DEAN JACKSON SAID:
I said Al "says"...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But the main point is: Al [Fuller] did not "say" those words -- I said them. Al was quoting me. So to say that "Al says" is just silly. And incorrect.
DEAN JACKSON SAID:
...since he [Al Fuller] wouldn't be making the quote unless he accepted it as true.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Does that mean when Al (or I) quote the crazy things you say, it indicates we accept those things "as true" just because we've quoted them?
Some kooky rules you've got.
DEAN JACKSON SAID:
As a matter of fact, I thought the quote came from Bugliosi.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bull. I think you thought the whole post came from Al, which is why you said "Al says".
DEAN JACKSON SAID:
As I've said countless times, the likes of Von Pein and Bugliosi have nothing to back up their ludicrous arguments concerning the JFK assassination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, having every single scrap of evidence (including every gun, bullet, bullet shell, fingerprint, fiber, and LHO bald-faced lie) is, indeed, "ludicrous" stuff with which to attempt to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the two murders he committed in Dallas...isn't it?
Once more, folks, we're treated to a kook on the loose, with nary a bullet (or a cohesive theory) to place on the assassination table.
DEAN JACKSON SAID:
That is why they [Von Pein and Bugliosi] resort to ridicule and name-calling.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, that's not the reason we resort to name-calling. The evidence speaks for itself--and always has. Oswald's guilty. And he was almost certainly a LONE guilty party. But the name-calling ensues because it's so darn much fun is all. (And so incredibly easy when confronted by kooks like Dean Jackson.)
DEAN JACKSON SAID:
Quoting William Davy in his review of Bugliosi's terd of a book, specifically on Bugliosi's ad hominem attacks:
"What strikes one most upon reading Bugliosi's work is the amount of ad hominem attacks he launches at the JFK research community. Few are spared Bugliosi's vitriol. Most are referred to as "zanies" (Bugliosi's favorite. It's even used in a chapter title).The Chief Military Analyst for the ARRB is called "insane," "obscenely irresponsible", "harebrained" and his theories "mad." Joachim Joesten, an early critic, is a "communist". Colonel Fletcher Prouty is a "wacky, right-winger." Mark Lane - a "left-winger."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let's not leave out these Vincent Bugliosi gems, which are some of my personal faves:
"The problem I have is this: Am I elevating Oliver Stone's movie by holding it to be worthy of denigration? Only theoretically. The denigration [within the pages of "Reclaiming History"] will be so complete that to say Stone and his movie have been elevated would be a contradiction. .... [Oliver Stone] wanted his movie, he wrote with towering arrogance in the January 1992 edition of "Premiere" [magazine], to "replace the Warren Commission Report." Can you imagine that? A Hollywood producer wants his movie to REPLACE the official and most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Arrogance thought it already had a bad name. That was before it met Oliver Stone." -- V. Bugliosi
------
"OLIVER STONE, IN HIS MOVIE 'JFK', NEVER SAW FIT TO PRESENT FOR HIS AUDIENCE'S CONSIDERATION ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY! So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an almost unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against the killer (Oswald) is presented to millions of moviegoers as one where there wasn't one piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law against things like this." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- VB
------
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
------
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
------
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation." -- VB
------
"[Jim] Garrison, of course, smelled a rat in [James] Braden's story and had his investigators pursue the matter. Remarkably and unbelievably for Garrison, he concluded that "after sustained analysis...it was clear that Braden's contribution to the assassination was a large zero." When you can be cleared of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination by the likes of Jim Garrison, you must be clean."
-- VB
------
"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion. But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the official version is wrong." -- VB
------
"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- VB
------
"Playboy gave [Jim] Garrison the longest interview in the history of
the magazine in its October 1967 issue, 37 pages, and among other radio
and TV appearances, Mort Sahl got him on the Johnny Carson show on
January 31, 1968. Johnny may have been a comedian, but he had a good,
solid head on his shoulders, and he could spot a phony, or at least an empty vessel, when he saw one." -- VB
------
"[Joan] Mellen's book ["A Farewell To Justice"] is dreadfully bad on all counts. All the completely discredited witnesses, even mental cases, who had made bizarre allegations years ago in the Shaw case...were actually, per Mellen, telling the truth. .... There have been several pro-Garrison books before [Mellen's], every one of them lacking in credibility, but hers is the very worst. .... Where Mellen can't find some already well-known nut in the Garrison case to rely on or tell her what she wants to hear, she comes up with more obscure nuts. .... The Kennedy assassination has already been polluted beyond all tolerable limits by nuts and quacks and phony stories. Mellen is a university professor. How dare she publish such misleading material on so serious a subject." -- VB
------
"NSAM 273 (November 26, 1963) does not, as [Oliver] Stone's audience was told, reverse NSAM 263 (October 11, 1963). In fact, it specifically REAFFIRMS Kennedy's decision to withdraw 1,000 troops [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963. .... The main issue being discussed by [Kennedy] and his advisers during the period of the October 2 [1963] memo and the October 11 NSAM 263 was not the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, but whether to support a coup of [Vietnam's President] Diem. But we learned years later from a Hollywood producer and his daffy adviser, Colonel Prouty, that the real coup being contemplated at the time, and eventually carried out, was not against Diem but against the president of the United States." -- VB
------
"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. .... If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- VB
David Von Pein
May 19, 2008 [This link is no longer available.]
