New podcast on my books POLITICAL TRUTH and INTO THE NIGHTMARE

[Bill Brown]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't mean to pick on you, Bill, but as soon as I saw your name I thought "Oh no, I hope the Ed Forum doesn't become the JFK Assassination Forum, where a thread will go on for a hundred pages, with the last 98 largely name-calling."

So, do you have any criticism of Bugliosi's book that you would like to share? 

Probably more than anyone, I have spoken up about the name-calling over at that forum many times. I'm not a fan of it. As a matter of fact, I'm Admin of two facebook discussion groups, JFK TRUTH BE TOLD and TENTH & PATTON. Name calling is not allowed in either group (though sometimes it can skip by if not pointed out). I have deleted comments and warned LNers for name calling just as I have done to CTs.

 

As for Reclaiming History, I believe it serves very well as a minute by minute account of that weekend.  But, I don't share Bugliosi's opinion all the time on what constitutes proof and/or evidence of Oswald's guilt. 

 

The 53 items he lists, some of them I don't consider evidence of anything. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Probably more than anyone, I have spoken up about the name-calling over at that forum many times. I'm not a fan of it. As a matter of fact, I'm Admin of two facebook discussion groups, JFK TRUTH BE TOLD and TENTH & PATTON. Name calling is not allowed in either group (though sometimes it can skip by if not pointed out). I have deleted comments and warned LNers for name calling just as I have done to CTs.

 

As for Reclaiming History, I believe it serves very well as a minute by minute account of that weekend.  But, I don't share Bugliosi's opinion all the time on what constitutes proof and/or evidence of Oswald's guilt. 

 

The 53 items he lists, some of them I don't consider evidence of anything. 

Thanks. I remember listening to your "debate" with Matt Douthit. I thought you both handled yourselves fairly well. 

[Denny Zartman]

It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

It seems the best you can do is say those lineup photos in the Warren Report hearings and exhibits were taken on a different date, therefore they are not representative of their appearance in Oswald's lineup.

If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not  representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all? If the intent of taking the pictures was to just identify the individuals who participated, pictures of their faces would be enough. Instead, their whole bodies are presented in full frame, they are all lined up side by side against a wall, and they even have photos of them lined up in left profile and still others of them lined up in right profile.

Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup.

Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup.

If their appearance in the lineup photos published in the Hearings and Exhibits does not accurately represent their appearances in Oswald's lineup, it should have been explicitly noted as such. But it is not noted as such in the Hearings & Exhibits, nor is it noted in CD 1083, as far as I can see. Apparently it was also not noted in the Hearings & Exhibits that those photos were taken later, lending even more credence to the idea that they were published with the intent of representing the appearance of those men as they appeared in the lineup. 

If you go by Fritz's comments and trust him to tell the truth, they might have taken off their ties, one might have worn a brown jacket, and one might have worn a red vest. These are still suits. They used to even specify "suit and tie" for attire, so a suit without a tie or even a jacket is still a suit.

So now it seems that the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence that other men were not wearing suits in their lineup with Oswald.

[Bill Brown]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks. I remember listening to your "debate" with Matt Douthit. I thought you both handled yourselves fairly well. 

We did a couple debates. The second one was a little more heated than the first one even though we still didn't do any name-calling or anything like that. Which one did you listen to?

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

We did a couple debates. The second one was a little more heated than the first one even though we still didn't do any name-calling or anything like that. Which one did you listen to?

I was talking to Matt the other night. He pointed out that there were 2. I think I only listened to the first 1. I don't know if you know my story but I was off the grid for most of last year battling cancer. I assume that's when the second one occurred. 

[Bill Brown]

39 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I was talking to Matt the other night. He pointed out that there were 2. I think I only listened to the first 1. I don't know if you know my story but I was off the grid for most of last year battling cancer. I assume that's when the second one occurred. 

We did the first one in the summer of 2020 that was about two and a half hours long. We did another one in the summer of 2021 that was about four and a half hours long. I would call both of them a discussion on the Tippit case more so than a debate. Here is a link to the second one that we did last summer (enter at your own risk)...

 

No Pat, I did not know your story. I truly hope that you're in complete remission and on your way to a full recovery. Prayers, man.

[Bill Brown]

That debate, if you will, is kind of raw and unedited. But I feel others can learn from listening to it.

 

To me, that's what matters. 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

It seems the best you can do is say those lineup photos in the Warren Report hearings and exhibits were taken on a different date, therefore they are not representative of their appearance in Oswald's lineup.

If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not  representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all? If the intent of taking the pictures was to just identify the individuals who participated, pictures of their faces would be enough. Instead, their whole bodies are presented in full frame, they are all lined up side by side against a wall, and they even have photos of them lined up in left profile and still others of them lined up in right profile.

Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup.

Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup.

If their appearance in the lineup photos published in the Hearings and Exhibits does not accurately represent their appearances in Oswald's lineup, it should have been explicitly noted as such. But it is not noted as such in the Hearings & Exhibits, nor is it noted in CD 1083, as far as I can see. Apparently it was also not noted in the Hearings & Exhibits that those photos were taken later, lending even more credence to the idea that they were published with the intent of representing the appearance of those men as they appeared in the lineup. 

If you go by Fritz's comments and trust him to tell the truth, they might have taken off their ties, one might have worn a brown jacket, and one might have worn a red vest. These are still suits. They used to even specify "suit and tie" for attire, so a suit without a tie or even a jacket is still a suit.

So now it seems that the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence that other men were not wearing suits in their lineup with Oswald.

Ditto

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How do we know if Brennan had good or less good vision on the day of the assassination?

We do know that Joe Ball had a problem with this in March I think.

Which is about four months later.  Did it just occur within those four (or less) months?

Yes, Jim, it did! And I find it difficult to believe that you didn't know that fact in all these 30+ years that you've been studying the JFK case.

I even specifically cited and quoted Brennan's WC testimony (as it relates to his January 1964 eye injury) in this post (directed at you, Jim) from just four days ago. Here's what I said to you then:

"BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147]....

DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?

HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir.

BELIN -- What has happened?

BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.

BELIN -- This is January of 1964?

BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.

BELIN -- How is your eyesight today?

BRENNAN -- He says it is not good.

BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?

BRENNAN -- Yes.

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

So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself."

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

I have to agree.  Joe called the bluff.

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The 53 items he [Vince Bugliosi] lists, some of them I don't consider evidence of anything. 

IMO, only two of the 53 items on Vince's list should absolutely not be on such a list....

Item #23 (about Oswald changing his pants, which certainly doesn't prove anything one way or the other; and, in fact, I don't think Oswald changed his pants at Beckley at all on 11/22/63).

And:

Item #41 (about the paraffin test, since such tests are very unreliable, and even Mr. Bugliosi knows they are unreliable, so he shouldn't be using such a test as proof of anything).

Here's what I said to CTer Ben Holmes in this 2014 discussion when he and I were bashing each other over the head about the topic of "VB's 53 Items"....

DVP SAID:

Most of the things on Mr. Bugliosi's 53-item list are very solid and worthy of such a list of Oswald-incriminating material. And some of them fall into the "Why Didn't I Ever Think Of That?" category too. (At least for me they do.) Such as:

Vincent's 19th item, which is a great point Vince makes about Oswald's total silence while in William Whaley's taxicab just after the assassination. Even though Oswald was right there at the scene of the crime just minutes earlier....and even though Oswald has been told by Mrs. Robert Reid that the President has been shot (so even the CTers who think LHO didn't pull the trigger have to admit that Oswald still was made aware of the President being shot by Mrs. Reid)....Lee Oswald still doesn't utter a word to Whaley after Whaley says "I wonder what the hell is the uproar?"

Such silence in that particular situation and at that particular moment in time (and knowing what Oswald definitely did know) is, IMO, highly indicative of "consciousness of guilt" on Lee Harvey Oswald's behalf. Such silence most certainly cannot be utilized to point to Oswald's innocence, can it Ben?

BEN HOLMES SAID:

And you're demonstrating your cowardice. Don't worry, I'll be posting this series at a few places online - and I'll be sure to mention that you refuse to defend Bugliosi.

DVP SAID:

Anything, no matter how thorough and comprehensive, can be criticized by people, Ben. The Warren Commission and its very good report being a great example of that. And even LNers such as myself have criticized the Commission for certain things. And I have criticized a few parts of Vince Bugliosi's book too. The biggest (and weirdest) mistake in the book is probably this one.

But what conspiracy advocates should be doing, instead of constantly bashing Mr. Bugliosi's excellent book to death with meaningless nitpicky things that don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run, is to try and assemble a reasonable and coherent conspiracy plot and shooting scenario that they (the CTers) think really did occur in Dallas to combat the vast array of hard facts and physical evidence that Vincent Bugliosi has placed on the table via his book "Reclaiming History".

The conspiracy theorists can nitpick Vince all they want (and they do), but the overall case of Lee Oswald's guilt is still going to exist within the many pages of "Reclaiming History"---regardless of what any nitpicking CTer has to say about that evidence.

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

Also see:
"Reclaiming History" Errors (Part 1)
"Reclaiming History" Errors (Part 2)
 

Edited July 15, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Steve Roe]

Quote

Myers also objects to my questioning Marie Tippit's account (actually her changing accounts) of her husband coming home for a quick lunch on November 22. If that were the case, and if the timing were right, Tippit could have had an alibi to show that he was not "Badge Man," the man who appears to be in a Dallas policeman's uniform, firing a shot at President Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll. In my book, as others have before me, I discuss the possibility of Tippit being "Badge Man". Contrary to what Myers writes, I do not establish it as a certainty because of the lingering uncertainty over whether Tippit could have been home for lunch and may have conducted a brief investigation of a reported shoplifting in Oak Cliff at 12:17 p.m. (The evidence for that stop on his itinerary is also questionable).

 

Above quote was from McBride's response to Dale Myers. You can see the entire article here on DiEugenio's Conspiracy Website https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-lee-harvey-oswald-and-the-murder-of-officer-j-d-tippit

Considering the possibility that Tippit was Badgeman? Why even go there? Is this scholarly work exploring a nutty theory? Badgeman was debunked decades ago. 

[Ron Bulman]

Steve, it seems Joseph's latest book on the JFKA has stirred your and your friend Bill's interest.  Have you or he actually read it or Nightmare?  Do either of you understand the concept of Coincidence Theorist discussed in the former?  Look in the mirror for understanding. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Bill Brown]

On 7/14/2022 at 9:36 PM, Denny Zartman said:

It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

It seems the best you can do is say those lineup photos in the Warren Report hearings and exhibits were taken on a different date, therefore they are not representative of their appearance in Oswald's lineup.

If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not  representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all? If the intent of taking the pictures was to just identify the individuals who participated, pictures of their faces would be enough. Instead, their whole bodies are presented in full frame, they are all lined up side by side against a wall, and they even have photos of them lined up in left profile and still others of them lined up in right profile.

Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup.

Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup.

If their appearance in the lineup photos published in the Hearings and Exhibits does not accurately represent their appearances in Oswald's lineup, it should have been explicitly noted as such. But it is not noted as such in the Hearings & Exhibits, nor is it noted in CD 1083, as far as I can see. Apparently it was also not noted in the Hearings & Exhibits that those photos were taken later, lending even more credence to the idea that they were published with the intent of representing the appearance of those men as they appeared in the lineup. 

If you go by Fritz's comments and trust him to tell the truth, they might have taken off their ties, one might have worn a brown jacket, and one might have worn a red vest. These are still suits. They used to even specify "suit and tie" for attire, so a suit without a tie or even a jacket is still a suit.

So now it seems that the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence that other men were not wearing suits in their lineup with Oswald.

"It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary."

 

What photographic proof has McBride (or anyone else, for that matter) provided to support his mistaken claim that Oswald was placed in a lineup alongside men wearing suits?

 

Go read the testimony of Perry, Clark and Ables (the three men in question).  Each describe what they were wearing during the lineup and none of it comes close to what the three were wearing in June of '64 when photographed (see CD 1083).

 

 

"If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not  representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all?"

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about here and I don't think you know, either.  There weren't any pictures taken in a lineup.

 

 

"Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup.

Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup."

 

No and No.

 

Perry, Clark and Ables describe what they were wearing during the lineup and none of it comes close to what the three were wearing in June of '64 when photographed (see CD 1083).

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

"It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary."

 

What photographic proof has McBride (or anyone else, for that matter) provided to support his mistaken claim that Oswald was placed in a lineup alongside men wearing suits?

 

Go read the testimony of Perry, Clark and Ables (the three men in question).  Each describe what they were wearing during the lineup and none of it comes close to what the three were wearing in June of '64 when photographed (see CD 1083).

 

 

"If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not  representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all?"

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about here and I don't think you know, either.  There weren't any pictures taken in a lineup.

 

 

"Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup.

Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup."

 

No and No.

 

Perry, Clark and Ables describe what they were wearing during the lineup and none of it comes close to what the three were wearing in June of '64 when photographed (see CD 1083).

 

 

Joseph told you in his second post on the thread where to find the photographs.  I guess you didn't take time to look.