JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: David Von Pein on May 15, 2022, 10:20:46 PM
-
The very best JFK assassination book ever written (IMO, of course)—Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"—was released fifteen years ago today, on May 15, 2007. Happy Birthday, R.H.!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FI5bDEZMjQI/UdB09pVDC1I/AAAAAAAAvAA/Ty1G3dTU6eo/s710/XX.+Reclaiming+History+Blog+Logo+(2).png) (http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TSKYRNQIZjI/AAAAAAAAIzY/uI7w2Wch0Fk/s710/XX.%2BVincent%2BBugliosi%2BBlog%2BLogo.png) (http://vincent-bugliosi.blogspot.com)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9QbGTpbaEurUo3_7Bepo-c1BIjbRbFlYHRGuH5UBrmH9t3EBFJswEvco_Mbo8_in3fzC7TWDBA2KMVaFjJFGCVVg5LU1nJPmbXUCEOf-GQUZdryFhKjy8c4qJBFSJ1zJsG9z3ETR6NNSf7iole6OHONRVnKllbDZTyfzGCe3Pt9XqG2sadOfz6W-n/s440/HB-RH.jpg)
-
How thoughtful. RIP Vincent Bugliosi.
-
A great book that destroyed any notion of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Most importantly highlighting what a simple case this really is based upon the evidence and not the tortured contortions of CTers. My only criticism is that Bugs all too often allowed the CTers to drag him down into the muck. An understandable temptation, as anyone who has ever participated on this forum understands, but he should have taken the high road instead of insults.
-
The very best JFK assassination book ever written (IMO, of course)—Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"—was released fifteen years ago today, on May 15, 2007. Happy Birthday, R.H.!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FI5bDEZMjQI/UdB09pVDC1I/AAAAAAAAvAA/Ty1G3dTU6eo/s710/XX.+Reclaiming+History+Blog+Logo+(2).png) (http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TSKYRNQIZjI/AAAAAAAAIzY/uI7w2Wch0Fk/s710/XX.%2BVincent%2BBugliosi%2BBlog%2BLogo.png) (http://vincent-bugliosi.blogspot.com)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9QbGTpbaEurUo3_7Bepo-c1BIjbRbFlYHRGuH5UBrmH9t3EBFJswEvco_Mbo8_in3fzC7TWDBA2KMVaFjJFGCVVg5LU1nJPmbXUCEOf-GQUZdryFhKjy8c4qJBFSJ1zJsG9z3ETR6NNSf7iole6OHONRVnKllbDZTyfzGCe3Pt9XqG2sadOfz6W-n/s440/HB-RH.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
How thoughtful. RIP Vincent Bugliosi.
Thumb1:
-
A great book that destroyed any notion of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Most importantly highlighting what a simple case this really is based upon the evidence and not the tortured contortions of CTers. My only criticism is that Bugs all too often allowed the CTers to drag him down into the muck. An understandable temptation, as anyone who has ever participated on this forum understands, but he should have taken the high road instead of insults.
I believe the CT deserve to be insulted because of the damage they have done to the memory of President Kennedy. The latest generation of CT are undeniably insane with their claims that Mrs. Kennedy killed her husband and so forth. The saddest thing is, once someone puts their tripe out their, it gets sucked up like leeches on skin by people who often take it and run with it. Joe Walsh said it best when he said "You can't argue with a sick mind".
-
YEP! agree 100%. Love your site BTW, keep it going David!
-
The very best JFK assassination book ever written (IMO, of course)—Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"—was released fifteen years ago today, on May 15, 2007. Happy Birthday, R.H.!
Agreed and thanks also for your great site David!
-
Boggles the logical mind how anyone could have anything but contempt for Bugliosi's belligerent blizzard of bull. Live in your magic bubble of delusion if you must, but there is a staggering amount of information that totally contradicts every word of that horrendous book. I would love to debate any lone nutter in any forum at any time. Every one of you owes Oswald's relatives a lifetime of apologies for your shallow "investigations" and unfounded accusations. What is even more staggering is publicizing your ignorance on a forum such as this.
-
Boggles the logical mind how anyone could have anything but contempt for Bugliosi's belligerent blizzard of bull. Live in your magic bubble of delusion if you must, but there is a staggering amount of information that totally contradicts every word of that horrendous book. I would love to debate any lone nutter in any forum at any time. Every one of you owes Oswald's relatives a lifetime of apologies for your shallow "investigations" and unfounded accusations. What is even more staggering is publicizing your ignorance on a forum such as this.
IMO, the ones residing in a "magic bubble" as well as providing the world with a "blizzard of bull" are the JFK conspiracy theorists. And to think that the 9-month Warren Commission investigation and the 2-year HSCA investigation were "shallow investigations" is simply silly and ridiculous.
Here's something I said a few months before Mr. Bugliosi's book was published:
"Rule #16B of the Conspiracy Theorist Rule Book states -- "When all else fails, just say something is 'fake' or 'phony' or 'doesn't look quite right', and the CTer is off the hook". As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing impossible-to-prove theories regarding evidence manipulation or contamination or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there simply is nothing else for the defense TO argue. Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics (and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to Lee Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently weak case with which [conspiracists] try to combat the physical evidence. And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix." -- David Von Pein; January 11, 2007
-
Agreed and thanks also for your great site David!
Thank you, gentlemen.
It's nice to see that Vince Bugliosi's immense amount of work on the JFK case has not been forgotten. His book will forever serve as an indispensable JFK reference book. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to my bookshelf (or to my handy PDF copy of the book) in order to look up information concerning some small nearly-forgotten tidbit relating to the assassination. And more often than not, I find the answer I'm looking for within "Reclaiming History" too.
Then, after being very pleased that I found exactly the quote I was searching for in Vincent's massive tome, I'll usually feel compelled to take a snapshot of the quoted passage (via the PDF) so that I can add it to the argument I was making when discussing the case with some conspiracy theorist. Such as this example (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oMWbEnf91Ig/Yan4WkTzCLI/AAAAAAABZmg/s0X1N_Uj_dQRy4cMAMWX2otTYC_XYkPdgCNcBGAsYHQ/s2000-h/Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpt-Regarding-Chicago-Plot-Endnotes-Pages-711-712.png).
In fact, I quoted from Vincent's book so darn much in my original 2007 book review, it almost caused problems for me. (See link below.)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-leNaRQP1f7k/VeyOf3aySQI/AAAAAAABHSg/8q5cPQVgLzg/s520/RH-Review-Email-Discussion-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1018.html)
-
Another Bugliosi-related link of interest (it's certainly of interest to me at any rate :) ).....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dDtSFSwjNe4/VcDoVF_Uf3I/AAAAAAABG3A/DmoOa3iphUw/s520/Correspondence-With-Vince-Bugliosi-And-Rosemary-Newton-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/dvp-correspondence-with-vincent-bugliosi.html)
-
------- Vincent Bugliosi vs. Modern Technology: -------
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgUfcS6C-tfcDpfA-dh3Fs1eOdSBXfrUfziFCIL6XcrfCl3wVrozFAqCWJV7ErfT6Gc3E_Un59Llx0ftyHa85q1GTRudObGchKrsb16wFJRUJNrOJ4dphL4yqHrsP4iSrh9AMOtTnOZbbnUVTK-YeU77JusLa8xqL6s1wZuNfXXFQfTijZdVLMYr9M/s1950/Orlando-Sentinel-May-31-2007%20(Author%20Vincent%20Bugliosi%20Says%20There%20Was%20No%20JFK%20Murder%20Conspiracy).jpg) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgUfcS6C-tfcDpfA-dh3Fs1eOdSBXfrUfziFCIL6XcrfCl3wVrozFAqCWJV7ErfT6Gc3E_Un59Llx0ftyHa85q1GTRudObGchKrsb16wFJRUJNrOJ4dphL4yqHrsP4iSrh9AMOtTnOZbbnUVTK-YeU77JusLa8xqL6s1wZuNfXXFQfTijZdVLMYr9M/s7000-h/Orlando-Sentinel-May-31-2007%20(Author%20Vincent%20Bugliosi%20Says%20There%20Was%20No%20JFK%20Murder%20Conspiracy).jpg)
-
because they'll start arguing impossible-to-prove theories
You mean impossible-to-prove theories like a disassembled rifle in a paper wrapper?
Hell, the entire Oswald-did-it case is one giant impossible-to-prove theory.
-
The funny thing about this case is that if not for the faked backyard photos, there was no solid evidence on Oswald. None. The entire case is based on after-the-fact innuendo and hearsay testimony. As for old Vince, he's the same person who blew up the entire Manson killings into something more - the "we're going to take over the world" Helter Skelter theory when the Manson murders were nothing more than Manson seeking out someone who xxxxxxx him over. That's all it was so why anyone would think old Vince was the final and ultimate authority on JFK is nuts.
A more detailed analysis of the book which belongs in the bonfires of BS history:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-cranor
https://www.patspeer.com/reclaiminghistoryfromreclaiminghistory
-
I would love to debate any lone nutter in any forum at any time.
Well....here's your opportunity. Let it rip.
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy5wo9Cda4QchqUji10BuwGhPIQmz7UgL8CXKTKP8tdNwmUyDY33tAl1db4PG_4p7tohug3LINtbsHIF8i9V2Yynm9gpYwEye4lCbE3-nIHWfr143zFouJNxpq4rNHMT5YlaeWmyMrFnm_Y8DZp--9nYm-hXxIyZConaytOX9uwHY5voAkFeonpkDb/s1400/Los-Angeles-Times-Jan-26-1971%20(Manson%20And%20Girls%20Guilty%20Of%20Murder).jpg) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy5wo9Cda4QchqUji10BuwGhPIQmz7UgL8CXKTKP8tdNwmUyDY33tAl1db4PG_4p7tohug3LINtbsHIF8i9V2Yynm9gpYwEye4lCbE3-nIHWfr143zFouJNxpq4rNHMT5YlaeWmyMrFnm_Y8DZp--9nYm-hXxIyZConaytOX9uwHY5voAkFeonpkDb/s9000-h/Los-Angeles-Times-Jan-26-1971%20(Manson%20And%20Girls%20Guilty%20Of%20Murder).jpg)
-
As for old Vince, he's the same person who blew up the entire Manson killings into something more - the "we're going to take over the world" Helter Skelter theory when the Manson murders were nothing more than Manson seeking out someone who xxxxxxx him over. That's all it was so why anyone would think old Vince was the final and ultimate authority on JFK is nuts.
Exactly right, Michael. He was a charlatan his entire career.
-
I’ll just leave this here.
https://atwaatwar.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-vince-bugliosi-story-16-3-mb.pdf (https://atwaatwar.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-vince-bugliosi-story-16-3-mb.pdf)
-
The funny thing about this case is that if not for the faked backyard photos, there was no solid evidence on Oswald. None. The entire case is based on after-the-fact innuendo and hearsay testimony. As for old Vince, he's the same person who blew up the entire Manson killings into something more - the "we're going to take over the world" Helter Skelter theory when the Manson murders were nothing more than Manson seeking out someone who xxxxxxx him over. That's all it was so why anyone would think old Vince was the final and ultimate authority on JFK is nuts.
A more detailed analysis of the book which belongs in the bonfires of BS history:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-cranor
https://www.patspeer.com/reclaiminghistoryfromreclaiminghistory
No faked photos.
The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).
The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes. During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast. These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark. In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints. In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints. The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.
The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.
Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D. This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis. Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane. Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.
One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.
Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.
-
I'll definitely read that Story of Vince PDF. Thanks for posting the link to it.
Yes, Bill, they were faked. And here's why. If you take away those photos, those are the only - ONLY - visual reference showing Oswald with the alleged weapons. Nobody, can place Oswald up in the 6th floor pulling the trigger. Nobody. And he was at the theater with the pistol because that's what someone told him to do - meet up at the theater and don't forget your gun. Further, he admitted he did not own a rifle but did own a pistol and his excuse was lame "That's what boys do, you know?"
Funnily enough, they actually went overboard with these faked photos. It wasn't enough to just show him holding up the rifle - they also threw in the alleged pistol [the one he brandished at the theater] and to top if off, the left-wing newspapers too. How do we know this was further faked? Simple. They never found those newspapers because holier-than-thou Ruth Paine just decided to throw them out. Uh huh, right. Just like she also typed up Oswald's letter that he handwrote. Just like she was constantly interjecting herself into these people's lives.
So take away the photos and you have zero xxxx evidence on him, all made up after the fact.
Oswald was not supposed to be alive and leaving that theater, Bill. It's as simple as that. Somehow he survived, which is why Jack "Oh, I did it to save Jackie the embarrassment of coming to Dallas" Ruby stepped in to do it on national TV no less.
-
No photos of James Earl Ray holding his rifle. I guess he was innocent. ::)
-
Greetings Mr. Barber!
Where am I supposed to start in debating those who fell for one of the most ridiculous scams in American history?
A third grader can view the Zapruder film and give a more cogent analysis of what happened than anything I've ever heard from Bugliosi, Posner, or the disgraced Warren Omission. Use common sense, will ya?
-
This man has his own YouTube channel publicizing his incredible ignorance. There are so many angles to take to destroy the SBT fiction, it's hard to know where to start. Just a few for starters: I'm sure you have a rational explanation for the violent head motion clearly evident on the Z film (jet effect, neuromuscular reaction nonsense). Goodness, a third grader can give a more cogent explanation for this shot than I've ever seen from the lone nutters. Maybe all the witnesses who ran to the stockade fence collectively experienced the event incorrectly? Maybe Holland, Price, Nix, Bowers, the Newmans, the Willis family, and many others all experienced nothing but the reverberations of Dealey Plaza? Maybe Holland and others didn't really see smoke from the place where many witnesses also HEARD the shots. Maybe it's just a coincidence the dictabelt shows at least FIVE shots including the FRONTAL SHOT. The liars are still denying this shot to this day. When the dictabelt recording is synched to the Z film, it becomes clear what a terrible lie it was for the HSCA to conclude that the Grassy Knoll shot missed. But since the autopsy was clearly a major catastrophe, history was fooled and you are one of the chief cheerleaders for this absolutely false account. You belong in the hall of shame along with Bugliosi, Posner and the rest...
-
-
Old Dave VP is a pretty clever guy. He's probably a Kennedy hater which is why he agrees with the lone nut theory of the case. Believe me when I say, that's pretty much how this case boils down - lone nutters tend to be Kennedy haters, creating an extreme bias. They absolutely refuse to see any and all discrepancy about the case because, you know, they hate the family. To them, that's pretty much enough.
But at the same time, old Dave found a pretty good money-making niche. Instead of creating original content for YTV, he simply vacuums up any and all media based on the case and puts it on his channel. So while he continues to support the lone nut theory, he's also laughing all the way to the bank.
And as you can see, he simply posts media links to his channel here then sits back and laughs while the money rolls in.
If you don't believe me, go here to see for yourself:
https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/davidvonpeinjfk
-
What an incredibly stupid and uninformed post from Michael Walton above.
He doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
And where the hell did some CTers get the silly notion that all (or most) Lone Assassin believers are "Kennedy Haters"? What a stupid notion that is.
-
What an incredibly stupid and uninformed post from Michael Walton above.
He doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
And where the hell did some CTers get the silly notion that all (or most) Lone Assassin believers are "Kennedy Haters"? What a stupid notion that is.
What an incredibly stupid and uninformed post from Michael Walton above.
He doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
Agreed.
And where the hell did some CTers get the silly notion that all (or most) Lone Assassin believers are "Kennedy Haters"?
Good question.
What a stupid notion that is.
Yup.
-
What an incredibly stupid and uninformed post from Michael Walton above.
He doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
And where the hell did some CTers get the silly notion that all (or most) Lone Assassin believers are "Kennedy Haters"? What a stupid notion that is.
I agree. An LN doesn't have to be a Kennedy hater at all, but he/she does need to have an extreme faith in law enforcement and Government, because that's what LNs are really defending; the notion that it is impossible that some individuals of the Government would go so far as to kill a President.
Just like the LNs claim that all CTs are people who can not understand that a lone nut nobody can kill the President, most of the flag waving LNs can not understand that it would be possible for an inside job to result in the President's death. In other countries that could happen, but never in America, right? Give me a break!
-
I agree. An LN doesn't have to be a Kennedy hater at all, but he/she does need to have an extreme faith in law enforcement and Government, because that's what LNs are really defending; the notion that it is impossible that some individuals of the Government would go so far as to kill a President.
Just like the LNs claim that all CTs are people who can not understand that a lone nut nobody can kill the President, most of the flag waving LNs can not understand that it would be possible for an inside job to result in the President's death. In other countries that could happen, but never in America, right? Give me a break!
Straw man.
-
Straw man.
Care to explain or don't you know what a straw man actually is?
-
Care to explain or don't you know what a straw man actually is?
"Just like the LNs claim that all CTs are..."
This should suffice. I'm not interested in explaining any further. It's silly.
-
"Just like the LNs claim that all CTs are..."
This should suffice. I'm not interested in explaining any further. It's silly.
You're not very good in explaining things... Too bad
-
What an incredibly stupid and uninformed post from Michael Walton above.
He doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
And where the hell did some CTers get the silly notion that all (or most) Lone Assassin believers are "Kennedy Haters"? What a stupid notion that is.
It's all the more ironic given the lengths CTers go to defend JFK's murderer.
-
It's all the more ironic given the lengths CTers go to defend JFK's murderer.
Nice rhetoric. I could just as easily pontificate about the great lengths the WC faithful go to slander an innocent man.
-
Nice rhetoric. I could just as easily pontificate about the great lengths the WC faithful go to slander an innocent man.
Great lengths?
Nah. Easy as pie.
Piece of cake.
-
Connolly was there. None of us were. He knew what happened, that he took a shot AFTER the first shot that hit Kennedy. The government had a quandary on its hands. During the investigation they knew they had a problem with the shots lining up. All you have to do is look at this photo where they put stickers on the Kennedy stand-in. The one on the neck is to show where the FRONT bullet wound have exited. Tell me again how a shot hitting the back that didn't even exit [per the autopsy] and is traveling from up to down [and didn't even terminate based on the autopsy] would have gone UPWARD to come out the throat? Uh huh, right. Thus, the single bullet theory.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)
Even Wiki calls it that, a theory concocted by the government to make something round fit into something square. It's as simple as that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
Nah, I disagree. There IS a lot of bias on this case. Look around elsewhere and you'll see the same thing - lovers of Trump and haters; OJ being innocent because he's the JUICE - GO JUICE!! I liken a lot of Nutters to the Madonna complex - there have been numerous cops who don't investigate a prostitute's murder because she's not worthy of a vigilant investigation. Same with Kennedy - they were too this or that and therefore, Oswald did it alone, despite evidence to the contrary.
No one is defending who killed Kennedy, Bill. It's simply a matter of too many inconvenient truths that show it couldn't have happened the way the WC said.
Dave VP - I have a suggestion. You own a website. If you're not doing it to make money, why not remove all of your media from your YTV channel, close the channel and host it on your site server? Are you up for the challenge? Uh huh, right.
-
Connolly [sic] was there. None of us were. He knew what happened, that he took a shot AFTER the first shot that hit Kennedy.
But, Michael, you surely have to know that Governor John B. Connally is the very last person on the planet to ask when it comes to the question of whether JFK was hit by the first or second shot. And that's because John Connally said this in 1964: "I never saw either one of them [JFK and Jackie Kennedy] after the firing started."
So how could Connally have possibly known for certain which shot struck Kennedy? Answer--he couldn't have personally known at all. His anti-SBT opinions were strongly influenced (IMO) by his wife Nellie. More on that topic can be found in this discussion (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-900.html).
Dave VP - I have a suggestion. You own a website. If you're not doing it to make money, why not remove all of your media from your YTV channel, close the channel and host it on your site server? Are you up for the challenge? Uh huh, right.
I'm a bit perplexed by your sudden hostile attitude toward me, Michael. In the past, you have been quite amiable during our online discussions. Have I suddenly grown horns and a long tail?? ~shrug~ (And I assume you are the same Michael Walton that made comments in these previous discussions (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Michael+Walton).)
Anyway, you're wrong when you say I "own a website". I don't "own" any sites. I use Blogger.com for all my sites, which is free of charge. And it's an excellent platform too. I've been perfectly happy there since I started my first blog with them in 2007. So I have no desire to switch to any other platform as of right now. (And, btw, Blogger's internal video uploading tool only permits uploads of up to 100MB each, which is not nearly big enough for most of my videos.)
And regardless of whether or not I make any money off of my YouTube channels (which I currently don't——go to this link (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/k0U09MIeIFY/m/kzG8NsyHBgAJ) for more info on that topic), I most certainly would have no desire at all to close the channels down after taking ten years to build them up. I have developed a pretty decent following at two of my YouTube channels, and I think it would be a bit silly of me to just trash those channels simply because I was "challenged" to do so by someone at an online forum.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wLzcFEs6Ikw/Xew0nsrh0oI/AAAAAAABTPQ/W-MMiF4q3ycyLYtO6XDyncizrq8Ji3YlQCLcBGAsYHQ/s225/YouTube-JFK-Channel-Logo.png) (http://youtube.com/DavidVonPeinJFK) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z4oyQJvRd_E/WdbIZGKjwuI/AAAAAAABNL0/Z9c_HTk3JAMKyOjdr4ILmTMOnmLgg5dVQCLcBGAs/s232/DVP-YouTube-Old-Time-Radio-Channel-Logo-04.jpg) (http://youtube.com/DVPOldTimeRadio)
-
Old Dave VP is a pretty clever guy. He's probably a Kennedy hater which is why he agrees with the lone nut theory of the case. Believe me when I say, that's pretty much how this case boils down - lone nutters tend to be Kennedy haters, creating an extreme bias. They absolutely refuse to see any and all discrepancy about the case because, you know, they hate the family. To them, that's pretty much enough.
. . .
I am a LNer. And I have never hated the Kennedy family, and certainly not President Kennedy. He was a good President. I have never gotten the impression that my fellow LNers are JFK haters.
Question:
Can you name a single LNer who has ever made an anti JFK (the person, not the movie) post on this forum?
-
Connolly was there. None of us were. He knew what happened, that he took a shot AFTER the first shot that hit Kennedy. The government had a quandary on its hands. During the investigation they knew they had a problem with the shots lining up. All you have to do is look at this photo where they put stickers on the Kennedy stand-in. The one on the neck is to show where the FRONT bullet wound have exited. Tell me again how a shot hitting the back that didn't even exit [per the autopsy] and is traveling from up to down [and didn't even terminate based on the autopsy] would have gone UPWARD to come out the throat? Uh huh, right. Thus, the single bullet theory.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)
Even Wiki calls it that, a theory concocted by the government to make something round fit into something square. It's as simple as that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
Nah, I disagree. There IS a lot of bias on this case. Look around elsewhere and you'll see the same thing - lovers of Trump and haters; OJ being innocent because he's the JUICE - GO JUICE!! I liken a lot of Nutters to the Madonna complex - there have been numerous cops who don't investigate a prostitute's murder because she's not worthy of a vigilant investigation. Same with Kennedy - they were too this or that and therefore, Oswald did it alone, despite evidence to the contrary.
No one is defending who killed Kennedy, Bill. It's simply a matter of too many inconvenient truths that show it couldn't have happened the way the WC said.
Dave VP - I have a suggestion. You own a website. If you're not doing it to make money, why not remove all of your media from your YTV channel, close the channel and host it on your site server? Are you up for the challenge? Uh huh, right.
Connolly was there. None of us were. He knew what happened, that he took a shot AFTER the first shot that hit Kennedy.
Connally knew he was not hit by the first shot.
Connally assumed the first shot hit the President.
Connally was hit by the second shot.
So what?
-
It's the 30th anniversary of the JAMA (Journal of the American medical association) magazine articles, in the issue dated May 27, 1992.
- Lincoln, Kennedy, and the Autopsy | Marc S. Micozzi, MD, PhD
- JFK's death—the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy | Dennis L. Breo
- JFK's death, part II— Dallas MDs recall their memories | Dennis L. Breo
The critics labelled JAMA and Breo cover-up artists, though neither did any substantial "cover-up" during the decades since.
-
It's the 30th anniversary of the JAMA (Journal of the American medical association) magazine articles, in the issue dated May 27, 1992.
- Lincoln, Kennedy, and the Autopsy | Marc S. Micozzi, MD, PhD
- JFK's death—the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy | Dennis L. Breo
- JFK's death, part II— Dallas MDs recall their memories | Dennis L. Breo
The critics labelled JAMA and Breo cover-up artists, though neither did any substantial "cover-up" during the decades since.
Do you have a few names of the Dallas MDs Breo cites in his book?
-
It's the 30th anniversary of the JAMA (Journal of the American medical association) magazine articles, in the issue dated May 27, 1992.
- Lincoln, Kennedy, and the Autopsy | Marc S. Micozzi, MD, PhD
- JFK's death—the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy | Dennis L. Breo
- JFK's death, part II— Dallas MDs recall their memories | Dennis L. Breo
The critics labelled JAMA and Breo cover-up artists, though neither did any substantial "cover-up" during the decades since.
Here's a link to the issue/articles: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md22.pdf
-
Old Dave VP is a pretty clever guy. He's probably a Kennedy hater which is why he agrees with the lone nut theory of the case. Believe me when I say, that's pretty much how this case boils down - lone nutters tend to be Kennedy haters, creating an extreme bias. They absolutely refuse to see any and all discrepancy about the case because, you know, they hate the family. To them, that's pretty much enough.
I honestly don't see the link between Kennedy haters and LNers. Please explain why if you're one then you automatically tend be the other, it makes no sense.
Admittedly, the Kennedy family were no angels and if you take a close look at them they were actually a bunch of sh*ts, but if anything that would surely give you more reason to suspect that people like Hoover, Johnson, the CIA, the Mafia, etc would have wanted JFK dead and increase your belief that there was a conspiracy surrounding it rather than the notion that some little insecure crackpot decided to act alone of his own accord.
-
I agree. An LN doesn't have to be a Kennedy hater at all, but he/she does need to have an extreme faith in law enforcement and Government, because that's what LNs are really defending; the notion that it is impossible that some individuals of the Government would go so far as to kill a President.
. . .
No. I don’t have a problem believing one or two individuals in the government would go so far as to kill a President. What I do have a problem with is Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy would be formed within the government, or any other American group, that would kill a President. That is just too unbelievable. Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories are just not believable, to a true skeptic.
CTers have sold Americans on a Large Conspiracy. That is what was pushed in the movie JFK, which has influenced more Americans into becoming CTers than any other book or movie. The JFK movie explicitly pushed the large conspiracy. That was what “Mr. X” spelled out to Garrison on the Washington D. C. Park bench.
That is what conspiracy theories do. They push large conspiracies because a false theory must be interesting to succeed. And people find stories about large conspiracies to be compelling and are naturally inclined to believe them, unless they have read about and have the mental discipline to be a skeptic.
It’s no good to argue, well, the JFK conspiracy theory is not really a large conspiracy theory. That is what CTers always argue to defend any large conspiracy theory. JFK CTers have consistently presented their case as a large conspiracy. With a large goal. Generally, to get the U. S. into the Vietnam war. So, despite disclaimers, the JFK conspiracy theory is a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory. Which is why I disbelieve it. And not because I always believe what the government tells me.
I didn’t think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was a good idea. And I still don’t think so. Despite what the government told me. And I don’t think that thousands of volunteer poll workers conspired to throw the election to Biden, despite what the government, in the form of President Trump, was telling me. I just don’t believe Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. And yet, you seem to believe that my beliefs are somehow irrational.