What's the point ?

[David Von Pein]

But the question has not yet been answered as to why Oswald would go to the trouble of ordering the weapons through the mail with money orders and an alias and Post Office Box when he could have just bought them down the street at Green's for cash and no record of his being the purchaser? It would be appreciated if anyone could come up with a plausible reason for him to do this.

What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any paperwork being involved at all.

I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.

I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since JFK's assassination.

NOTE -- To protect myself from future abuse by the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet, I will conclude this message with this addendum: I could be wrong about the last paragraph I just wrote above concerning the topic of buying guns in gun stores in 1963.

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Dean Hagerman]

I completely ignore any and all input from Gary Mack. Until he mans up and starts posting all on his own who cares what he says[?]

Yeah, that's about the response I expected.

Thanks for adding the question mark to my post

[David Von Pein]

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

LOL!! NO company does this! They [Klein's] would have charged him for the difference, NOT just send him a more expensive model!

DVP SAID:

More [nonsense] from Caprio. Oswald would have paid exactly the same amount for the RIFLE WITH SCOPE in November as he did in March -- $19.95 plus S&H.

The Nov. '63 ad shows the EXACT SAME PRICE for that item--$19.95.

Plus, if the ads between Feb. and Nov. were the same as the Nov. ad, then the price of the rifle ONLY would actually have been 10 cents LESS than what Oswald's rifle (alone) cost in the Feb. ad. It was advertised for $12.88 in Feb.; and $12.78 in Nov.

And yet Robert Caprio thinks Oswald would have owed KLEIN'S money, even though Klein's was selling the 40-inch rifle for a dime LESS in the Nov. ad.

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

IF what Gary [Mack] says is true why did the WC use a November 1963 ad then?

DVP SAID:

Maybe because NOVEMBER was the CURRENT MONTH and was the CURRENT ISSUE of a magazine that the FBI checked for Klein's ads.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that today isn't the first time that Gary Mack's research regarding the 40-inch rifles has been mentioned here at the acj/aaj newsgroups. I recall this exact same thing coming up in the past, with Gary Mack (yet again) supplying the exact same useful information concerning the post-February Klein's advertisements.

Naturally, most/all CTers ignored Gary Mack back then....and they'll ignore him today too.

ORIGINAL POSTS

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Anything based on "must haves" and "may haves" deserves to be ignored. Just like Bugliosi's crappy book.

LOL. Hilarity at its best here.

Bugliosi writes a book with 4,000 more citations than the Warren Report and yet it's a "crappy" book filled with nothing but "must haves" and "may haves".

(Oh, my bladder!)

I was expecting a higher-class batch of conspiracy mongers at this forum. Obviously, I was expecting way, way too much.

Incredibly, per CTers, John Armstrong's "may have" book of tripe is supposed to be considered a great masterpiece of JFK literature, but Vince Bugliosi's book of solid facts and evidence is supposed to be "ignored".

What a topsy-turvy world CTers live in.

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I don't need your permission to copy something you've written on a public forum, Lee. And I don't ever intend to ask permission to cross-post from forum to forum. If it's on the Internet, it's fair game.

BTW, before you ask me about posting Gary Mack's e-mails sans permission:

Gary expects that to happen. I've done it for years. And so have many other people who think Gary's e-mails contain an abundance of good info (and common sense, to boot). I know Gary doesn't mind his mails getting posted at forums. In fact, he encourages it most of the time.

BTW #2,

Please explain to me the difference between cross-posting something written at another forum and the CTers who enjoy trashing Vincent Bugliosi's book at a public forum like this one? Is there a big difference between the two?

Bugliosi certainly isn't a member of The Education Forum (or any other forum); therefore, he can't "defend" himself from the onslaught of sewage that is slung at his exemplary book every single day on the Internet.

In fact, anyone who uses quotes from Bugliosi's book on the Internet is technically breaking the law, because I've noticed that VB's "Reclaiming History" is one of the very few books that I own that doesn't allow ANYTHING (not even a single sentence) to be copied and reprinted without the express permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton.

So, in a way, it's much worse (legally-speaking) to trash Bugliosi's book (via specific quoted passages) on a public Internet website like The Education Forum or James DiEugenio's CTKA.net site, because it's illegal to do so without express permission (which I'm pretty sure DiEugenio never obtained from Starling Lawrence or W.W. Norton & Company).

F.Y.I. Footnote -- I, however, did obtain express permission (in 2007) from Vincent Bugliosi's publisher/editor, Starling Lawrence, to use extensive quotes from Bugliosi's book in my lengthy book review. (It took me months to get that permission from W.W. Norton, too.)

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Dean Hagerman]

In fact, anyone who uses quotes from Bugliosi's book on the Internet is technically breaking the law, because I've noticed that VB's "Reclaiming History" is one of the very few books that I own that doesn't allow ANYTHING (not even a single sentence) to be copied and reprinted without the express permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton.

Im shaking in my boots

If I ever post a passage from RH I will mark the time of the post so we can clock how long it takes the Swat Team to break down my door and arrest me and my family for quoting VB

[David Von Pein]

LOL. Exactly, Dean.

But before citing VB, please make sure that you hide all the bootleg whiskey that you, Sparky, and Lee Harvey are consuming prior to the SWAT team's arrival.

Ten-Four?

BTW, your humorous post above is kind of proving my point from my previous post about quoting people from other websites -- IOW, who cares?

Obviously, nobody cares about actually breaking a copyright law by citing thousands of words from a book like "RH" on their websites (or hundreds of other books that have strict rules on not reprinting material). And yet Lee Farley expects me to garner specific permission from someone on another PUBLIC FORUM before I can post that person's ALREADY PUBLIC words on another website.

Meh.

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Michael Hogan]

Bugliosi certainly isn't a member of The Education Forum (or any other forum); therefore, he can't "defend" himself from the onslaught of sewage that is slung at his exemplary book every single day on the Internet.

Reclaiming History provides extensive examples of evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt

that a conspiracy existed to murder President Kennedy and that the Warren Commission showed

no desire to explore that possibility.

Most of the examples had been covered earlier by others, but Bugliosi deserves credit

for including so many of them in one volume.

[David Von Pein]

That previously-mentioned "topsy-turvy" world that conspiracy theorists call home once again rises to the surface via Michael Hogan's last idiotic Education Forum post above.

[David Von Pein]

What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any paperwork being involved at all.

I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.

I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since JFK's assassination.

Relating to my comments above, I received the following e-mail from Gary Mack:

Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

--------------------

Dave,

Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records.

Gary

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I've never quoted Bugliosi, numb-nuts. I never will.

I never said you did, lizard lips.

BTW: I'm sure the million bucks Bugliosi got as an advance kinda makes up for the lack of public acclaim for his piece of trash book.

More conspiracy myths coming from the CT brigade, I see. There's no proof that Bugliosi got a "million bucks" for writing his book. That's Lifton talking. And, naturally, you lap up every anti-VB word uttered by Lifton, despite the proof that he was a fool when he said what he said about RH on 5/24/07 on Anybody-But-Oswald Radio.

Lifton's Load Of B.S.

BTW 2: I'm not surprised by the stringent copyright attached to his book, could he and W.W. Norton foresee the deluge of criticism that was on its way and tried every trick in the book to minimize it?

Yeah, prob'ly so. Bugliosi and Lawrence certainly realized that they'd have to put up with a bunch of conspiracy kooks when they published the book for the ages on the JFK case. You're living proof of that.

BTW 3: I guess the fact that I asked your permission to cross-post shows how different we are as human beings eh?

Yeah, prob'ly so. But I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over re-posting the incoherent ramblings of Robert "LHO Shot No One" Caprio at another forum. Exposing that kook's nuttiness is practically a year-round task.

BTW #4: If you want to play "insult tag" some more, I'm game.

See ya, numb-nuts!

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Anything based on "must haves" and "may haves" deserves to be ignored. Just like Bugliosi's crappy book.

LOL. Hilarity at its best here.

Bugliosi writes a book with 4,000 more citations than the Warren Report and yet it's a "crappy" book filled with nothing but "must haves" and "may haves".

(Oh, my bladder!)

I was expecting a higher-class batch of conspiracy mongers at this forum. Obviously, I was expecting way, way too much.

Incredibly, per CTers, John Armstrong's "may have" book of tripe is supposed to be considered a great masterpiece of JFK literature, but Vince Bugliosi's book of solid facts and evidence is supposed to be "ignored".

What a topsy-turvy world CTers live in.

Dave, I'm still waiting for your answer to chapter 9b at patspeer.com, in which I go through all of Bugliosi's statements and citations regarding the shooting sequence, and prove that he removed words from statements, added words to statements, and flat-out misrepresented testimony so he could pretend the first shot missed, etc.

It's iron-clad, and you know it.

[David Von Pein]

Subject: Link To My Review Of "Reclaiming History"

Date: 8/16/2007

From: David Von Pein

To: Starling Lawrence (W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.)

------------------------

Hello Mr. Lawrence,

Vincent Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) wrote to me today and said that you wanted me to e-mail you regarding my extensive review that I've placed on the Internet for Mr. Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History".

I've revised and updated the lengthy review a few times since originally posting it on June 20, 2007, adding more photos, which help to explain some of the text passages that I have used from the book.

I think the photos (and links to other articles) in the review add an extra layer of important information for people to evaluate, because they can see a particular picture or an animated Zapruder Film clip right next to a quote from the book itself that I have provided.

Here's the link to my book review [newer 2009 blog link provided below]:

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

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

Subject: Re: Link To My Review Of "Reclaiming History"

Date: 8/16/2007 12:01:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Starling Lawrence

To: David Von Pein

------------------------

Dear Mr. Von Pein:

Well, I don’t think I have ever seen anything like this in my 38 years sitting in this chair, most of those years, of course, before such a “review” would be technically possible.

I’m certainly glad that you agree with Vince, for the most part, otherwise we’d be facing the situation of an huge excerpt (in effect) being used to beat up on the book. Still, this “review” in three parts could be construed as a serialization of the book, however informal, and I’ll have to take my colleagues’ temperature on it.

Can you tell me how many words you quote? In the meantime, let’s please hold off on any further use of quoted material from the book. I’ll get back to you soon.

Yours,

Starling Lawrence

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

Subject: RE.: "Reclaiming History" Book Review

Date: 8/16/2007

From: David Von Pein

To: Starling Lawrence

------------------------

Hi Mr. Lawrence,

Thanks for the quick reply.

As I told Rosemary Newton by e-mail the other day, I have no intention of adding any MORE quotes from the book to my review. Absolutely not. If I edit anything else, it won't be to add any more quoted passages.

I'm not sure as to the exact number of words I've quoted from the book. But if you need a word count, I can start counting them.

[Quoting Mr. Lawrence from a previous e-mail:]

P.S...by the way, I am not at all sure what the rights situation on all those photos is. I know that we paid pretty good money to get volume rights, but we certainly did not clear any electronic permissions, and I simply wouldn’t know if posting them on the internet constitutes some sort of infringement of the copyright on those photos.

[End Quote.]

The photographs were taken off of the Internet, from various sites which offer photos on their webpages.

But none of the photos in my review were scanned directly from the pages of "Reclaiming History". Zero. (I wouldn't know how to do that anyway.)

A few of the photos in the review do match some of the photos used in the book's two photo sections. But I didn't scan them from the book itself. The photos came directly from JFK websites, and they are pictures that can be viewed by anyone around the globe with Internet access.

I worked for quite a while on the review for Mr. Bugliosi's "Book for the Ages", and I'd like to think of the review as an appropriately-large review for such a grandiose "book for the ages".

Also, I will add, it's a book I have been anxiously awaiting for many years now....and Vince doesn't disappoint, in my opinion.

And to hear Vince tell it on his radio interviews, I guess I should thank YOU, Star, personally for some of the large "scope" of "Reclaiming History"; because Vince relayed the story about you telling him to "not cut out anything" from the manuscript. In effect, leave it alone, regardless of its massive size. A good decision, too, in my opinion.

And, quite obviously, given the huge scope of Vince's tome (1.5-million words), the quotes from the book used in my review still only amount to a drop in the bucket when compared to the whole book's text (percentage-wise).

But, yes, I was a little concerned about getting some type of written permission for this particular review, due to its size...and due to the unusual situation that exists with "Reclaiming History", wherein that book does not provide the normal type of disclaimer at the front of the book, a disclaimer which usually says (in effect): "You Can Quote Excerpts For A Review".

I'm very proud of the review, and as I told Rosemary Newton (and Mr. Bugliosi, through Rosemary), it's my hope that such an in-depth review would make a few more people want to read the WHOLE book from start to finish. I certainly hope that would be the case for many readers anyway.

[...]

Thank you very much for your time. And thanks, most of all, for publishing "Reclaiming History". I've enjoyed it immensely (as you can probably already tell).

Best Regards,

David R. Von Pein

davevonpein@aol.com

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

Subject: FW: Link To My Review Of "Reclaiming History"

Date: 10/16/2007 11:04:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Jessie Hughes

To: David Von Pein

------------------------

Mr. Von Pein,

Further to your correspondence with Starling Lawrence, while we would normally consider such use of the text to be permissive, in this case we are willing to waive any rights we have in the text for such use and can confirm that we have no objection to your continued use [of] the text on your website within your review.

That said, we do not control the rights in any of the photos and therefore cannot speak to their use. You may wish to contact the rights holders of the photos to verify they have no objection to their use or seek licenses from said rights holders.

Regards -

Jessie Hughes

Jessie Hughes

Contracts Manager

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

500 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10110

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

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Jim D.,

I've never denied that VB's books was written by three people -- Bugliosi, Haines, and Myers. That's obviously true, just as Vince tells the world in his Acknowledgments section of RH, right there in B&W.

But how anyone can place an ounce of faith in anything David S. Lifton has to say about Vince's book being "ghostwritten" after Lifton was totally destroyed by Patricia Lambert and VB's secretary, Rosemary Newton, in July 2007 is beyond my understanding.

Lifton actually had the 'nads to say that Lambert wrote THE ENTIRE 90-PAGE CHAPTER in VB's book dealing with Garrison and Oliver Stone's movie.

After Lambert responded with the truth (which is: she never wrote so much as a comma in RH; see more HERE), Lifton continued to insist that large chunks of RH were ghostwritten by unnamed authors.

If endorsing a person who spouts provable falsehoods (like Lifton's embarrassing "Lambert wrote a whole chapter" lie) floats your boat, Jim -- then by all means, knock yourself out.

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

July 2007 article by Dale Myers:

Lifton's Ghost

Edited August 17, 2010 by David Von Pein