Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Not a single solitary bit of DiEugenio's Bugliosi-trashing effort above has anything whatsoever to do with Vince Bugliosi's JFK book "Reclaiming History". Jimbo is just looking for an excuse--any excuse--to bash Vincent T. Bugliosi. And Jim is willing to travel far outside the "JFK Assassination" perimeter to try and somehow smear Vince's 20-year effort regarding the JFK case. I guess the idea is: If Vince wasn't a saint all of his life, that must mean he was all wrong about all of the evidence in the JFK murder case. But as the late Mr. Bugliosi himself would no doubt quickly point out to Jim --- That's a non sequitur of Olympian proportions there. But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said.... "In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History" "But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over." Geez, not that same ole worn out claim again No one has proven LHO guilty of anything. Close your mouth and stop letting that BS out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) God, but it's fun watching DVP getting his butt handed to him. I can watch this all day. Edited July 11, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide. So why aren't you? I've done quite a bit of online promoting of the book via my websites. (Not that it's done much good.) But I have never fooled myself into thinking "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" was going to sell well at all. I was hoping it would, of course, but I never expected it to. And, btw, the publisher ("Strategic Media Books") is a joke. At least they were a joke as far as "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is concerned. Mel Ayton and I can tell multiple horror stories about our dealings with that particular publishing house. Related conversation..... GARRY PUFFER SAID: David is obviously just out to make a buck, like all those horrible conspiracy authors. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be. I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents. So you can take your "out to make a buck" garbage and do something unmentionable with it. 10-4? David Von Pein June 6-7, 2015 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-951.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But thanks for mentioning the book again, Jim. Every little bit of advertising helps. My "BRD" book page: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html That just shows that people recognize total crap. Giving out samples on kindle sure doesn't help sales. Couldn't find anything good in it and didn't see anything you got right. Maybe that's why the sales are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide. So why aren't you? ... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be. I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents. ... well, there it is..... between Reclaiming History and Beyond Reasonable Doubt a total of 161 books sold... tsk-tsk. What a couple of barn-burners! Wait a minute there..... are you saying RH has sold 101 books? I don't believe that. Who would read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Yeah, right, Jim. In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case. A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading "RH") -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a l-i-a-r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way *I* think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a l-i-a-r. It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as CTers want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiraciy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it. A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading "RH") -- See, I told you so. So you're saying he was dumb to make that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 We need to finally tell DVP that the WC's "original recipe" leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Reheated it's not any better than it was when it was fresh. No need for him to keep repeating it like Chicken Little. Enjoying watching Jim D show how DVP's mind is extra crispy, and how Jim's making coleslaw out of DVP's arguments. Pointing out how VB decided to double down is just delicious. Stick a spork in him...he's done. He just doesn't know it...kinda like a chicken with his head cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. What absolutely ridiculous nonsense you spout, DVP. If Bugliosi proved Oswald's guilt "ten times over " as you laughably claim, then why didn't you follow his lead and include some of that proof in your terrible book? Because, as I demonstrated conclusively in my review, yourself and Mr. Ayton presented absolutely NOTHING which showed Oswald to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Couldn't find anything good in it ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] and didn't see anything you got right. I'm not surprised, Ken. You can't even figure out who killed J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't take Basil Rathbone to figure that one out.) If you ever get something right when it comes to the subject of the JFK assassination, I'll faint dead away from the shock. My favorite Kenny-ism is this wondrous hunk of brilliance from the keyboard of Mr. Drew.... "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015 Maybe you should add the above blurb to your signature, Ken. After all, based on your current choice of signatures, you obviously don't care how ridiculous you look. Edited July 11, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) We need to finally tell DVP that the WC's "original recipe" leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Reheated it's not any better than it was when it was fresh. No need for him to keep repeating it like Chicken Little. Enjoying watching Jim D show how DVP's mind is extra crispy, and how Jim's making coleslaw out of DVP's arguments. Pointing out how VB decided to double down is just delicious. Stick a spork in him...he's done. He just doesn't know it...kinda like a chicken with his head cut off. My, how witty. All those Colonel Sanders references, but nothing about Popcorn Chicken or Mashed Taters or DVP's Secret Blend of 11 Herbs and WC Lies? What the heck is the matter with you, Mark? Get on the ball. More fun with the Colonel.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGaT7FJ4ZY Edited July 11, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all. Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all. Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one. I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... RONALD WIECK SAID: I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Ronald, very much. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay: http://ctka.net/"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Book Review DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers. ~yawn~ And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between. And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?..... "Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~ But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body. But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole. Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Tracy, I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity. If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do). Regarding Howard Brennan.... Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it? And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: Truth is not determined by opinion poll, especially since most people have never studied this case in depth (and that includes your average supporter of the Warren Commission, as well as many conspiracy believers, such as Alex Jones, who just makes up stuff). DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I agree with Tracy on this point about "polls". Most people who are polled probably have no idea who J.D. Tippit was. And while it's true that I have brought up the fact (with some delight) that the public opinion polls have shown that the number of conspiracy believers in the JFK case is dwindling in recent years, I have heard many CTers prop up the type of statement simulated below. In fact, I'm confronted with this very argument all the time on the Internet.... "David, the majority of Americans think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Do you really think that 85% or 90% or 95% [and the CTer will ALWAYS inflate the percentage to a figure that has never really been that high] of the public is wrong or are liars?" But, as Tracy suggested, it's very likely that the vast majority of that "80 to 90%" has no detailed knowledge of the evidence in the case at all. They've watched Oliver Stone's movie or saw something online or watched a documentary for the 50th anniversary, and drew their conclusions based on just those few things. Yes, there are a lot of conspiracy authors telling Americans not to believe anything in the Warren Report. But I have found over the last few years that whenever I have decided to check out some "conspiracy claim" in some detail, that pro-conspiracy story invariably turns out to be bogus and nothing but a long-believed myth with no basis in actual fact. One conspiracy author from the "early days" (the 1960s) says something and that story (i.e., myth) gets passed on from one author to the next and to the next. I see that thing occurring on a regular basis when discussing the JFK case. A very good example of this is something that author and LNer Jean Davison pointed out in an online post in 2011 concerning whether or not Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases should have required certain paperwork. As it turns out, the CTers who insist on repeating this myth are the ones who are very likely incorrect (as usual) --- CLICK HERE. And a year before Jean's post linked above, I was arguing with CTers about the postal regulations too. And as I prove HERE, Mark Lane is probably one of the very last people on this planet you should trust when it comes to this matter. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: No other county in America -- and almost no state, for that matter -- has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where [Henry] Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The "Henry Wade's convictions are being overturned in record numbers" excuse that conspiracy theorists now commonly utilize in order to pretend all the evidence against Oswald was fake and planted is just another convenient cop-out. Henry Wade didn't collect any of the evidence that proves Oswald's guilt. He would have merely presented that evidence at Oswald's trial (had LHO not been killed). Now yes, it's also true that Wade HIMSELF very likely didn't initially collect any of the evidence in those cases where guilty verdicts were overturned. But the JFK case is not at all similar to those "other" cases, and that's because in THIS case (the JFK case), we---the public---could practically watch the evidence unfold before our very eyes as the events were playing themselves out on live television and radio on 11/22/63. Do the conspiracy theorists really think that Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was pulling the strings of all those DPD officers, along with the strings of Captain Fritz and Chief Curry, during those early hours immediately after the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit? Do the CTers think Henry Wade HIMSELF was somehow able to manipulate all of the first-day evidence so that it all would point to a so-called "patsy" named Lee Oswald? (Not counting the "Mauser" mistake made by some of the officers. But with respect to the "Mauser" error -- do CTers think Henry Wade was somehow responsible for turning the "Mauser" into a Carcano? And did Henry Wade himself somehow alter the Alyea Film, which is a film that many rifle experts have said definitely shows a CARCANO---not a MAUSER---being picked up off of the sixth floor of the TSBD by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day?) In short, the CTers who like to accuse Henry Wade of sinister and underhanded activity in the JFK murder case are just as silly as the CTers who engage in that same type of tortured reasoning when it comes to the Warren Commission too. Many CTers falsely claim that the JFK evidence is the "Warren Commission's evidence" -- as if the WC collected and processed and tested all the evidence THEMSELVES. They didn't do anything of the kind, of course. The WC merely evaluated and assessed the evidence that had been gathered long before the Commission was ever created. The evidence existed in this case many days before the WC was even born. And it existed prior to Henry Wade ever becoming aware of that evidence too. And I wonder how the "Wade Haters" can deal with Lee Oswald's VERY OWN ACTIONS on both November 21 and 22? Will the Wade haters simply pretend that Oswald's actions on those two days are actions that lead more toward Oswald's complete INNOCENCE rather than his guilt? (How could any rational person possibly go down that rocky road? And why would they even want to?) Most juries get it right. If they convict a defendant, I'd wager to say that 99% of the time that person who is on trial is guilty. Otherwise the defendant wouldn't have been charged with the crime in the first place, because there would have been no EVIDENCE to suggest to the authorities that that person had committed the crime. But CTers will pick out and highlight the 1% of criminal cases where it's been shown that a jury reached the wrong verdict, with those CTers ignoring the fact that 99% of the time the juries in the United States reach the proper verdict. Of course, there is a high-profile example of a jury reaching the incorrect verdict---the O.J. Simpson trial. But Tracy Riddle should at least be happy that that wasn't a case where an innocent person was wrongly convicted. In O.J.'s case, it was just the opposite---an obviously guilty man was set free. MARTIN HAY SAID: The autopsy doctors absolutely did not record the precise location of the back wound. You know it, I know it, and so does every first-year student of the assassination. This is a fact for which the pathologists were specifically criticized by the HSCA forensic pathology panel. In its report to the committee, the panel noted that "The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the pathologists failed to take" included "Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the acromion--are moveable points and should not have been used." (7HSCA17) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, sure, Martin. I guess this Face Sheet is just a figment of my imagination. And so is this writing on that Face Sheet --- "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process". But apparently Martin Hay doesn't think that that particular measurement is precise enough to even come anywhere close to denoting the true location of JFK's upper-back wound. Is that correct, Martin? Therefore, Martin will only accept a DIFFERENT exacting measurement and totally disregard the "mastoid" and "acromion" measurements, even though Dr. Humes specifically said this to the ARRB in 1996: QUESTION -- When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark? DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does. QUESTION -- Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity? DR. HUMES -- It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to. MARTIN HAY SAID: Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate? So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct? At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit. MARTIN HAY SAID: I've said it before and I'll say it again: You, David Von Pein, are living proof that Mark Twain was correct when he said that common sense is something uneducated people attribute to themselves. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I've said it before and I'll say it again.... Internet conspiracy theorists are unquestionably the very last people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the assassination of America's 35th President. If they suddenly become capable of properly evaluating anything relating to JFK's demise, please notify CNN at once! Because that will surely be worthy of a "Breaking News" bulletin! More here.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) DVP is so enamored by Reclaiming History that he now imitates its author. He thinks that with sheer verbosity and diversion he answers my query. And he also thinks no one will notice that he has not. Repeat: Where are the errors in Martin's review? (BTW its absolutely a crack up that you would use the autopsy face sheet. For two reasons. First, that face sheet has caused the official story so much trouble its not funny. Second, its not the original one. You probably don't know that since you don't do any original research.) Edited July 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Poor Davey, you just had to go and call him a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) So, Jim, are you therefore implying that if there was a SECOND Face Sheet, that fact means that the wound in JFK's upper back was really located somewhere OTHER than "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process"?Which would mean that Dr. Humes must have been part of the grand plot to fake Boswell's face sheet(s) too, because Humes wrote those EXACT MEASUREMENTS on Page 3 of the autopsy report (WR; Page 540), which is a report that was signed by all three autopsy surgeons on 11/24/63.Your vivid imagination turns legitimate evidence into forged evidence almost every day of the week, doesn't it Jimbo? And you don't even have the decency to blush. Edited July 11, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all. Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one. I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now