"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" By Vincent Bugliosi (To Be Published In May 2007)
David Von Pein
AND LOGIC WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR CONSPIRACY THEORISTS TO FIGHT, NO
MATTER HOW LONG THEY'VE EMBRACED THE IDEA OF A CONSPIRACY PLOT WITH
RESPECT TO THE JOHN F. KENNEDY MURDER CASE.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
By:
Vincent T. Bugliosi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Los Angeles, California, Deputy District Attorney Vincent
Bugliosi has believed in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK
assassination for many years. In 1986, Mr. Bugliosi even garnered a
"Guilty" verdict from a sworn-in jury during a 21-hour "mock trial" of
Oswald ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald").
Mr. Bugliosi's soon-to-be-published JFK book, which has now been re-
titled "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (projected U.S. release date of May 29, 2007, which would
have been JFK's 90th birthday), will dive head-first into all aspects
of the Kennedy assassination (per the original 1998 and the updated
2006 publisher's blurbs about the book) and reveal beyond a reasonable
doubt that no conspiracy existed to assassinate President Kennedy, and
that Oswald (alone) murdered President Kennedy in Dallas on November
22, 1963.
And given Mr. Bugliosi's reputation for common sense, preparedness,
thoroughness, and logic -- such "Lone Assassin" arguments will be hard
for anyone to dismiss (IMHO).
Mr. Bugliosi, whom I have the utmost respect for, has a habit of
getting to the full truth of any subject matter he chooses to tackle.
And I have no reason to believe that the John F. Kennedy assassination
will be any different in this regard. "Reclaiming History", in this
writer's pre-release opinion, is bound to be quite an eye-opener.
Vincent's long-awaited JFK book has been in the works since 1986 (the
year that VB "convicted" Lee Oswald in front of that jury during the
TV "Docu-Trial" in London). The book has gone through three titles
during those 20-plus years as well. It was originally to be called
"Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy".
In late 2004 or early 2005, Vince changed it to "Final Verdict: The
Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK". And now it's been changed once
again, to "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy". (A very good title indeed.)
Vince said in late 2005 that the manuscript for his mammoth JFK
publication "could easily fill five volumes". But he has been working
hard on condensing it for the last two or three years now.
The final page count for the book, per the data released by the
publisher (W.W. Norton & Co.), will be 1,632 pages, which is almost
twice the size of the 888-page Warren Commission Report.
Mr. Bugliosi had planned to release his JFK book in two separate
volumes; but evidently he has changed his mind about that 2-book
format, and has decided on just a single volume (plus a CD-ROM, which
will be included with the book, containing hundreds of pages of
endnotes).
The amount of pro-Lone Assassin CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) that will
undoubtedly exist within such a huge Bugliosi-authored tome borders on
the unfathomable.
Here's the official publisher's webpage devoted to "RECLAIMING
HISTORY":
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
The publisher's promotional blurb reads as follows.....
~~~~~~~~~
"The book that lays all questions to rest.
Polls reveal that over 75 percent of Americans believe there was a
conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald; some even believe Oswald was
entirely innocent. In this absorbing and historic book-the first ever
to cover the entire case-Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to
believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history.
The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an
iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his
best-selling Outrage, Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America
capable of "prosecuting" Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy.
His book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, re-
examination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and
nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud
upon the American public.
Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to
draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare.
At last we know what really happened. At last it all makes sense.
32 pages of illustrations.
May 2007 / Hardcover / ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3
7" x 10" / 1632 pages / History"
~~~~~~~~~
The W.W. Norton website has revised its ordering page for VB's book --
adjusting the price (upward) for the massive publication, which was
previously going to be released in November 1998 at 992 pages (a
figure that, obviously, has ballooned significantly since '98).
Norton's previous listing had the 992-page volume priced at $35.00 (US
$); it's now listed at $49.95 (US$):
http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
And here's the Simon & Schuster webpage for the "Audio Book" edition
of "Reclaiming History" (a 15-Disc Audio-CD package, featuring actor
Edward Herrmann as narrator):
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=526698
~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO......
Here's a glance at the Table of Contents for "Reclaiming History".
This chapter information and the associated chapter titles, however,
are subject to change prior to the book's release in late May of 2007:
Dedication
Introduction
1.) "Four Days In November"
2.) "The Investigations"
3.) "President Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And
Governor Connally"
4.) "The Most Famous Home Movie Ever, The 'Magic Bullet', And The
Single-Bullet Theory"
5.) "Lee Harvey Oswald"
6.) "Oswald's Ownership And Possession Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth
Floor"
7.) "Identification Of The Weapon"
8.) "Oswald At The Sniper's Nest And 'Evidence' Of His Innocence"
9.) "Motive"
10.) "The Grassy Knoll"
11.) "A Conversation With Dr. Cyril Wecht"
12.) "Secret Service Agents On The Grassy Knoll"
13.) "The Zanies (And Others) Have Their Say"
14.) "Other Assassins"
15.) "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"
16.) "Introduction To Conspiracy"
17.) "History Of The Conspiracy Movement"
18.) "Mark Lane"
19.) "Mysterious And Suspicious Deaths"
20.) "The Second Oswald"
21.) "David Lifton And Alterations Of The President's Body"
22.) "Ruby And The Mob"
23.) "Organized Crime"
24.) "CIA"
25.) "FBI"
26.) "Secret Service"
27.) "KGB"
28.) "Right Wing"
29.) "LBJ"
30.) "Cuba"
31.) "The Odio Incident And Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles"
32.) "Cover-Up By Federal Agencies Of Alleged Conspiracy To Murder
President Kennedy"
33.) "Jim Garrison's Prosecution Of Clay Shaw And Oliver Stone's Movie
'JFK'"
34.) "Conclusion Of No Conspiracy"
35.) "The Murder Trial Of Jack Ruby"
36.) "A Conversation With Marina"
37.) "Kennedy-Lincoln Coincidences"
38.) "The People And Groups Involved In The Plot To Kill Kennedy"
39.) "Epilogue"
40.) "In Memoriam"
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
Index
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip079/2007001545.html
==================================================
V.B. QUOTE TIME:
The following quotes were spoken by Vincent Bugliosi himself (over a
period of several years), and they give an indication, in brief
"snippet" form, as to what Vincent's general opinions are regarding
the JFK murder and who was responsible for the crime. Not
surprisingly, there's not a single mention in these quotes of how
"Badge Man" on the Grassy Knoll fired the fatal shot.....
-----------------------
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
his sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- VB; 1986
-----------------------
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can
convince the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." --
VB; April 22, 2004
-----------------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- VB; 1986
(Via the TV Docu Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")
-----------------------
"There may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that
day; but if there were, they all missed; ONLY bullets fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it. ... Because
there's not one tiny grain of evidence; not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE--other than Lee Harvey Oswald--was responsible
for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Let's take a look at Oswald .... Can anyone fail to see how utterly
and completely crazy this man here was? Utterly and completely nuts.
Bonkers. And you have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder;
you gotta be crazy; nuts.
"One example, among many....how many Americans, how many people
anywhere in the WORLD, defect to the Soviet Union? That alone shows
how completely and utterly mentally-unhinged this man was. Again,
that's the exact type of person to kill the President.
"I think one thing is pretty obvious, Kennedy almost undoubtedly would
have represented to Oswald the ultimate, quintessential representative
-- that's the key word, 'representative' -- of a society for which he
had a grinding contempt." -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"When Mr. Spence argued that Oswald was just a patsy and was framed,
he conveniently neglected to be specific. HOW was Lee Harvey Oswald
framed?! When we look at the mechanics of such a possible conspiracy
in this case -- how COULD he have been framed? ... How, in fact, if
Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within forty-five minutes
of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or was he framed for
THAT murder too?!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"I am at work writing an in-depth book on the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, one that I'm confident will shed a
different light on the tragedy that altered the course of American
history." -- VB; 1991
-----------------------
"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has
not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but
Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy." --
VB
-----------------------
"If Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's
assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant
would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned
out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- VB; 1986 (TV Docu-Trial)
-----------------------
"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he
acted alone." -- VB; 2001
-----------------------
"It might sound corny, but the truth is I feel an obligation to write
this book. I've read every book that's been published {re. the JFK
assassination} since 1964, and 85% of them feel that there's been a
conspiracy of some kind. My book will tell the other side, and I feel
I'm equipped to do it." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"I'm 95% sure he {Oswald} acted alone; and if you threw 85% of the
evidence out the window there would still be enough to prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just
theories and motives." -- VB; January 1988
-----------------------
"I'm certainly satisfied, beyond all doubt, that Oswald acted alone.
The Warren Commission might not have done much work, but its staff was
prodigious. He {Oliver Stone} deliberately twisted and warped the
record. .... There was nothing mysterious about Oswald's shots. The
first was from only 57 yards, the second from only 83 yards; all were
fired at a stagnant target with a favorable angle. My firearms guy
says he was a sitting duck." -- VB; February 1992
-----------------------
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.
"And what's happened, is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
"In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that. And this is why the vote coming in will be very,
very heavy in favor of a conspiracy.
"I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- VB; 1988
-----------------------
"Right now I'm working around the clock, almost literally, because I'm
reliving the JFK trial in my dreams." -- VB; 2005
-----------------------
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
VB
-----------------------
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VB; November 1986
-----------------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
VB; 1998
-----------------------
"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
"But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
and techniques used in the movie "JFK" just after the Oliver Stone
movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked
for a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was
an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of
the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I
asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their
hands.
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- VB; April 6, 1997
==================================================
RELATED WEBLINKS:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-02-21-book-buzz_x.htm
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V49969193_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bugliosi+Assassination&search=Search
http://www.nndb.com/people/807/000023738/
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8c67ab97e0c60c32
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/726d732756a9f915
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0ecd0e48aa5bb396
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b53ad9b218cf8ccf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22b24906f5161446
http://www.amazon.com/lm/2KJFLIXOW29IX
==================================================
David Von Pein
March 2005
November 2005
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
eca...@tx.rr.com
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that
I never, ever make a charge without supporting
it. You might not agree with me, but I invariably
offer an enormous amount of support for my position."
-- VB; 1998
David I'm glad you share my
profound admiration for
Vincent Bugliosi. I would
honestly like to see you do
a biography on this great man.
I realized VB's greatness when
I read "Outrage" regarding the
great travesty of justice we
all witnessed with the OJ
verdict.. His description of
"incompetence" in his opening
words in that book are still
with me today.. I have felt
those same intense frustrations
when common sense and logic
seem to be unexplainably
missing in the minds of some
people..
Very sincerely,
Ed Cage
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0393045250.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250
>
> http://www.reclaiminghistory.com
>
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022007/gossip/cindy/biggest_book_yet_on...
>
> http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
>
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bugliosi+Assassination&se...
>
> http://www.nndb.com/people/807/000023738/
>
> http://tinypic.com/seaae9.jpg
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc70...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8c67ab97e0c60c32
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/726d732756a9...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0ecd0e48aa5b...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b53ad9b218cf8ccf
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22b24906f5161446
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
tomnln
Here's what ed cage wrote on 2/11/07>>>
> I will address each of the 3 or 4 but
> at some point I'd like to know your
> source(s) for each claim you "quote"
> Quite frankly there's so much subjective
> BS on your site I'm a little leary of you
> just saying "here's what happened and
> what Baker did" ..
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1172931290.1...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
and lack of any conspiracy, right here? Couldn't be that he, or you, are
afraid he might find out something for which he has no reasonable
answer? Surely, from the praise you've heaped on him, he'd jump at the
chance to enlighten our humble minds thru his logical wizardry? That
would be most interesting.
BTW, I've never heard about him interviewing any medical witnesses
(outside of the mock trial, that is). I find that disturbing, but I
guess he'll find a way to discount them all and impugn their
credibility in the process. I can't think of any other way of getting
around those troubling witnesses, other than just throwing them out in
toto.
It will also be most instructive to see how he defends the BOH photo.
Like a stage play, so the nutters here explain? Pull the curtain (flap)
up, now you see it (the skull defect), pull the curtain down, now you
don't see it. All very confusing, but I'm sure Vince will make sense of
it all----yeah, sure!
Old Laz, remaining skeptical of nutters' motives---and good sense.
David Von Pein
I, too, am looking forward to seeing Vincent's explanation of the BOH
situation (mainly to see how he explains the many witnesses who said
they saw a large exit wound in the back of President Kennedy's head).
In fact, for quite some time now, the "BOH" matter has been the #1
item on my list of "THINGS I'M MOST ANXIOUS TO SEE VINCE BUGLIOSI
EXPLAIN IN A LONE-ASSASSIN MANNER". And I've said so on numerous
occasions, such as in the following examples:
~~~~~~
"The 'BOH' matter, as I've repeated numerous times on various forums
since 2003, is and has always been the #1 item on my short list of
'Things I'm Most Anxious To Have Vincent Bugliosi Reconcile In His
Upcoming JFK Book'.
And I'm fully confident that VB has, indeed, reconciled those many BOH
witnesses to his own 'LN' satisfaction. Otherwise, there's no way
Vince would have uttered these strong words in 2001....'My conclusion
is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed
Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone' (V.B.)."
-- DVP; December 10, 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/06a93e60c9987e2b
~~~~~~
"My #1 'stumper' that I await Mr. Bugliosi's take on would be -- Why
so many individuals said they saw a large hole at the rear of
Kennedy's head at both Parkland and Bethesda. I cannot come up with
ENOUGH of a logical 'LN' interpretation for this 'problem'.
But, IMO, if Mr. Bugliosi CAN come up with a reasonable and forthright
and non-evasive interpretation of this obvious discrepancy, then IMO
you can close the case tightly shut in favor of 'LN'.
For this one large sticky point in the LN case, if 'solved' to satisfy
even many CTers, would indeed nail the coffin shut on the CTs.
Because, in my view, next to this problem of the witnesses claiming to
see a BOH wound, the remainder of the case would be the proverbial
piece of cake for Mr. Bugliosi to reconcile into total and complete
'Oswald did it alone' status." -- DVP; February 6, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc55aaccc592797a
~~~~~~
"The two biggest nagging questions I still have with regard to the
evidence (both physical and otherwise) are:
1.) Why did so many people say they had seen a large wound at the REAR
of President Kennedy's head at both Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda
(when it's obvious from the autopsy photographs and via the Zapruder
Film too, IMO, that no such rear head damage existed)?
-- and --
2.) Why was there no blood, tissue, or clothing fibers found on CE399
-- a bullet that has been POSITIVELY LINKED to one of the two victims
(Connally; wrist fragments) AND conclusively linked to Oswald's C2766
Carcano rifle?
These two questions are the two I most look forward to having
explained in an 'LN' fashion by Mr. Bugliosi in his upcoming
publication.
And I have every reason to believe that Vince WILL, conclusively, have
ample explanatory facts and figures to answer those two questions I
posed above. And WITHOUT ignoring or overlooking anything with regard
to these two matters (the 'BOH Witnesses' and the seeming lack of
detectable trace evidence on bullet CE399)." -- DVP; January 25, 2005
~~~~~~
A 2007 reprise -- I have absolutely no doubt that Vince HAS, indeed,
resolved the "BOH" matter in his own (logical) mind....and has
resolved it within a "Lone Assassin Named Lee Harvey Oswald" scenario.
It's obvious to me that such a logical "LN" resolution to the BOH
discrepancies HAS been arrived at by Mr. Bugliosi, or else his book
("Reclaiming History") would not be in the offing at all.
I've scratched my head more than a few times when thinking about those
BOH wound witnesses. But at the same time, I also realize that there's
a bunch of evidence that totally contradicts those witnesses
(regardless of how many of them there might be).
That contradictory evidence includes: The Autopsy Report, the autopsy
photographs and X-rays, the Zapruder Film, and the never-wavering
testimony of all three autopsy doctors (with each doctor agreeing that
President Kennedy was hit by only two bullets, with both of those
bullets coming from "above and behind" John F. Kennedy).
More of my own "BOH" thoughts (to counter the silliness of author Jim
Moore's BOH explanation) can be found at the link below:
lazu...@webtv.net
wound present a "problem" for the single assassin from the rear theory.
That's at least a start towards enlightenment, congratulations. Yet you
have every confidence that VB will reconcile all this in his book, but
you're relying exclusively on blind faith, not evidence and reason---and
faith alone will not solve anything except in the mind of a religious
zealot.
BTW, since you seem to be on intimate terms with Vince, how is he coming
with his interviews of those problematical medical witnesses? Or has he
talked with any of them? He wouldn't be avoiding them would he, since
the conspiracy authors have already interviewed them for the primary
material? ----- Old Laz, who is very skeptical that VB can resolve the
medical "problem" standing as a huge roadblock to proving the LN theory.
tomnln
THAT's why you won't see Da Bug HERE.
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:670-45EA...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
Ben Holmes
says...
He'll probably rely on the "Posner" method. Simply *claim* an interview, and
write whatever he wants to.
For lurkers: there's a number of "interviewees" of Posner who assert that
they've never talked to him.
David Von Pein
Yes, I do possess such confidence. And it's not really totally "blind"
faith. It's a confidence that is derived from a knowledge of VB's
methodology, and (to quote from the publisher's promo blurb re.
"Reclaiming History").....
"Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability
to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American
nightmare."*
* = The part about VB's "ability to draw startling inferences" is the
section I want to highlight the most within that blurb. And it is
something that I, too (independently), have definitely taken note of
(many times) when reading anything written by Vincent Bugliosi. Or, as
I like to phrase it, it's VB's ability to make a reader say to
himself: "Why Didn't I Think Of That?". Several such forehead-slapping
moments will probably be awaiting the readers of "Reclaiming History".
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
And then there's also this very important quote from Vince B. himself
(which IMO will be impossible for CTers to overcome with respect to
Mr. Bugliosi's Oswald-Did-It-Alone "charge" in his JFK book).....
aeffects
> >>> "David, glad you admit that the BOH photo and the many witnesses to a BOH wound present a "problem" for the single-assassin-from-the-rear theory. Yet you have every confidence that VB will reconcile all this in his book..." <<<
>
> Yes, I do possess such confidence. And it's not really totally "blind"
> faith. It's a confidence that is derived from a knowledge of VB's
> methodology, and (to quote from the publisher's promo blurb re.
> "Reclaiming History").....
>
> "Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability
> to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American
> nightmare."*
VB's "command of the evidence..." hmm, along the same lines as Mark
Lane's **command** of the evidence?
David Von Pein
I kinda doubt VB's "command" of the evidence is in the same league/
arena as Mr. Lane's "command".....seeing as how Mr. Lane is a
certifiable "I Want A Conspiracy No Matter What The Actual Evidence
Shows" kook....
....just like you and the rest of the RCTers in here.
David Von Pein
You're a miserable old kook/fart/nuthatch (and a disgusting one to
boot).
tomnln
WHEN are you gonna address the official records of the WCR that you Support?
http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/autopsy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/characters.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/croft_photo_with_anaylisis.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/warren.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/reasonable.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CIA.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173080089.8...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Did Mark Lane Destroy Evidence?
Did the Authorities Destroy Evidence?
Is Destruction of Evidence a Felony?
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
GO FOR IT Felon Supporter.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173071335.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
> "Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy".
>
> In late 2004 or early 2005, Vince changed it to "Final Verdict: The
> Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK".
And now it's been changed once
> again, to "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
> Kennedy".
Wow, this guy changes his names more than YOYO.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173135485.3...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
=================================================
"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.
=================================================
To me, the most interesting passage in the above review is this
comment:
"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."
I'm very glad to hear that VB is devoting a lot of time (pages) toward
debunking Oliver Stone's fanciful film. That aligns nicely with what I
predicted on February 20, 2007:
"Oliver Stone deserves (in a negative sense here) a HUGE chapter in
VB's book, without question. And I hope he gets it. (And he deserves
to have his film ripped to shreds by VB in the process, of
course.) ... Why does Stone deserve a large chapter (IMO)? Because a
large pct. of this generation has gotten ALL (or a goodly amount
anyway) of its info re. the JFK case from that film....which is a film
that totally distorts a large amount of the evidence in the Kennedy
case." -- DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2fa93b6e293e5e96
David Von Pein
website. You'd almost think I had told this reviewer what to say,
huh? :)
Of course just how this customer even knows of the content of the book
at this early-April 2007 date, I can only throw up my hands and
say...."pre-release copy distribution"??.....
===============================================
"Vincent Bugliosi has written a masterpiece.....This is the work of a
true genius. How did he do this, when he is a mere human? He has left
no stone unturned, including Oliver Stone. 'Reclaiming History' is an
epic book, and as long as people are interested in the J.F.K. case,
even if it is centuries from now, they will look to this masterpiece
as the definitive book on the Kennedy assassination. Fortunately for
the historical record, Bugliosi, this nation's foremost prosecutor,
has successfully taken on the most important murder case in American
history. He has proven Oswald's guilt and the absence of a conspiracy
beyond all doubt. This is definitely Nobel and Pulitzer Prize
material. In setting the record straight, 'Reclaiming History'
couldn't be a more perfect title for this book. No home library should
be without this work of literature."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780743566674&z=y