Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[Bill Chapman]

   Vincent Bugliosi's conclusion of no conspiracy should make you want to look at the JFK Assassination and dig in to the case . Reclaiming History and the Warren Report should be both in the Fiction section of the library. Now Dr. Cyril Wecht already told us that the Warren Report should be in the Fiction area of the Library and I think it is safe to say that Reclaiming History belongs in the fiction area also. I don't think there is one page in Vincent's book that does not refer to some disclaimer of conspiracy. I have the book & I have to make myself go back and pick up where I left off and read some more and then just set it down because it's a broken record . Have any of you tried to read this book? It's a mile long just like the Warren "26 volume" Report that Dr. Wecht says does not have an index.

After 55 years still no credible replacement for Dirty Harvey as prime suspect. What, too soon?

[Bill Chapman]

Conclusion of No Conspiracy
                       
  By now it has to be more than obvious to the reader of this book that Oswald acted alone in killing the president. Not only does all of his conduct speak unerringly only to this conclusion, but also, as I believe I have demonstrated, the various conspiracy theories are utterly vapid and bankrupt. Does what you have read prove beyond all doubt that there was no conspiracy in Kennedy?s assassination? Probably not, if only because such a degree of proof will perhaps always be unattainable. Why? Because, first, Oswald is dead (and absent a confession from a conspirator, only Oswald could tell us if he acted in concert with anyone), and second, it?s normally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive. However, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, the world?s leading skeptic that Oswald acted alone?that there was no conspiracy. That Oswald, a lone nut, killed Kennedy and was thereafter killed by another lone nut, Ruby. Two small men who wanted to become big, and succeeded. Or, to ennoble their ignoble deeds, as author David Lubin says, ?the lethal tussle in the basement of city hall was a fight between two would-be paladins. Each regarded himself as a knight on a mission to avenge wrong and restore right.?

  If, as is the situation with the conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence to support your allegation, from a legal standpoint you?re out of court. But even if you?re out of court, if you can at least argue that ?well, there?s no evidence of this, but logic and common sense tell you it is so,? you still have talking rights and you can still play the game, as it were. But when you not only have no evidence, but logic and common sense tell you it isn?t so, it?s time to fold your tent.

  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 they were to accept the evidence of no conspiracy, those whose lives have been heavily immersed in the assassination for years would also have to accept that they have ?wasted? the last twenty or thirty (or however many) years of their lives on something that has no merit. And consciously or subconsciously, it is difficult for anyone to do this. So they are prime candidates for being ?in denial? and impervious to the points being made. It should be added that 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. In fact, if Oswald himself appeared in front of them and said, ?Hey, guys, knock off all this silliness. I killed Kennedy and acted alone,? they?d probably tell him, ?Look, we know a heck of a lot more about this case than you do, so go back to wherever you came from.?       
 
 It?s essentially become a religious belief with the theorists that there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy?s death, and with religious beliefs, the believer knows the truth, so there has to be an explanation for everything that seems to contradict that truth. Their reasoning, then, is to start the debate assuming the very point that has to be proved (Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy), and anything that is at odds with this belief has to have an explanation, no matter how ridiculous and far-out it may be. Nothing you tell the conspiracy theorists can shake their belief in a conspiracy. In situations where even they can?t come up with an explanation, they shield themselves from the evidence by either distorting or ignoring it. This type of intellectual carpentry by the buffs allows them to proceed forward with their fantasy, unfazed by the inconvenient interposition of reality.       

  The example I am about to give illustrates the religious obsession and startling illogic of conspiracy theorists. A very prominent and well-respected medical doctor who is a sincere and eloquent member of the new wave in the conspiracy community wrote me (on August 30, 2001) that ?for nearly ten years now, I have slept, jogged, eaten, gone to the bathroom, and dreamed about this case.? This doctor went on to tell me, unbelievably, that it was terribly illogical of me to say that one shouldn?t reject the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to first read the Warren Report. Such a reading was unnecessary, he said. The profound passion and equally profound irrationality reflected in that way of thinking are the norm, not the exception, in the ethos of the hard-core conspiracy community. The arguments that follow are not just for the conspiracy community, but mostly for the millions of Americans who, not knowing the facts, have been duped by the conspiracy theorists into buying their drivel, misinformation, and flat-out fabrications.*       

  As with the evidence of Oswald?s guilt, which has already been presented in very abbreviated, summary form, here?s the evidence of no conspiracy. As you are reading this list, I would ask you to take a moment to ask yourself whether the individual point you are reading, all alone and by itself, clearly shows there was no conspiracy. I believe you will find this to be the case with many of the points. 
RHVB





JohnM

Jim Garrison dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates.
His first question is obvious.
God replies that Oswald killed Kennedy, and did it alone.
Garrison exclaims "Wow! I had no idea that the conspiracy went this high!

[Michael Walton]

A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.

A government committee got it right in 1978.

It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion.  It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.

The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job.  Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started.  Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward.  It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.

As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

[Mitch Todd]

A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.

A government committee got it right in 1978.

It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion.  It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.

The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job.  Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started.  Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward.  It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.

As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the WC until the Weiss/Aschkenasy report came out. The problem is, the W/A report is wrong. Steve Barber's discovery of the "hold everything" message created two fatal problems for WA study. The first is timing: we know from the context of the message itself that it came after the last shot was fired. The second is a little more esoteric. The 95% probability that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated for the GK shot was based on an assumption that the "impulses" on the DPD recording could either be shots or just random noise. The crosstalk sits on top of the "shots" and introduces a possibility that WA didn't consider, that the "shots" are part of the Decker crosstalk. That alone invalidates the WA 95% number. Without a valid acoustic study to support a GK gunman, the HSCA report simply amplifies on the WC.

[Richard Rubio]

The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the WC until the Weiss/Aschkenasy report came out. The problem is, the W/A report is wrong. Steve Barber's discovery of the "hold everything" message created two fatal problems for WA study. The first is timing: we know from the context of the message itself that it came after the last shot was fired. The second is a little more esoteric. The 95% probability that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated for the GK shot was based on an assumption that the "impulses" on the DPD recording could either be shots or just random noise. The crosstalk sits on top of the "shots" and introduces a possibility that WA didn't consider, that the "shots" are part of the Decker crosstalk. That alone invalidates the WA 95% number. Without a valid acoustic study to support a GK gunman, the HSCA report simply amplifies on the WC.

I think I understand that, without the dictabelt which is proven faulty, HSCA and WR are very similar.

[Michael Walton]

Go by your own eyes please.  I have an extremely graphic video that I could share with you on here that shows two men, taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head and NEITHER of them are slinged backward. Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo (jet effect, acoustics, etc.) this is more than enough proof - at least for me - to me that someone taking a shot from the rear does not suddenly be slinged backward.  It doesn't make sense and if you're honest with yourself after seeing it, it should put doubt into even the most rabid LNer.

I would post it for educational purposes only here but I do not know if the admins would allow it and I don't know who to ask. When I posted it many months ago on EF, some people were shocked but nothing was reported.  Then months later a member there, Stancak, got pissed because I kept rebutting his stupid PM long-leg theory. When he came across the video, he suddenly became ultra-sensitive ("oh my goodness") and reported it.  Then, irony of ironies, he posts Kennedy's graphic autopsy photos.

If you want to see for yourself, email me.

[Bill Brown]

A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.

A government committee got it right in 1978.

It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion.  It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.

The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job.  Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started.  Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward.  It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.

As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

Please explain what conspiracy the "'78 conclusion" uncovered.

[Bill Brown]

Go by your own eyes please.  I have an extremely graphic video that I could share with you on here that shows two men, taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head and NEITHER of them are slinged backward. Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo (jet effect, acoustics, etc.) this is more than enough proof - at least for me - to me that someone taking a shot from the rear does not suddenly be slinged backward.  It doesn't make sense and if you're honest with yourself after seeing it, it should put doubt into even the most rabid LNer.

I would post it for educational purposes only here but I do not know if the admins would allow it and I don't know who to ask. When I posted it many months ago on EF, some people were shocked but nothing was reported.  Then months later a member there, Stancak, got xxxxxx because I kept rebutting his stupid PM long-leg theory. When he came across the video, he suddenly became ultra-sensitive ("oh my goodness") and reported it.  Then, irony of ironies, he posts Kennedy's graphic autopsy photos.

If you want to see for yourself, email me.

A bullet striking the head from the right-front would not throw the body back and to the left.