Bugliosi & Omiscient Narration

[19e...@mail.com]

Just as with Clown Prince Posner, the Buffoon King himself employs the
Omniscient Narration technique in his book. I thought this was supposed to
be a serious work. But no, he writes as if Marina's words came from the
Burning Bush, and Bugliosi doesn't believe in god, either. Such arrogance.
Does he keep doing this? Can I even read this crap? The Google Books
preview isn't run by the Onion, is it? He trashes Posner in his
introduction and then starts out with the same kind of silliness. Perhaps
he meant to say that it is a book for "the pages," not the ages. Or more
likely, for that missing sofa leg, or a cold winter's night by the
fireplace, when you don't want to go out to the shed for another log. That
kind of book.

[David Von Pein]

You need to check the SOURCE NOTES that are provided by Mr. Bugliosi,
which I'm quite sure will verify the things you're referring to as
"omniscient narration". There are 170 pages of those things (i.e., Source
Notes) on the CD-ROM that comes with every copy of "Reclaiming History"
that is purchased.*

* But since "Mr. 19e" is apparently too much of a cheapskate to buy a
physical copy of the book (and is merely using Google Books instead), I
guess he'll never have access to the 10,000+ Source Notes provided by
Vince on the CD-ROM disc. But that's probably better for CTers like
"19e" anyway, because then they can keep on complaining about Vince just
blindly putting words in witnesses' mouths via "omniscient narration",
instead of checking out the Source Notes that Bugliosi has provided.
Right, 19e?

[donald willis]

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 7:58:39 PM UTC-7, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> Just as with Clown Prince Posner, the Buffoon King himself employs the
> Omniscient Narration technique in his book. I thought this was supposed to
> be a serious work. But no, he writes as if Marina's words came from the
> Burning Bush, and Bugliosi doesn't believe in god, either. Such arrogance.
> Does he keep doing this? Can I even read this crap? The Google Books
> preview isn't run by the Onion, is it? He trashes Posner in his
> introduction and then starts out with the same kind of silliness. Perhaps
> he meant to say that it is a book for "the pages," not the ages.

Good one. I realized there might be a problem with Bugliosi the first
time I opened the book and saw that he had Mrs. Markham testifying that
she saw the suspect cut across the Davises' lawn, far from the
intersection. Famously, however, she had a stand-off with the suspect
when she was kitty korner with him at 10th & Patton. Bugliosi was
apparently not familiar with that.....

dcw

[19e...@mail.com]

Herr Von Pein, you miss the point. I do not quarrel with his sources,
though I'm sure I could. It is the Omniscient Narration that is the
problem. It is inherently deceptive to take somebody's account and then
present it as the historical fact. Even if all the sources are honest,
they can often be mistaken, and they are not always honest. This is a book
for babies. It is a storybook, not history. If Detective Rose, for
example, said something, that does not make it a fact. An historian should
say, "According to Detective Rose..." But by relegating the subjective
aspect of it to a footnote, the author conditions the babies to accept the
statement as fact. This is propaganda, not history. Even if it is true, it
is propaganda. If Bugliosi had written a short book, then maybe this could
be excused as being necessary for the sake of concision. But it is not a
short book. So there is no excuse for presenting subjective accounts as
fact. And I don't have to prove that Marina lied about stuff, as another
example. She may have had good reasons to lie, and maybe she didn't. Her
account should not be taken as fact because we do not know whether or not
she had reason to lie. She was a foreign citizen, from a hostile country.
She wanted to stay here. Her husband had been blamed for murdering the
president. You don't need much imagination to think that she might have
had a reason to lie. She wanted to please the US authorities. Well, if
they found the truth pleasing, then maybe she told the truth. And if they
were displeased by the truth, then maybe she lied. Bugliosi says things
that only she could have known as if they are the truth. But he doesn't
know that. It just fits his narrative, so he presents it as fact; he is a
lawyer arguing a case, he is not an historian. This is not history. This
is an argument for conviction. And that is propaganda. And, my apologies
to the babies who don't like long paragraphs.

Also, I am not cheap. I just don't have any money to waste on propaganda
books. I got Cased Closed for $1, and if I have $1 in my pocket when I see
Bugliosi's book for the same price, maybe I'll buy it. Apparently, you
have so much money that you buy all that you need and more stuff, too.
Good for you. But I can't do that.

[19e...@mail.com]

Markam said many different things. I speculate that she made a deal with
the authorities before the events for the parole of her son from prison,
as happened in early 1964, and that she was just doing a poor job of
following orders.

If you look at the JM Poe police report, you will see that he said "6 or 7
witnesses said that the suspect was running east in the alley that was
between Tenth and Jefferson." Now, if I were to do a "Bugliosi," I would
just state that as fact and give it a footnote. Of course, all of the
Official witnesses said that "Oswald" ran south on Patton and west on
Jefferson, so if I did so, it would be dishonest not to deal with that
contradiction. Most of Bugliosi's dishonesty probably is not so stark as
this example, but it is the same kind of thing, presenting one account as
if it is fact, while ignoring the possibility that it is wrong, for
whatever reason. We really do not know anything that Oswald said to Marina
in private. There is good reason to be suspicious of anything said by
Marina. Not because she is dishonest by nature, but because she had great
reason to please her questioners. She probably would have told them
anything they wanted to hear.

[19e...@mail.com]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 8:44:50 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

This is a link to the Poe report of my last comment.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2195-001.gif

[donald willis]

I checked the book+CD out from our local library once, and damn if those
Source Notes weren't fantabulous. Bugliosi therein explained that he
HEARD the call number for Clyde Haygood on the 12:37 "second window"
transmission. Now, I don't really believe that an esteemed
attorney/writer such as Bugliosi would outright lie--it must have been a
research associate's handiwork.

But you can hear the actual sender of the transmission, Patrolman LL Hill,
say HIS call number at 12:37 TWICE--"22"--once rather faintly, then more
loudly when dispatcher doesn't answer. The Warren Report here actually
comes through, unlike Bugliosi. It says Hill was the sender. The DPD
sent an impostor, Haygood, to the hearings to claim ownership of the
transmission, but someone on the Commission perhaps double-checked.
Bugliosi did not....

dcw

[donald willis]

Impressive work here!

>
> Also, I am not cheap. I just don't have any money to waste on propaganda
> books. I got Cased Closed for $1, and if I have $1 in my pocket when I see
> Bugliosi's book for the same price, maybe I'll buy it. Apparently, you
> have so much money that you buy all that you need and more stuff, too.
> Good for you. But I can't do that.

Mine own PS: I wish more researchers here could afford books like
"Pictures of the Pain". Then they could see and compare the Trask and
Warren Report versions of the Dillard wide-angle shot, and see how the
image of Stephen Wilson on the 2nd floor dims when you switch from the WR
to Trask. Curiously, however, the image of the fifth-floor witnesses
sharpens with the switch. In fact, you can't see them at all in the WR
version! It's magic!

dcw

[David Emerling]

I think the single endnote on the acoustics evidence is 35 pages long. ONE
NOTE!

To fully appreciate Reclaiming History, you HAVE to look at those CD
endnotes - not to be confused with the book's many footnotes that are
physically in the book. They are not just one-liners as in most books.
They are often very detailed. If they were included in the book as actual
PAGES, the book would've sunk the Titanic even if it missed the iceberg.
It's an incredible piece of detailed research that is unrivaled by
anything on this topic. No conspiracy book comes close, many of which have
ZERO notes, whether they be footnotes, endnotes, or ANY notes.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but if you would cooperate with real reseachers you might ge these
things for free. One of them gave me a WC Volume.
I gave one of them the paperback copy of a book I bought for 50 cents at
Walgreens.
And I have copies of CDs and DVDs.

> image of Stephen Wilson on the 2nd floor dims when you switch from the WR
> to Trask. Curiously, however, the image of the fifth-floor witnesses
> sharpens with the switch. In fact, you can't see them at all in the WR
> version! It's magic!
>

Well, the WR was not intended for research.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2019 3:34 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 10:58:39 PM UTC-4, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
>> Just as with Clown Prince Posner, the Buffoon King himself employs the
>> Omniscient Narration technique in his book. I thought this was supposed to
>> be a serious work. But no, he writes as if Marina's words came from the
>> Burning Bush, and Bugliosi doesn't believe in god, either. Such arrogance.
>> Does he keep doing this? Can I even read this crap? The Google Books
>> preview isn't run by the Onion, is it? He trashes Posner in his
>> introduction and then starts out with the same kind of silliness. Perhaps
>> he meant to say that it is a book for "the pages," not the ages. Or more
>> likely, for that missing sofa leg, or a cold winter's night by the
>> fireplace, when you don't want to go out to the shed for another log. That
>> kind of book.
>
> You need to check the SOURCE NOTES that are provided by Mr. Bugliosi,
> which I'm quite sure will verify the things you're referring to as
> "omniscient narration". There are 170 pages of those things (i.e., Source
> Notes) on the CD-ROM that comes with every copy of "Reclaiming History"
> that is purchased.*
>
> * But since "Mr. 19e" is apparently too much of a cheapskate to buy a
> physical copy of the book (and is merely using Google Books instead), I

Why should he have to pay any money when he can get it for free?
Do you realize how hard it is to find some of these old books?

[donald willis]

Hopefully, there are no lies in THAT note.

[19e...@mail.com]

Actually, I think I am privileged to not have read these books. Original
sources are best. The books take you by the hand and lead you into dark
alleys filled with "I'm With-Her" winos and sneering MAGA-philiacs.

[David Emerling]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-4, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> We really do not know anything that Oswald said to Marina
> in private. There is good reason to be suspicious of anything said by
> Marina. Not because she is dishonest by nature, but because she had great
> reason to please her questioners. She probably would have told them
> anything they wanted to hear.

You are supposing that those who questioned her were encouraging
(threatening her?) to tell falsehoods.

A common narrative among the conspiracy crowd is that Marina felt
threatened with deportation. But she had a child, Rachel, who was born in
the U.S. and was a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government would have NEVER
split up this family nor would they have sent a U.S. citizen to the Soviet
Union. Marina actually had garnered a lot of public sympathy. She had to
know - and she certainly would've been told this by somebody with legal
expertise - that she was under no threat to be sent back to the Soviet
Union. She risked far more by telling lies to the investigators.

Now, it's certainly true that her initial impulse was to protect her
husband. After all, he was the father to her children. For instance, she
was hiding one of the backyard photos in her shoe. Yet, she had already
told the authorities that Lee owned a rifle and was stunned when she
discovered that the rifle was not in the Paine's garage where she expected
it to be.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I've never understood the claim that she told them what they wanted to
know, that she had to follow their script, out of a fear of being
deported.

If she refused to lie about her husband and they deported her then what
would happen? She would return to the USSR and be used by Moscow as a
propaganda victory. In this scenario, i.e., she was ordered to lie but
refused, she'd say her husband was innocent, that the US government wanted
her to lie, that the entire investigation was a sham. She'd be hailed as a
Soviet hero, given a nice commission and house and be well off. And the US
government would have some very serious problems to deal with.

Granted, she was afraid, didn't know what was happening; but she held a
few cards of her own.

[19e...@mail.com]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 12:40:17 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

I didn't think of the children or the public sympathy. But, the sympathy
probably could have been dealt with using propaganda, if necessary. And
the point really, is what Marina thought might happen. If she felt that
her future would be helped by lying, I think she would have. She really
loved American supermarkets, they say. But, I don't want to try to prove
something I cannot prove. I think she could have been controlled, whether
she was or not.

The account of the barber Shasteen that Oswald drove Ruth Paine's car to
the barbershop shortly before the assassination influences me somewhat on
this point. I think he is credible, and would have no reason to lie. Ruth
Paine and Marina however, I can think of reasons why they might lie. This
also fits well with Oswald's alleged visit to the Mercury car dealership,
which I also think is credible. Oswald was driving and wanted a new car.
Ruth Paine and Marina contradict this idea, as the authorities would like
if they were covering up evidence of a conspiracy, from which Oswald was
expecting a cash payoff.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why didn't she tell them that Oswald hated JFK? That she saw him leave for
work carrying the rifle in the bag? That he was acting angry and was
denouncing JFK as a capitalist monster?

Instead she said he admired Kennedy. Is that what she was coerced to say?

If they were ordering her to implicate her Oswald then she would have made
far more damning and direct statements about his guilt.

But never mind, believe in your fairy tales. If it helps you get through
the day believe what you want. The evil rich monsters who rule your world
killed JFK.

It's a free - but for you evil monstrous - country, right?

[donald willis]

Someone might have thought of that, then realized that it would have been
a little too obvious

[redhair...@gmail.com]

Your friends the murderers weren't writing a comic book, they were
murdering my president.

[Anthony Marsh]

How would she even know?
Why didn't she tell the police about the Walker Shooting?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That's a pretty weak response, Donald.

You guys think he was framed for shooting Tippit; the witnesses all lied
or were coerced and the evidence planted. But simply having Marina say she
saw him leave with a large package would be too obvious?

All of this evidence was manufactured but it would be a bridge too far for
them to have Marina simply corroborate that he had a large package with
him when he went to work that morning?

That's awfully, awfully weak.