Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The most "absurd" assertion made by conspiracy theorists at this forum (or any other) is the assertion that Vincent T. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has (in any major way at all) been "debunked".

Such a notion concerning Bugliosi's mammoth 20-year effort is not only utterly laughable, but also provably wrong (based on the sum total of evidence in the JFK case).

 

Newsflash.

James DiEugenio demolished Bugliosi's fraudulent pseudo-history book, Reclaiming History-- blow by blow by blow.

Do some honest homework.

 

[Ron Bulman]

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Newsflash.

James DiEugenio demolished Bugliosi's fraudulent pseudo-history book, Reclaiming History-- blow by blow by blow.

Do some honest homework.

If you want to believe that DiEugenio has "demolished" Vince Bugliosi's book, fine. But you're only fooling yourself. Because — newsflash! — the evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case (laid out painstakingly by Bugliosi in his book) clearly establishes Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt---and very likely his lone guilt.

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

The CIA did take a position on this case.

It was in a long memorandum called Countering the Critics.

Around this time the NY Times now began to profusely use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in relation to the JFK case.

I wrote a 500 page book with 1,800 footnotes showing that Bugliosi's book was a giant mirage, it was an argument by invective and by length.  It was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, symbolizing nothing.

Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam. That interview with Cronkite was done before NSAM 263 was signed and the Taylor Report was adapted.  And the Kennedys pre wrote that report.  That getting out was arranged around the election since JFK did not want to risk Saigon falling before then.  And he said this more than once.  Johnson deliberately reversed that policy and then lied about it. LBJ knew, as did John Paul Vann,  that there was no way Saigon could defeat the PAVN and the Viet Cong without American combat troops.  And JFK knew, from his experience in 1951, that this would be an endless blood letting which was simply not worth it since Vietnam was not part of American national security. He was correct, as the total casualties of 430,000 Americans, and the deaths of 5.8 million civilians in Indochina later proved.

Edited June 3, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

34 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wrote a 500 page book with 1,800 footnotes showing that Bugliosi's book was a giant mirage, it was an argument by invective and by length.  It was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, symbolizing nothing.

Good Lord, what a load of garbage.

Only a person hell-bent on promoting a conspiracy in the JFK case (such as Jim DiEugenio) could possibly just brush aside the massive amounts of actual evidence presented by Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History" and categorize that huge pile of evidence as merely "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, symbolizing nothing".

Mr. DiEugenio, you're living in a fantasy world.

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Joe Bauer]

I began to read Bugliosi's anchor weight book.

Checked it out from our local library.

I didn't get far.

Besides being too heavy to prop up on your chest in bed and constantly struggling to keep it open to read without one heavy chunk of pages from one side flopping over onto the other, I soon realized other aspects to the entire format that turned me off to the point of returning the book within just a few days.

You couldn't fit the book through the opening of the sidewalk return bin in front of the library.

And you needed both hands and arms just to carry it into the library and place it on the return shelf.

I immediately noticed hundreds of pages of general knowledge JFKA minutia that seemed like it was just copied and pasted from other sources.

Like a staff of young assistants were hired to do this as filler.

Actual writing by Bugliosi himself was a much smaller percentage of the contents.

And right away, what really turned me off was Bugliosi's constant insertion of childish, highly charged derogatory almost boogie man fear insult labels of anyone who believed the JFKA was the result of a conspiracy.

Loons. Nut cases. Conspiracy buffs and many others.

Bugliosi seemed compelled to repeat these insult labels over and over as if doing so would convince his readers that anything less than embracing the WC Lone Nut finding was truly a sign of mental illness in those who didn't.

The man doth "insults" too much-me thinks?

It's always an immediate turn off to read someone's contrary debate summaries when they way overdo the personal character insult thing in their effort to present and defend their differing view.

It always deflates the integrity of their own proposition argument. Like it can't just stand on it's own nonpersonal merits?

Reflects an intellectual insecurity imo.

Whenever I come across any JFKA assessment piece that tries to frame conspiracy considering others with mental illness boogie man labels I stop reading immediately.

The National Enquirer has more mature honesty integrity than that.

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[David Von Pein]

Joe B.,

To each his own.

Others disagree with your assessment about Bugliosi's tome:

New York Times Book Review

Los Angeles Times Book Review

Washington Post Book Review

Boston Globe Book Review

 

[Joe Bauer]

What an arrogant condescending crock of cr**!

Just like VB...

Immaturely labeling WC doubters paranoid, irresponsible, conspiracy buffs?

Guess this writer also feels the Oswald assassination by a strip joint owner right inside the Dallas PD with 70 armed security personnel all around was just dumb luck and dumb negligence? Nothing more?

This mob connected raunchy strip joint owner just saunters into the highest security minded and guarded scene in DPD history and unloads his 38 into the gut of the most important and threatened criminal suspect in American history from inches away ... and this also is nothing but more fodder for conspiracy loons?

 

"Bugliosi is right that this case is, and ought to be, closed. And I share his distaste for the wild finger-pointing and often paranoid reasoning of the Warren Report's critics, from the overweening New York State Assemblyman Mark Lane in the 1960s to the irresponsible filmmaker Oliver Stone in the 1990s. Still, maybe there should be a place kept for the conspiracy theory buffs. After all, they care passionately about one of the most important political events in our history. In an age of indifference, their attention to public life, however corrosive, can be more valuable than apathy and indifference." *

Alan Wolfe is director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College and author of "Does American Democracy Still Work?"

Edited June 3, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The most "absurd" assertion made by conspiracy theorists at this forum (or any other) is the assertion that Vincent T. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has (in any major way at all) been "debunked".

Such a notion concerning Bugliosi's mammoth 20-year effort is not only utterly laughable, but also provably wrong (based on the sum total of evidence in the JFK case).

Have you answered Dr. Gary Aguilar's critique of Bugliosi's book?

Essay - Review of Reclaiming History (maryferrell.org)

Among other things, Aguilar points out that Bugliosi claimed that neutron activation analysis (NAA) proved that the JFK bullet fragments were from MC bullets, even though he was aware that a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Forensic Science refuted that claim. 

The article was written by two scientists from the Lawrence Livermore Lab, Dr. Erik Randich (a metallurgist) and Dr. Pat Grant (a chemist). Randich and Grant noted that MC bullets are "quite similar" in composition to other FMJ bullets, and they showed that the NAA profile of the JFK bullet fragments proved that the fragments were consistent with "any number" of other FMJ bullets. They established that "any number of jacketed" bullets would have produced the same NAA profile as the JFK bullet fragments. 

Yet, Bugliosi dismissed Randich and Grant's study because ardent WC apologist Larry Sturdivan, who had no training in metallurgy or chemistry, told him in a letter that the study was wrong! As Aguilar notes,

           He [Bugliosi] had to choose between the personal remarks of a longstanding anti-conspiracy NAA proponent with unremarkable credentials and those of two conspiracy-agnostic Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists with superb credentials writing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and he chose the former.

To this day, WC apologists still peddle the false claim that NAA proves that the JFK bullet fragments came from the type of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, when in fact it proves no such thing. 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Charles Blackmon]

37 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

To this day, WC apologists still peddle the false claim that NAA proves that the JFK bullet fragments came from the type of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, when in fact it proves no such thing. 

 

If this false claim is found in Bugliosi's book then there are probably plenty of other false claims in his book. 

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The CIA did take a position on this case.

It was in a long memorandum called Countering the Critics.

Around this time the NY Times now began to profusely use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in relation to the JFK case.

I wrote a 500 page book with 1,800 footnotes showing that Bugliosi's book was a giant mirage, it was an argument by invective and by length.  It was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, symbolizing nothing.

Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam. That interview with Cronkite was done before NSAM 263 was signed and the Taylor Report was adapted.  And the Kennedys pre wrote that report.  That getting out was arranged around the election since JFK did not want to risk Saigon falling before then.  And he said this more than once.  Johnson deliberately reversed that policy and then lied about it. LBJ knew, as did John Paul Vann,  that there was no way Saigon could defeat the PAVN and the Viet Cong without American combat troops.  And JFK knew, from his experience in 1951, that this would be an endless blood letting which was simply not worth it since Vietnam was not part of American national security. He was correct, as the total casualties of 430,000 Americans, and the deaths of 5.8 million civilians in Indochina later proved.

Bump.

My question.

How did the Warren Commission buglioser, David Von Pein, get re-admitted to the Education Forum, after he was banned for repeatedly posting Mockingbird disinformazia?

[Michael Griffith]

17 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bump.

My question.

How did the Warren Commission buglioser, David Von Pein, get re-admitted to the Education Forum, after he was banned for repeatedly posting Mockingbird disinformazia?

I don't like the idea of banning WC apologists. Yes, most of their arguments are wrong, and some of them are patently absurd. However, what if WC apologists ran this forum and started banning CTers for repeatedly posting their arguments? 

[W. Niederhut]

2 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I don't like the idea of banning WC apologists. Yes, most of their arguments are wrong, and some of them are patently absurd. However, what if WC apologists ran this forum and started banning CTers for repeatedly posting their arguments? 

People can read the pervasive, redundant Mockingbird disinformazia about the JFKA anywhere, including the 6th Floor Museum.

We don't need it on the Education Forum, IMO.

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

Ignore the threads.

 

We really can't ignore the LNer threads because if we do, newbies will assume there is some validity to what they claim. Unfortunately we have to waste our time refuting those threads.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I don't like the idea of banning WC apologists. Yes, most of their arguments are wrong, and some of them are patently absurd. However, what if WC apologists ran this forum and started banning CTers for repeatedly posting their arguments? 

 

If WC apologists ran this forum, I would leave it. No big deal.

Of course, WC apologists will never run this forum.

The only good reason to have WC apologists on this forum is that they can serve the useful service of fact checking. Like when they informed us that Elmer Todd's initials had been found on CE 399.... that was really useful and I was very thankful to them.

However, I've noticed that WC apologists have been wasting our collective time more-so recently than what's historically been the case. If that continues, I intend on trying to eliminate WC apologists from the forum. But first I'll check and see if other CTer members agree with that. (I say this as a fellow member and not as a member of the admin team. Though, naturally, as an admin member, I will be sympathetic to my cause.)

 

[Paul Cummings]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

We really can't ignore the LNer threads because if we do, newbies will assume there is some validity to what they claim. Unfortunately we have to waste our time refuting those threads.

 

 

 

 

Sandy, there's more than enough threads in here for people to research on. My problem with what he wrote is for other "guests" or people who determine when the subject matter is or isn't up for discussion. I don't recall this JFK Debate having all of the major issues determined or resolved? Do you want new people study getting the JFK case by telling them already what YOU believe are the facts? For over a year I couldn't get on this forum and now that I'm here there's topics and areas that have been discussed in the past that I haven't been able to participate. So please excuse me if I haven't been here for 15 years discussing threads that some seem to find it being an issue. 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Paul Cummings