Are there any errors in Bugliosi's book?
Peter Fokes
PF
Bud
Peter Fokes wrote:
> ?
He calls Jean Davison "Joan Davison". I think thats it.
> PF
Peter Fokes
hehe ... just one, eh?
LOL
Please re-read the thread "LHO Minsk Photo .... question"
I found an error in Bugliosi's book the first day I received it.
Here's the relevant post in that thread:
Peter Fokes wrote:
<quote on>
Btw, Bugliosi gets his facts wrong in an endnote concerning this issue
in Reclaiming History.
First, read this passage from HYDE's affidavit:
"Mrs. HYDE took a picture, she believes, with Mrs. KRAMER's camera
showing the Intourist guide at the left, Mrs. KRAMER, the automobile,
a young boy, an older man and two young men. Thereafter, Miss NAMAN
was given Mrs. HYDE's camera and asked to take a picture which would
include Mrs. HYDE with background of the Palace of Culture and the
same individuals in the picture as was taken with Mrs. KRAMER's
camera."
Now Bugliosi's endnote from Reclaiming History:
My comments are [bracketed].
<quote on>
... On August 10, 1961, two American tourists, Rita Naman and Monika
Kramer, were visiting Minsk. Miss Naman took a picture of their car
[WITH HYDE's CAMERA!], showing Mrs. Kramer and their Intourist guide
to the left of it and the Palace of Culture and a statue of Joseph
Stalin to the rear and left rear, respectively. Standing to the right
of the car are three men, none of them known by Naman or Kramer, and
the man in the middle is Oswald. ( .... Note: Kramer Exhibit [taken by
HYDE with Kramer's camera] No. 2 in 20 H 475 is a similar photo that
also shows Oswald but may not have come into the CIA's possession.)
<quote off>
Review:
NAMAN took a picture of KRAMER with HYDE's camera. HYDE took her
camera home and was contacted by the FBI in 1964. She gave the photo
to the FBI. At that time, the FBI agent showed HYDE an enlargement of
the photo taken by HYDE with KRAMER's camera.
This endnote does not even acknowledge the existence of Marie HYDE.
IT was the HYDE photo taken by NAMAN that may not have come into the
CIA's possession.
NAMAN never says she took a photo with her OWN camera. She used HYDE's
camera, and HYDE used KRAMER's camera.
Looks like sloppy research -- at least in this endnote.
PF
<quote off>
PF
John McAdams
wrote:
>?
>
>
>
>PF
I haven't gotten more than 300 pages into it, but I did notice that he
said Chet Huntley and David Brinkley were ABC commentators.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
rwa...@despammed.com
> On 8 Sep 2007 12:29:18 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
snip
>
> PF
>
> <quote off>
>
> PF
1500 pages of main text and a 1000 pages of end notes. The question
is: Are there any meaningful, non-trivial errors? Try writing a
book, and see how difficult it is to keep any errors from creeping in.
Bud
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2007 12:29:18 -0400, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Peter Fokes wrote:
> >> ?
> >
> > He calls Jean Davison "Joan Davison". I think thats it.
> >
> >> PF
>
> hehe ... just one, eh?
>
> LOL
>
> Please re-read the thread "LHO Minsk Photo .... question"
>
> I found an error in Bugliosi's book the first day I received it.
Then you already knew the answer to the question you posed in the
header.
I started a post on the conspiracy forum when I noticed that Bugs said
Wesley Buell Frazier`s car was parked in the Randle carport (it wasn`t, it
was alongside). A few people added things they noticed, I think DVP picked
up a number of errors (it seemed VB transposed a lot of numbers). DW
pointed out that Markham put Oz on the sidewalk, not cutting across the
Davis`s lawn as VB had it. It`s a tough book to edit I suppose, you need
an editor familiar with all the nit-picking details of the case.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
Of course there are. You can't expect a book so long not to contain a few.
I've read all the printed text, and a good bit of the endnotes, and
noticed a few (very few for such a long book) typos and other minor slips
("William" Hinckley for "John" thrice in one patch, "undo" for
"undue"...).
Do I think there are errors of the sort that would damage VB's case? No.
David Von Pein
Probably a trick question (coming from Peter as it is). Right Pete? ;)
Anyway, I'll bite........
"Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi has, in my opinion, written a
very factual book, with only a very few mistakes cropping up here and
there (that I noticed).
That doesn't mean I always agree with everything VB says in his JFK book.
Because that's not the case at all. In fact, I disagree with him on
several different issues re. the Kennedy case....e.g., the timing of when
the SBT bullet struck the victims; the specifics of what happened to the
bullet from Oswald's first (missed) shot; the very strange flip-flop that
Vince seems to do on pages 423-424 re. the HSCA's insane "upward"
trajectory of the SBT bullet path through JFK's body; and VB's criticism
of Gerald Posner in a couple of places (particularly with respect to a JBC
bullet-fragment issue).
But even with my own above-mentioned criticisms, Vince has still written
the best book ever penned on the JFK assassination. And when placed next
to Dale Myers' comprehensive book on the J.D. Tippit murder ("With
Malice"), a researcher doesn't need to buy any other books dealing with
the events of November 22, 1963, in order to know the full truth about
what occurred that day in Dallas. (IMHO, that is.)
Re. typos and small errors of fact........
There are very, very few misspelled words within this mass of text, which
I found impressive all by itself. (There are some misspellings,
though...."bullet" comes out "bulled" on page 480, and "Dealey" is missing
its second "e" in at least two places in the book, but the total number of
such spelling mistakes is extremely small for a publication of this
length.)
There are, however, a few small factual errors within the tonnage of
information supplied to the reader on these many pages. But none of the
errors in the book, in my opinion, are major enough to discredit (in any
way) Bugliosi's bottom-line "Oswald Acted Alone" conclusion.
I've catalogued a few of these minor mistakes below. I did this for no
particular reason; perhaps just to illustrate that not even the "King of
Common Sense and Logical Thinking" (who is, IMO, Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi)
is totally immune to making a mistake every now and then.
Here's my short "Errors" list:
1.) Vince tells us that the Secret Service follow-up car that was used in
the Presidential motorcade on 11/22/63 was a "1955" Cadillac. (It was
really a 1956 Caddy. In fact, Vince twice errs re. the model year of that
vehicle, at one point labeling it a "1958" car.)
2.) VB has Eddie Barker located at Parkland Hospital when JFK's death was
announced. (Barker was really at the Dallas Trade Mart at that time.)
3.) Patton Avenue is called "Patton Street" and Beckley Avenue is referred
to as "Beckley Street" at various points throughout the book. But, to be
fair, VB also mentions Beckley "Avenue" correctly, on page 765. (I'm
really nitpicking now, huh?)
4.) In footnotes on pages 118 and 1475, Vince three times identifies the
man who shot Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, as "William Hinckley". (He
should have said "John Hinckley". Vince, though, correctly calls Hinckley
"John" on several other pages in the book.)
5.) This one has me scratching my head a little bit (although it's only a
very small issue and doesn't mean much at all) -- In Chapter One (on page
37), Mr. Bugliosi includes a very strange version of Nellie Connally's
last words spoken to JFK that I had never heard before.
Just prior to the shooting in Dealey Plaza, Nellie turned and said to the
President, "You can't say that Dallas doesn't love you, Mr. President".
But Bugliosi's version of this quote is quite different. In fact, it's not
even close to the quote I just mentioned. I could be wrong I suppose, but
I don't think VB's variant is an accurate one.
6.) Vince has the date of Elvis Presley's death listed incorrectly on page
872. VB has it as August 17, 1977 (it was actually August 16th of that
year).
7.) Page 897 contains an error with respect to Secret Service agent George
Hickey. On that page, Bugliosi claims that Hickey was in the "vice
president's car" during the motorcade. Hickey, however, was one of eight
SS agents riding in the Secret Service follow-up car immediately behind
JFK's limousine.
VB repeats this same oddball error on page 925. Oddly, though, Vince gets
it right on the very next page (page 926) as he correctly says that Hickey
was riding in JFK's Secret Service follow-up car.
8.) In a lengthy and excellent footnote on page 953, Vince makes a slip of
the tongue when he says that Bullet CE399 caused the President's head
wounds. Obviously, he didn't mean to say "Commission Exhibit No. 399"
caused JFK's head wounds. It was an honest mistake.
But I'm guessing there are some rabid conspiracists out there somewhere
who will contend that this error negates every argument in the ENTIRE book
and, therefore, Bugliosi cannot be trusted.
9.) Vince gets his DPD officers mixed up on page 938 of the CD's endnotes,
when he claims that is was "Officer McDonald" who stopped Oswald in the
2nd-Floor lunchroom. (It was actually Officer Baker.)
Mr. Bugliosi, of course, knows full well that it was Marrion Baker in the
lunchroom, because of the many other times in the book when VB gets
Baker's name right when referring to the lunchroom encounter with Oswald.
10.) Another confusion about names crops up on page 942 of the endnotes,
when VB says that Ralph Paul (a close friend of Jack Ruby's) had several
telephone conversations with "Oswald" over the weekend of the
assassination. Vince, of course, meant to say that Paul was speaking to
Ruby, not Oswald.
(Note -- I noticed that the number and frequency of small mistakes like
this increases during the last several pages of endnotes on the CD-ROM. I
don't know if this indicates a lack of proofreading these pages in the
days just before the book went to press or not; but I suppose that's one
potential explanation for it.)
11.) Vincent B. tells us multiple times in the book that Lee Oswald
started out the day on November 22, 1963, with "$13.87" in his pockets.
But this has to be incorrect. Why? Because the $13.87 figure is the exact
total that Oswald had on his person when he was arrested on that day. And
we know that he spent $1.23 on bus and cab rides PRIOR to being arrested.
So, Lee had to have started the day with at least $15.10 on him.
It was probably even a little more than $15.10, because LHO also bought
that Coke, remember, from the TSBD soda machine (and I can only assume he
didn't break into the machine and pilfer the beverage).
But even the Warren Commission must have forgotten about the Coke
purchase, because it's not reflected in the WC's microscopic examination
of Oswald's finances that is furnished in the Warren Report, but the odd
amount of precisely "$1.23" is mentioned for Oswald's bus and taxi fares
on 11/22/63. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...port_0385a.htm
================
Addendum........
The "Jean/Joan" error by VB was discussed here in May:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a2f70697540716
Plus, I recently took note of another very tiny, insignificant misspelling
of a person's name in a couple of places in VB's book, when he sometimes
spells Ted Sorensen's last name "Sorenson". (A very common slip. I think
it's really spelled "...sen"; at least it's spelled that way on the covers
of the books that Ted has authored; and that's a pretty good place to go
for spelling verification.)
Detailed "RH" review here:
http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
This summer I've read most of Bugliosi's other books.
In the second sentence of 1978's "Till Death Do Us Part" appear the
words "chaise lounge." Ouch.
In "Helter Skelter," it appears he got Manson's height wrong by a few
inches, and his remarks on Nietzsche's philosophy are rather
uncomprehending.
Nobody's perfect.
David Von Pein
Yep. Nobody is. Because you've got the title of that VB book wrong (a
common transposing of the words there) -- it's really called "Till
Death Us Do Part".
www.amazon.com/gp/reader/039332544X/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4913190-2911629#reader-link
BTW, spelling it "chaise LOUNGE" (instead of LONGUE) is accepted by
many people. It's even got an entry in Webster's that way: ;)
http://webster.com/dictionary/chaise%20lounge
muc...@gmail.com
>From the trivia department: in a previous post, I pointed out a couple
of erroneous claims about early book by Gun & Joesten.
-Mark
James K. Olmstead
of consideration dealing with the fingerprint evidence. He spent a great deal
more time on some points then I thought he would.....however he still presented
material information but avoided full discussion of the conflict of the material presented.
As a prosecutor, that is expected but as a author presenting historical conflict of
a case study he short changes the reader.
I was hoping he would do just this......it adds to my work "Questions of Integrity"
dealing with the fingerprint evidence.
jko
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message news:1189300689....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Exactly.
And VB's mammoth tome weighs in, to be technical, at 2,824 total pages
(including all CD "pages" and all unnumbered photo/chart pages in the
book itself).
I can't write a semi-lengthy post on this forum without catching at
least one small typo after it's posted (which forces me to delete and
start over, because I cannot stand typos in my writing; hate it!).
Sure wish Google allowed edits. :(
Imagine a 2,824-page post? Lots of proofreading there. (And that's a
whopper of a forum post to delete and write over again too.)
~wink~ plus ~grin~
Anthony Marsh
You don't seem to understand the process. The errors did not get in
there accidentally. They were put there intentionally.
Anthony Marsh
The problem with Bugliosi's book is that they couldn't afford any
proofreading, after paying him so much.
Anthony Marsh
That's what happens when a book is written by a committee!
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> >>> "In the second sentence of 1978's "Till Death Do Us Part" appear the words "chaise lounge." Ouch. ... Nobody's perfect." <<<
>
> Yep. Nobody is. Because you've got the title of that VB book wrong (a
> common transposing of the words there) -- it's really called "Till
> Death Us Do Part".
Indeed. Ha ha.
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/reader/039332544X/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4913190-2911629...
>
> BTW, spelling it "chaise LOUNGE" (instead of LONGUE) is accepted by
> many people. It's even got an entry in Webster's that way: ;)
>
> http://webster.com/dictionary/chaise%20lounge
Yeah, no doubt! Lots of things are "accepted by many people"...who
don't know any better! ;-D
David Von Pein
proofreading, after paying him so much." <<<
And I would have proofread the whole thing for free.
Go figure the irony.
;)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "In the second sentence of 1978's "Till Death Do Us Part" appear the words "chaise lounge." Ouch. ... Nobody's perfect." <<<
>
>Yep. Nobody is. Because you've got the title of that VB book wrong (a
>common transposing of the words there) -- it's really called "Till
>Death Us Do Part".
>
>www.amazon.com/gp/reader/039332544X/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4913190-2911629#reader-link
Interesting. There was a British TV series with the same title in days
of yore:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/T/htmlT/tilldeathus/tilldeathus.htm
>
>
>BTW, spelling it "chaise LOUNGE" (instead of LONGUE) is accepted by
>many people. It's even got an entry in Webster's that way: ;)
>
>http://webster.com/dictionary/chaise%20lounge
PF
>
Peter Fokes
Wasn't someone making a list of the errors?
PF
eca...@tx.rr.com
"You don't seem to understand the process. The
errors did not get in there accidentally. They
were put there intentionally."
"The problem with Bugliosi's book is that they
couldn't afford any proofreading, after paying
him so much."
MARSH QUOTES OFF ----------------------
Tony how did you discover the errors in the book
"were put there intentionally?"
Ed Cage
0412Sep1107
On Sep 9, 7:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> there accidentally. They were put there intentionally.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Russ Burr
I guess Tony can read Bugliosi's mind. I'll agree there are some
omissions but overall compared Posner's book it's more comprehensive and
explains away popular conspiracy issues.
Russ
>
>
>
>
playiso...@email.com
there is an excellent chance that VB's conclusions are in error
also he makes incorrect statements about Lane's Rush to Judgment and
uses Weisberg, Thompson and Meagher in deceptive ways
his interpretation of the Z film is questionable
his logic is often just demagoguery
A
Anthony Marsh
Well, that's the most important thing to you that your hero make up
strawman arguments and really sock it to the conspiracy believers.
> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Russ Burr
R
Russ Burr
Please give me an example of his strawman arguments. Perhaps you can
convince me. I did think the book was too heavy handed as far as CT's. It
also missed key elements.
Russ
David Von Pein
LOL.
Nice.
LOL.
Russ Burr
I just wanted you to clarify the issues you found in Bugilosi book.
Russ
>
>
playiso...@email.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I written up many of these points before in my reviews of RH
Lane: Bugliosi says Lane never mentions the arrest of LHO, but he does
right in the main text
Weisberg: Bugliosi quotes Weisberg to attack other CTs but never refutes
any of the points on the medical evidence found in Whitewash 4
Meagher: he speaks favorably about her, then goes on to say that if the
CTs are right then govt. officials would be accesories. In his main text,
he never mentions that her book is called Accesories After the Fact
Thompson: praised by VB as a responsible critic but his analysis of the Z
film is ignored
Demagoguery: in the book (and repeated by VB whenever he is in the media)
he 'proves' that people are CTs because of the movie JFK
this is ahistorical, the CT movement began decades before the movie and is
the source for much of the film
VB says if you haven't read the WCR, you can't have an informed opinion,
yet the entire CT movement is based on analysis of the WCR and its
evidence. VB hopes you don't know that
Z film: people who watch the Z film too much see things in it that aren't
there VB is no exception in the picture section he uses the shot of
Connally turning around toward JFK as proof of his theories, ignoring the
use of the same frame as others' proof that JFK and the governor were hit
by separate shots. VB doesn't even inform the reader of the controversy
(which is a big part of his MO)
the big (LN) conclusion: well it's true or it isn't I doubt that the LN
argument is valid but I can't prove it in a few sentences here
A
David Von Pein
opinion, yet the entire CT movement is based on analysis of the WCR and
its evidence." <<<
This, of course, is a vast overstatement here (via use of the word
"entire").
And it's also quite humorous when CTers who HAVE studied the WCR in some
depth (and, naturally, think it's full of pretty much nothing but lies and
distortions) then turn around and start CITING portions of the Report that
they seem to think aid their pro-CT cause.
Ben Holmes (resident Google CTer) is an expert at doing this.
Great tactic huh? -- Trash the WR and then use the trashed Report to prop
up your own theories.
I think (last I checked) that's called: "Talking out of both sides of your
mouth".
tomnln
<playiso...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1189713707.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
The Warren Report consists of two things.
1 The charges against Oswald.
2 The Warren Commissions "Conclusions".
Those "Conclusions" are supposedly based on evidence/testimony in the 26
volumes.
The evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes PROVE those "Conclusions" WRONG.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189733862....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Of course, they do no such thing. Not even close. But it makes Tom R.
feel better if can type something utterly foolish on a daily (or
hourly) basis, like his above declaration about the WC/WR.
playiso...@email.com
there are 2 aspects to the WCR
1) evidence
2) conclusions
it is possible to use one without the other
thanks for provideing another example of the demagoguery used by VB
(and others)
A
Russ Burr
to clarify.
Russ
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "VB says if you haven't read the WCR, you can't have an informed
> opinion, yet the entire CT movement is based on analysis of the WCR and
> its evidence." <<<
>
> This, of course, is a vast overstatement here (via use of the word
> "entire").
>
> And it's also quite humorous when CTers who HAVE studied the WCR in some
> depth (and, naturally, think it's full of pretty much nothing but lies and
> distortions) then turn around and start CITING portions of the Report that
> they seem to think aid their pro-CT cause.
>
It's pretty fun that this late in life you still have not figured out
that some book can have many errors, yet not be 100% wrong. You tend to
paint things in black and white.
> Ben Holmes (resident Google CTer) is an expert at doing this.
>
> Great tactic huh? -- Trash the WR and then use the trashed Report to prop
> up your own theories.
>
> I think (last I checked) that's called: "Talking out of both sides of your
> mouth".
>
No, it's called reasonableness.
>
tomnln
What David does NOT understand;
The Warren Report consists of two things.
1 The charges against Oswald.
2 The Warren Commissions "Conclusions".
Those "Conclusions" are supposedly based on evidence/testimony in the 26
volumes.
The evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes PROVE those "Conclusions" WRONG.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189748923.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
No. It's called WANTING IT BOTH WAYS.
Ben and his fellow CT cohorts love to continually trash the ENTIRE
Warren Report and the supporting volumes, and yet (when it suits them)
they'll cite the WR.
If that's "reasonableness" to you....wonderful. But you're probably in
the room alone on that one.
David Von Pein
(and others)." <<<
Anytime, A.
Let me know when I can help you further.
Peter Fokes
of the WC and yet they all had doubts about whether or not Oswald
acted with the help of other people. Anyone book that argues the WC
put all questions to rest is not credible. Such a silly conclusion
would have been roundly jeered even by some members of the Commission.
PF
Russ Burr
That's an old CT tactic by a few.
Russ
>
>
Russ Burr
> Certainly Earl Warren, Hal Boggs, Russell and Ford knew the contents
> of the WC and yet they all had doubts about whether or not Oswald
> acted with the help of other people. Anyone book that argues the WC
> put all questions to rest is not credible. Such a silly conclusion
> would have been roundly jeered even by some members of the Commission.
>
> PF
>
Hi Peter, It's true what you say but didn't the majority of the
Commission agree with the WC findings?
Russ
Peter Fokes
>Peter Fokes wrote:
>> Certainly Earl Warren, Hal Boggs, Russell and Ford knew the contents
>> of the WC and yet they all had doubts about whether or not Oswald
>> acted with the help of other people. Anyone book that argues the WC
>> put all questions to rest is not credible. Such a silly conclusion
>> would have been roundly jeered even by some members of the Commission.
>>
>> PF
>>
>
>Hi Peter, It's true what you say but didn't the majority of the
>Commission agree with the WC findings?
>
>Russ
I think all of them believed Oswald was the shooter. I'm not quite
sure how many believed there was a possibility he had had help from
other people.
Russell asked Warren to include his dissenting letter in the record,
and was angry that Warren reneged on that promise. Several days after
the report was completed, Russell spoke to LBJ and both men agreed
they did not believe Oswald acted alone. But Russell was not the only
member with doubts.
I urge you to read Russo's chapter on this subject in his book Live By
The Sword.
PF
Russ Burr
> On 15 Sep 2007 15:35:13 -0400, Russ Burr <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Fokes wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly Earl Warren, Hal Boggs, Russell and Ford knew the contents
>>> of the WC and yet they all had doubts about whether or not Oswald
>>> acted with the help of other people. Anyone book that argues the WC
>>> put all questions to rest is not credible. Such a silly conclusion
>>> would have been roundly jeered even by some members of the Commission.
>>>
>>> PF
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Peter, It's true what you say but didn't the majority of the
>> Commission agree with the WC findings?
>>
>> Russ
>>
>
> I think all of them believed Oswald was the shooter. I'm not quite
> sure how many believed there was a possibility he had had help from
> other people.
>
> Russell asked Warren to include his dissenting letter in the record,
> and was angry that Warren reneged on that promise. Several days after
> the report was completed, Russell spoke to LBJ and both men agreed
> they did not believe Oswald acted alone. But Russell was not the only
> member with doubts.
>
> I urge you to read Russo's chapter on this subject in his book Live By
> The Sword.
>
> PF
>
Thanks! I will give it a read, though I know of Russell's letter of
dissent.
Russ
tomnln
See ARRB Report Chapter 1, Page 11, footnote 17.
"Russ Burr" <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:46ec0342$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...