A Common-Sense Thought About Jim DiEugenio
David Von Pein
One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it
comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can
seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
omissions and lies, etc.
And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on DiEugenio's part, I
have to ask myself this question (which is the same question that all
reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the
internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How
could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally
smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop
fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?
And after pondering the above inquiry, the only logical answer I can
arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.
Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot
possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS of his anti-VB book review.
It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James
DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics
(dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy
that appear within Bugliosi's massively-complete 2007 book,
"Reclaiming History".
In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must
certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his
interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for
such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly,
well-documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History"
defies all belief.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/276116f6ceb31422
Anthony Marsh
>
> One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it
> comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can
> seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
> Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
> omissions and lies, etc.
>
> And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on DiEugenio's part, I
> have to ask myself this question (which is the same question that all
> reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the
> internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How
> could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally
> smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop
> fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?
>
> And after pondering the above inquiry, the only logical answer I can
> arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.
>
On the other hand, I cited several Bugliosi lies and errors and YOU did
not spring to his defense and refute what I said.
Gary Buell
You seem to be arguing that DiEugenio must be incorrect due to excessive
verbiage on his part. That would make Bugliosis incorrect and you as well
as your verbiage probably outdoes Bugliosis, although you have split it up
in thousands of internet postings.
Bugliosis book was very long. If Bugliosis is incorrect then a proper
refutation would have to be long as well, it would seem to me. And yet you
argue that it is not physically possible for DiEugenio to be correct.
Whatever the truth about the assassination, your logic is flawed.
Robert Harris
<5cca2bf8-382b-4c3c...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
OHMIGOD!!
Are you suggesting that DiEugenio is biased!!??
Do you think he is closed-minded and unwilling to consider evidence on
both sides of the question?
Do you think he just regurgitates dogma that someone else (like Garrison
in his case) created?
Do you think he evades evidence that proves he is wrong???
Then why are you guys fighting?
Robert Harris
pjspeare
the assassination--at least half of this was him arguing against other
people's viewpoints. So now DiEugenio spends a hundred or so pages arguing
against Bugliosi's viewpoint--and you call this obsessed? And infer from
this that he must be wrong about a lot of it? Well...ding ding
ding--doesn't the same hold true for your hero Bugliosi? Mustn't he be
wrong about a lot of stuff, too?
If not, why not? Because you and you alone have crowned him as infallible?
Do you have any idea how strange that sounds?
As far as Bugliosi's book being "scholarly, well-documented and well-
sourced"...you REALLY need to read chapter 9b at patspeer.com. I go
through Bugliosi's description of the shooting line by line and citation
by citation, and make absolutely clear that he deliberately
mis-represented the evidence to sell that the first shot missed, and that
the last shot hit. He cuts words out of some statements in order to change
their meaning (e.g. Lady Bird Johnson) and added words into other
statements (e.g. Kenneth O'Donnell) to do the same. There are even a few
statements that he interprets one way at one point in his book, and then
another way later on (e.g. Connally and Hickey). Such behavior reveals
Bugliosi's book to be the one-sided prosecutor's brief CTs claim it to be,
IMO.
(If one needs any more proof of this, one should consider that Bugliosi
wrote letters to editors claiming even CTs like David Mantik agreed that
his book was brilliant. He was thereby quoting Mantik out of context.
Mantik, if I recall, said something like Bugliosi's book was a brilliant
prosecutor's brief, but a failure as history.
Anyhow...DiEugenio has as much right to criticize Bugliosi as Bugliosi did
to criticize Stone. How can you have a problem with that?
On Aug 31, 5:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi spent 2600 pages talking about the assassination..." <<<
No. It's 2,824 pages, Pat. (Including the 32 pages of photographs.) :)
>>> "...at least half of this was him arguing against other people's
viewpoints. So now DiEugenio spends a hundred or so pages arguing against
Bugliosi's viewpoint--and you call this obsessed?" <<<
Yes, I do.
As I said previously, DiEugenio is in "VB Overload" mode. And anyone who
knows anything at all about Vince Bugliosi--THE MAN himself--would
instantly recognize DiEugenio's continual and seemingly-never-ending
attacks on Bugliosi's magnum opus as being way, way "over the top".
And DiEugenio's nit-picking certainly doesn't win him any CT medals
either (and, yes, JIm is nit-picking in many instances in his NINE-
PART "review").
>>> "And [you, DVP] infer from this that he must be wrong about a lot of
it?" <<<
Yes, absolutely. I do infer that very thing you just said. Jim's
subjectivism is on full display every step of the way in his soon-to- be
9-part anti-VB review (especially in his double-length segment on the
Garrison case; since Jim D. is a Garrison-ite personified, I don't think I
need to elaborate further on Jim's motives for making that portion of his
"review" a double-length diatribe).
>>> "Well...ding ding ding--doesn't the same hold true for your hero
Bugliosi? Mustn't he be wrong about a lot of stuff, too? If not, why not?"
<<<
Because Vince has a little thing called THE HARD FACTS on his side.
Could that be it, Pat?
OTOH, people like Mr. DiEugenio do everything within their power to
completely ignore (or mangle) those HARD FACTS surrounding President
Kennedy's death.
Of course, that type of shameful behavior on the part of Warren
Commission critics is nothing new. Just look at Mark Lane and Jim
Garrison for two high-profile examples of "evidence-manglers". They
are/were two of the best in that department (IMO).
You, Pat Speer, are much like DiEugenio, in that you are so firmly
entrenched in chasing shadows and make-believe theories that you
cannot (or will not) see the Oswald-Did-It forest for the trees. And
that Oz-Did-It forest is a HUGE FOREST too....without question.
Although, Pat, I do have to give you more credit on some things than
most other conspiracy theorists....because at least you acknowledge
the fact that the head shot came from the REAR.
You've got the specifics of that rear head shot all screwed up
(naturally), and you know that the ONLY AVAILABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE
does not support your theory about WHERE that bullet entered Kennedy's
head....but at least you don't think Jimmy Files did it with a
Fireball from behind the picket fence. And for that, I salute you. :)
>>> "One should consider that Bugliosi wrote letters to editors claiming
ev en CTs like David Mantik agreed that his book was brilliant. He was
thereby quoting Mantik out of context. Mantik, if I recall, said something
like Bugliosi's book was a brilliant prosecutor's brief, but a failure as
history." <<<
You're 100% correct about that, Pat. And I've written one or two
Internet pieces concerning that very subject [one of which is linked
below].
However, I think it's quite possible that Bugliosi (still to this day)
hasn't read Dr. Mantik's ENTIRE "Reclaiming History" book review. It's
possible that Vince's publisher (W.W. Norton) culled Mantik's "it's a
masterpiece" blurb on their own (and they probably did), and then put
those out-of-context words on the "RH" website and also in VB's follow-
up JFK book, "Four Days In November". But I'm still wondering if Mr.
Bugliosi HIMSELF really knows that that blurb was taken way out-of-
context?
But, you're right, that was a dirty trick by the publishers, because
that Mantik blurb should never have been used to promote Bugliosi's
two JFK books ("RH" and "Four Days").
More....
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c0f1c1509b1bb263
In fact, on June 12th, 2008, I went so far as to e-mail Vincent
Bugliosi's secretary about the Mantik blurb. Here's an excerpt from
that e-mail:
"I'm actually kind of embarrassed for Vince when I see those two
brief review blurbs of Mantik's showing up online at the RH site,
because they are also taken totally out of context. Mantik is actually
bashing the book and its author--not praising it/him. .... It makes it
look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of
praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the
context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And
that's not a good thing at all, in my view." -- DVP; 06/12/08
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66ceef57607ad041
>>> "Anyhow...DiEugenio has as much right to criticize Bugliosi as
Bugliosi did to criticize Stone. How can you have a problem with that?"
<<<
Yes, Mr. DiEugenio has every right to write whatever he
pleases....about Mr. Bugliosi or anyone else. And he has done so.
But, likewise, I have every right to totally disagree with him (in
print). And I do.
pjspeare
why he never responded to your letter. It's clear to me he did this on
purpose, just as he misrepresented Lady Bird's statements and the
statements of a dozen or so other witnesses on purpose. It was not the
mistake of some lackey at his publishing house. It was the mistake of a
man slightly out of touch with reality. (FWIW, I saw a personal letter
from Bugliosi where he made this claim. This was before it ever appeared
elsewhere.)
Your emperor has no clothes.
Jas
a book together, and when a book is released, it's free to be criticized
by the public.
However, it can be safely concluded that the sum and essence of Bugliosi's
book, minimal warts and all -- and based on the evidence in the case -- is
the most comprehensive, truthful, and concise account of the
assassination, its participants, and the investigations, to date.
It also explains in detail the major conspiracy claims, and effectively
shoots them down.
And Bugliosi is the first to admit that some aspects of the case are hard
to explain -- Sylvia Odio's story, for example.
Why not read it, instead of knocking it?
James
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:27e8fede-8a5e-42ba...@u20g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
garyb
You are entitled to your opinion but many of us, after carefully
evaluating the evidence believe that there was probably a CONSPIRACY with
Oswald as the PATSY, as he claimed to be. I have put the key words in
CAPITAL LETTERS as you seem to think that doing so increases the cogency
or logic or an argument.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are entitled to your opinion but many of us, after carefully evaluating the evidence believe that there was probably a CONSPIRACY with Oswald as the PATSY, as he claimed to be. I have put the key words in CAPITAL LETTERS as you seem to think that doing so increases the cogency or logic or an argument." <<<
Good for YOU.
However, YOU couldn't be more WRONG.
That, of course, is MY own OPINION. (And Mr. BUGLIOSI'S, too.)
tomnln
David, it was Bugliosi who took Mantik's words out of context, and that is
why he never responded to your letter. It's clear to me he did this on
purpose, just as he misrepresented Lady Bird's statements and the
statements of a dozen or so other witnesses on purpose. It was not the
mistake of some lackey at his publishing house. It was the mistake of a
man slightly out of touch with reality. (FWIW, I saw a personal letter
from Bugliosi where he made this claim. This was before it ever appeared
elsewhere.)
Your emperor has no clothes.
OMG! ! ! !
Don't let lowery know ! ! !