PAT SPEER SAID:
The people answered [the ABC poll question] based upon the question of whether or not Oswald was involved. You have extrapolated from this that ALL these people thought he was a shooter. Being involved does not equal being a shooter. It follows then that many responded in a manner indicating Oswald was a shooter because they didn't want to say he wasn't involved at all.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
To believe Pat Speer here, we have no choice but to believe that a large number of the 1,031 people who responded to the question shown below (which was part of a 2003 ABC News poll) decided to TOTALLY IGNORE the key word "GUNMAN" which appears in the FIRST TWO-THIRDS of the question. Patrick Speer must, indeed, be of the opinion that almost all of the people who responded to this question were complete idiots (because, per Speer, the majority of these people should have really answered "No Opinion" to this question, instead of answering as they did):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ------------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN -------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED --- 7%
NO OPINION --------------- 10%
http://PollingReport.com/The-Kennedy-Assassination
PAT SPEER SAID:
If, on the other hand, you continue to play this game, and continue to insist that the vast majority of those suspecting a conspiracy believe Oswald shot Kennedy as part of a conspiracy...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's not a "game" at all, Pat. I think that ABC News poll is probably pretty doggone accurate and likely represents the thoughts of the "mainstream" in America fairly well regarding Oswald's involvement AS A GUNMAN in JFK's murder.
It's only the outer-fringe conspiracy believers (like the CTers who regularly post at Internet JFK forums) who represent a "majority" in the "Anybody But Oswald" club. But I'd wager to say that the majority of people in the world who have an opinion on the matter think Oswald took some shots at Kennedy.
PAT SPEER SAID:
...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA? In which case Bugliosi and all other critics of [Oliver] Stone would also owe him an apology, as it would prove those suspecting a conspiracy had completely rejected Stone's proposition Oswald was a patsy, and had formed their own conspiracy theory based upon the films or writings of...no one. So, for which of these reasons does Bugliosi (and you, and every other LN on this forum claiming Stone had misled millions of people into believing a conspiracy in which Oswald was a patsy) owe Stone an apology? We're waiting...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Pat, you're resembling Mister Salty more every day -- i.e., you seem to like to "twist" things all out of shape.
How many hours of pondering did it take you before writing that last hunk of silliness about Bugliosi owing Oliver Stone an "apology" (of all things!)?
Good Lord, you think that Bugliosi owes Stone AN APOLOGY for mangling virtually all of the facts in the JFK case in his 1991 fantasy movie?!
And you think this "apology" is in order because the general public at large (per the ABC poll at least) believes that Oswald really wasn't the innocent patsy (i.e., a non-gunman) as portrayed in Stone's film, even though most of that same general public still believes in a conspiracy of some kind to kill Kennedy?
You must be kidding.
BTW, you think "no one" has ever written a book or magazine article or newspaper story or movie or TV show that has Oswald being a gunman in conjunction with a conspiracy? That's really a strange thing to say, Pat, because not EVERY pro-conspiracy book or article advocates Oswald as a non-gunman or innocent dupe.
A good thing for Pat (or anybody) to do would be to conduct a "poll" of their own, and ask a whole bunch of strangers on the street (or several friends and relatives) the two key questions that I asked in my poll in this forum thread:
1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
After getting, let's say, about 40 or 50 firm "Yes" or "No" answers (especially to question #1), what do you think the results would be? Would the results be closer to ABC's 7% in the "OSWALD WAS NOT A GUNMAN" category? Or would the percentage in that category be much higher than ABC's 7% (like it is at every JFK forum on the planet)?
Might be interesting to find out, huh?
PAT SPEER SAID:
Neither you nor [Vincent Bugliosi] believes that poll. Not even for one second. And I wish you'd just admit it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve or distrust that particular ABC News poll. The question that TWICE has the word "gunman" attached to it is as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face.
But if I WERE to disbelieve that "7%" ABC poll, where does that really lead? I'll tell you where -- such a belief leads to a vast MAJORITY of Americans actually falling into "Kookville". Because under such conditions of totally disbelieving that ABC poll, the vast majority of Americans (just like the majority of CTers at every JFK forum known to man) really DON'T believe Lee Oswald fired even a single shot at President Kennedy.
Do you REALLY want me to come out and say that I believe that MOST Americans are kooks when it comes to their beliefs in the JFK case -- from the limited standpoint, that is, of the question that I asked in my own poll in this thread: "DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?"?
I guess I COULD come out and say that the majority of Americans (the "mainstream", that is) are just exactly like all of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists on the JFK forums, but the 2003 ABC News poll is making it very difficult for me to believe such a thing.
PAT SPEER SAID:
According to the [ABC News] poll...the arguments of most every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have been thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so trying to prove them wrong? What is he, a geriatric, with nothing better to do with his time than argue a case he has already won?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Huh? Are you high on conspiracy fumes or something, Pat??!
You think that Vince Bugliosi had already "won" the case, even with these conspiracy numbers staring him in the face in 2003 (four years before his JFK book was published)?:
================
GALLUP POLL:
ONE MAN ------------- 19%
OTHERS INVOLVED -- 75%
NO OPINION --------- 6%
================
ABC NEWS POLL:
ONE MAN --------- 22%
BROADER PLOT -- 70%
NO OPINION ----- 8%
================
Pat Speer seems to think that the ONLY thing that Mr. Bugliosi wanted to accomplish in his book "Reclaiming History" was to show that Oswald fired shots at JFK.
Yes, indeed, establishing that Oswald was guilty of shooting President Kennedy was certainly one of Vince's goals when he wrote his book--no doubt about that. But a large part of "Reclaiming History" is called "BOOK TWO: DELUSIONS OF CONSPIRACY: WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN", which takes up a little more than 40% of the book (and CD-ROM of endnotes).
And in "Book Two", Bugliosi is not really talking about Oswald's guilt, because he already establishes LHO's guilt in "Book One". The last words that Vince writes at the end of "Book One" are these words:
"Since we can be absolutely sure that Oswald killed Kennedy, he could not have been a "patsy" (i.e., he could not have been "framed") as many conspiracy theorists love to say. By definition, you can't frame someone who is guilty; you frame INNOCENT people. To frame, per the dictionary, means "to incriminate an innocent person through the use of false evidence." Since we know Oswald was guilty, we thereby know that no other person or persons killed Kennedy and framed Oswald for the murder they committed. Therefore, the only remaining issue worthy of discussion is whether Oswald acted alone, that is, whether he was a part of a conspiracy to murder the president." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGE 969 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
----------
So, even if a large number of people (83% via the ABC News poll) do agree with Vince that Oswald was firing shots at JFK in Dealey Plaza, that doesn't mean that Bugliosi's job in "Reclaiming History" was completed. Not by a longshot. Because, as another question in that same ABC poll vividly demonstrates, there's still the 70% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy (whether they believe Oswald was a shooter or not).
David Von Pein
February 27, 2010
March 4, 2010
