JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1180)


RALPH YATES SAID:

This [Amazon.com review of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", which is a review that has now been deleted from the Amazon website] is the kind of offhand, glib review you get from biased, non-discriminating Bugliosi fans. It's as shallow as the book it is based on. Meanwhile, JFK assassination master James DiEugenio just destroyed Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History' in his new book 'Reclaiming Parkland'. DiEugenio shows all the facts Bugliosi omitted that the above reviewer doesn't seem to be interested in.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph Yates thinks Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is "shallow".

From that comment, it's obvious that Yates has never even glanced at Bugliosi's tome. Because "shallow" it ain't.

Calling "Reclaiming History" a "shallow" book is kind of like calling the Grand Canyon "a small little hole in the ground".

And since Mr. Yates seems to be one of James DiEugenio's cheerleaders these days at Amazon, let me remind any lurkers just exactly what type of things DiEugenio believes in when it comes to the JFK murder case:

DiEugenio believes in all of the following things (any one of which, individually, should make any reasonable person wonder what planet Jimbo currently resides on):

1.) Oswald never fired a shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald never fired a shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker on 4/10/63.

4.) Oswald didn't visit the embassies in Mexico City in 1963.

5.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

6.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

7.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

8.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

9.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, in helping to "set up" the proverbial "patsy" named Lee Oswald.

10.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of November 22, 1963.

11.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the Depository Building on November 22nd.

12.) Captain Fritz of the DPD was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the police basement, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

13.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in BOTH the Kennedy AND Tippit murders was faked/planted in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

And for 9 additional super silly things that DiEugenio believes -- go here.

So, THAT'S the type of "researcher" DiEugenio is. And that's the type of researcher that people like Ralph Yates choose to prop up on a pedestal and treat as the Holy Grail of Truth regarding the JFK assassination, all the while attempting to bash, belittle, and berate a person like Vincent Bugliosi, whose book on the JFK case I suspect shall forever remain the gold standard of reference books concerning this subject of President Kennedy's murder.

There are a few mistakes in Vince's book, yes. But a tome of that size cannot help but have a few errors. People being what they are--human--mistakes are bound to occur in such a massive publication. But none of the errors diminish Mr. Bugliosi's bottom-line conclusion -- nor could any minor errors possibly seriously tarnish the "Oswald Killed Kennedy" conclusion reached in "Reclaiming History". The overall weight of the evidence that says that conclusion is the correct one is far too substantial for that to happen.




RALPH YATES SAID:

Mr. Von Pein: You just switched the subject and tap-danced around my main point. Your credibility is on the line here. Answer my specifically detailed point about the brain evidence and how its single example shows both the lack of credibility in Bugliosi's book and the Warren Report. Don't dodge it like you did in your overly-long, evidence-evading, speech-making diversion.

Also, you're trying to ignore the fact DiEugenio just sunk 'Reclaiming History' with 'Reclaiming Parkland' if you honestly address the facts he presents instead of offering speech-making like you do.

Von Pein said: "There are a few mistakes in Vince's book, yes."

You mean like deliberately avoiding the irrefutable proof for conspiracy in the brain evidence?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Ralph Yates could READ, he would easily be able to see that Vince Bugliosi most certainly did not "deliberately avoid" the subject of JFK's brain in his book.

To the contrary, Vince spends quite a bit of time evaluating Douglas Horne's preposterous "2 Brains" theory (which, naturally, is a theory that DiEugenio believes 100%, despite the impossible nature of the theory itself).

Vince goes into great detail about the brain topic for more than 12 pages (Pages 435 to 447 of "Reclaiming History"). Vince deals with all of the stupid theories concerning JFK's brain on those pages. And Vince destroys the conspiracy theories regarding the brain.

And yet DiEugenio is supposedly claiming Bugliosi totally ignored the "2 Brains" subject--is that it? If that's the case, it makes me wonder what OTHER things Jimbo has conveniently overlooked (or misrepresented) in Bugliosi's book.

And I just love this quote by Yates in one of his Amazon posts:

"All the witnesses at Parkland said Kennedy's right occipital lobe was blown-out through an obvious rear wound. This is prima facie evidence that the brain shown in evidence was not Kennedy's, which in turn is proof of a conspiracy. If you read the section in Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History' where he covers this, he never mentions these facts." [End Quote.]

Incredibly, Yates thinks Bugliosi just completely ignored the Parkland "back of the head" witnesses. And furthermore, Yates seems to think that Vince should have ACCEPTED AS FACT that there WAS, in fact, a huge hole in the back of JFK's head--even when all of the autopsy photos and X-rays prove that there wasn't.

The Parkland witnesses are not "proof of a conspiracy" at all. Because those witnesses are proven wrong by BETTER evidence---the autopsy photos and X-rays (and the autopsy report too).

Maybe it's time for Ralph Yates to let go of Mama DiEugenio's apron strings. Because, as I've shown time and time again in my online chats with him, Jimbo D. doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate evidence when it comes to the JFK case.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey:

When you make a list like that, without supplying the evidence for it, then you deliberately distort the picture. Which you do all the time. And then you run a commercial for your site? At my expense?

BTW, numbers 9, 11 and 13 are wrong. I don't think Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator before the fact. There were other people who I name in Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, who were more important than she was. Ruth's real importance came in afterwards.

Secondly, I do not know if what Fritz did was deliberate. But it's clear he allowed Ruby to shoot Oswald. I just think this should be brought out in the open for debate. Davey wants to cover it up.

As for 13, I don't know exactly what is meant by "all of the physical evidence". But Davey never liked being specific about these kinds of things. He specializes in the smear.

To deal with just a trio of these matters: Randle could not have seen Oswald approach the auto since the car was on the far side of the carport. Second, there is no evidence the FBI ever went to REA to check up on the handgun transaction that Oswald had to have made there.

Von Pein went through about 6 different versions of how that could happen. In one hilarious scenario, he actually had the post office keeping a separate box behind the counter for cash on REA merchandise sent to post office boxes!!! I kid you not. He did say that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo needs to read this again:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

So the question becomes: Why did the FBI not get to REA? Davey was never able to answer that one.

Finally, how could a money order go 750 miles, be sorted at the main post office, be given to route carriers, delivered to Klein's, sorted at Klein's, and then deposited in their account, in, get this, 24 hours!! Before the advent of computers. And that is just one step of this rifle transaction. There are about eight others just as bad.

But the coup de grace is this: the rifle in evidence today is not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered. It's a different length, 40 inches vs 36 inches, and a different classification, carbine vs short rifle.

Finally, when the HSCA investigated this, the gunsmith from Klein's testified that they did not place scopes on the 40 inch rifles. So how did this one get a scope? Davey never asks that question, let alone answers it.

This is all dealt with in Chapter 4 of my book Reclaiming Parkland. You may want to ask Davey why he never supplied this back-up evidence before he smeared me. He knows about it all, since I used to thump him almost daily about it. One of Davey's many shortcomings is his lack of fairness.

As per Bugliosi's book having a "few" mistakes in it, I mean can he be serious? In Reclaiming Parkland, I show that it's more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. In Chapter 3, I expose that LWT [London Weekend Television] trial as the farce it was. And I then spend 8 chapters exposing the book for what it is: essentially, a rerun of the forlorn Warren Commission. I then talk about [Tom] Hanks' bomb of a movie that he made from it.

You shouldn't do this Davey. People tell me about you, and it was not Ralph. You never learn.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do what, Jimmy? Expose all of your theories for the silly theories they are (which is what I do here)?

I should just let you distort all kinds of evidence in the JFK case and then just sit back and not respond at all?

As my list of "22 Silly Things DiEugenio Believes" amply illustrates (with no further commentary needed by me at all), you (Jimmy D.) simply cannot reasonably evaluate the evidence or the facts in the Kennedy case. I would think that much would be crystal clear to anyone who's read anything written by you in the last few years.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Greg Goebel's review:

http://Amazon.com/review/R3OLBL6QWDOOPE

[The earlier version of that review was deleted by Greg himself after DiEugenio joined in the discussion, and Greg hates Jimbo and doesn't want him around. Hence, the dead link in my previous post.]

[2016 EDIT -- And I see that Goebel has now deleted his second version of the review too. My guess would be that the obnoxious presence of James DiEugenio and/or Ralph Yates once again surfaced in the "comments" area for that second review as well, prompting Mr. Goebel to reach for the "delete" button yet again.]

David Von Pein
November 8, 2013