Lifton: Bugliosi Book Ghost Written
John McAdams
http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
White Shadow
McAdams) wrote:
>
>http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
>
>.John
Why would it take 20 years to ghost write a book if there were several
ghost writers?
Lifton's theory in BEST EVIDENCE is now...and has always been...laughable
to the max. I suspect he is now somewhat embarrassed about it, in his
waning years.
John McAdams
wrote:
No, he's not at all embarrassed by it. He still believes it.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone (O)
Bugliosi certainly uses 'bully tactics' in the courtroom.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4659cfba...@news.newsguy.com...
David Von Pein
This crackpot claim (from a mega-crackpot named Lifton), comes despite the
fact that Vince has said in public that he wrote "99.9%" of the book all
by himself. (I can only assume the other 0.1% was the work of former "RH"
co-author Fred Haines, who supposedly worked on the project for years up
to 1998. But I could be wrong there. The 0.1% COULD have been "ghosted" by
green men in Vince's basement perhaps. Who can know?)
I suppose Bugliosi's lying through his teeth (yet again), right David L.
(re. the 99.9% thing)? <roll eyes>
Naturally, Mr. Lifton has to treat VB like a criminal, since Vince
(thankfully) takes Lifton's ridiculous theory apart in his book.
I couldn't make it past the midway mark of that 38-minute Black Ops piece
of crap. I was getting physically ill from Lifton's load of shit.
Vince calls a spade a spade and David L. just doesn't like it. Simple as
that.
And now Lifton says he's considering a lawsuit if VB's attacks on him
persist in public.
You gotta love the sheer size of the balls of Mr. L. -- he rewrites
history in the most nutty way imaginable via "Best Evidence" (a #5 Best
Seller, incredibly), and now he's whining about a reputable lawyer/author
like Vince B. taking his lunacy apart in public (and in print).
Note to Mr. Lifton -- TOUGH SHIT, KOOK!
ScottO
I would certainly take the word of an authority like Lifton at face value.
ScottO.
tomnln
Tell us John;
What explanation do You have for the Differences between
Dallas/Bethesda???
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465a47bd...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
>
>Tell us John;
>
>What explanation do You have for the Differences between
>Dallas/Bethesda???
>
What differences?
John Fiorentino
majority of the show dedicated to whether or not VB actually wrote his
book, or had substantial outside help. Complete with comments from Doug
Horne (relayed by Lifton) that Bugliosi "should be put in his place, which
is in the gutter."
Let's not discuss the issues, let's attack the messenger.
Lifton says there is "big money involved" in VB's book. Never mentioning
once how much he must have made off of his own best seller.
As an author of a non-conspiracy book on the assassination myself, I had
to laugh at Lifton's comments ......... "An author has an easier time
making a living going along with the establishment in this area lets say
-- than going against the official version. There's no question about
that. That's just a fact."
I don't know what world Lifton lives in, but I've never been there.
Vince struggled with his book longer than I have, but managed to get his
out before mine. I say Kudos.
The whole thing was nauseating.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4659cfba...@news.newsguy.com...
John McAdams
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>The blackopradio show was a standard tactic used by the CT community. The
>majority of the show dedicated to whether or not VB actually wrote his
>book, or had substantial outside help. Complete with comments from Doug
>Horne (relayed by Lifton) that Bugliosi "should be put in his place, which
>is in the gutter."
>
>Let's not discuss the issues, let's attack the messenger.
>
>Lifton says there is "big money involved" in VB's book. Never mentioning
>once how much he must have made off of his own best seller.
>
>As an author of a non-conspiracy book on the assassination myself, I had
>to laugh at Lifton's comments ......... "An author has an easier time
>making a living going along with the establishment in this area lets say
>-- than going against the official version. There's no question about
>that. That's just a fact."
>
>I don't know what world Lifton lives in, but I've never been there.
>
>Vince struggled with his book longer than I have, but managed to get his
>out before mine. I say Kudos.
>
>The whole thing was nauseating.
>
My copy of the Bugliosi book is in the mail to me, so I haven't read
it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the section on Garrison read a lot like the
Lambert book, since the Lambert book is the definitive one on
Garrison.
I don't know what his essay on Judyth Baker reads like (I understand
it's on the CD) but I would be supprised if it doesn't read a lot like
my online essay.
I think Lifton is probably unfairly jumping to conclusions.
Admittedly, from what I've heard, Bugliosi had some pretty nasty
rhetoric for Lifton and his disciple Doug Horne.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"ScottO" <scott.....@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b0r6i.339586$p17.2...@newsfe11.phx...
Peter Fokes
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>The blackopradio show was a standard tactic used by the CT community. The
>majority of the show dedicated to whether or not VB actually wrote his
>book, or had substantial outside help. Complete with comments from Doug
>Horne (relayed by Lifton) that Bugliosi "should be put in his place, which
>is in the gutter."
>
>Let's not discuss the issues, let's attack the messenger.
That's what Bugliosi did to Mr. Horne.
Bugliosi smears Horne by using the word “insane” three different
times. He uses other pejorative and sarcastic terms as well.
Is that your idea of discussing the issues, John?
Did Bugliosi try to contact Mr. Horne?
Your defense of such tactics by Bugliosi is appalling.
PF
Anthony Marsh
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On 28 May 2007 01:09:31 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> The blackopradio show was a standard tactic used by the CT community. The
>> majority of the show dedicated to whether or not VB actually wrote his
>> book, or had substantial outside help. Complete with comments from Doug
>> Horne (relayed by Lifton) that Bugliosi "should be put in his place, which
>> is in the gutter."
>>
>> Let's not discuss the issues, let's attack the messenger.
>
>
> That's what Bugliosi did to Mr. Horne.
>
> Bugliosi smears Horne by using the word "insane" three different
> times. He uses other pejorative and sarcastic terms as well.
>
It's called Poisoning the Well. Notice that he says that reasonable people
will agree with him. Therefore anyone who disagrees with him is a kook.
Bush tried that same tactic in saying that reasonable people would agree
with him that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. It is all based on
lies.
> Is that your idea of discussing the issues, John?
> Did Bugliosi try to contact Mr. Horne?
It's called common courtesy, something Bugliosi is lacking.
Anthony Marsh
> On 28 May 2007 01:06:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Tell us John;
>>
>> What explanation do You have for the Differences between
>> Dallas/Bethesda???
>>
>
> What differences?
>
You really don't know? Because you are totally unfamiliar with the medical
evidence in this case?
1. The difference in the appearance of the head. Humes said that it was
apparent that there had been surgery to the head when Parkland did no such
surgery.
2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 28 May 2007 01:06:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell us John;
>>>
>>> What explanation do You have for the Differences between
>>> Dallas/Bethesda???
>>>
>>
>> What differences?
>>
>
>You really don't know? Because you are totally unfamiliar with the medical
>evidence in this case?
>
>1. The difference in the appearance of the head. Humes said that it was
>apparent that there had been surgery to the head when Parkland did no such
>surgery.
>
Oh, my! You are a Liftonite.
The body arrived in Bethesda in the same condition it left Dallas.
>2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
>that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
>
Crenshaw lacks credibility.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
Anthony Marsh
No. Some of Lifton's theories are too bizarre.
> ScottO.
>
>
John Fiorentino
Peter:
I wasn't defending Bugliosi calling Horne insane. I was commenting on the
slant of the radio show, whose main theme (it seemed) was to give Lifton's
opinion that Bugliosi used ghost writers for the majority of his book.
There was little if any discussion of the evidence, other than Lifton's
reassertion that his idea is correct.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:01ql53h2mp5r9oqh6...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
the Lambert book, since the Lambert book is the definitive one on
Garrison." <<<
Deja vu.....
Before reading Mr. McAdams' post re. Lambert, I was about to write the
exact same type of response after thinking this matter over in my own
head.
It dawned on me that people could probably accuse ANY good, thorough
author (who has researched his case and uses a LOT of cites, as VB does,
10,000+ of them!) of "ghost writing", so to speak.
This due to the narrative that is weaved by VB as he takes someone else's
words from another source (book) and weaves it into his OWN narrative of
events.
Vince, in point of fact, does this many times throughout the first
narrative chapter (a chronology of the "Four Days In November"). In fact,
I recall saying to myself several times while reading that chapter...."He
got that directly from Mrs. Paine"...or "That's Marina talking there".
(Even when quotes weren't being placed around the text.)
Obviously, Vince has utilized a lot of words from different people
(authors and witnesses and police, etc.) to weave his own narrative of
events throughout this huge book.
But the key is....He's providing a direct citation and source note for
everything he's writing. In fact, I did a quick look-see in the index just
now...and I found that Pat Lambert is listed on 19 different pages in
"RH".....and it seems that all are within the "Stone/ Garrison" chapter
(which, naturally, makes sense).
Anthony Marsh
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:43:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>> http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
>>
>> .John
>
>
> Why would it take 20 years to ghost write a book if there were several
> ghost writers?
>
Maybe he kept killing off his ghost writers.
David Von Pein
No...it's more like: Calling a kook a kook.
Which is something we need more of when it comes to the JFK
assassination and its so-called "researchers".
John Fiorentino
Oh, But it doesn't make any sense to Mr. Lifton.
He's got the answer he says.
"This way to see the egress."
PT Barnum
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180369658....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
{"Reclaiming History" book} project by himself, without typewriter,
computer, BlackBerry, cellphone, or research assistant. He drafted the
book on yellow legal pads, then dictated much of it onto 72 one-hour and
eight 90-minute audio tapes. A secretary transcribed the tapes and sent
him the transcripts, which he then revised extensively with long,
yellow-pad inserts, producing 8 to 10 drafts of each chapter." -- The
Boston Globe; 05/28/07
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/05/28/the_jfk_files/
tomnln
Crenshaw's "credibility" is Vindicated John.
Crenshaw was THERE, you were NOT.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465b777e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
>Crenshaw Sued/Won a Law Suit against JAMA.
>
>
>Crenshaw's "credibility" is Vindicated John.
>
>Crenshaw was THERE, you were NOT.
You haven't even bothered to read the link I posted, have you?
Are you scared of what it shows?
As for the JAMA suit: there is no way that Crenshaw could have won
had it gone to court.
Crenshaw was a "public figure," and it's extremely hard for such
people to win suits.
But given the way the American legal system works, it's often cheaper
to settle that to go to trial.
tomnln
Is Bugliosi "Disavowing Already"???
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:465b022c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180409338....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
ScottO
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:19idnSQVlOoanMbb...@comcast.com...
> ScottO wrote:
>>
>> I would certainly take the word of an authority like Lifton at face
>> value.
>>
>>
>
> No. Some of Lifton's theories are too bizarre.
>
>> ScottO.
>
Sorry--sometimes sarcasm doesn't come through too well in print.
ScottO.
Martin Shackelford
Lifton is being a bit hypocritical.
Both CTs and LNers have had best-sellers, though there have been more
CTs--Lane, Weisberg, Lifton, Marrs, Livingstone (2), among others.
The best-selling LN books would be the Warren Report and Posner so far, if I
recall correctly, and many of the initially shipped books in Posner's case
were returned and ended up in remainder sections within a fairly short time,
so his best-sellership may have been artificial, as was noted at the time.
Martin
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:465a5486$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465babbc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
autopsy report was different.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bOr6i.553612$Pi4.2...@newsfe14.lga...
Martin Shackelford
Some of the Bug's four-pager on Judyth Baker seems to have almost been
plagiarized from you--but he adds a few errors of his own, including the
claim (as I've noted) that she didn't write her own book. I've been told
by someone he consulted on the matter that he knew the truth, and printed
the lie.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465a641d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1Iadnaat0YjBmsbb...@comcast.com...
Martin Shackelford
was.
JAMA claimed he couldn't have received a phone call from LBJ--the Parkland
operator confirmed that he had received the call. I'm not sure how
"public" Crenshaw was at the time, but the JAMA claims were provably
false.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465babbc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
>Is that WHY Ruby killed Oswald???
>
>
Sashay(tm)!!
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>JAMA claimed that Crenshaw wasn't at the autopsy--the evidence showed he
>was.
>
You mean "wasn't in the ER."
He was indeed, although what JAMA did was to (doubtless correctly)
quote doctors who were there and didn't believe Crenshaw was.
An error, but not "actual malice."
>JAMA claimed he couldn't have received a phone call from LBJ--the Parkland
>operator confirmed that he had received the call.
Sorry, Martin, but her "confirmation" came years after the fact, and
contradicts her report written at the time, which is now in the Sixth
Floor Museum collection.
It's also impossible for LBJ to have called at that time, because of
JFK ceremonies.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>I'm not sure how
>"public" Crenshaw was at the time, but the JAMA claims were provably
>false.
>
When you issue a book, and appear on dozens of talk shows, you are a
"public figure."
--
Anthony Marsh
> This from the author of a CT best-seller with numerous reissues? I fear that
> Lifton is being a bit hypocritical.
> Both CTs and LNers have had best-sellers, though there have been more
> CTs--Lane, Weisberg, Lifton, Marrs, Livingstone (2), among others.
> The best-selling LN books would be the Warren Report and Posner so far, if I
> recall correctly, and many of the initially shipped books in Posner's case
> were returned and ended up in remainder sections within a fairly short time,
> so his best-sellership may have been artificial, as was noted at the time.
>
> Martin
>
I might also add that one author was approached by the CIA with an offer
that they would buy all the first run printing of his book in order to
keep it out of the hands of the public.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> This from the author of a CT best-seller with numerous reissues? I fear that
>> Lifton is being a bit hypocritical.
>> Both CTs and LNers have had best-sellers, though there have been more
>> CTs--Lane, Weisberg, Lifton, Marrs, Livingstone (2), among others.
>> The best-selling LN books would be the Warren Report and Posner so far, if I
>> recall correctly, and many of the initially shipped books in Posner's case
>> were returned and ended up in remainder sections within a fairly short time,
>> so his best-sellership may have been artificial, as was noted at the time.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>I might also add that one author was approached by the CIA with an offer
>that they would buy all the first run printing of his book in order to
>keep it out of the hands of the public.
>
Name the author.
Post the source.
Tony, I'm getting a bit tired of your unsourced assertions.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "It's called common courtesy, something Bugliosi is lacking." <<<
>
> No...it's more like: Calling a kook a kook.
>
No, it's called Poisoning the Well. Also known as Fascism.
> Which is something we need more of when it comes to the JFK
> assassination and its so-called "researchers".
>
>
As I pointed out, I found information which Bugliosi could not.
That is because I am a real researcher, something Bugliosi is not.
Anthony Marsh
> On 28 May 2007 20:44:26 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2007 01:06:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell us John;
>>>>
>>>> What explanation do You have for the Differences between
>>>> Dallas/Bethesda???
>>>>
>>> What differences?
>>>
>> You really don't know? Because you are totally unfamiliar with the medical
>> evidence in this case?
>>
>> 1. The difference in the appearance of the head. Humes said that it was
>> apparent that there had been surgery to the head when Parkland did no such
>> surgery.
>>
>
> Oh, my! You are a Liftonite.
>
Never. I am the guy who showed why Lifton is wrong.
> The body arrived in Bethesda in the same condition it left Dallas.
>
No, you misrepresent the evidence and what I said. The condition was not
the same as when the doctors saw the body on the operating table.
>
>> 2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
>> that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
>>
>
> Crenshaw lacks credibility.
>
Which means nothing. You can't use that argument to say that Dr. Perry did
create that monstrosity. Lots of other doctors said that Perry's trache
work was neat. Is your only way out to call them all kooks? Is that how
you analyze evidence?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 28 May 2007 20:44:26 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
>>> that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
>>>
>>
>> Crenshaw lacks credibility.
>>
>
>Which means nothing. You can't use that argument to say that Dr. Perry did
>create that monstrosity. Lots of other doctors said that Perry's trache
>work was neat. Is your only way out to call them all kooks? Is that how
>you analyze evidence?
>
OK, Tony, you have convinced me.
The body was waylaid on the way to Bethesda, and the trach enlarged so
that conspirators could dig out the bullet that hit JFK from the
front.
Score a victory for Tony!
Martin Shackelford
That she didn't mention the call years ago doesn't make it false.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465ccd74....@news.alt.net...
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Right, the ER. Sorry.
>That she didn't mention the call years ago doesn't make it false.
>
That she failed to mention is in a contemporaneous report that listed
a bunch of crank calls in detail does harm her credibility.
She mentions stray crackpots who called, but doesn't mention the
President of the United States?
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Some of the Bug's four-pager on Judyth Baker seems to have almost been
>plagiarized from you--but he adds a few errors of his own, including the
>claim (as I've noted) that she didn't write her own book.
But Martin, you guys have loudly insisted on the newsgroup that she
*didn't* write large portions of the book.
But only when you were caught on something silly like the "fine hotel
in Cancun."
Remember, first it was Platzman who wrote that.
Then it was the first agent.
But of course, a draft of the manuscript shows Judyth to have written
it.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
Face the issue squarely, Martin. Are you actually claiming she didn't
write the "endofline" chapter?
>I've been told
>by someone he consulted on the matter that he knew the truth, and printed
>the lie.
>
OIC. "You've been told."
My guess is that the person who "told" him lacks credibility, and thus
Bugliosi blew him off.
--
Anthony Marsh
> On 29 May 2007 22:52:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2007 20:44:26 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
>>>> that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
>>>>
>>> Crenshaw lacks credibility.
>>>
>> Which means nothing. You can't use that argument to say that Dr. Perry did
>> create that monstrosity. Lots of other doctors said that Perry's trache
>> work was neat. Is your only way out to call them all kooks? Is that how
>> you analyze evidence?
>>
>
> OK, Tony, you have convinced me.
>
> The body was waylaid on the way to Bethesda, and the trach enlarged so
> that conspirators could dig out the bullet that hit JFK from the
> front.
>
That is not my theory. It might be Lifton's, but at least I had the guts
to tell him to his face that his theories are wrong.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465dada9....@news.alt.net...
Martin Shackelford
of it.
You are adept at trying to change the subject.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465dae07....@news.alt.net...
Martin Shackelford
1) the "Cancun" reference made it into an early draft in error, at a time
when Judyth was using it as a general reference to the area involved--as
more people have heard of Cancun than their precise destination, which she
referred to in earlier drafts as a town starting with an M (I don't recall
the name offhand). Cancun would never have survived into any published
version, but you relied on stolen drafts and used them for phony "gotchas".
I have discussed this before--you are very selective in your "history" of
the issue.
2) Your "guess," as tends to be the case, is not only wrong but TOTAL
NONSENSE. Bugliosi talked with the fellow who received each chapter directly
from Judyth, and that person confirmed that Judyth wrote everything in the
final book. Bugliosi relied on that person for other information in his
book, so your theory that the person "lacks credibility" and that Bugliosi
"blew him off" are utterly ridiculous.
You need to lead less with your bias, John.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465dae07....@news.alt.net...
Lone
> On 28 May 2007 20:44:26 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2007 01:06:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Tell us John;
>
> >>> What explanation do You have for the Differences between
> >>> Dallas/Bethesda???
>
> >> What differences?
>
> >You really don't know? Because you are totally unfamiliar with the medical
> >evidence in this case?
>
> >1. The difference in the appearance of the head. Humes said that it was
> >apparent that there had been surgery to the head when Parkland did no such
> >surgery.
>
> Oh, my! You are a Liftonite.
>
> The body arrived in Bethesda in the same condition it left Dallas.
>
> >2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
> >that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
>
> Crenshaw lacks credibility.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>
He arrived in the same condition,yes. But not in the grey Naval Car
Jackie and the bronze casket were in.
The body of JFK arrived in a black car, in a pinkish metal casket,
some 45 minutes earlier with other guys in it and was token to the
morgue.
There the head wounds were altered, by this guys in the black car.
Notion: two of them wore surgical gowns...
45 minutes: time enough to alter the head wound by doing the big
trepan to make one big headwound out of the two original wounds: the
small entry wound at the temple and the hudge exit wound at the
accipital bone.
That was done minutes prior the offical "autopsie" started.
And you ask: What difference? Is this enough difference???
You rather be careful:otherwise your students will laughing about you
some day.
Lone
> On 28 May 2007 20:44:26 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2007 01:06:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Tell us John;
>
> >>> What explanation do You have for the Differences between
> >>> Dallas/Bethesda???
>
> >> What differences?
>
> >You really don't know? Because you are totally unfamiliar with the medical
> >evidence in this case?
>
> >1. The difference in the appearance of the head. Humes said that it was
> >apparent that there had been surgery to the head when Parkland did no such
> >surgery.
>
> Oh, my! You are a Liftonite.
>
> The body arrived in Bethesda in the same condition it left Dallas.
>
> >2. The difference in the appearance of the throat wound. Dr. Crenshaw said
> >that Dr. Perry did not create that monstrosity of a throat wound.
>
> Crenshaw lacks credibility.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I forgott:
Sibert, and O Neill (they saw the original wounds) testified in there
report:
"...following the removel of the wrapping it was ascertained that the
presidents clothing had been removed(In Dallas JFK was taken into the
casket with his clothes on), and it was also apparent...a surgery of the
head area, namly the top of the skull (had performed)."
Today we know:
That was no SURGERY...that was a simple and clandestine MANIPULATION of
the head minutes prior the official autopsy started. Performed in the
bethesta MORGUE where the pinkish casket was taken. A morgue is not a
autopsy room.
Lone.
RICLAND
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:43:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
>> http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
>>
>> .John
>
>
> Why would it take 20 years to ghost write a book if there were several
> ghost writers?
Vinny Bugliosi was contracted to write the book well-before Posner wrote
his (around 1988). Vinny procrastinated for years because the job was
simply too massive for a person who neither typed nor had access to the
internet.
Then in 1993 Gerald Pozner wrote the book Vinny was supposed to write.
This in effect, made useless all of Vinny's work prior to that date. It
also explains why Vinny reserves so much vitriol for Pozner.
Vinny started all over again but by then came the releases of millions
of assassination documents which again required he stop and restart.
Finally, the explosion of the internet and its dramatic effect on the
public's awareness of the case required Vinny to abandon his work yet
again.
No longer could he turn in a manuscript that glossed over things like
the Single Bullet Theory, the Tippett Murder, Ruby, Oswald's past, now
he was writing for an informed public who knew enough to question what
the Warren Commission said on these points.
And it was about this time Vinny threw his hands up and began hiring
ghostwriters. He was in his late 60s by now and, because of his aversion
to computers and the internet, simply too old and out of touch with the
debate to adequately address its issues.
Vinny's training and professional experience were from the days of 3x5
cards and filing cabinets. By the time he ceded the book over to
ghostwriters he had seen the import of his 3x5 cards and filing cabinets
made obsolete at least three times. By then in his late 60s he simply
didn't have the mental energy to learn enough about the internet to be
able to use it.
Like an old prize-fighter, his legs were shot and he had run out of gas.
ricland
--
Reclaiming History -- The Rebuttals
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
RICLAND
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:43:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>> McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>> Why would it take 20 years to ghost write a book if there were several
>> ghost writers?
>>
>> to the max. I suspect he is now somewhat embarrassed about it, in his
>> waning years.
>>
>
>
> .John
>
You think the Pulitzer Prize in History he won for it, might have
something to do with this?
Anthony Marsh
> John McAdams wrote:
>> On 27 May 2007 23:08:24 -0400, White Shadow <ganl...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:43:13 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>> McAdams) wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>
>>> Why would it take 20 years to ghost write a book if there were
>>> several ghost writers?
>>>
>>> Lifton's theory in BEST EVIDENCE is now...and has always
>>> been...laughable to the max. I suspect he is now somewhat
>>> embarrassed about it, in his waning years.
>>>
>>
>> No, he's not at all embarrassed by it. He still believes it.
>>
>> .John
>>
>
> You think the Pulitzer Prize in History he won for it, might have
> something to do with this?
>
Please refresh your memory. He was nominated, but he did not win.
So, your theory is that any book nominated must be 100% accurate?
> ricland
>
>
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Perhaps, being Texan herself, she didn't consider LBJ a crank.
Lame, Martin.
According to Gary Mack (who has the reports from Parkland) she
mentioned a lot of callers -- cranks and others.
But no LBJ.
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I was talking about the book published in 2006, John--she wrote every word
>of it.
OIC. The old stuff that didn't convince anybody was thrown out.
>You are adept at trying to change the subject.
>
Who can keep up with the twists and turns of the Judyth story?
--
John McAdams
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Now let's address your usual misinformation:
>1) the "Cancun" reference made it into an early draft in error, at a time
>when Judyth was using it as a general reference to the area involved
OIC. You are now *finally* admitting that Judyth wrote "Cancun."
First it was that Platzman did.
Then it was "the first agent did."
But I guess you have to admit that, given the following:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf
But the problem, Martin, is that there were no "fine hotels" anywhere
in the area.
--
Martin Shackelford
events and treated them as contradictory accounts of THE SAME THING.
You are forgetting the posts about the Mayaland Hotel, which was in the
Yucatan, not far from Merida.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4664d740...@news.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
I didn't attack her earlier manuscripts--I only said that I WAS TALKING
about her 2006 book.
Her "story" hasn't changed in any significant way since she wrote the
letters to her son in 1998. The "twists and turns" have nothing to do with
her account of 1963.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4664d6ea...@news.newsguy.com...
dlift...@yahoo.com
"first drafts" that came from an assortment of third parties-- and how
the book was stitched together from certain 3rd party contributors
will become apparent in the future. Bugliosi undoubtedly worked hard
on the book (even with all the help he got). Still, it still took
quite a few years to "write".
Remember: The Warren Report represents about 14 man years of work. It
took 10 months, with J. Lee Rankin presiding over a staff of 14
attorneys, divided into roughly seven two-man teams.
Think of Bugliosi as a combination of J. Lee Rankin and Norman
Redlich, with massive contributions coming from 3rd parties.
Bugliosi he did not write Reclaiming History from the ground up (the
way I worked, for example, in writing Best Evidence; and the way most
authors work, for that matter.).
This should not surprise anyone who is familiar with his history. He
did not write Helter Skelter; Kurt Gentry wrote that book--and its
appropriately titled: "with Kurt Gentry."
But this one is not--but the same situation prevails. The book should
more appropriately be titled "Helter Smelter."
The book is a cross between an anthology and a series of essays, with
interspersed commentary, bombast, and a lot of reckless name calling
by Bugliosi; and with everything editorially transformed into the
first person.
Stay tuned.
DSL
PS: Yes, I still believe in my own work. Dallas was not just a plot to
shoot JFK; but to extract bullets and alter wounds prior to autopsy,
so as to implicate Oswald. The President's body was offloaded from
AF-1 prior to takeoff. It was not in the coffin on AF-1; but was
returned to that coffin prior to the start of the official autopsy
(about 8 PM, EST). The condition of the body was so bad, upon
arrival at Bethesda, that Tide and a scrub brush had to be used prior
to autopsy, to render the cadaver examinable. Further, the cranium
was empty. Bugliosi so bungled that part of his chapter (on Best
Evidence) --and only found out about it after the pages were typeset--
that he had to issue a lengthy apology to Paul O'Connor which appears
at the bottom of one of the pages in that chapter. As I say: Stay
tuned. The truth will out in this case. Both as to what happened in
Dallas, and as to how the Bugliosi book was created, or--should I
say--"assembled."
On May 27, 9:36 pm, "ScottO" <scott.....@cox.net> wrote:
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:4659cfba...@news.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html
>
> > .John
> > --
> > Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I would certainly take the word of an authority like Lifton at face value.
>
> ScottO.
David Von Pein
In a word: Bullshit.
Mr. Bugliosi is on video saying he wrote "99.9%" of "Reclaiming History"
himself. And there's this from the Acknowledgments section of the
book.....
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research for
everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not feeling
comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page 1516;
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY";
Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
All lies...right David S. Lifton?
Your slander is pathetic. And to think...Mr. Lifton said on Black Op Radio
that he (Lifton) was thinking about suing Bugliosi!
That's kinda like Lee Oswald threatening to sue the city of Dallas for
false arrest.
BTW, learn how to spell Mr. Gentry's first name. It could help your next
batch of slander heaped upon Mr. Bugliosi.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Mr. Bugliosi is on video saying he wrote "99.9%" of "Reclaiming History"
>himself. And there's this from the Acknowledgments section of the
>book.....
>
>"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research for
>everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not feeling
>comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page 1516;
>"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY";
>Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
This comment does not say Bugliosi wrote 99.9% of RH.
Instead he says he did 99.9% of the RESEARCH for everything he wrote
in this book.
I'm not arguing he didn't write everything in the book, but I am
observing Bugliosi is not saying he wrote 99.9% of the book in the
comment above.
PF
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1181483329....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "The full extent of the ghostwriting--hundreds and hundreds of pages
> of "first drafts" that came from an assortment of third parties." <<<
>
> In a word: Bullshit.
>
> Mr. Bugliosi is on video saying he wrote "99.9%" of "Reclaiming History"
> himself. And there's this from the Acknowledgments section of the
> book.....
>
> "I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research for
> everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not feeling
> comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page 1516;
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY";
> Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
>
>
1st question:
So bottom line is that all errors, poor research or whatever fall on VB
alone....and you support that?
2nd question: Will your massive review address these issues?
jko
friarpark
assassination to the book? This is just sidetracking everyone. If the
book is that bad, just ignore it and go on.
Just a thought.
<dlift...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181470003.5...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
wrote:
> The blackopradio show was a standard tactic used by the CT community. The
> majority of the show dedicated to whether or not VB actually wrote his
> book, or had substantial outside help. Complete with comments from Doug
> Horne (relayed by Lifton) that Bugliosi "should be put in his place, which
> is in the gutter."
why do writers who have difficulty getting a book published moan the
loudest?
> Let's not discuss the issues, let's attack the messenger.
I believe every single JFK assass ination related issue has been debated
at least 1000 times on this and other forums. You thought the CT community
was going to let Bugliosi's latest issue slide right on by?
> Lifton says there is "big money involved" in VB's book. Never mentioning
> once how much he must have made off of his own best seller.
regardless of what Lifton made off of his #1 NYT bestseller its miniscule
in comparision to what Posner and/or Manchester made... you need to get
real!
you think NO big money involved? A book that took 20 years to write (and
appears to be tanking), a ten part mini-television series slated for HBO,
and a 60 minute television documentary (all for DVD distribution after
broadcast runs). The latter 2 produced by Tom Hanks and Playtone.... If it
all comes to pass, I venture 50+ million to deliver the series and the
documentary to the carrier HBO/Cable Network/over-the-air Network -- with
the correct PR and promotion, potential earnings and residuals over a 10
year period: gross $400+ million in sales.... yeah, I'd say thats a couple
of bucks, in my circles, BIG bucks......
This is the varsity Farentino, not the bush leagues....
> As an author of a non-conspiracy book on the assassination myself, I had
> to laugh at Lifton's comments ......... "An author has an easier time
> making a living going along with the establishment in this area lets say
> -- than going against the official version. There's no question about
> that. That's just a fact."
Then I suspect you're really weeping when looking at what Bugliosi is
gonna make.... your not under any illusion he's doing this for public
service are you?
> I don't know what world Lifton lives in, but I've never been there.
That is very obvious, he still lives in the LA/Hollywood area -- has for
many moons now -- what book did you write, by the way?
> Vince struggled with his book longer than I have, but managed to get his
> out before mine. I say Kudos.
Shame it got such a horrible welcome, where is it now on the seller
list, # 200+ ?
> The whole thing was nauseating.
The winner always claims the spoils, this time the public isn't
buying, literally! Playtone did though, which is fascinating....
David Healy
David Von Pein
he did 99.9% of the RESEARCH for everything he wrote in this book." <<<
Yep. I knew a CTer would pounce on that. Just like clockwork.
BUT -- What does the VERY NEXT sentence INFER?.......
"Which is typical for me, not feeling comfortable relying on others to do
research for me." -- VB
I'll leave it to CTers to think over what the above words INFER.
David Von Pein
>>> "1st question: So bottom line is that all errors, poor research or
whatever fall on VB alone....and you support that?" <<<
Yes, all errors (and there are some, I can't deny that) fall on VB alone,
quite obviously. His name, alone, is on the cover.
Do I "support" such "errors", you mean? Or do I "support" the notion that
all errors "fall on VB alone"? I'm not sure what context you mean here.
Anyway...no, I don't "support" errors that I think, myself, are "errors".
But if it's a matter of subjective thinking re. a certain sub-topic (as
opposed to hard, physical evidence), then I wouldn't necessarily call a
disagreement an "error". That's a matter of "to each his own". (Think: the
crazy "Z-Film Hoax" nonsense or the "Multi- Gun/1-Patsy Plot" for two
examples of this in the "CT" world.)
>>> "2nd question: Will your massive review address these issues?" <<<
Yes.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
I wrote:
"I'm not arguing he didn't write everything in the book, but I am
observing Bugliosi is not saying he wrote 99.9% of the book in the
comment ... [provided by David VP.]
Just like clockwork, this VB cheerleader removes Bugliosi's comment [
and much of mine] from his reply because it refutes VP's claim that it
is proof VB wrote everything in his book.
So I will re-insert the Bugliosi comment that David VP wants you to
forget:
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research
for everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not
feeling comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page
1516; "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY"; Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
As I noted:
>> "This comment does not say Bugliosi wrote 99.9% of RH. Instead he says
>> he did 99.9% of the RESEARCH for everything he wrote in this book." <<<
>Yep. I knew a CTer would pounce on that. Just like clockwork.
I am a conspiracy analyst, not a conspiracy theorist.
I knew a dogmatic LNer would pounce on my reply. Just like clockwork.
>BUT -- What does the VERY NEXT sentence INFER?.......
Lol. David VP has snipped the Bugliosi's prior sentence because he
wants you to forget the very next sentence refers to that PRIOR
sentence.
>"Which is typical for me, not feeling comfortable relying on others to do
>research for me." -- VB
This sentence INFERS something about the PRIOR sentence in which
Bugliosi wrote that he does 99.9% of the research for everything he
writes. It does not infer he wrote everything in the Reclaiming
History.
>I'll leave it to CTers to think over what the above words INFER.
But you are responding to me and I fall in the same camp as Tink and
Gore Vidal. We are not CTs; we are responsible conspiracy analysts.
I'm not surprised you have tried to distort what Bugliosi clearly does
INFER. You are so busy cutting and snipping replies to fit your
made-to-measure replies that any resemblance to the truth gets left on
your cutting table.
Here is Bugliosi's comment again:
Sentence One:
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research
for everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not
feeling comfortable relying on others to do research for me).
Sentence Two
"Which is typical for me, not feeling comfortable relying on others to
do research for me." -- VB
The first sentence tells us he does 99.9% of the research for
everything HE wrote in the book. It does not say he wrote ALL of the
book.
The second sentence tells us he is not comfortable relying on others
to do the research for things he writes. It does not say he wrote ALL
of the book.
You tar and feather yourself, DAVID VP, with this kind of intentional
spinmastering.
You need more training in disguising the truth.
PF
>
Peter Fokes
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Well, Jim ... the second comment quoted by David VP in no way, shape
or form says that Bugliosi wrote everything in his book. It DOES say
he does 99.9% or research for things he DOES write. It does not say
he wrote everything in the book.
Of course, as I observed earlier, I am not arguing he didn't write
everything in the book but this supplied comment by David VP is not
proof that VB did. And that is David VP's failure to infer the correct
meaning from the supplied quote.
Perhaps he will give us an URL so we can actually see and hear
Bugliosi say he wrote everything in the book without lawyerly
qualifiers.
>
>2nd question: Will your massive review address these issues?
>
>jko
PF
Martin Shackelford
claim. One wonders when some evidence for this claim will be offered.
Martin
<dlift...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181470003.5...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>So far, the only "ghostwriter" named, Patricia Lambert, has denied the
>claim. One wonders when some evidence for this claim will be offered.
>
>Martin
I agree. Until some proof emerges, I believe the reasonable thing to
do is assume Vince wrote everything.
We should also hold him accountable for all errors discovered and the
silly rhetoric.
PF
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"friarpark" <fria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_73bi.94$t64...@newsfe04.lga...
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1181538447.8...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> "1st question: So bottom line is that all errors, poor research or
> whatever fall on VB alone....and you support that?" <<<
>
> Yes, all errors (and there are some, I can't deny that) fall on VB alone,
> quite obviously. His name, alone, is on the cover.
Good to know, because errors are critical indicators of the value of the material. Even
if the error just shows his "comments" such as the one dealing with the Cuban consulate
at the Trade Mart have little value (relating to facts) in the arguement he is presenting.
>
> Do I "support" such "errors", you mean? Or do I "support" the notion that
> all errors "fall on VB alone"? I'm not sure what context you mean here.
Just want to see how you would support the errors....most readers don't like them,
regardless of who wrote them. Many search for errors in the works of others, so
I just wanted to see if you will be willing to defend them as much as you promoted
the book before it was released. Your posts in support were numerous and now that
errors are being presented....I'm wondering how you will support them. Will you
evaluate and tells us what you think he "meant to say" or just make excuses for them?
>
> Anyway...no, I don't "support" errors that I think, myself, are "errors".
Will you provide details on what you consider are "errors" in his book? Or will you
avoid them?
> But if it's a matter of subjective thinking re. a certain sub-topic (as
> opposed to hard, physical evidence), then I wouldn't necessarily call a
> disagreement an "error". That's a matter of "to each his own". (Think: the
> crazy "Z-Film Hoax" nonsense or the "Multi- Gun/1-Patsy Plot" for two
> examples of this in the "CT" world.)
There is alot of subjective thinking required in this case study, I'm interested in
your take on "his subjective thinking" when he doesn't have his facts right...such
as the example mentioned above about Lee/Shaw and the Trade Mart. Do you
think that's a good way to get your message across? It seems he goes after
writers that don't have their facts together....yet in some cases he fails to have his.
Do you see the conflict here......?
I have no problem with his going after writers putting out wacko views un-supported
with solid evidence.....I've discounted most all such wacko views as a waste of time
years ago so I'm not creating a double standard........however if his presentation is
loaded with errors.....in his effort to discount those views.......he sort of joins the same
ranks.....but in another column.
>
>
>>>> "2nd question: Will your massive review address these issues?" <<<
>
> Yes.
>
Looking forward to reading them......(what you consider an "error" that is)
jko
>
Anthony Marsh
> Do you think that maybe this book was written to shift the topic from the
> assassination to the book? This is just sidetracking everyone. If the
> book is that bad, just ignore it and go on.
>
I think that is the advise given to Jews in 1933.