Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence. And WCR link.

[John Mytton]

The problem with a lot of newer CTs is that they have never explored the full story from both sides, the following anecdote from Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi shows why it's important to take a detailed look at both sides.

Before I go on, I?d like to relate an incident I feel may strike home with many readers of this book. Back in early 1992, a few months after the strongly pro-conspiracy movie JFK came out, I was speaking to around six hundred lawyers at a trial lawyers? convention on the East Coast. My subject was ?Tactics and Techniques in the Trial of a Criminal Case,? not the Kennedy assassination, but during the question-and-answer period that followed, the assassination came up, and I could tell from the rhetorical nature of the questions that the questioners believed there was a conspiracy in the assassination.       
I asked for a show of hands as to how many did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission. A forest of hands went up, easily 85 to 90 percent of the audience. So I said to them, ?What if I could prove to you in one minute or less that although you are all intelligent people you are not thinking intelligently about the Kennedy case?? I could sense an immediate stirring in the audience. My challenge sounded ridiculous. How could I prove in one minute or less that close to six hundred lawyers were not thinking intelligently? A voice from my right front shouted out, ?We don?t think you can do it.? I responded, ?Okay, start looking at your watches.? With the clock ticking, I asked for another show of hands as to those who had seen the recent movie JFK or at any time in the past had ever read any book or magazine article propounding the conspiracy theory or otherwise rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission. Again, a great number of hands went up?about the same, it seemed to me, as the previous hand count. I proceeded to tell the group that I didn?t need a show of hands for my next point. ?I?m sure you will all agree,? I said, ?that before you form an intelligent opinion on a matter in dispute you should hear both sides of the issue. As the old West Virginia mountaineer said, ?No matter how thin I make my pancakes they always have two sides.? With that in mind, how many of you have read the Warren Report?? It was embarrassing. Only a few people raised their hands. In less than a minute (one member ofthe audience later told me it was forty-seven seconds) I had proved my point. The overwhelming majority in the audience had formed an opinion rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to read the Commission?s report. And mind you, I hadn?t even asked them how many had read the twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission, just the single-volume Warren Report.       

Well over a hundred million Americans reject the findings of the Warren Commission, whose report at least ninety-nine out of a hundred have never read.

So for a refresher take a look at the accumulated evidence by Bugliosi.

Link to the Warren Commission Report.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Why don't you actually put links to the evidence like I do? Or quote it? Bugliosi put nothing forward beyond his opinion.

Huh, your threads are jammed full of your self serving opinion???



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

The problem with a lot of newer CTs is that they have never explored the full story from both sides, the following anecdote from Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi shows why it's important to take a detailed look at both sides.

Before I go on, I?d like to relate an incident I feel may strike home with many readers of this book. Back in early 1992, a few months after the strongly pro-conspiracy movie JFK came out, I was speaking to around six hundred lawyers at a trial lawyers? convention on the East Coast. My subject was ?Tactics and Techniques in the Trial of a Criminal Case,? not the Kennedy assassination, but during the question-and-answer period that followed, the assassination came up, and I could tell from the rhetorical nature of the questions that the questioners believed there was a conspiracy in the assassination.       
I asked for a show of hands as to how many did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission. A forest of hands went up, easily 85 to 90 percent of the audience. So I said to them, ?What if I could prove to you in one minute or less that although you are all intelligent people you are not thinking intelligently about the Kennedy case?? I could sense an immediate stirring in the audience. My challenge sounded ridiculous. How could I prove in one minute or less that close to six hundred lawyers were not thinking intelligently? A voice from my right front shouted out, ?We don?t think you can do it.? I responded, ?Okay, start looking at your watches.? With the clock ticking, I asked for another show of hands as to those who had seen the recent movie JFK or at any time in the past had ever read any book or magazine article propounding the conspiracy theory or otherwise rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission. Again, a great number of hands went up?about the same, it seemed to me, as the previous hand count. I proceeded to tell the group that I didn?t need a show of hands for my next point. ?I?m sure you will all agree,? I said, ?that before you form an intelligent opinion on a matter in dispute you should hear both sides of the issue. As the old West Virginia mountaineer said, ?No matter how thin I make my pancakes they always have two sides.? With that in mind, how many of you have read the Warren Report?? It was embarrassing. Only a few people raised their hands. In less than a minute (one member ofthe audience later told me it was forty-seven seconds) I had proved my point. The overwhelming majority in the audience had formed an opinion rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to read the Commission?s report. And mind you, I hadn?t even asked them how many had read the twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission, just the single-volume Warren Report.       

Well over a hundred million Americans reject the findings of the Warren Commission, whose report at least ninety-nine out of a hundred have never read.

So for a refresher take a look at the accumulated evidence by Bugliosi.

Link to the Warren Commission Report.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report



JohnM

And the misrepresentations and propaganda go on and on....

[John Mytton]

My posts use the actual evidence. I quote it and put links to it. Why do you avoid the evidence?

Sure, I offer opinion occasionally, but for the part I use the actual evidence. You use nothing but your opinion.

Sure, I offer opinion occasionally

No, you continually interpret the evidence to your own devious end, just witness your McDonald thread where even though contrary to the mountain of actual evidence you can't stop keep pushing your misinterpretation of a single newspaper article, that's just Nuts!

You use nothing but your opinion.

I told you a million times, don't exaggerate!



JohnM

[Colin Crow]

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, it's people like you who hack Forums because they can't stand any evidence that contradicts their limited shaky viewpoint.

Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.

JohnM

Pathetic, but oh so expected from Mytton....

13 posts already and nothing of any kind of value or interest.....

[Michael Clark]

I can tell you that I don't have to read the Bible to form an opinion as to whether it is full of baloney or not. 

[Martin Weidmann]

In 13 posts I have stimulated conversation in a number of areas relevant to this Forum and in return your posts are 100% on goal of Ad Homm attacks, Congrats!



JohnM

In 13 posts I have stimulated conversation in a number of areas relevant to this Forum

Yeah, like accussing Colin of possibly being somebody who would hack this forum and spreading the same old and long debunked Bugliosi propaganda crap.