Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He [DVP] would then add to that exchange...

...in this revised version...

DiEugenio doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have Von Pein on ignore. For good reason.

Many  years ago I quoted from RH, a crucial phrase in the intro, which DVP did not even recall.  VB said that in the following pages he would present the arguments of the critics, not as he wanted to, but as they wanted them presented.  And then he would effectively rebut them.

I said  this was pure hogwash. I then proved it.  I demonstrated in 25 instances throughout the book that Bugliosi DID NOT present the critics' arguments honestly.  He could not afford to or he would lose the argument.  A  good example was on the Ruby polygraph where he failed to mention, for example, the low GRS setting, which the experts for the HSCA said negated the test.  Bugliosi had to know this since he quoted from the same place.

When you do that 25 times, at least, you simply have no credibility on the subject.

From this July 2015 forum discussion....

DVP SAID:

In order for Vince [Bugliosi] to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case as the critics of the Warren Commission 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 intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity" [see the complete quote here] -- 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 Bugliosi's book) -- "See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a xxxx! 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 xxxx."

It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("the way they, not I, want them to be set forth"), 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 conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it. *

[* 2022 DVP EDIT -- But please also note the precise words that Bugliosi used in his book -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments..."

A key word there is the word "main".

Let me also add this important quote from Vince Bugliosi's book (regarding "wheat" and "chaff"):

"One of my very biggest tasks for you, the reader, was to separate the wheat from the chaff out of the virtually endless allegations, controversies, and issues surrounding the case. I believe I have done this, and it is this wheat, as it were, that constitutes this very long book." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xlv of "Reclaiming History"]

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

[End Quotes From 2015 & 2022.]

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

More about Vince Bugliosi's "pledge" HERE.

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Ron Bulman]

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Someone asked why DVP was previously banned.

Its because he would take exchanges off of this forum without the permission of the guy he was arguing with, and then drag them over to his site.

He would then add to that exchange, where he had originally been pummeled by me or someone else.  So in this revised version it would look like he had the last word and me, or whoever, had retreated.  And since his site is a personal blog, there was no way to reply.

When he was confronted with this rather unattractive practice, he tried to weasel out of it.

But I actually showed he had done it just as I and others had complained about.

That is when he was ejected.

He got back on by promising not to do it again.

 

This is why Bart Kamp left the forum.  Which I can't blame him from doing, he wasn't here to argue, he presented relevant important documented information of his own and much of that from Malcom Blunt, one of the best document researchers ever imho.  A shame that this happened.

[James DiEugenio]

I think this is why Lee Farley left also, at least I know he protested about it.

Lee was a British researcher who did some really good work.

Edited June 4, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

"One of my very biggest tasks for you, the reader, was to separate the wheat from the chaff out of the virtually endless allegations, controversies, and issues surrounding the case. I believe I have done this, and it is this wheat, as it were, that constitutes this very long book." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xlv of "Reclaiming History"]

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

 

 

Is the Bugliosi belief that neutron activation analysis (NAA) proves that the JFK bullet fragments were from the "Oswald rifle" an example of wheat?

[James DiEugenio]

Charles:

So was his failure to mention the faulty GRS measurement on Ruby's polygraph.

BTW, the HSCA concluded Ruby had lied on that test.

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This is why Bart Kamp left the forum.  Which I can't blame him from doing, he wasn't here to argue, he presented relevant important documented information of his own and much of that from Malcom Blunt, one of the best document researchers ever imho.  A shame that this happened.

Following on my previous post, which is connected in a way, the “Assassination Debate” has become a debate between WC defenders and critics. It doesn’t have to be that way. This thread has become the main place people post or read, and new ones seem to fizzle. But the ‘Debate’ doesn’t have to be between David Von Pein and Jim DiEugenio (the points of view they represent, diametrically opposed). It could be a debate that first assumes Oswald was not a lone assassin. All posts supporting the WC conclusions would be off base and ultimately not allowed. Posts would have to be about theories other than the one the WC decided was the truth. 
Assassination Debate : If Oswald was not a lone assassin, if the kill shots were from somewhere other than the TSBD 6th floor, then who killed JFK? 

Edited June 4, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Ron Bulman]

I didn't shoot anybody.

[David G. Healy]

23 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

 

so says the unintended lone nutter and fry cook from Indiana. LMFAO!

I'll have another Jack and a beer chaser bar-keep -- Von Pein he's in serious need of a sherry... I'm witnessing the last vestiges of the old John McAdams choirboys in action, pathetic....

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Is the Bugliosi belief that neutron activation analysis (NAA) proves that the JFK bullet fragments were from the "Oswald rifle" an example of wheat?

The Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) stuff is, indeed, "wheat" (IMO), but with an important asterisk and footnote after it.

Yes, Vince Bugliosi in his book did, indeed, put a lot of faith in the NAA analysis of Dr. Vincent Guinn. (And I, too, would like to know how the conspiracy theorists can possibly combat the "What Are The Odds?" logic and common sense that reside in my 2007 article concerning Dr. Guinn's NAA conclusions, presented here.)

But I sure hope nobody has formed the incorrect opinion that Mr. Bugliosi just totally ignored the various NAA studies that have been published since 2002, which cast doubt on the exactitude of Dr. Guinn's determinations. Because Bugliosi certainly did not ignore those scientific studies at all. In fact, he talks about those newer NAA studies at some length in his book, a discussion which encompasses four entire pages of endnotes in "Reclaiming History". You can read all four of those pages here.

So, yes, Bugliosi did promote Dr. Guinn's NAA conclusions. But he also presented the opposing NAA viewpoint in his book as well.

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

5 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Is the Bugliosi belief that neutron activation analysis (NAA) proves that the JFK bullet fragments were from the "Oswald rifle" an example of wheat?

I will explain what VB did with the NAA evidence Charles and this shows you why his book cannot be trusted.

In the actual hardcover text, he spends about  4 pages going after the critics for suspecting CE 399 is a fraud.  He then lowers his hammer by using Guinn and the HSCA.  He literally says that Guinn proved that CE 399 was authentic. (811-14) Therefore, in the text, he gives the reader the illusion that the CBLA uses the FBI, Guinn and the HSCA brought to  bear on NAA were genuine.  You will not read the names of RIc Randich and Pat Grant in the book.

He brings up those two names in the footnotes--which are not in the book!  They are on a disc inside the cover jacket.  HA HA HA.  LOL This is what I mean about VB being so deceptive since that is certainly not the way the critics would present it and he knows that. Therefore this proves again that the introductory statement was a  deliberate prevarication.

Metallurgist Randich and statistician Grant--who demolished the CBLA uses of NAA in court--are not in the text of the book. The obvious reason being that he could not have presented the NAA and Guinn as probative if he had.  Let us make this clear, since there is no debate about it.  After Grant and Randich presented their scientific findings in court, the FBI stopped using CBLA!  In fact, the judge in the case Randich testified in told the FBI's expert witness that if she tried to use this junk science in court again he would have her indicted for perjury.

Gary Aguilar utterly pilloried Bugliosi for his dishonesty on this issue in a legal trade journal, Federal Lawyer.  Let me say that again: a legal trade journal. It had to pass review.  And it did, and VInce was humiliated in front of thousands of his peers.  But this is what happens to a good lawyer when he weds himself to a huge pile of horse manure like the Warren Commission.  

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Charles Blackmon]

The Neutron Activation Analysis of the limo bullets was done for the HSCA in the seventies right? This particular issue interests me because I studied metallurgy in college. The Randich/Grant study made sense to me when I read it.

[Michael Griffith]

5 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

The Neutron Activation Analysis of the limo bullets was done for the HSCA in the seventies right? This particular issue interests me because I studied metallurgy in college. The Randich/Grant study made sense to me when I read it.

Yet, years after the Randich-Grant study, you still have WC apologists repeating the myth that NAA proved that the JFK bullet fragments came from MC ammo. 

[James DiEugenio]

Here was my presentation after I saw Randich and Grant at a salon sponsored by Gary Aguilar.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

Gary's from Federal Lawyer is probably even better. And Thompson did a nice summary in Last Second in Dallas.

The fact that Vince did not reveal this work in the text of his book shows you what RH is worth.

Edited June 4, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

The importance of the Randich/Grant study was not just that it blew up the basic findings of Guinn, as to how metal specific NAA testing was.

They also said that the basic tenet Guinn worked under was false.  Namely that WCC ammo was somehow uniquely characteristic.  It was not. It was like about 75 per cent of all lead alloys in handgun ammunition.

Here is the other problem with Guinn.  Let me quote from my paper.

Randich and Grant also discussed a crucial phenomenon in lead smelting called "segregation", i.e. how the lead and trace elements distribute themselves through the heating and cooling process. During this process, the lead, because it is heavier, stays in the center, while the antimony "floats" to the edges. So depending on where one draws the sample from, that particular location will determine the levels of antimony. Further, copper tends to coagulate in clumps, so if you drew a sample from just one spot you might get a high concentration of copper. If you drew it from a few millimeters away, you could get a very low concentration. In fact, this is precisely what happened to Guinn. Which is why he tended to ignore his copper findings in favor of antimony and silver.

In other words there was no uniformity in the process and you could get random matches.

Edited June 5, 2023 by James DiEugenio