completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.

But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's
findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year
effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to
produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a
different conclusion.

Always believing there was a massive federal effort to
"whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the
assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American
public, and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what
really happened, Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his
third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the
first time he saw "the shadow of a happy ending".

Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the
assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting
much of his life to the case, that "much as it looks like Oswald was
some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence
to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from
being an agent".

The vast conspiracy community, which disbelieves everything in the
Warren Report except the page numbers, should (but won't) be
influenced in their thinking by such a dramatic admission from their
most esteemed titan, one who relentlessly, obsessively and, as opposed
to most of his peers, honestly put every aspect of the case under a
microscope for almost four decades.

The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once
observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all
that is explained.

All humans make mistakes. But there is no room or allowance in the
fevered world of conspiracy theorists for mistakes, human errors,
anomalies, or plain incompetence, though the latter, from the highest
levels on down, is endemic in our society.

Every single piece of evidence that isn't 100 percent consistent with
all the other evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt and the absence
of a conspiracy is by itself proof of Oswald's innocence and the
existence of a conspiracy. There is also no such thing for these
people as a coincidence.

I want to assure the readers of this book that I commenced my
investigation of this case with an open mind. But after being exposed
to the evidence, I have become satisfied beyond all doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable
doubt that he acted alone.

I am very confident that the overwhelming majority of objective
readers of this book will end up feeling the same way. As one gets
further into this book and starts to learn more about Oswald, it will
become increasingly obvious that if any group such as the CIA or
organized crime had wanted to kill the president, the unreliable and
unpredictable loner and loser Lee Harvey Oswald would have been the
last man on earth whom it would have entrusted with such a monumental
undertaking." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; JANUARY 2007

============================

A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION TO
CONSPIRACY":

"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. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad
absurdum of their position.

But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of
asking, "Where does this go?"-that is, where does the discrepancy,
contradiction, or whatever, lead them?-they immediately give their
minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a
conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).

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."
-- VINCENT BUGLIOSI

============================

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3ae26a3befc052b8

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
May 5, 2007, 10:19:03 AM5/5/07
to
ADDENDUM.........

====================

Via the "RH" website:

"This extraordinary and historic book required twenty years to
research and write. The oft-challenged findings of the Warren
Commission--Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed,
President John F. Kennedy--are here confirmed beyond all doubt.

But 'Reclaiming History' does much more than that. In addition to
providing a powerful and unprecedented narrative of events and a
biography of the assassin, it confronts and destroys every one of the
conspiracy theories that have grown up since the assassination,
exposing their selective use of evidence, flawed logic, and outright
deceptions.

So thoroughly documented, so compellingly lucid in its conclusions,
'Reclaiming History' is, in a sense, the investigation that completes
the work of the Warren Commission. In it, Vincent Bugliosi, the
nation's foremost prosecutor, takes on the most important murder case
in American history."

http://reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=11

aeffects

unread,
May 5, 2007, 12:06:37 PM5/5/07
to
David,

Let me assure YOU and daBugliosi -- I could careless what newness (if
poossible) Bugliosi found in the WCR. Rendering the WCR useless years
ago makes his, Posner and the rest of the LN efforts-influence a waste
of time.

Only Nutter fools think you can claim/reclaim history based on theory/
scenario[s], avoid: eyewitness testimony; outright lies; sins of
omission, commission; conflicting evidence... then shit over the 'more
than LHO was involved' transom, claim *best* evidence, then paddle
away. Not gonna happen David.....

History is written by *victors* (WCR). Fortunately, for this
generation, no one believes it. Currently that's Bugliosi and YOU.
That PR war was LOST years ago. Bugliosi lost the LHO did it war when
Harvey and Lee was released. Bugliosis' been staggering ever since.
Not to mention, looking for divine intervention... If he wantsed to
make his current soon to be released issue worthwhile to a audience
that cares, he (Bugliosi) should dismantle *Harvey & Lee* -- THEN put
LHO on stage, unencumbered...

You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do:

a. the BOOK tour
b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the Lone
Nutter crowd).... end of story!

question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
May 5, 2007, 5:38:26 PM5/5/07
to
Stupidest title ever for a book- ya gonna reclaim history by
regurgitating the biggest lies of the second half of the 20th century?
Everywhere you turn- everywhere you look are major things we've never
heard before or since in a murder investigation...that's not
incompetence...it's called conspiracy and criminal negligence...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:03:11 PM5/6/07
to
LOTS OF ADDITIONAL VINCE BUGLIOSI GEMS.........

SELECTED V.B. QUOTES FROM THE 36-PAGE INTRODUCTION TO "RECLAIMING
HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (2007):

http://www.reclaiminghistory.com

===================================================

"With a few notable exceptions, when the vast majority of these
conspiracy authors are confronted with evidence that is incompatible
with their fanciful theories, to one degree or another their modus
operandi is to do one of two things--twist, warp, and distort the
evidence, or simply ignore it--both of which are designed to deceive
their readers. Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth
is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." --
VB

=============

"99% of the conspiracy community are not, of course, writers and
authors. These conspiracy "buffs" (as they are frequently called) are
obsessed with the assassination, have formed networks among their
peers, and actually attend conspiracy-oriented conventions around the
country.

"Though most of them are as kooky as a three-dollar bill in their
beliefs and paranoia about the assassination, it is my sense that
their motivations are patriotic and that they are sincere in their
misguided and uninformed conclusions. I cannot say that about the
conspiracy authors.

"Unlike the buffs--virtually none of whom have a copy of the forty
official volumes on the case--the authors possess and work with these
volumes. Yet the majority of them knowingly mislead their readers by
lies, omissions, and deliberately distorting the official record. I
realize this is an astonishing charge I am making. Unfortunately, it
happens to be the truth." -- VB

=============

"If we're to believe {pro-conspiracy author Carl} Oglesby, our current
federal government (as well as all previous ones since 1963) is
engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the truth in the assassination.

"Apparently, then, such distinguished Americans as Chief Justice Earl
Warren {and} the {other} members of the Warren Commission, as well as
the Commission's general counsel, J. Lee Rankin, and 14 prominent
members of the American Bar (assistant counsels to the Commission),
people of impeccable honor and reputation, got together in some smoky
backroom and ALL of them agreed, for some ungodly reason, to do the
most dishonorable deed imaginable--give organized crime, the CIA, the
military-industrial complex, or whoever was behind the assassination,
a free pass in the murder of the president of the United States." --
VB

=============

"When one removes the Dictabelt "fourth shot" from the HSCA findings,
all that is really left is the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald killed
Kennedy, and the fact that the committee found no evidence of any
person or group having conspired with Oswald, the identical findings
of the Warren Commission." -- VB

=============

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded
in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core-Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone-into its present form of the most
complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.

"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence
for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of
their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of
their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then
proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly
unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus
facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.

"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission
volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents,
any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to
support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of
course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VB

=============

"And, of course, we know that humans, for whatever reason, love
mysteries (which, to most, the JFK assassination has become), whether
fictional or real, more than they do open-and-shut cases. For example,
who killed JR?" -- VB

DVP: Oops. It seems that perhaps Vince isn't an avid fan of the TV
series Dallas. He thinks "J.R." was "killed" by Kristin's bullets in
March 1980.

Vince should have said "Who shot JR?" above...not "killed". But if
that's the biggest mistake I find in "Reclaiming History", I'll be
quite satisfied with the book's overall accuracy. ;)

=============

"Therefore, because of the alignment of Connally's body vis-à-vis
Kennedy's, it was virtually inevitable that a bullet traveling on a
downward trajectory and passing on a straight line through soft tissue
in Kennedy's body (as both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded)
would go on to strike Connally where it did. But again, how would
average lay readers know that {author Robert} Groden had deliberately
altered reality to mislead them? (Groden declined a request by the
defense to testify at the trial in London and thus avoided being cross-
examined.)" -- VB

DVP: Boy, how I would have loved to see VB cross-examine Mr. Groden.
That would have been sweet. Perhaps we would have heard this kind of
exchange:

VB: "Mr. Groden, is it true that you ACTUALLY advocate the notion that
up to TEN shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd...and that
it's your belief that it's very likely that NONE of those shots --
ZERO -- came from the ONLY known, verifiable source of gunfire that
day...i.e., the Sniper's Nest window on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building?"

GRODEN: "Well, uh, er, yes....that's what my own analysis has
suggested to me."

VB: "No further questions." (Vince then mumbles under his breath, so
the jury can't hear: "Jesus, Joseph, and Mary...what a freakin'
kook.") ;)

=============

"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which has been
shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the
assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise
to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting
theories." -- VB

=============

"Even if the evidence up to January 11, 1964, the date of the subject
memorandum, had not pointed only to Oswald, and even if there was no
reference to a possible conspiracy in the tentative outline, the best
way to judge the work of the Warren Commission on this point is not by
what the Commission wrote or said, but by what it did. (One of my
favorite sayings is "Your conduct speaks so loudly I can't hear a word
you are saying.") And we will see that the Commission's conduct
throughout the investigation clearly shows that its members only had
one objective, to discover the truth of what happened." --VB

=============

"The Warren Commission critics who do not believe that the Commission
covered up the assassination allege instead that the Commission
conducted a very superficial, incompetent investigation of the
assassination.

"But in my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history.
Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges
that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew".

"Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence
wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence.
Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren
Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than
any investigative body I know of.

"It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did
not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a
part of a murder investigation." -- VB

=============

"The Commission's conclusions have held up remarkably well against all
assaults on their validity. This is true not only of its basic
conclusions, but also of its finer points. For example, with all the
technological advances in photographic enhancement to which the
Zapruder film of the assassination has been exposed, the very latest
interpretation by most of the experts on precisely when the first of
two shots hit the president--somewhere between frames 210 and 225--
just happens to coincide with what the Warren Commission concluded way
back in 1964." -- VB

=============

"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the
conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved,
in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but
the HSCA came to the same conclusion.

"But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find
occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their
already strong predilection to believe that the official version is
wrong." -- VB

=============

"With both feet planted firmly in the air, the conspiracy theorists
have created a cottage industry that thrives to this very day, and
whose hallmark, with noted exceptions, has been absurdity and
silliness.

"Despite the absurdity of their allegations and the total lack of
evidence to support their charges, the conspiracy theorists have not
only convinced the vast majority of Americans that the Warren
Commission was wrong, but have succeeded in convincing virtually all
Americans that there will never be a satisfactory resolution of this
case." -- VB

======================================================

MORE "RECLAIMING HISTORY" EXCERPTS AND INFORMATION:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae3fad1c26a7c7f5

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f2e8820ca2c4428a

======================================================

David Von Pein

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:34:31 PM5/6/07
to
At another (less asylum-like) Internet locality, it seems that a
certain Mr. Healy took too many red pills (or maybe they were orange)
and wrote a whole gob of incoherent gibberish (at the link below).....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A&cdMsgNo=16&cdPage=1&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx498EODPNIRZ8&cdMsgID=Mx2WZPC4Q2B6NP3#Mx2WZPC4Q2B6NP3

DVP's response to Mr. Healy's drug-induced tirade:

Good gosh, Dave H.; what a lovely batch of random, babbling, all-over-
the-place gibberish. Nice job at doing your Joe Pesci/Dave Ferrie
imitation. All that's missing are the wild eyebrows and wig.

As for Mr. Bugliosi's comment about CTers leaping "from the most
minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions", he was
stating a GENERALITY there (obviously). And a very, very true one too.

I can think of many examples right off the top of my head to prove the
accuracy of VB's quote:

1.) Some guy is opening an umbrella! That must = A poisoned dart is
fired into JFK's neck! It's OBVIOUS!

2.) Dr. Perry said the bullet hole in JFK's throat could have been
"either" an entry or an exit hole (per his WC testimony). That MUST =
He thinks positively it was an ENTRY wound. (Probably an entry for
Umbrella Man's dart. It's OBVIOUS!)

3.) Sunlight, glare, photo grain/noise, and a probable Coca-Cola
bottle on the retaining wall = "Badge Man" firing the fatal head shot
into JFK's brain! Ray Charles could see this is true!

4.) Sunlight and glare coming off of Roy Kellerman's head = BILL GREER
SHOT JFK! You've gotta be BLIND not to see this!

5.) A whopping FIVE total witnesses (out of more than 100 via a well-
known survey/poll) heard shots from MULTIPLE directions in Dealey
Plaza, and less than 9% of the witnesses heard more than 3 shots = A
10-Shot, 4-Shooter assassination plot (per one of Robert J. Groden's
ludicrous theories)! It's just lucky for the Patsy Framers than 7 of
the shots were totally inaudible to 91%+ of the earwitnesses. The
assassins' luck never ran dry. Never.

6.) Howard Brennan said the 6th-Floor assassin was 5'10" tall and
165-175 pounds = There's no WAY that Brennan could have seen Oswald!
Never mind the fact that the overall general description given by
Brennan is a decent fit for "Resident Patsy For All Nov. 22 Murders In
Dallas" -- i.e., Mr. Oswald. And never mind the fact that Brennan said
the gunman was "slender", which LHO was. Let's give Oswald a free
Presidential murder card...on the house. What do ya say?

7.) Helen Markham said the Tippit murder took place at around 1:06 or
1:07 PM = Oswald's innocent! No doubt about it! Never mind that silly
"bullet shells" stuff. And never mind that idiotic stuff re. approx.
10 witnesses positively IDing Resident Patsy Oswald for this murder
too. That approximated time of Markham's TRUMPS ALL HARDER EVIDENCE!
It's got to! Otherwise we kooks of CT-ville can't pretend that Oz was
innocent of this killing too.

8.) Michael Paine was connected with "Bell Helicopter" = Paine MUST
have been a conspirator in a plot to murder President Kennedy! It
couldn't BE more obvious!

I'll write out Examples 9 through 984 another time. Or, maybe another
interested forum poster would like to add a few. It's not hard. Just
pick up any conspiracy-flavored kookbook. There are dozens of "Leaping


from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions"

examples in each one of those. (Esp. if it says "Written by Jim
Garrison" on the cover.)

aeffects

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:48:16 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 1:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> At another (less asylum-like) Internet locality, it seems that a
> certain Mr. Healy took too many red pills (or maybe they were orange)
> and wrote a whole gob of incoherent gibberish (at the link below).....
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd...

why waste bandwidth David -- it's all on Amazon, right there in black
and white..... get that ego under control...

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:58:02 PM5/6/07
to
Question Man Healy?:

"You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do:
a. the BOOK tour
b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the
Lone
Nutter crowd).... end of story!
question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?"
Q MAN OFF

Healy? I see "JFK Curator" in your future..

DVP look at the bright side.. We need "squeak-toy"
posters like Q MAN Healy to set up some questions..
Try to keep your dialog with the Q MAN down to 2
syllable words for maximum communication when he's
loaded or forgets to take his freak-out pills..

MR ;~D


On May 6, 3:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> At another (less asylum-like) Internet locality, it seems that a
> certain Mr. Healy took too many red pills (or maybe they were orange)
> and wrote a whole gob of incoherent gibberish (at the link below).....
>

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd...

David Von Pein

unread,
May 6, 2007, 5:15:37 PM5/6/07
to
We never have to worry about DH "wasting bandwidth" -- he never says
anything.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 6, 2007, 5:49:46 PM5/6/07
to
TONY MARSH UTTERED:

>>> "Oswald's own mother said he pulled the trigger." <<<

That must have been shortly after she made this tearful (and
hilarious) cemetery statement in front of the whirring cameras....

"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for
his country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite Oswald

Strange statement coming from a woman who also said her son was a
murderer. I guess killing two men in one day was just Lee's way of
doing "more for his country".

>>> "They merely framed him {the Resident 11/22 Patsy; LHO}." <<<

Snap your fingers...and it's done. Right? Simple as A-B-C.

In four overly-simplistic and impossible-to-support words -- "THEY
MERELY FRAMED HIM" -- Tony M. is proving many of Mr. Bugliosi's points
in grand CTer fashion. Nicely done, Anthony. And all in just four
words too.

"A substantial majority of the conspiracy community is also extremely
gullible, believing every story they hear without bothering to check
it to see if it is accurate or makes any sense. As long as the story
helps their theory, they buy it. They would improve the quality of
their research appreciably by simply embracing rule number one of the
journalistic profession: "If your mama says she loves you, check it
out"." -- Vince B.; Page 978; "Reclaiming History"

"It couldn't have been more obvious within hours after the
assassination that Oswald had murdered Kennedy, and within no more
than a day or so thereafter that he had acted alone. And this is
precisely the conclusion that virtually all local (Dallas), state
(Texas), and federal (FBI and Secret Service) law enforcement agencies
came to shortly after the assassination. Nothing has ever changed
their conclusion or proved it wrong." -- VB; Page 984; "RH"

aeffects

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:03:06 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 1:58 pm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> Question Man Healy?:
> "You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do:
> a. the BOOK tour
> b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the
> Lone
> Nutter crowd).... end of story!
> question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?"
> Q MAN OFF
>
> Healy? I see "JFK Curator" in your future..
>
> DVP look at the bright side.. We need "squeak-toy"
> posters like Q MAN Healy to set up some questions..
> Try to keep your dialog with the Q MAN down to 2
> syllable words for maximum communication when he's
> loaded or forgets to take his freak-out pills..


think Bronze Star Medals, Fast Eddie. You have four (4) of them,
right?

> MR ;~D

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
May 6, 2007, 7:37:19 PM5/6/07
to
> > MR ;~D- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

# 10

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 7, 2007, 12:18:18 AM5/7/07
to
In article <1178381197.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...


I rather doubt it. Posner couldn't avoid misrepresentations, omission, and
outright lies - Bugliosi will be far easier.


>> As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime
>> books, credibility has always meant everything to me.

This is why you argued a conspiracy in the RFK case, and are now arguing *non*
conspiracy in the JFK case, right?

>> My only master
>> and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.


If such were true, you couldn't have written a pro-WCR book.


>> The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on
>> the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments,
>> and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to
>> demonstrate their invalidity.

I suspect that this will be a featured *lie* when the book comes out. Will VB
handle the 6.5mm virtually round object? The First Frame Flash problem of
Z-132/133? The incredibly one-sided way that the WC questioned eyewitnesses?


>> I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally
>> millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly
>> references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are
>> supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never
>> came across.


How silly... a few weeks of browsing this forum and archives would turn up
*EVERY* issue you will undoubtably omit from your book.


>> Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others
>> in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy
>> assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to
>> write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about
>> the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon
>> those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies
>> and distortions.


I agree. Unfortunately for Bugliosi - *he* will be the target.

And the only person who will undoubtably defend him on *this* newsforum is a
troll.


>> If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in
>> the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.


I don't think Bugliosi's tome will "harden" in the future ... no more than
Posner's was able to.


>> This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all,
>> if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their
>> predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to
>> do this, then who does?


Tis unfortunate that Bugliosi himself will be the victim of his own campaign of
honesty and critical review.


>> Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I
>> myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to
>> bring this to the attention of their readers.


You needn't worry... we certainly shall.


>> Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be
>> a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very
>> heart of this book.


That's *expected*. LNT'er books are *ALWAYS* "interpretation and analysis".
Facts and evidence don't fit the bill very well...

>> The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although
>> belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries,

Good to see that Bugliosi knows the poll results.

>> most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his
>> legacy, and many revere him.


Never voted for him, and wouldn't do so today.


>> How very odd, then, that so many of them
>> have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed
>> their hero.


I don't... the *evidence* does. I could care less about Oswald... I probably
think even less of Oswald than I do of Kennedy. Oswald's sole redeeming feature
is that he was a Marine.


>> To counter the incontrovertible

If it *were* incontrovertible - there'd be no place for your book, would there?


>> evidence pointing to the guilt of the
>> person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with
>> extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments.


Simple things, like the impossible timing, the lack of NAA results on his cheek
caste, the way the WC simply lied about these sort of things...


>> They defend Oswald with a
>> protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.


Oswald could be guilty as sin, and it wouldn't bother me at all.

The evidence, unfortunately, doesn't support such a scenario.


>> Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for
>> them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death.


That *is* what the evidence shows. Tis quite likely that some of the same
people were involved as were in the conspiracy to assassinate RFK - which you
were kind enough to prove happened.


>> Obviously,
>> the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend
>> Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission,

Who cares about the Warren Commission? They were just a bunch of lawyers...
hmmmm... come to think of it, so are you.


>> but in the process they go
>> completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.


LHO never received the *ordinary* process of law that a street bum would get -
and it was due to the *LAWYERS* involved. You have much to answer for.


>> But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's
>> findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year
>> effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to
>> produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a
>> different conclusion.


How silly! This is simply a lie. Or else, Bugliosi is hiding behind the word
"credible" - as if no one *else* has found the new evidence credible. Guess
what, Bugliosi? Only you and a handful of trolls thinks that the new evidence
released by the ARRB doesn't *drown* the WCR. (and the HSCA, for that matter)


>> Always believing there was a massive federal effort to
>> "whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the
>> assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American
>> public,


Provably so.


>> and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what
>> really happened,


Surely you know of all the time Weisberg spent in court to get documents that
had *NOTHING* to do with National Defense or State Secrets, right?

Yet you have the gall to suggest that the federal government *DID NOT* attempt
to circumvent the efforts of researchers.

That - I'll assign as an outright lie on your part, Bugliosi. You surely know
better.


>> Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his
>> third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the
>> first time he saw "the shadow of a happy ending".
>>
>> Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the
>> assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting
>> much of his life to the case, that "much as it looks like Oswald was
>> some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence
>> to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from
>> being an agent".


Fortunately, someone in a better position to know has stated otherwise.

As I've posted before:
Former Senator Schweiker, who served for eighteen months on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, and who chaired, along with Gary Hart, the Church
Committee's subcomittee that looked into the JFK assassination (The first gave
the Senator background information on intelligence, and the second gave the
Senator specific, still classified information on the JFK asssassination),
stated: "all the fingerprints I found during my aighteen months on the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence point to Oswald as being a product of, and
interacting with, the intelligence community."

The WC was certainly trying hard to 'deal' with this sort of problem, as
Bugliosi should certainly know.


>> The vast conspiracy community, which disbelieves everything in the
>> Warren Report except the page numbers, should (but won't) be
>> influenced in their thinking by such a dramatic admission from their
>> most esteemed titan, one who relentlessly, obsessively and, as opposed
>> to most of his peers, honestly put every aspect of the case under a
>> microscope for almost four decades.

Is this the sort of omission that I've been expecting? Does Bugliosi *not* know
of Senator Schweiker's comments on this topic?

I'd certainly find it hard to believe... Looks like the first omission is
demonstrated...


>> The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
>> misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
>> solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
>> provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
>> the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
>> proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
>> conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once
>> observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all
>> that is explained.


Sorta hard to deal with a paragraph like this. No specifics. A common tactic
among LNT'ers. I do trust that Bugliosi will go into more detail in his book.


>> All humans make mistakes. But there is no room or allowance in the
>> fevered world of conspiracy theorists for mistakes, human errors,
>> anomalies, or plain incompetence, though the latter, from the highest
>> levels on down, is endemic in our society.


Actually, the shoe is on the *other* foot. The amount of incompetence and
failure to report accurately what was seen and heard was truly incredible on
11/22/63.

Take, for example, the simple fact that there are over 40 medically trained
eyewitnesses to a wound that doesn't exist in a photograph.

Or the dozens of eyewitnesses to a limo slowdown or stop that can't be seen in
the extant Z-film.


>> Every single piece of evidence that isn't 100 percent consistent with
>> all the other evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt and the absence
>> of a conspiracy is by itself proof of Oswald's innocence and the
>> existence of a conspiracy. There is also no such thing for these
>> people as a coincidence.


Again... no specifics...


>> I want to assure the readers of this book that I commenced my
>> investigation of this case with an open mind.


Actually, as I've documented, you've *argued* for a conspiracy in this case
before.


>> But after being exposed
>> to the evidence, I have become satisfied beyond all doubt that Lee
>> Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable
>> doubt that he acted alone.


And the RFK case? Have you changed your mind?

>> I am very confident that the overwhelming majority of objective
>> readers of this book will end up feeling the same way.


Then you are truly misled.


>> As one gets
>> further into this book and starts to learn more about Oswald, it will
>> become increasingly obvious that if any group such as the CIA or
>> organized crime had wanted to kill the president, the unreliable and
>> unpredictable loner and loser Lee Harvey Oswald would have been the
>> last man on earth whom it would have entrusted with such a monumental
>> undertaking." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; JANUARY 2007


A quite silly statement... as anyone even vaguely familiar with the CIA or
organized crime.


>> ============================
>>
>> A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION TO
>> CONSPIRACY":
>>
>> "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. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad
>> absurdum of their position.

The logical conclusion of the *EVIDENCE* is that there were multiple shooters,
and the government covered it up.

Tis simple.


>> But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of
>> asking, "Where does this go?"-that is, where does the discrepancy,
>> contradiction, or whatever, lead them?-they immediately give their
>> minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a
>> conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).

Were the evidence to lead one to believe that Oswald pulled the trigger:

#1. It would affect me not at all.
#2. It would have *NOTHING* to do with whether a conspiracy existed or not.


>> 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."
>> -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI

Nothing other than, of course, WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.

I do hope Bugliosi will get down to specifics... rather than these generalities.


>> ============================

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
May 7, 2007, 12:59:56 AM5/7/07
to
Judging from the many excerpts we've seen here from Bugliosi's writings
on the subject, his book will be painfully long on opinion and rhetoric,
but very short on actual evidence and eyewitness testimony. He could not
possibly make the definitive LN statements he's made without giving
short shrift to evidence and testimony. The media will eat it up, but
then they are easily bamboozled, aren't they?----Old Laz

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 7, 2007, 9:47:37 AM5/7/07
to
In article <11902-463...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...

Nah, not really. The close ties between journalists and U.S. intelligence have
long been known.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 7, 2007, 12:34:30 PM5/7/07
to
A MEGA-KOOK NAMED BEN BLABBED:

>>> "I do hope Bugliosi will get down to specifics...rather than these generalities." <<<

No. No. Vince is going to waste the remaining 1,590+ pages on more
"Introductions", exactly like the first 36 pages you just read (and
misunderstood and mangled, as per the kook norm), Ben.

All together now......

GEESH!!!

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
May 7, 2007, 9:49:01 PM5/7/07
to
Surely, DVP, that out of 1600 pages you can offer us at least one
specific conspiracy point which Bugliosi has successfully refuted? For
instance, the forty BOH wound witnesses, how does he counteract this
evidence/testimony, without resorting to the standard LN line that they
were all mistaken or lying?---
Old Laz questions the Bug's infalliblity.

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 7, 2007, 11:05:41 PM5/7/07
to
In article <21667-46...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
says...

Sadly, I think that DVP, troll that he is, will be Bugliosi's *only* defender.
I can't get a single LNT'er to state in advance that they'd be willing to
support Bugliosi.

LNT'ers????

David Von Pein

unread,
May 8, 2007, 12:43:19 AM5/8/07
to
>>> "I can't get a single LNT'er to state in advance that they'd be willing to support Bugliosi." <<<

Why does such a thing need to be officially "stated" to ol' Ben?

We LNers are.....LNers who believe that Lee Oswald was a lone
assassin.

Vince B. is an LNer who believes Lee Oswald was a lone assassin.

Mutual harmony exists ALREADY....prior to the book coming out. Is a
blood oath needed or something? It's obvious without stating it that
all LNers here (and most everywhere) will "support" VB and his LN
beliefs.

I'm not saying I'll agree with every last one of the 1.5-million words
in "Reclaiming History". I'll bet there will be a few things I
disagree with him about. But they won't be bottom-line (or ultra-
important) things.

And if I disagree with him on something, I WILL say so.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 8, 2007, 12:49:35 AM5/8/07
to
T. MARSH WROTE:

>>> "Actually because of technology we all now VIRTUALLY have all the volumes on the Internet." <<<


Yes, I was thinking this very same thing as well. And I knew somebody
would be jumping VB's case re. this remark about nobody having the WCR
volumes.

Vince SHOULD know that every single word of the WR and the 26 volumes
(plus the HSCA material too) is available for free online. Or at the
very LEAST, VB should have found out at some point before releasing
his book that all of this material is accessible free-of-charge on the
Internet. If he had found out that information, I'm doubting that
Vince would have made this remark -- "Virtually none of {the buffs}
have a copy of the forty official volumes".

I don't think Vince is computer savvy at all--simply due to the
unbelievable fact that he wrote his entire JFK book by HAND on legal
pads! Can you even IMAGINE doing that in this computer/word processor
age?! That's amazing. It's actually amazingly silly, if you want my
personal opinion on that particular "legal pads galore" point. It
would have been infinitely easier to write the book on a computer,
rather than longhand.

But, it also makes me respect the hard work and dedication that Vince
Bugliosi put into his massive 21-year JFK project all the
MORE...seeing as how he punished himself in a totally-unneeded and
unnecessary fashion by writing out every word by hand with a #2
pencil. THAT'S dedication! ~wink~

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
May 8, 2007, 2:20:37 AM5/8/07
to
DVP, I didn't think you could name one conspiracy point that Bugliosi
has successfully refuted. If you won't and he can't, that makes you both
frauds. So quit saying he will demolish all conspiracy theories. You've
offered us nothing, nada, zilch, zero evidence that he can do what you
claim for him. Put up or shut up.
----Old Laz challenges

David Von Pein

unread,
May 8, 2007, 3:43:53 AM5/8/07
to
>>> "DVP, I didn't think you could name one conspiracy point that Bugliosi has successfully refuted." <<<

After I finish all 2,800 total pages of VB's book, I'll have so many
"refuted" theories for you, I probably will run out bandwidth posting
them all. Think you can wait till then?


>>> "If you won't and he can't, that makes you both frauds." <<<

If there's one thing you can't call Vince Bugliosi, it's a "fraud". If
you choose to use that word, you're either dishonest or you just flat-
out don't know who you're talking about.

So, maybe you should think twice about using those types of
disparaging remarks when it comes to VB. Because the more times you
say shit like that, the more embarrassing it's going to be for you
later on, when you have to start stuffing down that massive amount of
crow. Ten-four?

>>> "So quit saying he will demolish all conspiracy theories." <<<

No, I don't think I will quit saying that. Because HE ALREADY HAS DONE
IT. You just don't realize it yet.

How do I know for certain, you ask?

Simple .... It's because of WHO the author of the book is, and the
mere fact his LN-favoring book is coming out AT ALL. That's how I
know.

Or, to quote the author himself.....

"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." --
Vince B.

>>> "You've offered us nothing, nada, zilch, zero evidence that he can do what you claim for him." <<<

See above VB quote. That says it all....regardless of subject matter.

>>> "Put up or shut up." <<<

Oh, come now, my good ol' Laz-man. I've refuted several conspiracy
theories myself (such as the silly-as-all-get-out "Patsy" theory), via
common sense ALONE, not to mention the evidence too. Right here (pert-
near as many words as VB's book, it would seem). ;) .....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd76a858c280d962

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
May 8, 2007, 1:30:59 PM5/8/07
to
How does VB refute E. Howard Hunt's conspiracy confession? Hunt was not
only a conspiracy theorist, but a conspirator. I bet VB won't touch
"Dear Mr. Hunt" with a ten foot pole.--Old Laz predicts

David Von Pein

unread,
May 8, 2007, 7:05:19 PM5/8/07
to
Mr. Hunt nicely timed his death on Jan. 23, 2007, so that his
"confession" probably won't be mentioned in VB's book at all.
(Publishing deadlines, you know.)

Perhaps E. Howard will make it into Vincent's sequel in 2013 --
"RECLAIMING HISTORY AGAIN". ;)

I'm hoping that Vince WILL mention the "Hunt Confession" (as a sort of
addendum) when he talks about his book on his book tour, to commence
next week.

And perhaps he'll tell his thoughts about that stupid confession when
he's asked point-blank about it on the TV talk shows he'll inevitably
be appearing on.

David Von Pein

unread,
May 9, 2007, 12:54:24 AM5/9/07
to
PETER "I'LL BOYCOTT VB'S BOOK BUT I MIGHT STILL BUY IT IF IT'S
DISCOUNTED" FOKES UTTERED:

>>> "By boycott I meant: "Not buy at full price"." <<<


DVP NOW RESPONDS:

LOL. Better choose a different word then, Peter. Because "Not buy at
full price" still isn't what "boycott" means...in ANY way. LOL.


>>> "No need to fuss over the word boycott." <<<


OK. But you'd better stop using the word then...for it's apparent you
can't use it properly.


>>> "This preview of the book with its nasty rhetoric directed at CTs is having an impact on potential buyers' intentions." <<<


It's having an impact on me too. A hugely FAVORABLE impact in fact.
The verbal salvos he levels at CTers are the best things I've seen in
print in decades! Totally deserved. And Vince obviously thinks so too.

Why are such salvos deserved you ask?

Because Vince, through his diligent research (coupled with his
reputation for honesty and fact-finding) has proven beyond all
reasonable doubt that ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HAVE BEEN DEAD-WRONG
FOR 43 YEARS.*

* = Yes, I'm saying this without scanning every page in "RH". And
that's a silly thing to do, right? Right. I admit it (to a degree).
But, just wait and see. And can there be any doubt of this "diligent"
fact I mentioned? I mean, 40 chapters & 2800 anti-conspiracy pages
PLUS VB's above-board reputation! As Vince said at the Mock Trial re.
LHO's obvious guilt: "How much more do you need?!!"! ~wink~


>>> "Numerous posters on the Education Forum have stated that they will not be buying the book." <<<


Which makes it fairly clear (even before the book surfaces) that Vince
certainly wasn't in this "TO MAKE A FAST BUCK" (as some CTers seem to
think is the case; not necessarily here, but other places).

For, if VB was in it for the $$$, he probably wouldn't be so insulting
toward CTers. He would have softened his invective to a degree to sell
more copies. And Vince certainly wouldn't have waited 21 years to
publish the thing if he was merely a money-grubbing author. He's an
old man of 72 now. If he was only interested in a fast buck, he'd have
published it in 1990.

aeffects

unread,
May 9, 2007, 1:17:51 AM5/9/07
to

Jesus Christ, Von Pein daBug is NOT in it for the money, now I know
your fucking crazy.......you ain't losing it, YOU'VE lost it!
LMFAO! ! ! !


David Von Pein

unread,
May 9, 2007, 2:10:32 AM5/9/07
to
So, Dave H., does your last loopy post mean that you really think VB
*is* in it "for the money"??

He takes 21 years to write a definitive tome on the subject....waits
till he's almost 73 years of age to release it....because he's a money-
grubbing WC shill??? Is that about the size of it, DH?

(Remember my poor bladder before you answer, please. I beg you. Be
merciful.)

David Von Pein

unread,
May 9, 2007, 2:12:55 AM5/9/07
to
MATTHEW DeLUCA WROTE (VIA THE AMAZON "RH" BOARD):

>>> "And now, Part 3 of the "Trilogy Of Myth" is here to complete the 40-year cycle of ignorance, with Vincent Bugliosi writing a book backing both the fictional Warren Report and Gerald Posner's fictional work." <<<

DVP RETORTS:

I suggest you, Matt, read a portion of Vincent's Intro. to "Reclaiming
History", where he pounds Mr. Posner pretty hard on several issues.

Vince thinks Gerald Posner got the "LN" conclusion correct
(obviously)...but VB is no Posner apologist/lapdog. In fact, in
addition to the not-so-kind things he says about Posner in the book's
Introduction (available to read for free at www.ReclaimingHistory.com),
there's also this statement made by Mr. Bugliosi several years ago re.
Posner:

"I agree with all of 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." --
Vince B.

>>> "There is also ZERO evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald owned that rifle." <<<

This is just a flat-out stupid statement. Hardly worthy of a response.
Oswald HIMSELF filled out the order form for MC Rifle #C2766. And he
had it sent to a PO Box in Dallas that HE (LHO) used. And Oswald
positively PAID FOR the rifle! How much more proof of "ownership" does
a person need, for Pete sake?

Plus, Oswald's own palmprint was lifted off of the weapon on 11/22/63
(i.e., WELL BEFORE OSWALD DIED, so the silly theory of lifting a
palmprint off of the resident "Patsy" in the morgue and putting it on
the rifle is total hogwash, as are all other conspiracy theories).

Why are so many people so anxious to exonerate a double-murderer (and
the killer of our own U.S. President, no less)? It's sickening.

<Remainder of Matthew's CT silliness excised, undeserving of any
response it's so stupid>

http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A&cdMsgNo=2&cdPage=1&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1WF3HWKNM8ECA&cdMsgID=Mx2K7A6N6SAUNIH#Mx2K7A6N6SAUNIH

=======================

Lots more LN common sense below:

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85290a6703a31221

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd76a858c280d962

David Von Pein

unread,
May 10, 2007, 6:11:26 AM5/10/07
to
May 9, 2007 -- "CONSPIRACY theorists are dealt a major blow with two
new books on the assassinations of JFK and RFK. Lee Harvey Oswald did
act alone, famed Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi concludes
in his 1,600-page investigation, "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination of President John F. Kennedy".

"But Oswald's widow, Marina Oswald Porter, now 65, refuses to believe
it. "Lee was set up as a patsy [by] anti-Castro Cubans," she tells the
author in a rare interview. "The CIA covered it up." In "The Forgotten
Terrorist," author Mel Ayton says Sirhan Sirhan's fanatical
Palestinian nationalism and hatred of Robert F. Kennedy proves he
acted by himself. He bares a threatening letter Sirhan sent to his
lawyer Grant Cooper about defense investigator Robert Kaiser, which
began: "Hey Punk. Tell your friend Robert Kaiser to keep mouthing off
about me like he has been doing on radio and television. If he gets
his brains splattered he will have asked for it like Bobby Kennedy
did." "

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05092007/gossip/pagesix/oswald_was_lone_gunman_pagesix_.htm

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
May 12, 2007, 7:24:05 AM5/12/07
to
A 29-MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI RE. HIS JFK BOOK
(RECORDED APRIL 30, 2007):

================================================

Click on the image of Mr. Bugliosi at the link below to access the
interview:

http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=917

Fascinating stuff here, including a section about David Lifton's
nonsensical body-alteration theory. That particular segment of the VB
interview almost had me thinking that I was related to this man
(Vince) in some way. We think so much alike about many of the details
re. the JFK case.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a

Plus, the way Vince talks about the wealth of non-stop "lies" within
Oliver Stone's movie (which are lies that apparently a goodly number
of people accept at face value; go figure).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489

FOOTNOTE -- The above-linked interview seems to be a unedited version
of the interview. You'll note redundancy in a portion of it, that I
assume will be cut out for the final version (which is slated to
appear, at some point, on VB's book website at www.reclaiminghistory.com).
Plus, VB makes a couple of tongue-tied-type gaffes that will likely be
excised as well.

V.B. QUOTES FROM THE INTERVIEW:

"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 without being satisfied beyond all reasonable
doubt that Oswald hit Kennedy and acted alone." -- Vince Bugliosi

~~~~~

"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." -- Vince
Bugliosi

aeffects

unread,
May 12, 2007, 12:36:09 PM5/12/07
to
On May 8, 11:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, Dave H., does your last loopy post mean that you really think VB
> *is* in it "for the money"??

loopy? why thank you.... I doubt you'd find my questions during a on-
camera interview, loopy. but one never knows with you Nutter's :)


> He takes 21 years to write a definitive tome on the subject....waits
> till he's almost 73 years of age to release it....

I'll lay you 10-1 if he could of saved face, and passed on this book,
he's of done it! I suspect there been a never ending schorus of his
supporters urging him on with chants like "you're our best hope Vin.
Without you the WCR is toast..... yadada, yadada, yadada...."

He's well aware what happened to the Poz, scared it'll happen to him,
as it probably will.....

because he's a money-
> grubbing WC shill??? Is that about the size of it, DH?

He was a shill BEFORE this book, like you David. He attained his
status with the Showtime fairy-tale. So surprise there.

Your doing this for no, zero, zippo, nadada money David? Of course
he's grabbing for the buckeroo's -- I never said Bugliosi was STUPID,
nor you!

Pretty well sized up to me, practical and makes common sense....

> (Remember my poor bladder before you answer, please. I beg you. Be
> merciful.)

You know where your bathroom is, unless you sporting a leg-bag.....


David Von Pein

unread,
May 13, 2007, 5:33:41 PM5/13/07
to
PAT SPEER WROTE:

>>> "Stone instead created a counter-myth, using evidence culled from the Warren Commission's 26 volumes and the Jim Garrison investigation of Clay Shaw." <<<

DVP WRITES BACK::

Exactly, Pat. Oliver's movie is a "myth", plain and simple. It's not
the "counter-myth" that I've heard Mr. Stone speak of, however....and
that's because the WCR is not a "myth" in any fashion whatsoever.
That's the "CTer" in you talking (and the one in Mr. Stone too).

The WCR is based on the HARD EVIDENCE of Oswald's lone guilt in the
two murders LHO committed in 1963 (JFK's & Tippit's). Vince Bugliosi
said it as succinctly and accurately as anyone possibly could when he
said: "Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious
discussion". Truer words never passed human lips.

BTW, Stone's movie is HARDLY "culled from the WC's 26 volumes".
There's virtually nothing of a factual, WC-based nature in that film.
As VB said, when you're 0-for-53, that's hardly worthy of any praise
at all. You should be benched for the rest of the season with a .000
average like that! It's idiotic!


>>> "He {O. Stone} was under no obligation to prove that his "counter-myth" was true." <<<

Yeah, just let the gullible public watch the movie and decide, right?
(All the while going "0-for-53" in the "Factual Data" department.
Pathetic.)


>>> "The American people, not to mention the U.S. House of Representatives, had already decisively REJECTED the Warren Report, and Stone was simply offering an alternative scenario." <<<

Which is an alternative scenario without a shred of validity to it.
Not to mention an alternate "Patsy" scenario that is laughable from
even a conspiracy POV -- i.e., how on Earth are the "plotters"
supposed to be able to successfully frame their lone Patsy if they
shoot JFK with 6 shots and from THREE SEPARATE LOCATIONS?! It's almost
as preposterous as David Lifton's "body-altering" nonsense.

To continue with my baseball analogy (since I already started one
earlier) -- If Oliver Stone, instead of making a film about Kennedy's
murder, had made a movie about the 1960 World Series (a true-life
event with only one FACTUAL outcome, based on "Baseball Evidence",
such as "runs, hits, and errors")....would it be proper for Mr. Stone
to play around with the outcome of the final game, where Bill
Mazeroski swats his dramatic Series-winning home run in Pittsburgh?

In such a film, should perhaps Stone consider altering the ending of
that World Series, by having Yogi Berra climbing the left-field fence
and snaring Maz's long drive? And then the Yankees could go on and win
the Series, instead of the Pirates.

Maybe that's not a spot-on perfect analogy, but perhaps somebody will
get my point there. Mr. Stone deliberately skewed the KNOWN, HARD
FACTS IN EVIDENCE re. the JFK assassination in his 1991 movie. And
everybody should be made aware of the MANY things Stone intentionally
twisted in that film...things that he damn well COULD have portrayed
accurately.

One good example being the deplorable re-enactment of the J.D. Tippit
murder, which Stone (and Jim Garrison too, per his nutty theories) has
committed (naturally) by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald. There's
NOTHING re. that murder of Tippit that is correct in the film. Even
down to Oswald being seen with his jacket still on as he was seen by
Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Boulevard. That's a small thing; but it's
just one more inaccuracy (among over 100) in Stone's movie.

Shouldn't at least a FEW of the known facts come to light in a movie
about John Kennedy's REAL MURDER? If not...why the hell not?


>>> "It clearly drives Bugliosi bonkers that so many prefer Stone's scenario to his own." <<<

Damn right it does. It drives me bonkers too. Has for years.
Especially when I see young people (who only know of the JFK case by
way of that singular source of Stone's incredibly-inaccurate motion
picture) prop up that movie as the Holy Grail of "truth" with respect
to the way JFK met his Maker. That type of reaction to the nonsense we
see in Stone's film is more than enough reason, all by itself, for Mr.
Bugliosi to spend many, many pages in his book tearing down the so-
called "Counter-Myth" known as "Oliver Stone's JFK".

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2007, 3:50:35 PM5/19/07
to
VB ON:

"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." --
Vince B.

Pure Gold David.

Ed
1451May1907

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2007, 3:56:16 PM5/19/07
to
David, I've never quite been able to
figure out Peter Fokes and his side-kick
Barb.. So consistently on the wrong
side armed with no evidence pattern to
support their position(s).
Ed
1456May1907

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2007, 4:14:01 PM5/19/07
to
Thanks David.. You do us all a great service.
Ed Cage

On May 5, 9:07 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> The official website for Vincent Bugliosi's "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
> ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" is now functioning....
>
> http://www.reclaiminghistory.com
>
> http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntro.pdf
>
> http://reclaiminghistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntroCnsprcy.pdf
>
> Lots of interesting data and "RH" book excerpts can be found at the
> above links, including the complete lengthy "Introduction" to the
> book, which almost seems like a whole book unto itself....and it
> provides many excellent and astute VB passages (naturally).
>
> HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS THAT I'VE CULLED FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (and God help all CTers of the world...because
> they'll need His devine intervention to escape "Reclaiming History"
> unscathed):
>
> [V. BUGLIOSI ON...]
>
> "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
> savaged 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.
>
> The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on
> the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments,
> and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to
> demonstrate their invalidity.
>
> I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally
> millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly
> references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are
> supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never
> came across.
>
> Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others
> in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy
> assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to
> write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about
> the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon
> those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies
> and distortions. If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in
> the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.
>
> This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all,
> if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their
> predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to
> do this, then who does?
>
> Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I
> myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to
> bring this to the attention of their readers.
>
> Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be
> a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very
> heart of this book.
>
> The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although
> belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries,
> most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his
> legacy, and many revere him. How very odd, then, that so many of them
> have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed
> their hero.
>
> To counter the incontrovertible evidence pointing to the guilt of the
> person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with
> extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments. They defend Oswald with a
> protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.
>
> Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for
> them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death. Obviously,
> the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend
> Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission, but in the process they go
> completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.
>
> But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's
> findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year
> effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to
> produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a
> different conclusion.
>
> Always believing there was a massive federal effort to
> "whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the
> assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American
> public, and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what
> really happened, Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his
> third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the
> first time he saw "the shadow of a happy ending".
>
> Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the
> assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting
> much of his life to the case, that "much as it looks like Oswald was
> some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence
> to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from
> being an agent".
>
> The vast conspiracy community, which disbelieves everything in the
> Warren Report except the page numbers, should (but won't) be
> influenced in their thinking by such a dramatic admission from their
> most esteemed titan, one who relentlessly, obsessively and, as opposed
> to most of his peers, honestly put every aspect of the case under a
> microscope for almost four decades.
>
> The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
> misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
> solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
> provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
> the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
> proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
> conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once
> observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all
> that is explained.
>
> All humans make mistakes. But there is no room or allowance in the
> fevered world of conspiracy theorists for mistakes, human errors,
> anomalies, or plain incompetence, though the latter, from the highest
> levels on down, is endemic in our society.
>
> Every single piece of evidence that isn't 100 percent consistent with
> all the other evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt and the absence
> of a conspiracy is by itself proof of Oswald's innocence and the
> existence of a conspiracy. There is also no such thing for these
> people as a coincidence.
>
> I want to assure the readers of this book that I commenced my
> investigation of this case with an open mind. But after being exposed
> to the evidence, I have become satisfied beyond all doubt that Lee
> Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable
> doubt that he acted alone.
>
> I am very confident that the overwhelming majority of objective
> readers of this book will end up feeling the same way. As one gets
> further into this book and starts to learn more about Oswald, it will
> become increasingly obvious that if any group such as the CIA or
> organized crime had wanted to kill the president, the unreliable and
> unpredictable loner and loser Lee Harvey Oswald would have been the
> last man on earth whom it would have entrusted with such a monumental
> undertaking." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; JANUARY 2007
>
> ============================
>
> A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION TO
> CONSPIRACY":
>
> "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. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad
> absurdum of their position.
>
> But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of
> asking, "Where does this go?"-that is, where does the discrepancy,
> contradiction, or whatever, lead them?-they immediately give their
> minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a
> conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).
>
> 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."
> -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
>
> ============================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3ae26a3befc052b8


eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2007, 4:27:04 PM5/19/07
to
Yeah I got em Q-MAN Healy.

Shall
we
bet
$1000
I
can
have
the
US Army
ARPERCEH
St. Louis, Missouri 63132-5200
Authorization for Issuance of Awards
DA FORM 1577
send
the
*proof*?

(I didn't think so..)

Edwin M. Cage
US Army 1966-1969 (Volunteer)
Vietnam March 1967-March 1968
4th Infantry Division
(My job of escorting convoys put me
in virtually every city, town and
village in the Central Highlands.)


On May 6, 5:03 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 1:58 pm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Question Man Healy?:
> > "You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do:
> > a. the BOOK tour
> > b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the
> > Lone
> > Nutter crowd).... end of story!
> > question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?"
> > Q MAN OFF
>
> > Healy? I see "JFK Curator" in your future..
>
> > DVP look at the bright side.. We need "squeak-toy"
> > posters like Q MAN Healy to set up some questions..
> > Try to keep your dialog with the Q MAN down to 2
> > syllable words for maximum communication when he's
> > loaded or forgets to take his freak-out pills..
>
> think Bronze Star Medals, Fast Eddie. You have four (4) of them,
> right?
>
>
>
> > MR ;~D- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah I got em Q-MAN Healy.

Shall
we
bet
$1000
I
can
have
the
US
Army
send
the
*proof*?

(I didn't think so..)

Edwin M. Cage
US Army 1966-1969 (Volunteer)
Vietnam March 1967-March 1968
4th Infantry Division

Martin Shackelford

unread,
May 20, 2007, 3:25:31 AM5/20/07
to
What he doesn't mention is how much evidence he IGNORES because it points in
a different direction.
To take just one small example, his footnote on Judyth Baker relies entirely
on her newsgroup critics plus Paul Hoch, a close friend of one of her
newsgroup critics. He then goes beyond them and makes the silly claim that
she didn't write her own book, that it was written by Harrison Livingstone.
I thought it was just Bugliosi's ego running wild, thinking he had made "a
brilliant deduction" overlooked by others--of course, the deduction was dead
wrong.
What I learned today is that he had talked at some length with one of those
involved with the book, and knew very well that she wrote every word of
it--and STILL made the false claim that the book was written by Harrison
Livingstone. So much for his ethics.

Martin

<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1179604235.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages