Amazon poster S.V. Anderson might be Vincent Bugliosi

[Dean Hagerman]

Edited November 8, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Cliff Varnell]

[Michael Hogan]

The history of sports in this country is riddled with corruption. Super Bowl 3 was fixed, in my opinion.

The Florida A & M (FAMU) marching band was waiting near the end zone, ready to come on the field at half-time.

Earl Morrall never saw a wide open Jimmy Orr waving his arms frantically, because the Colts' uniforms blended

in with the Rattlers' colors. Instead, Morrall threw to another receiver and the half ended with an interception.

In his autobiography, Bubba Smith hinted that the game might have been "set up" for the Jets to win, but he offered no evidence.

Weeb Ewbank and Buddy Ryan out-coached Shula in that game. The Jets were younger, faster, smarter, and played with

a chip on their shoulder. An AFL team won Super Bowl IV too. J. Willie Namath guaranteed a victory and he delivered one.

The game wasn't as close as the final score (16-7) indicated. Namath didn't throw a pass in the fourth quarter.

The Jets were clearly the better team that day.

Ali-Liston fixed? Maybe, but probably not. Super Bowl III fixed? C'mon man.

Cliff is a very smart guy, but he's got this one wrong, in my opinion.

[Dean Hagerman]

I love the newspaper "Starting Pitcher.....YOU SUCKA!"

[Dean Hagerman]

An AFL team won Super Bowl IV too

And just what team could that have been?

Oh thats right....My Chiefs!

[Cliff Varnell]

The history of sports in this country is riddled with corruption. Super Bowl 3 was fixed, in my opinion.

The Florida A & M (FAMU) marching band was waiting near the end zone, ready to come on the field at half-time.

Earl Morrall never saw a wide open Jimmy Orr waving his arms frantically, because the Colts' uniforms blended

in with the Rattlers' colors. Instead, Morrall threw to another receiver and the half ended with an interception.

In his autobiography, Bubba Smith hinted that the game might have been "set up" for the Jets to win, but he offered no evidence.

Weeb Ewbank and Buddy Ryan out-coached Shula in that game. The Jets were younger, faster, smarter, and played with

a chip on their shoulder. An AFL team won Super Bowl IV too. J. Willie Namath guaranteed a victory and he delivered one.

The game wasn't as close as the final score (16-7) indicated. Namath didn't throw a pass in the fourth quarter.

The Jets were clearly the better team that day.

Ali-Liston fixed? Maybe, but probably not. Super Bowl III fixed? C'mon man.

Cliff is a very smart guy, but he's got this one wrong, in my opinion.

Hi Michael,

I love sports conspiracy theories but I don't take any of them to heart. Something fun to speculate about is all.

I think it was Ash Resnick who claimed that Liston had bet a large sum of money on himself winning the first Ali-Liston fight in 5 rounds or less and so he didn't pace himself and couldn't answer the bell for the 7th round.

It's fashionable to claim that the second fight was fixed, but as you say, probably not.

I don't have a firm conviction on the subject of SB III, just a suspicion. I can't give a cite but it has been alleged that as he walked away after making his famous "guarantee" Namath muttered, "As long as they don't change their defensive signals."

Did Colts owner Carroll Rosenbloom give his team's defensive signals to Namath? It's my favorite sports conspiracy theory but it doesn't explain the five Colts turnovers and a missed field goal.

Here's a level-headed presentation of the conspiracy view:

http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1634/pg1/index.html

I find this of considerable interest:

The NFL's Dirty Little Secret

A majority of early NFL owners were known gamblers. Some were even tied to organized crime. One time Dallas Cowboy owner Clint Murchison Jr., Kansas City Chief owner Lamar Hunt (son of oilman H.L. Hunt Jr.), Cleveland Brown/Baltimore Raven owner Art Modell, New Orleans Saints owner John Mecom Jr. (who had very close ties to Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, a key player in bringing a team in New Orleans), Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona Cardinal owner Charles Bidwell (who was a bootlegger and an associate of Al Capone), and Philadelphia Eagle owner DeBenneville "Bert" Bell (who had ties to the East Coast Mafia) all were known to have been gamblers and bet on football (some even their own teams). Carroll Rosenbloom, one time owner of the Baltimore Colts, not only bet on his team, but also altered the outcome of a game because of it.

Oddly enough, it was this very game that legitimized football for the television networks. It has been called the greatest game ever played: the 1958 NFL championship game. Rosenbloom's Colts were playing the New York Giants, who were 3 to 5 point underdogs. Rosenbloom laid down $1 million on his boys to win. [8] The Colts were losing until the last seven seconds, when Colts kicker Steve Myhra kicked a field goal to tie the game at 17-17 and send it into overtime. In overtime, the Colts marched 80 yards down the field to get to the Giants eight-yard line easy field goal territory. But they never kicked. Instead Rosenbloom, knowing the game was won but his bet lost with a field goal, had his general manager force Coach Ewbank to go in for the touchdown. Final score: Colts 23, Giants 17, which covered the point spread, and Rosenbloom's money.

My larger point is that if Terry wants to inventory all the evils of the "sports culture" I'm all ears. None of that detracts from my enjoyment of it, however.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Steve Duffy]

Thank God professional boxing is all above board.

[Steve Duffy]

Kathy...You know I was being sarcastic?

Was kinda hoping that came across...lighten the mood a little. This started about an Amazon poster, if I recall.

Never mind, I'm just here for the ride.

[John Dolva]

Perhaps a topic delving into these issues, something all encmpassing about the role or purpose of sport, its history, what it means, what it should mean et.c. could be started in the phys ed section, for example? Different cultures have through history used it in different ways at different times. Different philosophies and dogmas interpret these uses in different ways.

[William Kelly]

The history of sports in this country is riddled with corruption. Super Bowl 3 was fixed, in my opinion.

The Florida A & M (FAMU) marching band was waiting near the end zone, ready to come on the field at half-time.

Earl Morrall never saw a wide open Jimmy Orr waving his arms frantically, because the Colts' uniforms blended

in with the Rattlers' colors. Instead, Morrall threw to another receiver and the half ended with an interception.

In his autobiography, Bubba Smith hinted that the game might have been "set up" for the Jets to win, but he offered no evidence.

Weeb Ewbank and Buddy Ryan out-coached Shula in that game. The Jets were younger, faster, smarter, and played with

a chip on their shoulder. An AFL team won Super Bowl IV too. J. Willie Namath guaranteed a victory and he delivered one.

The game wasn't as close as the final score (16-7) indicated. Namath didn't throw a pass in the fourth quarter.

The Jets were clearly the better team that day.

Ali-Liston fixed? Maybe, but probably not. Super Bowl III fixed? C'mon man.

Cliff is a very smart guy, but he's got this one wrong, in my opinion.

Hi Michael,

I love sports conspiracy theories but I don't take any of them to heart. Something fun to speculate about is all.

I think it was Ash Resnick who claimed that Liston had bet a large sum of money on himself winning the first Ali-Liston fight in 5 rounds or less and so he didn't pace himself and couldn't answer the bell for the 7th round.

It's fashionable to claim that the second fight was fixed, but as you say, probably not.

I don't have a firm conviction on the subject of SB III, just a suspicion. I can't give a cite but it has been alleged that as he walked away after making his famous "guarantee" Namath muttered, "As long as they don't change their defensive signals."

Did Colts owner Carroll Rosenbloom give his team's defensive signals to Namath? It's my favorite sports conspiracy theory but it doesn't explain the five Colts turnovers and a missed field goal.

Here's a level-headed presentation of the conspiracy view:

http://old.disinfo.c.../pg1/index.html

I find this of considerable interest:

The NFL's Dirty Little Secret

A majority of early NFL owners were known gamblers. Some were even tied to organized crime. One time Dallas Cowboy owner Clint Murchison Jr., Kansas City Chief owner Lamar Hunt (son of oilman H.L. Hunt Jr.), Cleveland Brown/Baltimore Raven owner Art Modell, New Orleans Saints owner John Mecom Jr. (who had very close ties to Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, a key player in bringing a team in New Orleans), Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona Cardinal owner Charles Bidwell (who was a bootlegger and an associate of Al Capone), and Philadelphia Eagle owner DeBenneville "Bert" Bell (who had ties to the East Coast Mafia) all were known to have been gamblers and bet on football (some even their own teams). Carroll Rosenbloom, one time owner of the Baltimore Colts, not only bet on his team, but also altered the outcome of a game because of it.

Oddly enough, it was this very game that legitimized football for the television networks. It has been called the greatest game ever played: the 1958 NFL championship game. Rosenbloom's Colts were playing the New York Giants, who were 3 to 5 point underdogs. Rosenbloom laid down $1 million on his boys to win. [8] The Colts were losing until the last seven seconds, when Colts kicker Steve Myhra kicked a field goal to tie the game at 17-17 and send it into overtime. In overtime, the Colts marched 80 yards down the field to get to the Giants eight-yard line easy field goal territory. But they never kicked. Instead Rosenbloom, knowing the game was won but his bet lost with a field goal, had his general manager force Coach Ewbank to go in for the touchdown. Final score: Colts 23, Giants 17, which covered the point spread, and Rosenbloom's money.

My larger point is that if Terry wants to inventory all the evils of the "sports culture" I'm all ears. None of that detracts from my enjoyment of it, however.

Carroll Rosenbloom isn't a stranger to the JFK Assassination story. Rosenbloom owned the Baltimore Colts, but lived on Absecon Island in the Downebeach neighborhood of the same barrior Island that includes Atlatnic City.

Rosenbloom lent Leo Fraser the money to buy the historic Atlantic City Country Club from his brother Sonny and others after it was discovered that there were slot machines in the club house when Sonny was trying to open the Atlnatic City (Horse) Race Trackt with Olympic Champion and Philadelphia building contractor Jack Kelly, despite protests from Florida Sen. Frank Smathers, who perceieved the Atlantic City track as competition for the FLorida tracks.

Rosenbloom was also pals and partners with Mike McLaney, who played golf with JFK, in the ownership of the Hotel Nacional casino in Havana, interest they bought from Myer Lansky within weeks of Castro's takeover.

While it was planned well in advance to hold the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City as a celebration of JFK's renomination, with Sinatra booked to sing at Skinny D'Amato's 500 Club, it turned out to be a eulogy to JFK delivered by RFK, and LBJ taking the nomination, sidetracking any attempt by RFK to railroad the votes to draft him.

While LBJ was officialy registered at a boardwalk hotel during the convention, he actually stayed at Rosenbloom's Downbeach house, but he refused all attempts to convince him to go back to Cuba and get rid of Castro, knowning that was what led to JFK's death, and instead, gave the Pentagon their war in Vietnam.

As for whether or not Rosenbloom fixed the championship game (I don't think they called it the Superbowl yet) - that was thoroughly looked into by none onther than our good friend Dan Moldea, who also wrote about how the Mafia killed JFK. In fact, I think Modea can be credited with actually being the first to seriously propose that as a conspiracy theory.

Bill Kelly

Edited November 9, 2010 by William Kelly

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Several of my JFK friends tell me that S.V. Anderson is, in their opinion, David von Pein. Ha ha ha. So we have a case of a lone nutter making up a fake profile, then in turn the fake profile S.V. Anderson making up fake profiles on Amazon.

Wow. Those lone "nutters" sure do have a way of keeping themselves occupied and amused, with all their imaginary friends, which I guess fits in well with their imaginary theories about the JFK assassination.

I do like David von Pein posting over here in Education Forum. I think he draws TRAFFIC over here from folks googling his name ... then they might get a heavy dose of TRUTH about the JFK assassination here at the Education Forum, which is a fine place to be and an honor to be able to post here.

Which reminds of an analogy. Jim DiEugenio is to David von Pein as ... a cat is to a ball of yarn (or, more accurately, a dead rat). Often when those lone nutter con artists stir up cloud of activity, it piques people's interest in the JFK assassination, they hopefully research more, then learn the TRUTH. The truth being that JFK was slaughtered by an elite domestic political conspiracy.

Just as I like David von Pein posting over here, I do want to encourage folks to take the tour of the SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM, where one can see all the LIES AND PROPAGANDA of the government and official media on display. When you learn the LIES OF THE ENEMY, the better you are able to debunk them. Please do take a tour of the SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM, even though it is a national disgrace ... examine the lies so you can be better able to debunk them!

Edited November 10, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[David Von Pein]

Several of my JFK friends tell me that S.V. Anderson is, in their opinion, David von Pein.

Sorry, Bob, that's just simply not true. (No matter what your "JFK friends" say.)

I have never made up a "fake profile" in my life. Nor will I ever do such a silly thing. I've always used my own name in my posts on the Internet, for everything--JFK-related and otherwise.

At one point a few years ago, I was using only my initials [DVP] or the username David VP. But I've never seen the need to utilize an alias. Nor would I want to do so. Why would I want S.V. Anderson (or anyone else) to get credit for my writings? It's silly, IMO.

Although at the same time, I can understand people not wanting to reveal their true names and identities on the Internet -- especially when dealing with some of the really off-the-wall conspiracy theorists the World Wide Web has to offer.

I don't recall having any problem with conspiracy-happy weirdos, except for THIS ONE NUTCASE HERE, who threatened to blow up my house merely because I did something horrible and actually followed the evidence in the JFK murder case to where it leads [Lee Harvey Oswald and only him, of course].

BTW, I've talked to S.V. Anderson several times at Amazon (and via e-mail). He makes a lot of sense when he discusses the JFK case too. (No wonder Robert Morrow's JFK friends think Anderson and I are the same person.)

Edited November 10, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Several of my JFK friends tell me that S.V. Anderson is, in their opinion, David von Pein.

Sorry, Bob, that's just simply not true. (No matter what your "JFK friends" say.)

I have never made up a "fake profile" in my life. Nor will I ever do such a silly thing. I've always used my own name in my posts on the Internet, for everything--JFK-related and otherwise.

At one point a few years ago, I was using only my initials [DVP] or the username David VP. But I've never seen the need to utilize an alias. Nor would I want to do so. Why would I want S.V. Anderson (or anyone else) to get credit for my writings? It's silly, IMO.

Although at the same time, I can understand people not wanting to reveal their true names and identities on the Internet -- especially when dealing with some of the really off-the-wall conspiracy theorists the World Wide Web has to offer.

I don't recall having any problem with conspiracy-happy weirdos, except for THIS ONE NUTCASE HERE, who threatened to blow up my house merely because I did something horrible and actually followed the evidence in the JFK murder case to where it leads [Lee Harvey Oswald and only him, of course].

BTW, I've talked to S.V. Anderson several times at Amazon (and via e-mail). He makes a lot of sense when he discusses the JFK case too. (No wonder Robert Morrow's JFK friends think Anderson and I are the same person.)

Who knows? The only thing I know FOR SURE is S.V. Anderson makes up fake profiles and then converses with himself over at Amazon; which I think is pretty juvenile, not to mention deceptive. And S.V. Anderson himself has admitted his profile is a fake one (only after he gotted outed on his other profiles.)

Edited November 10, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Is S.V. Anderson in reality Vincent Bugliosi. No, of course not. I was wrong in my original hunch. Instead it is one of his kook followers, a groupie who troops around the internet posting disinformation on the 1963 Coup d'Etat and the patsy US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald.

Here is my original post:

"Over at Amazon.com, there is a rude, annoying, disrespectful poster S.V. Anderson spreading a lot of lies, misinformation and disinformation about the JFK assassination. His disinfo style is the same as Vincent Bugliosi's - that is, forget the facts, just call people "kooks," "nuts," "loons," "idiots," etc.

I have caught this guy making up fake profiles and actually carrying on conversations with himself on the Amazon boards, in crude attempts to propagandize. He has admitted that his real name is not S.V. Anderson and he claims to be historian and teacher. It is obvious that this joker is NOT a historian or teacher."

S.V. Anderson also sure does HATE the Education Forum which he is constantly degrading with rude comments. In fact, rude comments and insults is the main debating style of this loony lonely nutter, a freak floating in the out edges of the ionosphere, in his own little world of fantasy and imaginary little friends who he conjures up to talk to (and chime in to support his lonely nutter "theory")

Whenever I see this joker post, I can't help but think of the Teletubbies, as S.V. Anderson consults with his little friends Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po. As in

"Po little S.V. Anderson is a lonely nutter in Laa-Laa land, as he promotes his Dipsy little lonely, Tinky Winky nutter "theory" on the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

I have no proof that S.V. Anderson is DAVID VON PEIN, but my JFK friends who have been on the board a while, many of them insist it is DAVID VON PEIN. I just don't know because DAVID VON PEIN has denied being this fruity, rude beyond belief, disinformation kook S.V. Anderson over at Amazon. I should note that whenever tinky winky S.V. Anderson is posting on JFK topics at Amazon, DAVID VON PEIN is nowhere to be found. In fact, I really have NOT been seeing DAVID VON PEIN posting over at Amazon; mainly it is just the dipsy S.V. Anderson making vile, derogatory comments about the Education Forum, which I think is one of the great resources for information on the Coup of 1963.

So what do you folks think - is S.V. Anderson in actuality DAVID VON PEIN? DAVID VON PEIN has denied this. So I guess we should take the denial of DAVID VON PEIN for what it is worth. Just wondering, how much is a DAVID VON PEIN denial worth?

So the bottom line question is: is the kooky, rude, nasty disinformation whack job S.V. Anderson (who posts at Amazon) in fact DAVID VON PEIN??

Your comments and speculations, please.

Robert Morrow (and no, that is not a fake profile of mine)

Edited December 9, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Pat Speer]

Is S.V. Anderson in reality Vincent Bugliosi. No, of course not. I was wrong in my original hunch. Instead it is one of his kook followers, a groupie who troops around the internet posting disinformation on the 1963 Coup d'Etat and the patsy US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald.

Here is my original post:

"Over at Amazon.com, there is a rude, annoying, disrespectful poster S.V. Anderson spreading a lot of lies, misinformation and disinformation about the JFK assassination. His disinfo style is the same as Vincent Bugliosi's - that is, forget the facts, just call people "kooks," "nuts," "loons," "idiots," etc.

I have caught this guy making up fake profiles and actually carrying on conversations with himself on the Amazon boards, in crude attempts to propagandize. He has admitted that his real name is not S.V. Anderson and he claims to be historian and teacher. It is obvious that this joker is NOT a historian or teacher."

S.V. Anderson also sure does HATE the Education Forum which he is constantly degrading with rude comments. In fact, rude comments and insults is the main debating style of this loony lonely nutter, a freak floating in the out edges of the ionosphere, in his own little world of fantasy and imaginary little friends who he conjures up to talk to (and chime in to support his lonely nutter "theory")

Whenever I see this joker post, I can't help but think of the Teletubbies, as S.V. Anderson consults with his little friends Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po. As in

"Po little S.V. Anderson is a lonely nutter in Laa-Laa land, as he promotes his Dipsy little lonely, Tinky Winky nutter "theory" on the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

I have no proof that S.V. Anderson is DAVID VON PEIN, but my JFK friends who have been on the board a while, many of them insist it is DAVID VON PEIN. I just don't know because DAVID VON PEIN has denied being this fruity, rude beyond belief, disinformation kook S.V. Anderson over at Amazon. I should note that whenever tinky winky S.V. Anderson is posting on JFK topics at Amazon, DAVID VON PEIN is nowhere to be found. In fact, I really have NOT been seeing DAVID VON PEIN posting over at Amazon; mainly it is just the dipsy S.V. Anderson making vile, derogatory comments about the Education Forum, which I think is one of the great resources for information on the Coup of 1963.

So what do you folks think - is S.V. Anderson in actuality DAVID VON PEIN? DAVID VON PEIN has denied this. So I guess we should take the denial of DAVID VON PEIN for what it is worth. Just wondering, how much is a DAVID VON PEIN denial worth?

So the bottom line question is: is the kooky, rude, nasty disinformation whack job S.V. Anderson (who posts at Amazon) in fact DAVID VON PEIN??

Your comments and speculations, please.

Robert Morrow (and no, that is not a fake profile of mine)

FWIW, Robert, DVP seems quite proud of who he is, and takes a certain measure of delight from his feuds with CTs. As a result, I don't see him as someone who'd stoop to using fake names when feuding.