Re: VINCENT BUGLIOSI, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, AND "RECLAIMING HISTORY"
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER WROTE:
>>> "The L.A. Times review of the book ["Reclaiming History"]...was written with the help of Bugliosi's publicist. In a video-taped interview conducted just before the release of the book, Bugliosi said he wanted his book to be considered a "book for the ages". The Times' review, released just days later, BEFORE the release of this interview on the internet, called the book...a "book for the ages". .... According to Bugliosi's publicity machine, he has proven ALL conspiracy theories to be frauds, and has changed the playing field so much that anyone disagreeing with him can be considered insane." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
That last sentence sounds pretty close to being spon-on accurate,
IMO. :)
And I guess Pat Speer must think that Jim Newton of the Los Angeles
Times is part of Vincent Bugliosi's "publicity machine". Right, Pat?
Any proof of that? Or is the term "book for the ages" proof enough for
you? It's hard to tell whether you think Newton got the term "book for
the ages" from Bugliosi or whether you think Bugliosi stole it from
Newton. ~shrug~
FWIW and FYI -- Jim Newton's review of "Reclaiming History" appeared
in the "Books" section of the L.A. Times on May 13, 2007 (at least the
article is dated 5/13/07 on the Internet, at any rate), which was two
days before the official release of Bugliosi's book.*
* = The book's release date was moved up from its original one of May
29 to May 15 for some reason. My guess is that Vince and publisher
W.W. Norton wanted to get "Reclaiming History" on the market closer to
the publishing date of David Talbot's "Brothers", which debuted on May
8, 2007, seven days before "RH" streeted. But, again, that's just a
guess on my part.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/13/books/bk-newton13
Now, we can see that Newton's review of "RH" is dated 5/13/07. We
can't know, however, the exact date when Newton actually WROTE the
review, but I'm guessing it was sometime in early May of 2007. (Seems
reasonable to me anyway.)
Continuing.....On April 30, 2007, Vince Bugliosi recorded his pre-
release "interview" about the book, which was videotaped by the people
at FORA.tv:
www.FORA.tv/2007/04/30/Vincent_Bugliosi_Interview
That interview is also shown on the front page of
ReclaimingHistory.com:
In that 4/30/07 "interview" (which doesn't include anyone else talking
except Bugliosi; the "interviewer" [if there, in fact, is a real-life
person there conducting the interview] is never heard or
seen)....Vince does say that he wrote "Reclaiming History" to be a
"book for the ages". Quoting VB from the interview in question:
"I think the assassination [of JFK] is...sufficiently important
to warrant that there be a book for the ages about it. And 'Reclaiming
History' is that book. I mean when I started writing that book, it was
to write a book for the ages about the Kennedy assassination. And
that's precisely what it is. I don't care if it's 100 years from now
or 500 years from now, if people are still interested in the
case...this is the book that they are going to have to read. It's a
book for the ages and the case was sufficiently important to warrant
that type of [20-year] effort on my part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; April
30th, 2007
www.FORA.tv/fora/fora_transcript_pdf.php?cid=917
www.FORA.tv/speaker/1772/Vincent_Bugliosi
But Pat Speer is wrong when he says that the L.A. Times "RH" review
appeared on the Internet "BEFORE" the 4/30/07 VB interview showed up
online.
The following post that I wrote on 5/12/07 (wherein I provide a
FORA.tv link to the VB interview, although the link does not work now)
was posted one day before Jim Newton's review appeared online:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2cdfdf0b58b5df8b
And it's quite likely that the Bugliosi April 30 interview was
available to view online at FORA.tv at least a few days prior to May
12th, which is the date when I first discovered it was there.
[NOTE -- Bugliosi's 29-minute-long 4/30/07 interview didn't show up on
the "Reclaiming History" website until several days after the RH site
was first launched, but the interview was available to watch through
the FORA.tv website at some point prior to 7:00 AM EDT on May 12,
2007.]
For those keeping a "VB"/"RH" scorecard (and I imagine there are
thousands of people out there doing that very thing; ~grin~), the
ReclaimingHistory.com website was launched at approximately 9:00 AM
EDT on Saturday, May 5, 2007:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae3fad1c26a7c7f5
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what all this is supposed to mean (or
prove) in the conspiracy-filled mind of Pat Speer, but Pat undoubtedly
smells a rat with regard to the four words "book for the ages".
IOW -- Somebody pilfered those four words from somebody else. But even
if that phrase was "borrowed" by Mr. Newton from Vince Bugliosi for
Newton's Los Angeles Times book review in May 2007 -- what's the
difference?
It doesn't really matter in the long run, because any way you slice it
(or phrase it), "Reclaiming History" IS a "book for the ages". And
there's nothing that Patrick J. Speer or any other conspiracy theorist
can do about it.
Bonus VB quote that fits in nicely here:
"The purpose of this book ["RH"] has been twofold. One, to
educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted
alone. .... And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy
theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations. I
believe this book has achieved both of these goals." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 1461 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
P.S. --- In case anyone is interested, here's my new "RH" Blog:
www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
=================================
MORE BLOGS:
www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
www.Garrison-Carson.blogspot.com
www.Four-Days-In-November.blogspot.com
www.Rush-To-Judgment.blogspot.com
www.YouTube-Playlists.blogspot.com
=================================
I'mACooCy&ConspiracyNutts!
newly crowned and self declared 'King of Mumbo Jumbo' ....!
tl
Lone
Still living in da Bugs ass? How does it smell?
Lone
<cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You won't find them more in denial or more kookier than Pat Speer ,
> newly crowned and self declared 'King of Mumbo Jumbo' ....!
>
> tl
Lowry and van Peinlich, still trying the St Vitus's dance togheter???
Poor Idiots!
Gil Jesus
>
> > =================================
>
> Still living in da Bugs ass?
OUCH
David Von Pein
www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,776.msg10473.html#msg10473
www.ctka.net/tink_bugliosi.html
I recall reading Josiah Thompson's "Reclaiming History" critique in
2007 [linked above through Jim DiEugenio's website]. A pathetic
appraisal of Vincent Bugliosi's masterpiece, IMO.
Of course, such a Bugliosi bashfest is to be expected, coming as it
does from a veteran conspiracy advocate.
This closing salvo by Mr. Thompson is particularly humorous (and
inaccurate):
"It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi
decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution."
I guess the funniest part about statements like the one quoted above
is the fact that conspiracy theorists like Mr. Thompson will seemingly
forever remain married to the delusional notion that the JFK
assassination has NOT had a satisfactory "solution" attached to it
ALREADY.
But despite the constant nit-picking and evidence-mangling of
conspiracists for the last 45 years, there is, indeed, a very
satisfactory (and correct) "solution" affixed to the events of
November 1963 -- i.e.: Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, took his gun to
work on November 22, 1963, and killed President Kennedy.
And no amount of Bugliosi-bashing and anti-Warren Commission critiques
will ever change the irrevocable FACT that nobody, in more than 45
years, has been able to produce one single piece of physical evidence
that would undermine and/or prove wrong the last paragraph I wrote
above.
www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
drummist1965
Hypocrite, Gil Jesus.
Sam Brown
"drummist1965" <snl1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef089888-ba6f-4b8b...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Hypocrite, Gil Jesus.
The silly little loser is a jealous failure.
aeffects
ahhhh all my little nutter-trolls grouped together pulling each others
pud..... how quaint.
Don't let me interrupt shitheads...... LMFAO!
aeffects
you're going places kid! LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 15, 4:53=A0am, Lone <amseikci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Jul., 11:15, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > PAT SPEER WROTE:
>>
>tten with the help of Bugliosi's publicist. In a video-taped interview cond=
>ucted just before the release of the book, Bugliosi said he wanted his book=
> to be considered a "book for the ages". The Times' review, released just d=
>ays later, BEFORE the release of this interview on the internet, called the=
> book...a "book for the ages". .... According to Bugliosi's publicity machi=
>ne, he has proven ALL conspiracy theories to be frauds, and has changed the=
> playing field so much that anyone disagreeing with him can be considered i=
>nsane." <<<
>>
>> > DVP THEN SAID:
>>
>> > That last sentence sounds pretty close to being spon-on accurate,
>> > IMO. :)
>>
>> > And I guess Pat Speer must think that Jim Newton of the Los Angeles
>> > Times is part of Vincent Bugliosi's "publicity machine". Right, Pat?
>>
>> > Any proof of that? Or is the term "book for the ages" proof enough for
>> > you? It's hard to tell whether you think Newton got the term "book for
>> > the ages" from Bugliosi or whether you think Bugliosi stole it from
>> > Newton. ~shrug~
>>
>> > FWIW and FYI -- Jim Newton's review of "Reclaiming History" appeared
>> > in the "Books" section of the L.A. Times on May 13, 2007 (at least the
>> > article is dated 5/13/07 on the Internet, at any rate), which was two
>> > days before the official release of Bugliosi's book.*
>>
>> > 29 to May 15 for some reason. My guess is that Vince and publisher
>> > W.W. Norton wanted to get "Reclaiming History" on the market closer to
>> > the publishing date of David Talbot's "Brothers", which debuted on May
>> > 8, 2007, seven days before "RH" streeted. But, again, that's just a
>> > guess on my part.
>>
>> >http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/13/books/bk-newton13
>>
>> > Now, we can see that Newton's review of "RH" is dated 5/13/07. We
>> > can't know, however, the exact date when Newton actually WROTE the
>> > review, but I'm guessing it was sometime in early May of 2007. (Seems
>> > reasonable to me anyway.)
>>
>> > Continuing.....On April 30, 2007, Vince Bugliosi recorded his pre-
>> > release "interview" about the book, which was videotaped by the people
>> > at FORA.tv:
>>
>> >www.FORA.tv/2007/04/30/Vincent_Bugliosi_Interview
>>
>> > That interview is also shown on the front page of
>> > ReclaimingHistory.com:
>>
>> >www.ReclaimingHistory.com
>>
>> > In that 4/30/07 "interview" (which doesn't include anyone else talking
>> > except Bugliosi; the "interviewer" [if there, in fact, is a real-life
>> > person there conducting the interview] is never heard or
>> > seen)....Vince does say that he wrote "Reclaiming History" to be a
>> > "book for the ages". Quoting VB from the interview in question:
>>
>tant
>> > to warrant that there be a book for the ages about it. And 'Reclaiming
>> > History' is that book. I mean when I started writing that book, it was
>> > to write a book for the ages about the Kennedy assassination. And
>> > that's precisely what it is. I don't care if it's 100 years from now
>> > or 500 years from now, if people are still interested in the
>> > case...this is the book that they are going to have to read. It's a
>> > book for the ages and the case was sufficiently important to warrant
>> > that type of [20-year] effort on my part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; April
>> > 30th, 2007
>>
>> > educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted
>> > alone. .... And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy
>> > theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations. I
>> > believe this book has achieved both of these goals." -- Vincent
>> > Bugliosi; Page 1461 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
>> > President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
>>
>> > P.S. --- In case anyone is interested, here's my new "RH" Blog:
>>
>> >www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> > MORE BLOGS:
>>
>> >www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.Garrison-Carson.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.Four-Days-In-November.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.Case--Closed.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.Rush-To-Judgment.blogspot.com
>>
>> >www.YouTube-Playlists.blogspot.com
>>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> Still living in da Bugs ass? How does it smell?
>
>you're going places kid! LMFAO!
Are you training an understudy, Dave?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
> In article <c6238a18-63b9-4566-9478-7ecea2eaa...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
gotta love OJT :)
aeffects
bump da bump-bump
lazu...@webtv.net
mayor of Beverly Hills and counsel to the HSCA, he was friends with
Buglosi, I wonder what he thinks of him now. Couldn't be too pleased,
personally I think Bugliosi's book, and everything he now represents is
despicable.
lazu...@webtv.net
right away-what he has to say about Oliver Stone is pure horseshit, what
he has to say about Garrison is totally wrong, agenda driven, prissy,
arrogant and in the manner of a total goverment stooge.
Likewise what he says about Groden. Lifton,& Horne too is well....
garbage is too elevated a word...but being first and foremost a
gentleman..I can't use that language in such a distinguished forum as
this. Laz
David Von Pein
It's always nice to know that ol' Laz (and many other conspiracy-happy
clowns of his ilk) endorses the lies and half-truths peddled by the
likes of Horne, Groden, Lifton, Stone, and (especially) Garrison.
Good going, Laz. You're doing a great job.
After all, one kook deserves another.
lazu...@webtv.net
you ever think, and realize you are wrong on almost every aspect of the
case and that you can't see anybody's else point of view please let us
know, otherwise...jump in the lake.
David Von Pein
>>> "You think I'm gonna lower myself to address a troll Peiny?" <<<
Liar.
What would you call your last post, ol' Laz? (A figment of my cyber
imagination perhaps?)
David Von Pein
timstter
Tannenbaum is a complete liar, based on that ridiculous HSCA memo that
tomnln has posted on his website. He seemed happy to spout any
ridiculous theory in HSCA session. His statements there don't hold up
to scrutiny. Why sould we care what he thinks of Bugliosi?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Bugliosi's book *does* prove one thing, however... and that is no matter how
many years you work on it, the evidence *STILL* can't make the WC's case.
It's good to see a tome of such length - yet still fail to address simple
points, such as the 16 Smoking Guns. Sorta reminds you of the sad fact that the
WC couldn't find room in their report or 26 volumes of evidence for the Death
Certificate.
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbfd62b3-a63e-4846...@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> In article <9306-4A6A0058-4...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
> >Bugliosi's book is a nauseating piece of shit. Let's get that straight
> >right away-what he has to say about Oliver Stone is pure horseshit, what
> >he has to say about Garrison is totally wrong, agenda driven, prissy,
> >arrogant and in the manner of a total goverment stooge.
>
> >Likewise what he says about Groden. Lifton,& Horne too is well....
> >garbage is too elevated a word...but being first and foremost a
> >gentleman..I can't use that language in such a distinguished forum as
> >this. Laz
>
> Bugliosi's book *does* prove one thing, however... and that is no matter how
> many years you work on it, the evidence *STILL* can't make the WC's case.
therein lies (sic) the reason as to why nutter-trolls are chasing
their tails here...
> It's good to see a tome of such length - yet still fail to address simple
> points, such as the 16 Smoking Guns. Sorta reminds you of the sad fact that the
> WC couldn't find room in their report or 26 volumes of evidence for the Death
> Certificate.
exactly....
David Von Pein
>>> "When are one of the lone nut frauds -- John McAdams, Dave Von Pein, Dale Myers, Vince Bugliosi, Gary Mack, "Nick Slick", et al -- going to man up and confront JFK researcher Jim DiEugenio in that moderated radio debate that he proposed a month ago. It really looks like you guys are scared to step up to the plate. What is the matter? Afraid that you will not be able to maintain the fraud of your position when confronted with a knowledgeable researcher [aka: James "The Grand Poobah Of Bugliosi Critics" DiEugenio] who can call you out on each one of your lies, distortions and omissions???" <<<
Yeah, right. That must be why I've destroyed DiEugenio many times in
the past...right here:
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
If you'd only OPEN the links I have provided, instead of just staring
blankly at the screen and wondering what's inside, you'd find out that
in many different instances your "knowledgeable researcher" named
James D. is just flat-out ignorant of the facts.
Or, like all conspiracists always do 24/7, Jim deliberately mangles
the hell out of the known facts relating to JFK's assassination.
After all, DiEugenio (incredibly) IS a Garrison-endorsing conspiracy-
happy theorist. And you've got to have a pretty good-sized set of
gonads to actually endorse King Kook Garrison's insane theories here
in the 21st century.
And -- To expose Jim Garrison as the liar, fraud, and mega-kook he so
obviously was, I offer up:
David Von Pein
>>> "How about you try debating DiEugenio[?] Are you not up to it? I'm not talking about a "paper debate." I mean a live debate on the radio." <<<
Why? My on-the-Internet debates with him have sufficed quite nicely,
thank you. And those Internet "debates" have also easily revealed the
fact that Jim does what all other conspiracists love to do every day
of their lives -- mangle and distort the known facts surrounding the
murder of President John F. Kennedy.
And the fact that DiEugenio still endorses Crazy Man Jim Garrison's
insane "New Orleans Plot" theories should give everyone a reason to
just PAUSE for a moment and wonder for themselves just what other off-
the-wall, never-proven theories James D. has fallen for over the
years.
For Pete sake, DiEugenio is on record saying that he thinks that JFK's
head is in the "exact position" in Z-Frame 313 as it was in Z312!
IOW--that's a way of denying the obvious fact that President Kennedy's
head moves FORWARD (not backward) at the crucial MOMENT OF IMPACT with
the fatal bullet, indicating a shot FROM BEHIND the President.
If you'd only dare to OPEN a few of the links I've provided several
times in the past (and, again, below), you might be surprised at how
many times your pal Jimmy D. distorts history:
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
aeffects
David Von Pein
Crackpipe.
aeffects
> Crackpipe.
shit-for-brains.... pussy.... Who is terrified of the public, so the
wanker hides behind .john.
Sheeeeet pussy you ought to nad up and take on Jimmy De.... hell take
on old Tom, show us your public persona.... ROTFLMFAO!