Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Already they'e thrashing Da Bug's Book

2 views

Skip to first unread message

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 8:50:50 AM4/18/07

Read below a review of Bugliosi's book from Publisher's Weekly.

Gentleman, it does not bode well.

In fact, a lot of the things are the very things I predicted right
along. For example:

"...Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI
or Secret Service were involved."

Huh...?

My god, does his 1600 page tome simply ignore the very heart and soul of
the conspiracy argument? Is that what he means by "reclaiming history"?

Of course Bugliosi is flat wrong, but even more telling is that he's
obviously never visited this newsgroup. But this newsgroup is on the
cutting edge of the debate. The people here have read all the
literature, we understand the debate, we contend with it everyday, so
how does he address the debate without knowing what's being said here
about it?

ricland

From Publishers Weekly:

Bugliosi, best known as Charles Manson's prosecutor, spent more than 20
years writing this defense of the Warren Commission's conclusion that
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the slaying of President Kennedy, but
his obsession has produced a massive tome that's likely to overwhelm
most readers. At times, the author seems determined to present every
detail his researches revealed, even if it doesn't add to the overall
picture (like a footnote on Elvis sightings). Further, while Bugliosi
says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI or Secret
Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each. The book's
structure—it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of
the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans—leads to needless repetition,
and, for an author who excoriates conspiracy theorists, charging them
with carelessness and making wild accusations, Bugliosi is not always
temperate in his language; for example, twice he makes the nonsensical
claim that some Warren Commission critics "were screaming the word
conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to rest." His decision to
devote twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver Stone's movie JFK as to
his chapter on organized crime (identified by the chief counsel of the
House Select Committee on Assassination as the likely conspirators) is a
curious one, as is the choice to open the book with a dramatic
re-creation of events surrounding the assassination rather than a
straightforward chronology of the relevant facts. Moreover, Bugliosi
does not always probe whether individuals who are the sole source for
certain facts (for example, Oswald's widow, Marina) had any motive to
lie. Bugliosi's voluminous endnotes are on an accompanying CD. Gerald
Posner's 1993 Case Closed made most of the same points in a much more
concise way. 32 pages of illus. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman

"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 10:48:42 AM4/18/07

And how's your tomeballa website coming Ricland ? Need some more
gossip ? Publisher's Weekly is the gossipy around ! No doubt that's
why you chose it .................hahahahaha ! ..................ml

> structure-it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of
> the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans-leads to needless repetition,

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 11:06:48 AM4/18/07

We already heard this shit before ! Didn't make any more
sense last time either ! .............................ml

And this is for the Conspiracy Gummer Hummer
of all time Tom Rossley !
Enjoy Nut sucker ! :

Lets recap. why Tom ' Asshole ' Rossley ,
the lunitic of Assassinology , ex-shoe shine
boy turned Co-Con-Spiracists Con-Artist has
his head so far up his rectum :

On Apr 18, 5:50 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:

> structure-it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of
> the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans-leads to needless repetition,

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:09:50 PM4/18/07

On 18 Apr., 14:50, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Read below a review of Bugliosi's book from Publisher's Weekly.
>
> Gentleman, it does not bode well.
>
> In fact, a lot of the things are the very things I predicted right
> along. For example:
>
> "...Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI
> or Secret Service were involved."
>
> Huh...?

Indeed. That statement makes little sense, so I wouldn't rule out a
misunderstanding or typo on the part of the reviewer. Would a less
serious conspiracy theorist be *less* inclined to claim the FBI or SS
were involved? Involved in what, by the way?

> My god, does his 1600 page tome simply ignore the very heart and soul of
> the conspiracy argument? Is that what he means by "reclaiming history"?
>
> Of course Bugliosi is flat wrong, but even more telling is that he's
> obviously never visited this newsgroup. But this newsgroup is on the
> cutting edge of the debate. The people here have read all the
> literature, we understand the debate, we contend with it everyday, so

You assume a lot.

> how does he address the debate without knowing what's being said here
> about it?
>
> ricland
>
> From Publishers Weekly:
>
> Bugliosi, best known as Charles Manson's prosecutor, spent more than 20
> years writing this defense of the Warren Commission's conclusion that
> Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the slaying of President Kennedy, but
> his obsession has produced a massive tome that's likely to overwhelm
> most readers. At times, the author seems determined to present every
> detail his researches revealed, even if it doesn't add to the overall
> picture (like a footnote on Elvis sightings). Further, while Bugliosi
> says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI or Secret
> Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each. The book's

> structure-it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of
> the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans-leads to needless repetition,

You wouldn't be able to provide a source for that quote if your life
depended on it, would you???

-Mark

> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb

aeffects

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:21:00 PM4/18/07

On Apr 18, 5:50 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:

> structure-it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of
> the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans-leads to needless repetition,

oh-brother.... 20 years? More Stone bashing.....And I had hopes it
would be worth the effort... VonPein, your ass is fired, FIRED!

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 12:37:47 PM4/18/07

On 18 Apr., 18:09, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 18 Apr., 14:50, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Read below a review of Bugliosi's book from Publisher's Weekly.
>
> > Gentleman, it does not bode well.
>
> > In fact, a lot of the things are the very things I predicted right
> > along. For example:
>
> > "...Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI
> > or Secret Service were involved."
>
> > Huh...?
>
> Indeed. That statement makes little sense, so I wouldn't rule out a
> misunderstanding or typo on the part of the reviewer. Would a less
> serious conspiracy theorist be *less* inclined to claim the FBI or SS
> were involved? Involved in what, by the way?

PS: On second thought, I'm not even sure what the reviewer means by
the term "serious". I took it to mean responsible, but other
interpretations are possible.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 1:35:09 PM4/18/07

Anyone Surprised that tom lowery does NOT recognize WCR's own
evidence/testimony on my web site?

tom lowery gets his "Smart Pills" from between the legs of Truckers on the
I-80.

Ho Ho HO Mother Trucker.

http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm

Dodge Ball Queen lowery DODGES >>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176907721.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 1:37:46 PM4/18/07

Rossley is the ONLY "Pain-in-the-Ass" that tom lowery does NOT THOROUGHLY
ENJOY.

lousy FEARS>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1176908808.4...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 18, 2007, 11:09:34 PM4/18/07

>>> "Bugliosi obviously never visited this newsgroup." <<<

Smart man, Vince.

Because visiting this place to gain insight into "serious" CTs would
be like watching The Comedy Channel for intense drama.

>>> "But this newsgroup is on the cutting edge of the debate." <<<

~Huge LOL Here~

By "the cutting edge", you must mean -- Spitting out any stupid theory
any kook with a keyboard can think of off the top of his head.

E.G.: Walt's numerous idiotic, unsupportable (in-his-OWN-head-alone)
theories...like the "Moving Window" theory re. Brennan....and the "JFK
was shot in the neck and through the back at Z161 or earlier and then
continued to wave to the crowd for 25 more Z-Film frames" hunk of
silliness.

Plus, there's Don Willis' "Danny Arce Killed JFK" theory.

And there's Bob Harris' great one which involves a shot at
Z285...being based in great part on Jackie's and Nellie's "leaning in"
toward their shot-up husbands.

And Gil's (really Bill Miller's...or even somebody before Miller)
theory re. JFK trying to "cough up" a bullet.

And, of course, the nonsense involving SS Agent Hickey killing the
President by pure ACCIDENT.

And dozens of additional "cutting edge" theories that never happened
and aren't supported by a lick of physical evidence. Such as: Umbrella
Man, Milteer, E. Howard Hunt, Badge Man, Marrion Baker was "assigned"
to rub out the Patsy, Tippit shot at JFK, imposter Oswalds everywhere
you look, etc., etc.

0 new messages