Replaying some previous Internet discussions....that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making
Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi'sbook) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.
It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he hadwritten 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
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up out
For example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head.Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracy
Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your fullsupport behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.
Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).
David Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Corbett and Bud really need to tell David how unimportant this all really is.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's
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,It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he
out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up
Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head.
support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your full
as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-
David Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comCorbett and Bud really need to tell David how unimportant this all really is.
At least that's what they tell people who disagree with them. But when such a fanatic as DVP, who agrees with them, makes a big stink, apparently Dee and Dumb don't mind. So, it's okay for Nutter Retards to think the assassination is important, but notfor people who know that it was a conspiracy.
This is Nutter Logic once again.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:17:23 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Corbett and Bud really need to tell David how unimportant this all really is.It's really important to only one person, Von Pein. Nobody else gives a shit about his "arguments".
Notice that David Von Pein posts no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
David Von Pein does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report and others like Myers, Posner and his patron saint, Bugliosi.
What David Von Pein DOES post are comments, speculation, opinions, insults and links to his blog where the John Fettermans of the world can cheer him on as he "argues" with the world's best JFK researchers.
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:17:23 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's
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,It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he
out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up
head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nuttyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his
full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your
as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-
not for people who know that it was a conspiracy.David Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
Your ideas and your activity is unimportant, even meaningless. You are in a hamster wheel and you say to yourself "look at me go!. But you are only deluding yourself, you haven`t moved a bit and you never will.http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comCorbett and Bud really need to tell David how unimportant this all really is.
At least that's what they tell people who disagree with them. But when such a fanatic as DVP, who agrees with them, makes a big stink, apparently Dee and Dumb don't mind. So, it's okay for Nutter Retards to think the assassination is important, but
That we landed on the moon is relatively important. That people say we didn`t is not.
This is Nutter Logic once again.
My deas and my activity is unimportant, even meaningless.
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
And yet, some conspiracy theories are supported by the evidence...
And all you can do is run away.
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making
Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi'sbook) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.
It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he hadwritten 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
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up out
For example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head.Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracy
Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your fullsupport behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.
Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).
David Von PeinIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government investigations by
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's
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,It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he
out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up
Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head.
support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your full
as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-
several generations of Americans of all backgrounds; we'll have multiple news media investigations by, again several generations of reporters and journalists; and we'll have investigations done by historians and investigative reporters on the major andDavid Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government investigations by
They would say "Yes, that's all we want." But here we are and here they are with the same old questions that have been answered again and again and again. They will not accept any investigation that doesn't support their conspiracy.insane belief. It cannot be done. A Hitler or a Stalin could not pull of such an act. And you certainly can't do it in an open system like we have here. It is impossible.
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent and all of the people who conducted them - many of whom were/are fans of JFK - liars, that the entire near 60 year effort has been part of the original conspiracy to kill JFK is, frankly, an
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's
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,It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he
out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up
head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nuttyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his
full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your
as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-
several generations of Americans of all backgrounds; we'll have multiple news media investigations by, again several generations of reporters and journalists; and we'll have investigations done by historians and investigative reporters on the major andDavid Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government investigations by
insane belief. It cannot be done. A Hitler or a Stalin could not pull of such an act. And you certainly can't do it in an open system like we have here. It is impossible.They would say "Yes, that's all we want." But here we are and here they are with the same old questions that have been answered again and again and again. They will not accept any investigation that doesn't support their conspiracy.
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent and all of the people who conducted them - many of whom were/are fans of JFK - liars, that the entire near 60 year effort has been part of the original conspiracy to kill JFK is, frankly, an
They can't even agree on what might have happened. Different Captains on different ships carrying different cargo at different speeds in different directions on different oceans to different ports, yet they all pretend to be part of the same convoy:Team Oswald.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
s book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi'
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.It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if
up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping
head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nuttyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his
full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your
equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the
by several generations of Americans of all backgrounds; we'll have multiple news media investigations by, again several generations of reporters and journalists; and we'll have investigations done by historians and investigative reporters on the majorDavid Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government investigations
insane belief. It cannot be done. A Hitler or a Stalin could not pull of such an act. And you certainly can't do it in an open system like we have here. It is impossible.They would say "Yes, that's all we want." But here we are and here they are with the same old questions that have been answered again and again and again. They will not accept any investigation that doesn't support their conspiracy.
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent and all of the people who conducted them - many of whom were/are fans of JFK - liars, that the entire near 60 year effort has been part of the original conspiracy to kill JFK is, frankly, an
Team Oswald.They can't even agree on what might have happened. Different Captains on different ships carrying different cargo at different speeds in different directions on different oceans to different ports, yet they all pretend to be part of the same convoy:
Yes, and all because, it's claimed, JFK was some sort of radical president, a transformational one who was going to somehow end the Cold War, leave Vietnam, make nice with Castro and otherwise dismantle the national security "war" state. And he waskilled to stop him from accomplishing all of this. Baloney. He was a moderate on domestic issues and a Cold Warrior on foreign policy. He wanted to normalize relations with Moscow to prevent a nuclear conflict but he wasn't going to surrender to them.
Case in point: JFK is killed and the covert war, e.g., Operation Mongoose, the Special Groups Augmented, on Cuba essentially ends. That was all pushed by the Kennedys - it wasn't the CIA doing it - and it ended with JFK's death. If he was killed, inpart, because he was "soft" on Castro then why did these evil militarists lets LBJ end all of that nonsense? I thought they ran foreign policy?
It's all conspiracy nonsense from beginning to end.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 04:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
My deas and my activity is unimportant, even meaningless.
Indeed.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 10:24:26?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 04:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
My deas and my activity is unimportant, even meaningless.
Indeed.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 9:24:23?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
And yet, some conspiracy theories are supported by the evidence...
Name them.
And all you can do is run away.
JFK was loathed by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party in 1960. Eleanor Roosevelt
couldn't stand him and only late in the general election campaign was persuaded to give him a
lukewarm endorsement. Humphrey was the early favorite of the progressive wing and when his
campaign sank, Stuart Symington was their next choice. Some even favored given Adlai
Stephenson a third bite of the apple instead of JFK. Back then there were actually intelligent
Democrats who realized that kowtowing to the progressive wing was a really bad idea.
Obviously, that was a long time ago. The Democrats have since put the progressives in the
driver's seat.
They can't even agree on what might have happened.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:41:29 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading
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.It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even
popping up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer
his head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nuttyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on
your full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put
equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the
investigations by several generations of Americans of all backgrounds; we'll have multiple news media investigations by, again several generations of reporters and journalists; and we'll have investigations done by historians and investigative reportersDavid Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government
an insane belief. It cannot be done. A Hitler or a Stalin could not pull of such an act. And you certainly can't do it in an open system like we have here. It is impossible.They would say "Yes, that's all we want." But here we are and here they are with the same old questions that have been answered again and again and again. They will not accept any investigation that doesn't support their conspiracy.
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent and all of the people who conducted them - many of whom were/are fans of JFK - liars, that the entire near 60 year effort has been part of the original conspiracy to kill JFK is, frankly,
Team Oswald.They can't even agree on what might have happened. Different Captains on different ships carrying different cargo at different speeds in different directions on different oceans to different ports, yet they all pretend to be part of the same convoy:
killed to stop him from accomplishing all of this. Baloney. He was a moderate on domestic issues and a Cold Warrior on foreign policy. He wanted to normalize relations with Moscow to prevent a nuclear conflict but he wasn't going to surrender to them.Yes, and all because, it's claimed, JFK was some sort of radical president, a transformational one who was going to somehow end the Cold War, leave Vietnam, make nice with Castro and otherwise dismantle the national security "war" state. And he was
part, because he was "soft" on Castro then why did these evil militarists lets LBJ end all of that nonsense? I thought they ran foreign policy?Case in point: JFK is killed and the covert war, e.g., Operation Mongoose, the Special Groups Augmented, on Cuba essentially ends. That was all pushed by the Kennedys - it wasn't the CIA doing it - and it ended with JFK's death. If he was killed, in
Once he got the nomination they turned on a dime and supported him. They certainly weren't going to help the loathed Nixon.It's all conspiracy nonsense from beginning to end.JFK was loathed by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party in 1960. Eleanor Roosevelt
couldn't stand him and only late in the general election campaign was persuaded to give him a
lukewarm endorsement. Humphrey was the early favorite of the progressive wing and when his
campaign sank, Stuart Symington was their next choice. Some even favored given Adlai
Stephenson a third bite of the apple instead of JFK. Back then there were actually intelligent
Democrats who realized that kowtowing to the progressive wing was a really bad idea.
Obviously, that was a long time ago. The Democrats have since put the progressives in the
driver's seat.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 9:24:23?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
And yet, some conspiracy theories are supported by the evidence...
Name them.
Grassy Knoll shooter. Supported by the immediate and large numbers of witnesses who pointed there... as well as Connally's wrist wound.
You lose.
And all you can do is run away.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
They can't even agree on what might have happened.
I don't know of a critic who doesn't accept that there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.
You lose...
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent...is, frankly, an insane belief.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:17:03 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent...is, frankly, an insane belief.
Amen.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:41:29 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading
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.It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even
popping up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer
his head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nuttyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on
your full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put
equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the
investigations by several generations of Americans of all backgrounds; we'll have multiple news media investigations by, again several generations of reporters and journalists; and we'll have investigations done by historians and investigative reportersDavid Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government
an insane belief. It cannot be done. A Hitler or a Stalin could not pull of such an act. And you certainly can't do it in an open system like we have here. It is impossible.They would say "Yes, that's all we want." But here we are and here they are with the same old questions that have been answered again and again and again. They will not accept any investigation that doesn't support their conspiracy.
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent and all of the people who conducted them - many of whom were/are fans of JFK - liars, that the entire near 60 year effort has been part of the original conspiracy to kill JFK is, frankly,
convoy: Team Oswald.They can't even agree on what might have happened. Different Captains on different ships carrying different cargo at different speeds in different directions on different oceans to different ports, yet they all pretend to be part of the same
killed to stop him from accomplishing all of this. Baloney. He was a moderate on domestic issues and a Cold Warrior on foreign policy. He wanted to normalize relations with Moscow to prevent a nuclear conflict but he wasn't going to surrender to them.Yes, and all because, it's claimed, JFK was some sort of radical president, a transformational one who was going to somehow end the Cold War, leave Vietnam, make nice with Castro and otherwise dismantle the national security "war" state. And he was
in part, because he was "soft" on Castro then why did these evil militarists lets LBJ end all of that nonsense? I thought they ran foreign policy?Case in point: JFK is killed and the covert war, e.g., Operation Mongoose, the Special Groups Augmented, on Cuba essentially ends. That was all pushed by the Kennedys - it wasn't the CIA doing it - and it ended with JFK's death. If he was killed,
Once he got the nomination they turned on a dime and supported him. They certainly weren't going to help the loathed Nixon.It's all conspiracy nonsense from beginning to end.JFK was loathed by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party in 1960. Eleanor Roosevelt
couldn't stand him and only late in the general election campaign was persuaded to give him a
lukewarm endorsement. Humphrey was the early favorite of the progressive wing and when his
campaign sank, Stuart Symington was their next choice. Some even favored given Adlai
Stephenson a third bite of the apple instead of JFK. Back then there were actually intelligent
Democrats who realized that kowtowing to the progressive wing was a really bad idea.
Obviously, that was a long time ago. The Democrats have since put the progressives in the
driver's seat.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:gas making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:41:29 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
Replaying some previous Internet discussions....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I...showed...that [Vincent] Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing
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.Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics 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
Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! 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 liar.A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading
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 withIt's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome
popping up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer
on his head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nuttyFor example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device
your full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put
equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the
investigations by several generations of Americans of all backgrounds; we'll have multiple news media investigations by, again several generations of reporters and journalists; and we'll have investigations done by historians and investigative reportersDavid Von Pein
July 2015
May 2018
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.comIf 60 years ago the conspiracy believers/theorists were offered this deal: "Over the next half century we'll have millions of pages of documents related to the assassination released by the government; we'll have multiple government
frankly, an insane belief. It cannot be done. A Hitler or a Stalin could not pull of such an act. And you certainly can't do it in an open system like we have here. It is impossible.They would say "Yes, that's all we want." But here we are and here they are with the same old questions that have been answered again and again and again. They will not accept any investigation that doesn't support their conspiracy.
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent and all of the people who conducted them - many of whom were/are fans of JFK - liars, that the entire near 60 year effort has been part of the original conspiracy to kill JFK is,
convoy: Team Oswald.They can't even agree on what might have happened. Different Captains on different ships carrying different cargo at different speeds in different directions on different oceans to different ports, yet they all pretend to be part of the same
was killed to stop him from accomplishing all of this. Baloney. He was a moderate on domestic issues and a Cold Warrior on foreign policy. He wanted to normalize relations with Moscow to prevent a nuclear conflict but he wasn't going to surrender to them.Yes, and all because, it's claimed, JFK was some sort of radical president, a transformational one who was going to somehow end the Cold War, leave Vietnam, make nice with Castro and otherwise dismantle the national security "war" state. And he
in part, because he was "soft" on Castro then why did these evil militarists lets LBJ end all of that nonsense? I thought they ran foreign policy?Case in point: JFK is killed and the covert war, e.g., Operation Mongoose, the Special Groups Augmented, on Cuba essentially ends. That was all pushed by the Kennedys - it wasn't the CIA doing it - and it ended with JFK's death. If he was killed,
The irony is that in the early years in Congress, Nixon and JFK were anti-Communist allies. JFKOnce he got the nomination they turned on a dime and supported him. They certainly weren't going to help the loathed Nixon.It's all conspiracy nonsense from beginning to end.JFK was loathed by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party in 1960. Eleanor Roosevelt
couldn't stand him and only late in the general election campaign was persuaded to give him a
lukewarm endorsement. Humphrey was the early favorite of the progressive wing and when his
campaign sank, Stuart Symington was their next choice. Some even favored given Adlai
Stephenson a third bite of the apple instead of JFK. Back then there were actually intelligent
Democrats who realized that kowtowing to the progressive wing was a really bad idea.
Obviously, that was a long time ago. The Democrats have since put the progressives in the
driver's seat.
contributed $1000 to Nixon's Senate campaign against Helen Douglas, whom he branded The
Pink Lady. It's well known the Kennedys were also close allies of Joe McCarthy. All these are
reasons the left wing Democrats were dead set against Kennedy being the nominee.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:33:58?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
They can't even agree on what might have happened.
I don't know of a critic who doesn't accept that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza.
You lose...
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:17:03?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
The idea that all of these investigations were fraudulent...is, frankly, an insane belief.
Amen.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
We've had a number of times where evidence was newly released to
the public, and I cannot recall a *SINGLE* instance in which the new
material didn't present real problems for Warren Commission believers.
Can any believer document the release of ANYTHING after the Warren
Commission volumes that *helped* the Warren Commission's case?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure can. Lots of stuff.
(Watch Ben now move the goalposts.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 128:23:34 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,189 |