Just on The Colbert Report, Stephen's guest, Vincent Bugliosi and his 1600 page "Oswald did it" book

[Up2Late]

Vincent Bugliosi, author of Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy.

Very funny interview! Stephen really went off on him and Bugliosi was completely confused. :rofl:

Replay at 1:30am/12:30pm (EDT/CDT) on Comedy Central

[Schema Thing]

1. ? That's not what I saw.

Do you really think Colbert believes all that conspiracy shite?


I saw the normal Colbert give-and-take he does with people he respects.

[Gabi Hayes]

2. oh. ha.....as opposed to all that coincidence shite?

who made you the arbiter of all truth and knowledge?

thank you

answer these questions, then I'll believe anything you have to say


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/80c68f5a0f1b9661/15b3ef523745f930%2315b3ef523745f930

thank you

[Bombtrack]

4. fine, I will

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsJ19sy3JI

[Gabi Hayes]

5. can't wait. take your time.

please cite sources, and don't use McAdams or Posner ...mmmmkay?

and....Rick Astley? that clip is a joke yes?

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. I'm curious

Why can't he cite McAdams or Posner?

:shrug:

[Gabi Hayes]

15. you're serious?

the bathos

the bathos

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Yes

Consider me a new comer.

Articulate your position.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. don't be supercilious. if you didn't know who posner and mcadams were,

you wouldn't be asking the question

you can believe your dogma; I've got mine. I'm not going to waste your time, or mine by rehashing this endlessly

you can go to any of the Octafish threads on this subject. there's ample evidence provided on both sides of the question.

If you choose to believe the myriad lies told by our own government concerning obvious facts regarding the case (Richard Helms' admission that he lied about Clay Shaw's CIA ties being one of the most egregious and obvious), then go ahead....help yourself

[Gabi Hayes]

21. but just keep swallowing what they're spoonfeeding you. hope it goes down easily

"...if he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing 'Oswald's ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.'" --Richard Sprague, first staff director and chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, statement to Sam Anson of New Times magazine, Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

" Helms told reporters during a break that no one would ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald ... represented. Asked whether the CIA knew of any ties Oswald had with either the KGB or the CIA, Helms paused and with a laugh said, 'I don't remember.'" --
Helms, chatting with the Washington Post's George Lardner and other reporters in 1978, during a recess of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

"I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald.... I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.... We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation....

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp." --
Robert Blakey, staff director and chief counsel (1977-79), U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, statement from 2003

[Gabi Hayes]

24. believing admitted perjuror Helms, among other things.....

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-better-indeed.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. I'm vaguely familiar with Posner

And I have not the slightest idea who McAdams might be.

In any case, if you had a well-formed argument against them it wouldn't require a lot of time. A sentence would do. Instead, we get MMMMMkay and this further non-informational offering. There's dogma here, in other words, but it's certainly not on my side.

As for what I believe, you have no idea, since I haven't made the slightest proclamation in that area.

[Gabi Hayes]

26. I've made my position pretty clear throughout this thread. but since you

seem to enjoy playing snide little games, here's what I think happened:

Oswald, if he had anything at all to do with the assassination, didn't act alone

everything else is speculation, aside from the fact that the government, and its handmaidens, have been lying from the day it happened, muddying the waters, and making it nearly impossible to find out what actually happened

now it's your turn, Mr. Bathos

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. I wasn't asking for your opinion on the assassination

I was asking why the two people (presumably authors) you cited earlier should be dismissed out of hand.

mmmmkay?

[Gabi Hayes]

30. you're a big boy/girl. you know how to write. I assume you know how

to read

look them up

you don't believe Talbot

I don't believe you when you say you don't have anything other than a vague notion of Posner, and nothing of McAdams, otherwise, why would you be so hung up on whether they're considered reliable sources?

they're just two of the many who've made their careers by spreading obvious disinformation

mmmmkay?

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. I'm not hung up on anything

I dislike when people say "And cite your sources, but NOT these two." I thought it was a piddling argumentative move. I really don't know McAdams, and I don't even like what I know of Posner. But I hate arrogant little arguments like the one you made above more.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. too bad. I mentioned them because they're NOT CREDIBLE, and most

coincidencers cite them repeatedly, when they cite any 'evidence' at all. if you don't like that argument, tough toenails. all you have to do is pronounce to us why there's any reason they should be considered credible. mmmkay?

and, as for arrogant little arguments, that really takes the cake, coming from you, mr. pretentioso "alcibiades mystery"

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Ahhhh

So you don't have an argument and you've sunk to personal attacks.

Typical.

[Gabi Hayes]

37. who used this phrase?

''arrogant little arguments''

I'm not arguing. you seem to be.

I told you they're spreaders of disinformation. I suggested that you check it out; there's irrefutable evidence of that POV, several of which I've posted in this thread

you chose to ignore that. what a surprise

[jobycom]

29. Because they are use science, evidence and reason to debunk all the

fabricated and delusional nonsense about conspiracies. Same reason fundies won't let you use science to argue evolution or global warming. It destroys their case. Better to set the groundrules by saying "Anyone who has evidence we are wrong is excluded from this debate."

Otherwise it's a short debate. Oswald did it, all the evidence proves it, and none of the conspiracy stuff holds up to a summer breeze.

[Gabi Hayes]

31. they use THEIR science

are you a physicist?

do you have a degree in pathology?

how do you know what, or whom, to believe?

I choose NOT to believe the people who have LIED CONSISTENTLY since the day JFK was shot

why should I believe anything they have to say

and tell us all about the science Posner used when he flatly declared that Oswald and David Ferrie did NOT know each other, and had never, ever been in the same place at the same time



I feel sorry for you if you believe Posner, but that's your problem

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

3. Who knows, all I know is Bobby Kennedy did n/t

[Up2Late]

12. "...normal Colbert give-and-take he does with people he respects???" Ah, no.

He clearly treated him as if he thought the guy way an idiot for writing another "Oswald was the Lone Gunman" book. A 1600 page "Oswald was the Lone Gunman" book!

And No, Colbert doesn't believe "...all that conspiracy shite...," but he is with us in the 70+% of American's who do NOT accept the TOTALLY BOGUS "magic bullet theory."

What's this guys deal, I have my theories about that too.

[Schema Thing]

41. You know Colbert plays a kinda nutty freeper type who hates reason

don't you?


There's nothing "magic" about that bullet. It's been recreated quite effectively with the same results.

The guy's "deal" is that he likes cutting through bullshit.

[Up2Late]

42. Yes, I do know "...Colbert plays a kinda nutty freeper type..." sometimes, I've been a fan of his...

...since his first days of The Daily Show before Jon Stewart, all the way back to the Craig Kilborn days in the late 1990's, I "Get it!"

So I think I'm well qualified to judge his act last night, and I can safely tell you that he was NOT impressed with this guy and his nearly 1600 page book and I agree with him fully in that regard.

And Yes, the "magic" bullet theory, or "single bullet theory" is totally bogus and has recently been scientifically proved to be false.

I've been though my "Kennedy Conspiracy" phase too, and have found several logical elements of the puzzle over the years, elements that most people don't know about due to the fact that whenever these logical elements come to light, they are quickly buried under a barrage of personal attacks, which is exactly what this joker did, or tried to do, last night toward Colbert.

I'm not going to re-write what is already at Wikipedia, so here's what they have there on the Magic Bullet Theory:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory>

The Single Bullet Theory, called the magic bullet theory by critics, is thought to be an essential element of the Warren Commission theory that only one assassin was responsible for the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy.

The theory, generally credited to Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter (now a US Senator), posits that a single bullet, known as "Warren Commission Exhibit 399" (also known as "CE399"), caused all of the non-fatal wounds in both President John F. Kennedy and Governor John Connally. The fatal head wound to the President was caused by another bullet.

According to the single bullet theory, a one-inch long, copper jacketed, lead core 6.5 millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck, Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. In doing so, the bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a tie knot, removed 4 inches of rib and shattered a radius bone. The bullet that is supposed to have done all this damage was found on Governor Connally’s stretcher in the corridor at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas. It became a key Commission exhibit, identified as CE399. Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet’s nose appeared normal but the tail was compressed laterally on one side (see below: Theorized Path).

In its conclusion<1>, the Warren Commission found persuasive evidence from the experts that a single bullet caused the President's neck wound and all the wounds in Texas Governor John Connally. It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability" but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth floor window of the Depository building.

The 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed with the Single Bullet Theory, but differed on the time frame. The Single Bullet Theory has been staunchly defended by those who believe the Warren Commission’s finding was correct and roundly criticized by those who disagree.

(more at link) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory>

Even if you "...get the angles right," or say "Kennedy was slumped in his seat," blah blah blah, that bullet didn't have sufficient energy to do all the things the Warren Commission claims it did.

So, have you read this guy's book yet?

And I'm asking have you FULLY read this guy's nearly 1600 page book, not skimmed it, not "I read a review of it," I'm asking if you've READ it yourself!?! Because you sure are defending it like you have.

[Schema Thing]

43. Haven't read his book, have been impressed with his

advocacy of truth for many years (as opposed to "truthiness" which Colbert was OPENLY playing on last night).


I'm no expert on Kennedy's murder, but I was used as a photography expert to recreate the photograph Mary Mormon took of President Kennedy at the moment of his death, for a "histories mysteries" discovery channel program examining the photographic evidence (of which there is an impressive amount) available in Dealy Plaza that day.

The episode I was featured in was shot about 5 years ago (shot in prep for the 40th anniversary), but the program later went on to do several very conscientious and fair reenactments of various aspects of the murder; including having a forensic cadaver company create "body" parts that the bullet would have gone through at appropriate angles.

[Up2Late]

44. I think I saw that one, was that the one where they used...

...the big blocks of that Clear Gelatin stuff (shot bullets through it) to simulate a body?

I'm a Photographer too, but I'm also very skeptical of most of the "evidence" provided by both sides of the argument, but I think one of the final episodes of The History Channel's series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" got the location of the second gunman right.

To be clear, I don't buy "the grassy knoll" or "badge man," those theories don't impress me. I think I have it on tape, but I'm not sure which tape right now.

[Schema Thing]

45. no, they recreated bones, tissue, etc.

what you're thinking of may be part of the same series/show, however. I think they did 5 or 6 episodes after the one I was involved with.

My recreations didn't really tell us much, other than that with a carefully shot 35mm piece of b/w film, we could have been much more sure of what was or wasn't on the grassy knoll and behind the fence. Well... actually, some of my work that they edited out showed that with a 4x5 or 8x10 negative, we could read a book title if one had been hanging back on the fence... but that is irrelevant to history really.

What the show did reveal is how well covered by various photographs Dealy plaza was in the seconds surrounding the shooting.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. it's on again right now.

curious to see what the interaction is like

the only time I saw Bugliosi on TV regarding this, he was amazingly, insultingly obnoxious, very much the arrogant, bullying prosecutor with David Talbot, who's written his own book about this, the premise being RFK WOULD have looked into his brother's death

AND.....one of the saddest things I've ever heard was a point he made regarding whomever it was who was with RFK as he died. According to that person (someone whose name you'd recognize, but I can't remember) With his final breath he whispered: "Jack"


can you stand it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Are you sure his final words weren't "The bathos. The bathos..."

:eyes:

[Gabi Hayes]

14. so you're calling Talbot a liar?

what's your problem?

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Er

A master of rhetorical effect?

[Gabi Hayes]

19. er....

no. that's EXACTLY what he said. nothing more, nothing less

he quoted the man who said it

got a problem with that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. It's pretty pat

I don't believe it.

[Gabi Hayes]

28. based upon what evidence?

he just made it up to sell books?

I suppose that's possible, but why would he mention the person's name? that would be awfully easy to refute, wouldn't it?

why don't you do some research to back up your accusation?

I'm repeating a quote from the person who was there, according to the author. You choose not to believe an eyewitness account. Please demonstrate that the author assembled his 'pat' construction out of whole cloth, beyond your own cynical mindset.

thank you

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. I don't have to prove anything

The eyewitness account sounds flakey, precisely what someone would want to believe that he said. You call it cynicism. I call it commitment to plausibility.

I love all these claims to "research," too. What's the research method? Other than "collect 'facts' that confirm previously held opinions and reject any 'facts' that don't." That seems to be the research method par excellence in many of these cases. Research. Oy.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. research....as in finding out if the guy actually said it? what's so hard about that?

don't like my choice of words? too bad

you're the one who chooses not to believe the author

you're calling him a liar, based upon your 'commitment to plausibility'....strong accusation, based upon nothing but that 'commitment'

all you have to do is find out who the guy is...he's well known....and find out if he said it or not

what's so hard about that?

your commitment to plausibility should provide you with the all the impetus you need to prove Talbot the liar he is

get to work

[Gabi Hayes]

38. here you go...call him a liar to his "face." let us know what happened

[e-mail]

[Gabi Hayes]

39. Talbot responds to his "friend" Chris Matthews' hitjob on his book

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/blog.html

Chris Matthews gets it wrong -- again
I have a Chris Matthews problem. I want to like the guy, and in fact, in person I do. Years ago, I met Chris at the San Francisco Examiner, where he broke into journalism after serving as a congressional aide for Tip O'Neill. He was the Washington columnist for the Examiner, where I worked as the editor of the Sunday magazine, and I occasionally assigned him political features. Chris is an utterly charming guy to hang out with, a voluble and genial political junkie, in that Irish-American way, who can babble away forever on the ins and outs of the great electoral game. The problem with Chris, I found out, is that when you try to edit this babble, you quickly discover there is not much there, except for the fleeting Beltway wisdom of the moment. I discovered you don't go to Chris for deep thoughts -- he's a skitter-across-the surface, ADD kind of guy, with a knack for channeling the insta-commentary of the bars on Capitol Hill.

This sort of Washington chatter is fine when it comes to jawing about polls and campaign personalities and other ephemera. But when it comes to the major issues of our day, Beltway pundits like Matthews -- and the guests he stocks his show with -- have been consistently wrong, again and again and again.

When lynching Bill Clinton for a consensual sex act was all the rage in Beltway circles, Chris was among those baying the loudest for his blood. When Iraq seemed like a cakewalk, Matthews got all weak in the knees over Bush in his flight suit. (Of course, when the war didn't look like such a slam dunk, he shifted with the political winds.)

..........

read the rest for his discussion of how his punditpappers ripped his book

[Up2Late]

7. Replay Kick

:kick:

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. OK...if Colbert is supposedly articulating YOUR side in a debate

That means he's MAKING FUN OF YOU.

Clear?

:rofl:

[Gabi Hayes]

13. unfortunately, you're right.

''fifteen shots in two seconds

illuminati"

"I can hear you, but I'm not listening"

[Gabi Hayes]

10. On now: Colbert, introducing him...."Spoiler alert. I'm going to mildly disagree with him."

First question: "who....was behind the conspiracy to kill JFK?"

[Initech]

25. Oooh, oooh, I know the answer!

This man:



That guy on the Colbert Report was full of shit.

[Up2Late]

20. I just hope you all stayed to watch his tribute to Mr. Wizard at the end of the show.

That was REALLY Cool!B-)

[papau]

40. BROTHERS By David Talbot is clear as to why folks say Bugliosi is wrong

BROTHERS

The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years


By David Talbot