A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101.html

"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 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." " -- DVP; July 2015
 

Edited August 7, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

DVP How can you prove something didn't exist?

[David Von Pein]

38 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

DVP How can you prove something didn't exist?

Maybe you missed this part of my last message....

"The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty..."

 

[James DiEugenio]

WN:

Paul Baker is the DVP from across the pond.  Except in some respects he is even worse.  He says he is a scientist yet he will not admit that the CBLA test has been completely vitiated and can never be used forensically again.  He actually said he saw merits on both sides!!

LOL, ROTF. 😀

He then says I nit pick in my book about the rifle.  Look, my book is about 500 pages.  I go into almost every angle of RH.  What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER ITS THE WRONG RIFLE!

And that is just the beginning of VB's shenanigans in that regard.

But that is not the worst part of RH.  The worst part of it is that in his intro, VB said he would present the evidence as the critics would present it, not as an advocate. And he then would collapse their arguments on their own terms.

WHAT A L-I-A-R.  Because he did no such thing.

DVP was not even aware of this claim.  I had to point it out for him.  I then went on for about two weeks, day after day, in category after category, showing in detail how Bugliosi did the opposite of what he said he would do. He did not present the evidence as the critics would but as an advocate for the Commission would.  What he did for example with Doug Horne was an utter disgrace. He completely distorted his argument, and then refused to present the best evidence  that the ARRB presented as far as John Stringer goes.  And in typical Bugliosi style for RH, he piled on the insults and invective after misrepresenting Horne.

When VB was called on his misrepresentations in his book, he did what he did to Tom O'Neill.  He tried to silence those pointing out the facts about it by threatening to sue. (This is why I say, the incidents mentioned above where Bugliosi got into legal troubles threatening others are not  irrelevant.)  When Gary Aguilar pointed out how VB had cut certain parts out of the Church Committee report without telling the reader he had done so, VB wrote him a threatening letter.  Because Gary got his review pointing this out published in a lawyer's journal. Well, with O'Neill, VB wrote a 34 page letter to his publisher threatening to sue.  Again, in both instances, as he was with the milkman and his girlfriend, he was wrong on the facts--as Gary and Tom showed with evidence.  So its not that he had a valid claim.  He did not.  He just did not want his work exposed for what it was--a deception. These were simply intimidation tactics done to preserve his reputation. 

As I explain in my book, Bugliosi really made a mistake--as did Spence--by participating in that stupid charade of a trial in London.  That thing was an utter charade.  But VB actually took it seriously.  He then doubled down and ended up making a fool of himself. He tried to cover this up by resorting to an argument made by length and insult.  All the while, never leaving his office and getting others to write parts of the book.  In that regard, he reminded me of Jean Davison who never went anywhere to research her book on Oswald.  But at least she was brief about her joke of a book.  ( https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/davison-jean-oswald-s-game)

WIth Bugliosi I had to waste almost a month of my life reading all 2,646 pages of his door stop and then writing the only comprehensive review of it.

I cannot say I am a better person for that experience.

 

 

  

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER [IT'S] THE WRONG RIFLE[?]!

The above comment by DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates DiEugenio's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to John F. Kennedy's assassination. If there's ever been a person who has gotten more things wrong about the JFK case than Jim DiEugenio has, I'd love to know who that person is.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jim won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 at all in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.

HERE'S the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that DiEugenio will continue to pretend is not reasonable at all.

More rifle talk (and other miscellany) below....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=DiEugenio Insists It's The Wrong Rifle

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Reprise.....

What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER [IT'S] THE WRONG RIFLE[?]!

Jim has apparently conveniently forgotten about this discussion we had on August 22, 2016....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey: Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus [sic; Bugliosi's book is actually 2,824 pages long, including all endnotes and source notes] he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?

DVP SAID:

Okay. Gladly. Here you go....

---Quote On:---

"The Warren Commission overlooked putting the American Rifleman advertisement in its volumes. But conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher points out that the advertisement was for a $12.88 Carcano ($19.95 with scope) that was 36 inches long, weighed 5 1⁄2 pounds, and had a catalog number of C20-T750, though we know the $19.95 Carcano that was sent to Oswald was 40 1⁄5 inches long and weighed 8 pounds, which was closer to the 40-inch Carcano weighing 7 pounds advertised in the November 1963 ad in a different magazine, Field and Stream. But Meagher fails to state the significance of this discrepancy. (Meagher, 'Accessories after the Fact', p.48 footnote; fact that Oswald ordered his Carcano from a February 1963 Klein’s advertisement in the American Rifleman magazine: Waldman Exhibit No. 8, 21 H 704; CE 773, 17 H 635; WR, p.119; 7 H 366, WCT William J. Waldman; advertisement reprinted in “In the Works: Tighter Laws on Gun Sales,” p.4; see also the August 27, 1965, edition of Life magazine [pages 62-65]; Field and Stream ad where yet a different catalog number, C20-750, is used for the Carcano: Holmes Exhibit No. 2, 20 H 174, viii; 7 H 294, WCT Harry D. Holmes; length and weight of Oswald’s Carcano: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier)

In other words, so what? We know Oswald was shipped his Carcano, serial number C2766 (whether or not it was the same weapon he had ordered, and whether or not he was even aware he received a Carcano a little over 4 inches longer and 3 1⁄2 pounds heavier [sic] than he had ordered), we know it was found in the sniper’s nest [sic], and we know it was the murder weapon." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 392-393 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" [Also Pictured Below]

 

[James DiEugenio]

Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.

Note where this is located: its in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.

In RH, they are not in the book.  They are on a CD that goes with the book.  In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material. 

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this:  How many people read all of the CD?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?

I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book.  So he put it on the CD.  So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is  what he usually did. 

But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph.  This is why its a dishonest book.  He says at the outset he will not do that.  He did.  And there is no denying that it was deliberate.  Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.

BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also.  The WR does not bring the issue up.

Edited August 8, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Joseph McBride]

Putting contrary information in notes or appendices is a common tactic

to downplay, dismiss, discredit, or simply to bury the information that undercuts a book's thesis.

The WC did that with its 26 volumes. Dale Myers did it with his Tippit book.

[David Von Pein]

James DiEugenio said:

Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.

Note where this is located: it's in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.

In RH, they are not in the book. They are on a CD that goes with the book. In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material.

So, Jim, since I proved in 2016 (via the above Endnotes quotation) that Vincent Bugliosi positively did "tell the reader" about the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" rifle discrepancy, can we at least agree that you chose your words poorly when you asked the following two questions in 2016 and 2019?....

"Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?" -- Jim D.; August 2016

"What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!" -- Jim D.; August 2019
 

James DiEugenio said:

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this: How many people read all of the CD?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

Well, I have certainly read every page of the "Reclaiming History" endnotes. So your crickets in the night have just been forever silenced. 😉

And I continue to reference various parts of Vince Bugliosi's book on a regular basis (both the physical hardcover volume and the 1,000+ pages of CD-ROM endnotes). The book—including the very important endnotes—is an invaluable source of factual information concerning the events of November 22, 1963 (despite the conspiracy theorists' condemnation of it).
 

James DiEugenio said:

The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?

I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book. So he put it on the CD. So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is what he usually did.

But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out, e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph. This is why it's a dishonest book. He says at the outset he will not do that. He did. And there is no denying that it was deliberate. Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.

BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also. The WR does not bring the issue up.

The Warren Commission undoubtedly didn't feel the need to bring up the 36-inch/40-inch rifle-length discrepancy because they knew beyond all doubt that Klein's had definitely shipped the Kennedy murder weapon to Lee Oswald in March of '63. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact for all time. The key to knowing this fact, of course, is the rifle's serial number—C2766—which is a number that appears on both Waldman #7 and the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the National Archives today.

Plus, when we examine the Klein's Catalog Numbers on the two pertinent rifle-purchasing documents in this case—Waldman #7 and CE773—we can see that the catalog numbers are identical —— C20-T750.

And it's also important to take note of the fact that even after Klein's Sporting Goods changed their magazine ads from the 36-inch rifle to the 40-inch model, the internal Klein's catalog number remained the same for at least a few months after Oswald purchased his gun, with the two Klein's advertisements pictured below proving that fact. Both of these Klein's ads depict a catalog number of C20-T750 for the $19.95 Rifle + Scope package that Oswald ordered in March 1963. The top ad is from the February '63 American Rifleman magazine (which was the source for Oswald's purchase), while the bottom ad (which is advertising a 40-inch Italian carbine) comes from later in 1963....

Edited August 8, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

30 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Putting contrary information in notes or appendices is a common tactic to downplay, dismiss, discredit, or simply to bury the information that undercuts a book's thesis. The WC did that with its 26 volumes. Dale Myers did it with his Tippit book.

But there was really no good reason for Vince Bugliosi to want to "bury" the rifle-length discrepancy. And that's because the solution to the "discrepancy" is a very obvious and non-conspiratorial one. Klein's simply ran out of 36-inch Italian rifles shortly before they received Oswald's order in the mail, and therefore they shipped him a 40-inch model instead. Simple as that.

And that is a very reasonable and logical explanation, especially when considering the fact that in the very next ad that Klein's ran in American Rifleman (on page 55 of the April '63 issue; there was no Klein's ad at all in the March issue), the length of the rifle had changed from 36 inches to 40.

More here....

 

[Paul Baker]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul Baker is the DVP from across the pond.  Except in some respects he is even worse.  He says he is a scientist yet he will not admit that the CBLA test has been completely vitiated and can never be used forensically again.  He actually said he saw merits on both sides!!

That is not a reasonable comparison. I lack motivation when it comes to leading the blinkered into the land of the bleeding obvious.

NAA, CBLA? Let it go Jim. It's junk science anyway! Stay well within your comfort zone, in a world where gun shops don't sell individual bullets, there were no shots from the sixth floor, etc.

[James DiEugenio]

 

I am in my comfort zone Paul.

I listened to Eric Randich and Pat Grant eviscerate the whole CBLA at length for about 70 minutes in person.  I then read their peer review published article.  I then listened to Randich describe his last appearance in court and how the judge was going to send the FBI agent to prison for her testimony.  Instead he warned the Bureau that if they did this again, he would send the agent to prison since he considered it perjury. He ruled on this using the Daubert test which has certain rules for scientific experts to follow.  Ever hear of that across the pond Paulie? The CBLA field has now been exposed as being so false on its methodology it can never be used in court again.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard . (Please note the five ways scientific method is justified for use in court.)

But if you recall, Bob Blakey announced that he would use VIncent Guinn and this phony test as the lynchpin for his case against Oswald.  Now, three decades later, he called it junk science.

The problem with this case is that there is too much "junk science" around it. And too many "experts"  who will partake in such excursions for either money, fame, or what they think is "the good of the country". In other words like Guinn, they are willing to prostitute themselves for what they think is a patriotic cause.  In addition to Guinn, there is Louie Alvarez and his deceptive melon test and the jiggle test which he lied about; and the HSCA's Tom Canning who worked from confusing data about where the wounds were in JFK, not realizing that when he plugged in certain data, the shot would come from a different building. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 78-81)

So please "Mr. Scientist", who finds points on "both sides" of CBLA debate, (the other side is Ken Rahn), I consider your analysis of that to be about as valid as these other scientific hacks. And, in reality, if you are a scientist, and you cannot bring yourself to see what an adulteration of science Guinn performed, does this not reveal the bias you inherently bring to this case?  So if that is allegedly your specialty, and you do not realize how it violates the Daubert standard, why should anyone engage with someone who is that biased about this case at all?  Which is why I consider you the DVP across the pond.

As per DVP, and my comment about crickets in the night, the guy is so out there he does not realize that he is crickets in the night. Anyone who can quote VB as follows is simply a shill for a shill: "In the John F. Kennedy case I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty."

😂😫😀

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

        Having to deal with very active gad flies is, apparently, the price that some research scholars here have paid for their publications.

        One formal, philosophical argument I would make about Mr. Von Pein's latest "rifle" diatribe is the following.

        I.  Any theory (scientific, historical, etc.) can be invalidated by proving that it is contradicted by any essential fact upon which it is based.

            Ergo, it's much easier to invalidate a theory (of anything) than to formulate an alternative, accurate theory that explains ALL of the facts.

        II.  So, just for the sake of argument, let us concede that Mr. Bugliosi's "Lone Nut" JFKA theory is NOT contradicted by the rifle evidence.  (Probably a big IF, But...)

       The burden of proof would still be on Mr. Von Pein to demonstrate how Bugliosi's "Lone Nut" theory has not been invalidated by all of the other facts that contradict it, as clearly documented in DiEugenio's analyses.

        III.  In other words, the best that can be said about Mr. Von Pein's argument on this thread is, "Yo, dude.  One down.  1,001 to go."

       

 

[James DiEugenio]

WN:

As many others have noted, like Gil Jesus, this is DVP's whole game.  He just jumps from one issue to another, trying to shore up all the holes in the WR sieve.

And he does not seem to realize that hey, if there is that many holes to shore up, what is their case worth?  

This is why the majority of the Commissioners ended up taking their verdict back.   Plus McCloy came close and Warren was really pissed off for LBJ suckering him into taking the job.

One last  point: the work of Gil Jesus and the work of David Josephs has really gone beyond what both Moyer and Armstrong did on the rifle I think.  The idea of framing Oswald with that wrong rifle was alive and kicking in the first 24 hours.  The Dallas Police wanted to say they found the order forms at the Paines. This is in that Judy Bonner book that was done with the help of the DPD, although its really hard to get. I tend to think this was the work of Harry Holmes, who was all over the place trying to frame Oswald in any way he could with anything he could. To the point of leafing through magazines for the ads.

WN: If you are not up to speed on the fallacy of the wrong rifle, I am linking Gil's excellent post on the issue as a way of letting you know, please read.  Its really good.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this:  How many people read all of the CD?

I read the whole book-parts of it more than once. I read all of the endnotes as well. I don't doubt that few here have done this and that may explain some things.