Who supports/promotes the shills?

[Thomas Graves]

Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist. I didn't see your name on the list last time I checked. Are you a 'secret' agent?

PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie". I'm not sure what classifies as a 'newbie', but I've been following it since about 1 PM on 11/22/63. Read many many books on it. I know there was a conspiracy, I know there were many involved, I don't know who's plan it was, I know LHO has never been proven to have ever seen the rifle he is accused of having. I'm absolutely positive that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest. I know all the wounds of the two individuals were not caused by one bullet. I know they were not caused by any bullets from the rifle that is claimed to belong to Oswald. I don't see how any human with a functioning brain can believe in the lone nut theory (note, that is a 'theory') Other than that..........

Yes, I'm a secret agent. Please don't tell anyone.

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)?

--Tommy

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)? Elementary, if any shots were fired from the snipers nest, they would have found some evidence by now. The only evidence available, so far, is manufactured evidence, not 'discovered' evidence. The angle required from the 'sniper's nest' is impossible. No human could have been in a position at that window, with the window at the height it is in photos, and aimed a rifle at the angle required to hit a person at the location where the limo was when JFK was shot. Other than that............

Other than that, what about the bullet that injured Tague (flying concrete)?

Is it impossible that that bullet was fired from the sniper's nest?

[Kenneth Drew]

Pat,

Tell me again (in case you never have)....

Do you believe Buell Frazier saw ANY large-ish bag in Oswald's hands on 11/22/63?

And if you answer "Yes", please explain where I went haywire when I wrote this six years ago....

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

"Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?)

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.

So little (common) sense do any of them make."

David Von Pein

October 16, 2009

All that discussion and all those questions about something that never existed. They never saw a brown paper bag, none was ever found on 11/22 in the BD. No bag ever existed prior to the assassination, it was only created by the folks that were controlling the evidence. If anyone believes any of the crap about a 'brown paper bag' they have to have some screws loose. The bags were a creation of which was implanted into the minds of Frazier to avoid suspicion on him. If anything the whole deal just proves there is a conspiracy, even today. If LHO had brought a bag in, it would have been found at the time, not created later. There wouldn't be dozens of questions about it, we would all know the answers. The conspirators created evidence, such as the fake MO that was never actually seen (only photocopies) that 'supposedly' paid for the rifle.

The whole subject is smoke and mirrors, only created to distract.

Too bad you don't have the freedom to believe as you choose.....

[Kenneth Drew]

Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist. I didn't see your name on the list last time I checked. Are you a 'secret' agent?

PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie". I'm not sure what classifies as a 'newbie', but I've been following it since about 1 PM on 11/22/63. Read many many books on it. I know there was a conspiracy, I know there were many involved, I don't know who's plan it was, I know LHO has never been proven to have ever seen the rifle he is accused of having. I'm absolutely positive that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest. I know all the wounds of the two individuals were not caused by one bullet. I know they were not caused by any bullets from the rifle that is claimed to belong to Oswald. I don't see how any human with a functioning brain can believe in the lone nut theory (note, that is a 'theory') Other than that..........

Yes, I'm a secret agent. Please don't tell anyone.

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)?

--Tommy

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)? Elementary, if any shots were fired from the snipers nest, they would have found some evidence by now. The only evidence available, so far, is manufactured evidence, not 'discovered' evidence. The angle required from the 'sniper's nest' is impossible. No human could have been in a position at that window, with the window at the height it is in photos, and aimed a rifle at the angle required to hit a person at the location where the limo was when JFK was shot. Other than that............

Other than that, what about the bullet that injured Tague (flying concrete)?

Is it impossible that that bullet was fired from the sniper's nest?

I suspect the bullet that chipped the concrete was fired from the DalTex bldg. Impossible? depends on the definition. If you mean, possible to stick a rifle out the window and pull the trigger, then yes. For a human to be in a position to aim, thru a scope, to the position where the limo was? No. Not humanly possible.

[Mark Knight]

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?)

I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy.

Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag.

Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed:

"If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size."

Hilarious.

While you are correct, David, in saying that one need not accept all of someone's testimony to accept part of his testimony, you are greatly simplifying the situation re Frazier and the bag by saying it was the "precise" length that was the problem.

1) Frazier saw the bag two times--in the back of the car--and in Oswald's arms. At neither time did this bag, to Frazier's recollection both on the day of the assassination, and afterward, even remotely resemble the bag eventually placed into evidence. He said it was the wrong kind of paper, and he described it as both shorter and thinner than the bag in the archives, to such an extent even that the bag he recalled was barely HALF as large as the bag in the archives. (Archives bag is 38 by 8 1/2 = 323 sq inches, while Frazier's recollection was of a bag 27 x 6 = 162 sq inches.) Frazier confirmed this approximation, moreover, after close examination of a mock-up of the bag in the back seat of his car. The archives bag took up almost the whole back seat while it was his strong recollection the bag took up nowhere near that much space.

2) I had the pleasure of meeting Frazier last year and explaining the whole situation to him. Apparently, it had never been explained to him that the paper bag in the archives matched the paper in the school book depository, and that this led the WC and subsequent researchers to conclude Oswald brought the bag to Irving the day before the shooting. When I told Frazier this, and asked if he was familiar with the properties of the paper used in the depository, and whether it was possible for Oswald to have smuggled a large paper bag in his clothing on the way home from Irving on the day before the shooting without his realizing it, his eyes got sad, and then angry. And he blurted "That didn't happen!" So, there you go. Frazier is not merely a "that doesn't match my precise recollection" witness, he is a "that did not happen, no how, no way" witness. To make an analogy, he is not merely someone who says "The bank robber looked about 5 feet tall to me" when the suspect is 5 feet six inches, he is someone who says the bank robber was about 5 feet tall, and white, when the suspect was 7 feet tall and black.

3) When you add Frazier's recollections of the bag's physical appearance, including its size, and his recollection of Oswald's behavior on the trip home from Irving--all of which indicate the bag in the archives is not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession--to the mysterious chain of evidence regarding the bag--e.g. none of those "discovering" the sniper's nest recalled seeing the bag in the sniper's nest, and Lt. Day's lying about signing the bag when discovered in the building--it becomes clear that the bag is extremely problematic for the Oswald did-it conclusion.

4) The problems with the bag are only amplified, moreover, when one studies the reports of the Dallas Police. Montgomery and Johnson claimed they took the bag from the building around 2:30 when the photos of them leaving the building prove it was 3:00. Similarly, Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik claimed they only found out about the bag after going to the Paine's door around 3:30, when the reports of their fellow detectives and deputies, not to mention the statements of Marina and Ruth Paine, prove this was a lie, and that they actually went to the door around 2:30.

Pretty darned convenient, IMO. We have two separate statements from Dallas detectives, which, when combined, suggest they'd found the bag in the building before they'd been told (by Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle) that Oswald had been carrying a bag. When the reverse was true. They were told Oswald had been carrying a bag, and then PRESTO! CHANGE-O! They found a bag in the building! Flat on the floor by the sniper's nest! In a location examined by numerous detectives and deputies before them. None of whom recalled seeing the bag. Amazing. Truly amazing.

Mr. Von Pein is not going to address Pat Speer's points here because that would require him to not only read what Speer wrote, but he would have to consider what Speer is saying. And if it's not written in either the Warren Commission Report of Bugliosi's book or drawn into a LN cartoon, then actually considering it is apparently beneath his station in life.

Mr. Von Pein draws a LOT of conclusions that aren't supported by facts. He thinks, for example, that I'm a CTer. The truth is, I'm a seeker of truth, and I find a lot of problems with both the "official" story AND most conspiracy theories. I believe that, for us to establish Oswald as the man with a gun in his hand at 12:30 pm in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD, we have to have reliable evidence. If DPD Chief Jesse Curry says he can't place Oswald there with a gun in his hands when the shots were fired, then Howard Brennan's off-again, on-again ID of Oswald is something less than a "given" in the case.

And as for Oswald being set up by Gerry Hemming via a telephone call FROM Hemming TO Oswald on Thursday, November 21, we must establish that Oswald actually took an incoming call on Thursday, November 21st. There is no supportive testimony from anyone that Oswald either took a call before he left his rooming house on the 21st, that he was summoned to the telephone at the TSBD on the 21st, that Frazier stopped at a pay phone while Oswald waited on a phone call on the 21st, that Oswald took a call at Ruth Payne's home on the 21st, or that Oswald left the Payne home and walked to a pay phone on the 21st.

If the ONLY two witnesses who claim they saw Oswald with a bag on the morning of the 22nd BOTH say the bag is shorter than the length required to carry the rifle...and Frazier's frames of reference are [a] the length of the package on the back seat of his car, and the fact that he is POSITIVE that Oswald was able to carry the bag tucked between his armpit and his cupped hand... then the evidence does not support the official story. The bag found [or not found, depending on whom you choose to believe] in the alleged sniper's nest then becomes a questionable piece of evidence...just like Howard Brennan's inability, and then ability, to identify Oswald.

Had the case against Oswald gone to court--and I don't mean some kangaroo court, made-for-TV movie version of a court--much of the alleged evidence would have been ruled either inadmissible or, at the very least, highly questionable.

The chief problem with conspiracy theories is...there is no universal agreement as to who conspired with whom. Most CT'ers can't even agree whether Oswald was, wittingly or not, part of a conspiracy. Many who lean toward conspiracy argue among themselves whether Oswald was designated as a [or the lone] patsy before or after the assassination.

For years, I was a CT'er. But today, I'm looking at the case anew, with no preconceived ideas. If you cannot place Oswald with a rifle in his hands in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the shots were fired--and DPD Chief Jesse Curry said that you can't, beyond a reasonable doubt--then, whether Oswald is completely innocent or not, you would HAVE to find him "not guilty" of the JFK assassination. Legally, there IS a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." That's a distinction that apparently eludes Mr. Von Pein.

Do I claim Oswald is completely innocent? No, I can't claim that. Whether that's due to his "patsyfication," or whether that's due to Oswald being truly innocent, I can't yet say. I'm still re-reading and weighing the evidence. Some of the evidence, such as FBI man Frazier's, has to be re-examined in light of recent revelations about the misdeeds and/or mistaken conclusions regarding the FBI labs dating back to 1963 and before. It seems that we can take NOTHING at face value from these folks. Then there's the work of the late Tom Purvis, regarding the Robert West surveys of Dealy Plaza for both the SS and the FBI. Purvis uncovered a lot of misrepresentation of the surveys on the part of the Warren Commission, even to the point of falsification of the information in the data blocks on the surveys as entered into evidence in the WC files. I cannot give the WC a free pass for alteration here...and if they would alter that basic information, what other evidence might they also have altered? [Purvis was a LNer; he believed that Oswald shot JFK with "that rifle" from "that window." But he believed that the WC engaged in a lot of lying and obfuscation, and that the shooting did NOT go down as their narrative concludes.]

I will admit that I likely will not uncover the whole truth of the JFK assassination until "all is revealed" in the next life. But the willingness of the WC to alter data leads me to believe that the truth is not likely to be found in their report, except for bits and pieces of it. The trouble with DVP is, either you're a LNer like him, or you're a CTer. It's all black-or-white. And I tend not to fit in well with either "convinced" group, because I'm not convinced I know the entire truth...or even enough truth to draw a supportable conclusion. The ONLY conclusion I draw is that JFK was killed, and Connally was wounded, on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 pm.

[Greg Burnham]

I'm open to reasonable folk from either side - especially, Vince Bugliosi who's just passed - I have an enormous respect for his reasoning and tactical skills (after having just read And The Sea Will Tell).

David Mantik, MD, PhD reviews Buglisosi's tome, Reclaiming History in its entirety. Note: The name "Bugliosi" is abbreviated simply as "B" in this review for the sake of brevity.

Below is an excerpt from the review that speaks very well to the point of intelligence lacking in depth:

Edited June 24, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

[Cliff Varnell]

Greg,

Has Dr. David Mantik ever cited the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3?

I know he acknowledged the physical evidence in the case in his Ass Science article-- but the essay is titled "Cause for Doubt."

But there is no "cause for doubt" as to the location of JFK's back wound -- T3.

Has Mantik ever simply stated that fact?

[Kenneth Drew]

Greg, I commend you for reading all the way thru B's book. I couldn't take it. I gave it an honest effort, but some books, "O'Reilly's Killing Kennedy" for example are so off base and so biased that they become meaningless and a waste of time. My opinion is that reading books such as these, while I might actually learn something, I think that the amount of incorrect information far exceeds the possible benefits. One simple example from your writing above, about the path of the bullet from the back thru the throat. Apparently he starts from the 'assumption' that there was such a shot. There has been no evidence that proves such a shot ever occurred, so why the effort in arguing the path? Using an unlikely occurrence to prove an even more unlikely occurrence, the SBT, is a completely disingenuous tactic. Keep up your good work.

[Pat Speer]

You missed it, Ken. The excerpts posted by Greg came from a review of Bugliosi's book written by David Mantik.

There is an interesting story behind this review and Bugliosi's response to this review, which I added into chapter 9b of my website, in which I go through Bugliosi's footnotes regarding the shooting itself one by one, and prove him to be a total hypocrite.

From chapter 9b:

In 2008, it became apparent that Vincent Bugliosi's misrepresentation of the Kennedy assassination witness statements was no one-time mistake, and that such misrepresentations were for him quite possibly business as usual. A website was created for his book, with excerpts from many of the positive reviews cited above. Included in these quotes, however, was a quote from an unexpected source, noted conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik. The quote read: "It is likely that [Reclaiming History] will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case. . . . It is a masterpiece."

This was a bold and deliberate misrepresentation of Mantik's actual comments, however, which read, in part:

"It is likely that this book will stand as the magnum opus of this case--though not without serious flaws...I would liken the book to a house held aloft by a multitude of stilts...The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he (Bugliosi) wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science...As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, and then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups...B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project..In its own way, it is a masterpiece--a truly great prosecutorial brief...As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. How can one dialogue with a lawyer who hides behind his chosen experts? Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. The gap between the different cultures is simply too large."

Now this was clearly a negative review, calling into question not only the accuracy of the information presented in the book, but Bugliosi's ability to interpret the information. Even so, in May 2008 the abbreviated quote in which Mantik appeared to rave about a "masterpiece" was put on the front pages of Four Days in November, the scarcely-noticed paperback abbreviation of Bugliosi's monstrous book.

On 6-12-2008, Bugliosi's number one fan David Von Pein sent Bugliosi's secretary an e-mail complaining about this and other developments. He posted this online. It concluded:

"I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which
I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik
review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing
after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.

It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY
kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to
bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes.
And that's not a good thing at all, in my view."

Von Pein received no response to his complaint, and the bastardized "quote" of Mantik praising Reclaiming History continued to be featured on its website.

This was not surprising, however. In his e-mail, Von Pein airily dismissed that Bugliosi was aware someone had twisted Mantik's words to help sell his book. And yet Bugliosi was not only almost certainly aware of this deception, he was almost certainly the engineer behind this deception. In late 2007, when the first negative reviews of Reclaiming History bubbled to the surface, Bugliosi responded by sending angry letters to his critics--to show them the error of their ways. I have read one such letter. In this letter, Bugliosi not only threatened his critic with a lawsuit, but quoted liberally from what he contended were proper reviews of his book. One such quote furnished by Bugliosi came from David Mantik's largely negative review of his book. It went like this: "It is likely that (Reclaiming History) will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case...It is a masterpiece."

While it's certainly possible that someone from Bugliosi's publisher furnished him this quote, and that he innocently repeated it, it seems highly unlikely that Bugliosi would fail to read a review by a prominent conspiracy theorist, particularly one in which the writer called his book "a masterpiece." As a result we can feel quite certain that Bugliosi knows full well his use of the quote is deceptive. And that he simply doesn't care.

[David Von Pein]

On 6-12-2008, Bugliosi's number one fan David Von Pein sent Bugliosi's secretary an e-mail complaining about this and other developments. He posted this online. It concluded:

"I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing after reading Mantik's WHOLE review. It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And that's not a good thing at all, in my view."

Von Pein received no response to his complaint, and the bastardized "quote" of Mantik praising Reclaiming History continued to be featured on its website.

More at these links:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-246.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-255.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-701.html

Edited June 24, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

You missed it, Ken. The excerpts posted by Greg came from a review of Bugliosi's book written by David Mantik.

There is an interesting story behind this review and Bugliosi's response to this review, which I added into chapter 9b of my website, in which I go through Bugliosi's footnotes regarding the shooting itself one by one, and prove him to be a total hypocrite.

From chapter 9b:

In 2008, it became apparent that Vincent Bugliosi's misrepresentation of the Kennedy assassination witness statements was no one-time mistake, and that such misrepresentations were for him quite possibly business as usual. A website was created for his book, with excerpts from many of the positive reviews cited above. Included in these quotes, however, was a quote from an unexpected source, noted conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik. The quote read: "It is likely that [Reclaiming History] will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case. . . . It is a masterpiece."

This was a bold and deliberate misrepresentation of Mantik's actual comments, however, which read, in part:

"It is likely that this book will stand as the magnum opus of this case--though not without serious flaws...I would liken the book to a house held aloft by a multitude of stilts...The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he (Bugliosi) wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science...As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, and then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups...B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project..In its own way, it is a masterpiece--a truly great prosecutorial brief...As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. How can one dialogue with a lawyer who hides behind his chosen experts? Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. The gap between the different cultures is simply too large."

Now this was clearly a negative review, calling into question not only the accuracy of the information presented in the book, but Bugliosi's ability to interpret the information. Even so, in May 2008 the abbreviated quote in which Mantik appeared to rave about a "masterpiece" was put on the front pages of Four Days in November, the scarcely-noticed paperback abbreviation of Bugliosi's monstrous book.

On 6-12-2008, Bugliosi's number one fan David Von Pein sent Bugliosi's secretary an e-mail complaining about this and other developments. He posted this online. It concluded:

"I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which

I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik

review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing

after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.

It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY

kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to

bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes.

And that's not a good thing at all, in my view."

Von Pein received no response to his complaint, and the bastardized "quote" of Mantik praising Reclaiming History continued to be featured on its website.

This was not surprising, however. In his e-mail, Von Pein airily dismissed that Bugliosi was aware someone had twisted Mantik's words to help sell his book. And yet Bugliosi was not only almost certainly aware of this deception, he was almost certainly the engineer behind this deception. In late 2007, when the first negative reviews of Reclaiming History bubbled to the surface, Bugliosi responded by sending angry letters to his critics--to show them the error of their ways. I have read one such letter. In this letter, Bugliosi not only threatened his critic with a lawsuit, but quoted liberally from what he contended were proper reviews of his book. One such quote furnished by Bugliosi came from David Mantik's largely negative review of his book. It went like this: "It is likely that (Reclaiming History) will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case...It is a masterpiece."

While it's certainly possible that someone from Bugliosi's publisher furnished him this quote, and that he innocently repeated it, it seems highly unlikely that Bugliosi would fail to read a review by a prominent conspiracy theorist, particularly one in which the writer called his book "a masterpiece." As a result we can feel quite certain that Bugliosi knows full well his use of the quote is deceptive. And that he simply doesn't care.

Thanks Pat, yes I did miss that he was referencing Mantik's review , Sounds as if the publishers extraction of comments from the review served it's purpose.

[Cliff Varnell]

Greg,

Has Dr. David Mantik ever cited the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3?

I know he acknowledged the physical evidence in the case in his Ass Science article-- but the essay is titled "Cause for Doubt."

But there is no "cause for doubt" as to the location of JFK's back wound -- T3.

Has Mantik ever simply stated that fact?

Ever?

[Pat Speer]

As luck has it, the fingerprints and palm prints will be the topic of my presentation at this November's Lancer Conference. I've added a few comments in BOLD.

Pat,

Tell me again (in case you never have)....

Do you believe Buell Frazier saw ANY large-ish bag in Oswald's hands on 11/22/63?

Yes. I talked with Buell at both conferences last year, and find his story highly credible.

And if you answer "Yes", please explain where I went haywire when I wrote this six years ago....

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

"Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

Only to you, and those desperately in need of believing they were mistaken.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Almost a BINGO. We have strong reason to doubt the "EMPTY brown paper bag" was found in the building at all.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

You're playing word games. "Large-ish" As discussed, the bag described by Frazier was barely HALF the size of the bag in the archives.

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK,

More games. The bag was not so similar. And it didn't "turn up" in the exact place. As you well know, NONE of those first viewing the sniper's nest, including Capt. Will Fritz, saw this bag, which was supposedly covering more than half the open floor directly next to the boxes in the window. Riddle me that one, Batman. Heck, even David Belin recognized this problem. After arriving in Dallas, and realizing he had no witnesses who would confirm the bag was in the sniper's nest, prior to its supposed discovery, he put out a cattle call to the DPD, which rounded up TWO motorcycle cops, not previously interviewed, who were willing to claim they saw the bag. This was months and months after the shooting. Their testimony is vague and unconvincing, moreover. They could very well have been thinking of the lunch bag.

with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

Astoundingly, there is no photo of the paper bag now in the archives showing the location of the prints in which the prints can be observed. There are close up shots of some prints, but those prints could very well have been found on some other bag, or even on some shipping paper touched by Oswald during work.

A CLOSED-MINDED person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Yikes! Read the statements of Studebaker, Johnson, and Montgomery. Day was not there when the bag was "discovered"! His testimony was misleading. The William Allen photos, moreover, show him looking at it OUTSIDE the building, on his way back from the station after dropping off the rifle.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

Nonsense. I can play that game too. Disagreeing with me about anything reveals you're nothing but a bonehead.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

Go back through the evidence. You'll find that Oswald's jacket and clipboard were overlooked by the supposedly thorough DPD. It follows from this that a package filled with curtain rods could be similarly overlooked.

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?)

There is no proof that prints were ever on that bag! Show us photos--of that bag--with legible prints on it. There are none.

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Did he really deny telling Frazier he'd been carrying curtain rods? I'm not convinced. And even so, who says he wasn't just playing with the detectives? Fritz and Leavelle said Oswald was as cool as they come. How do we know he wasn't saying some stuff just to mess with them?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.
So little (common) sense do any of them make."

There are huge problems with the evidence, the bag in particular. It is a perfectly rational response to suspect the problems with the evidence are related to their lack of authenticity. It is not rational, however, to decide that those noticing these problems must offer a fully coherent counter-scenario before the problems with the evidence can be acknowledged. But "your side" rarely does this. Rather than admitting, "Yeah, the DPD really blew it when they didn't photograph the bag in situ, or even on the day of the shooting" your side likes to blame those noticing these things for their refusal to go along with what might very well be a bogus story. And then wave your hands "Look how stupid these people are--they actually believe the only two witnesses who saw an object when they say this object was not the one later discovered...under mighty curious circumstances." So, now, let's turn the tables, hand-waver. Please please please go through the evidence regarding the time of the detectives' arrival at the Paine's front door, and tell us what you find.

David Von Pein

Pat Speer
October 16, 2009

Edited June 24, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Kenneth Drew]

On 6-12-2008, Bugliosi's number one fan David Von Pein sent Bugliosi's secretary an e-mail complaining about this and other developments. He posted this online. It concluded:

"I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing after reading Mantik's WHOLE review. It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And that's not a good thing at all, in my view."

Von Pein received no response to his complaint, and the bastardized "quote" of Mantik praising Reclaiming History continued to be featured on its website.

More at these links:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-246.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-255.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-701.html

DVP, I looked those over and near the end I noticed:

"DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because Vince has a little thing called THE HARD FACTS on his side. Could that be it, Pat?

On the other hand, people like Mr. DiEugenio do everything within their power to completely ignore (or mangle) those HARD FACTS surrounding President Kennedy's death."

I'm not sure what your intent is/was, but it seems as if you were trying to get VB's publisher to use your review of his book instead on Mantik's.

VB did not have THE HARD FACTS on his side, in fact he doesn't have the soft facts on his side either. He basically wrote a fictional account of what he thought would sell books. You didn't elaborate as to why you thought DiEugenio's review was overload while at the same time allowing VB hundreds of pages to sell his point of view.

There are some hard facts known about the JFK assassination, none of those support the WC conclusions.

[Pat Speer]

You missed it, Ken. The excerpts posted by Greg came from a review of Bugliosi's book written by David Mantik.

There is an interesting story behind this review and Bugliosi's response to this review, which I added into chapter 9b of my website, in which I go through Bugliosi's footnotes regarding the shooting itself one by one, and prove him to be a total hypocrite.

From chapter 9b:

In 2008, it became apparent that Vincent Bugliosi's misrepresentation of the Kennedy assassination witness statements was no one-time mistake, and that such misrepresentations were for him quite possibly business as usual. A website was created for his book, with excerpts from many of the positive reviews cited above. Included in these quotes, however, was a quote from an unexpected source, noted conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik. The quote read: "It is likely that [Reclaiming History] will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case. . . . It is a masterpiece."

This was a bold and deliberate misrepresentation of Mantik's actual comments, however, which read, in part:

"It is likely that this book will stand as the magnum opus of this case--though not without serious flaws...I would liken the book to a house held aloft by a multitude of stilts...The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he (Bugliosi) wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science...As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, and then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups...B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project..In its own way, it is a masterpiece--a truly great prosecutorial brief...As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. How can one dialogue with a lawyer who hides behind his chosen experts? Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. The gap between the different cultures is simply too large."

Now this was clearly a negative review, calling into question not only the accuracy of the information presented in the book, but Bugliosi's ability to interpret the information. Even so, in May 2008 the abbreviated quote in which Mantik appeared to rave about a "masterpiece" was put on the front pages of Four Days in November, the scarcely-noticed paperback abbreviation of Bugliosi's monstrous book.

On 6-12-2008, Bugliosi's number one fan David Von Pein sent Bugliosi's secretary an e-mail complaining about this and other developments. He posted this online. It concluded:

"I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which

I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik

review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing

after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.

It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY

kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to

bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes.

And that's not a good thing at all, in my view."

Von Pein received no response to his complaint, and the bastardized "quote" of Mantik praising Reclaiming History continued to be featured on its website.

This was not surprising, however. In his e-mail, Von Pein airily dismissed that Bugliosi was aware someone had twisted Mantik's words to help sell his book. And yet Bugliosi was not only almost certainly aware of this deception, he was almost certainly the engineer behind this deception. In late 2007, when the first negative reviews of Reclaiming History bubbled to the surface, Bugliosi responded by sending angry letters to his critics--to show them the error of their ways. I have read one such letter. In this letter, Bugliosi not only threatened his critic with a lawsuit, but quoted liberally from what he contended were proper reviews of his book. One such quote furnished by Bugliosi came from David Mantik's largely negative review of his book. It went like this: "It is likely that (Reclaiming History) will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case...It is a masterpiece."

While it's certainly possible that someone from Bugliosi's publisher furnished him this quote, and that he innocently repeated it, it seems highly unlikely that Bugliosi would fail to read a review by a prominent conspiracy theorist, particularly one in which the writer called his book "a masterpiece." As a result we can feel quite certain that Bugliosi knows full well his use of the quote is deceptive. And that he simply doesn't care.

Thanks Pat, yes I did miss that he was referencing Mantik's review , Sounds as if the publishers extraction of comments from the review served it's purpose.

My point was that it was almost certainly Bugliosi himself who extracted the comments. If he was so upset about a negative review that he would write a personal letter to the author in which he threatened litigation, he would most certainly have read a supposedly positive review from a prominent conspiracy theorist. It follows then that he read Mantik's review, and extracted the comments himself.