Lifton reveals identity of one of Bugliosi's ghostwriters

[Gil Jesus]

Claims Patricia Lambert wrote the Chapter on Garrison.

http://www.blackopradio.com/black323a.ram

[Kenneth A. Rahn]

Gil,

Unfortunately for the ghost-writer theorists, I have it directly from
Pat Lambert that she did not write the chapter on Garrison. She was appalled
when she first heard this claim about her.

Ken Rahn

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180885750.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[aeffects]

On Jun 3, 9:18 am, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <k...@uri.edu> wrote:
> Gil,
>
> Unfortunately for the ghost-writer theorists, I have it directly from
> Pat Lambert that she did not write the chapter on Garrison. She was appalled
> when she first heard this claim about her.

Did you, really? Can she do us a favor and post same here, Ken?

What IS surprising, is there's nothing surprising about this claim by
DLifton (which I can't verify at the moment). Hoswever why not have
multiple authors, makes sense to me, way to much material for a single
writer/investigator/researcher to tackle (especially for one with no
computer at home). On the other hand, if Bugliosi is claiming sole
authorship -- and there ARE multiple authors, well, his EGO needs a
full airing...

> Ken Rahn
>
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I have it directly from Pat Lambert that she did not write the chapter on Garrison. She was appalled when she first heard this claim about her." <<<

Of course she didn't. No confirmation from her is even required, IMO.

Why?

Because knowing how Vince works, there's no way in hell he'd want to
SHARE the glory of "Reclaiming History" with ANY other writer(s).

The kooks probably think I'm slamming the door on my own foot with
this statement, because Vince DOESN'T share the spotlight with any
other "ghostwriters" they (the kooks) think were involved.

But what I'm alluding to is Vincent's inner mindset--his ego. No way
he'd want his "magnum opus" (as he, himself, has called the book) to
be written by anyone else...even if only his name is on the cover.
That could be part of the reason Fred Haines' names was dropped from
the cover as a co-author, as originally planned in '98.

Yes, Vince has a decent-sized ego. I readily admit that. I think he
does indeed. But I also think that that ego is a DESERVED ONE. He's
EARNED the right to have that ego re. certain books he has had
published.

And that ego, plus 21 years' worth of very hard work (working seven
days a week and up to 100 hours per week on "RH" since 1999, per
Vince*), tells me more than anything else that David Lifton's
"ghostwritten" accusation is a load of bullshit.

I'm nearly finished with the whole book, and I haven't noticed any
huge variation in writing "style" or "syntax", etc. Just the opposite
actually. In fact, the "sameness" of some of Vincent's terminology is
extremely consistent throughout the whole book -- e.g., "Warren
Commission critics and conspiracy theorists" being FULLY written out
in those exact words on many, many pages over various chapters,
without ONCE resorted to shorthand like "CT" or "LN" or even "WC".
Never once. No abbreviations at all. Consistent throughout the book
too, as of the late chapters I'm now engaged in.

Or do some kooks believe that VB carefully went through all the
"ghostwritten" text and made sure to change one writer's "CT" to
"Conspiracy Theorists", etc., over and over again?

Then again, some kooks believe Lifton's body-alteration theory....so
they, naturally, are likely to believe in things far less fanciful,
but nonetheless still untrue, like this latest VB bashfest re
ghostwriting. Pathetic.

* = I know this is technically slightly wrong, however, because Vince
took time out in early 2001 to write "Betrayal Of America", which
certainly sidelined the JFK book for several months at least.

[aeffects]

take an editor about 15 minutes to do a global change there
champ......

> Then again, some kooks believe Lifton's body-alteration theory....so
> they, naturally, are likely to believe in things far less fanciful,
> but nonetheless still untrue, like this latest VB bashfest re
> ghostwriting. Pathetic.

well David....I see opinions flying around, rumors everywhere....
hell, have Vinnie drop by and clear up these issues. While your at it,
did you contribute to Bugliosi's tome other than PR services of course
(which you need a few lessons)?

Next we'll be hearing about guards at the 6th floor Museum for Vin's
appearance.... what a bunch of drama queens!

[David Von Pein]

Just when you think the kooks can't get any kookier...guess who shows
up (within minutes) with another say-nothing POS post?......

Answer:

Healy-Kook!

Good job, "champ". Keep it up.

Every time you open your dirty mouth, you prove VB's "kookier than a
$3 bill" point more and more. I, for one, am loving the irony.

[aeffects]

did you por did you NOT contribute to Bugliosi's book, eh? Makes
perfect sense to me you did..... hell he doesn't do the internet,
where'd he get that info?

[David Von Pein]

Not that any of this shit is worthy of a response....but:

Vince had Internet posts sent to him by various people over the years
(articles that people thought VB would be interested in seeing).

Or was your stupid question more along this even-sillier line:

Since Vince doesn't get the Internet, how does he even know the
Internet EXISTS?

Keep going, "champ". It's just one more notch in VB's "$3 Bill" belt.

[Anthony Marsh]

Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> Gil,
>
> Unfortunately for the ghost-writer theorists, I have it directly from
> Pat Lambert that she did not write the chapter on Garrison. She was appalled
> when she first heard this claim about her.
>

Well then, it must be true if she said it. Just as it must be true when
the CIA said it was not trying to assassinate Castro.

[Gil Jesus]

I'm not familiar with the conditions connected with ghostwriting. When
someone ghostwrites for someone else, are they allowed to reveal such
ghostwriting, or are they required to keep it to themselves and leave
it as an option to the "author" ?

Anyone know ?

[RICLAND]

Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> Gil,
>
> Unfortunately for the ghost-writer theorists, I have it directly from
> Pat Lambert that she did not write the chapter on Garrison. She was appalled
> when she first heard this claim about her.
>
> Ken Rahn
>

Will she be putting that in writing, Ken?

The quote is not worth two dead flies if she doesn't.

ricland

--
"Vince Bugliosi wrote "99.9%" of the book himself. He confirmed this on
a radio or TV interview this month."
--David Von Pein 6/3/07

Reclaiming History -- The Rebuttals
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Will she {Pat Lambert} be putting that in writing, Ken? The quote is not worth two dead flies if she doesn't." <<<

But David Lifton's totally-uncorrobated bullshit is worthy of ALL your
consideration, isn't Mr. Kook?

This madhouse/asylum is a veritable microcosm of the "$3 Bill Kooks"
that Vince has spoken of.

The irony abounds in torrents.

And a bigger pleasure for me is....these kooks don't even realize it!

[eca...@tx.rr.com]

"Unfortunately for the ghost-writer theorists, I
have it directly from Pat Lambert that she did
not write the chapter on Garrison. She was
appalled when she first heard this claim about
her."

- Ken Rahn

Ricland ON:

"Will she be putting that in writing, Ken? The
quote is not worth two dead flies if she doesn't."

- ricland

Ric or whatever your name is the reason so few
even respond to your posts is because they have
been exposed repeatedly as sensationally dishonest.
You are a documented liar Ric. Ken Rahn is at the
opposite end of the spectrum from you Ric. When he
says something it is believed.. You could have
achieved that status in life but you chose a
different path.. I wonder if you can understand
this.. There is a whole new world out there
entirely separate from the world of you, Ben
Holmes and David Healy. There are a great many
mainstream people who have earned the right to be
taken at their word. Ken is one of them.. You,
Ben, and Healy may not ever even understand..

Ric I find your reckless disregard for
fundamental honesty revolting. You have
created an environmental shell in which
you exist that consists to a large degree
of deception.. With little or no premium
on basic integrity. Hence you don't know
who to believe because you yourself are
not believed.

Ed Cage
1439Jun307

[aeffects]

On Jun 3, 1:05 pm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> "Unfortunately for the ghost-writer theorists, I
> have it directly from Pat Lambert that she did
> not write the chapter on Garrison. She was
> appalled when she first heard this claim about
> her."
> - Ken Rahn
>
> Ricland ON:
> "Will she be putting that in writing, Ken? The
> quote is not worth two dead flies if she doesn't."
> - ricland
>
> Ric or whatever your name is the reason so few
> even respond to your posts is because they have
> been exposed repeatedly as sensationally dishonest.

Ric does quite well running your sorry Lone Neuter asses ragged, that
includes Herr Doktor Kenny Rahn not to mention David Von Pein and I
suspect Vinnie daBugliosi (if he had the balls to show up)

<snip the Neuter bullshit>

[lazu...@webtv.net]

What if Bugliosi just took75- 90% of Lambert's tripe and finessed it,
what's the difference-( the same with drummer boy, Myers, and the
rest)the book is a fucking fraud anyway you slice it...younger laz who
doesn't have a whole lotta patience for lying sack's.

[eca...@tx.rr.com]

Well said David.. But like you I too needed no
confirmation. I would not know as well as you do,
but I'd be quite surprised if Vincent Bugliosi
didn't have a healthy sized ego.

By God he's earned it.

I was so terribly impressed with "OUTRAGE" and
the points he made, his logic, his very
reasonable requirement that others in life meet
the fundamental guidelines of common sense and
*logic* ..And competence for that matter.
He said so many of the things that have
frustrated me about others in life. And he said
them well. I have been a huge fan of Vincent
Bugliosi for quite some time. I share his deep
frustration with the less than objective
incompetents of the world.

Anyway, another 5 star post for David Von Pein.

MR ;~D
Ed Cage
1413Jun307
lessthanobjectiveincompetents

[guybann...@aol.com]

On Jun 3, 8:49 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Claims Patricia Lambert wrote the Chapter on Garrison.
>
> http://www.blackopradio.com/black323a.ram

OMG you can't get any lower than Patricia Lambert, IMO!

She wrote that ugly, notorious screed on geunuine patriot Jim
Garrison's efforts to get the truth regarding the assassination and
bring it to the light of day.

-- GeorgeWashingtonAdmirer (admittedly a former Lone Nutter)

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Yup-GWA..Re: Lambert she said Shaw, ferrie & Banister didn't go to
Clinton La, or Jackson La, despite about 10 witnesses or so, saying
otherwise including the town Marshall at Clinton suspicious of the
vehicle and occupants as many were, even getting Shaw's Address book and
finding the town car was registered to the trade Mart.

[Martin Shackelford]

Perhaps he has inside information. Garrison-hater Lambert is a Lifton
protege.

Martin

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180885750.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

I noticed a little borrowing of phrasings from McAdams' newsgroup posts in
one place--maybe the "style differences" that some are noting are merely
old-fashioned plagiarism.

Martin

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bdOdnVciDunUZf_b...@comcast.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

Usually someone is either sole author,
or the book is credited as "with [a professional writer]"
or the book is ghostwritten and released under the well-known person's name.
Bugliosi seems to be clearly saying that he wrote the entire book himself,
however.

Martin

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1180891727....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

Apparently, she put it in writing to Ken.
At any rate, I've seen no evidence that any of the book was ghostwritten,
though Bugliosi clearly borrowed some phrasing from material written by
those who assisted him on various things (including McAdams).

Martin

"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:NfSdnfePk5nPYf_b...@comcast.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

Lambert was a disciple of Lifton, who has long been a Garrison-hater. Her
book is a partisan attack.

Martin

<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22760-466...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Lambert did some work for Lifton on BE, secretarial, investigative I
don't remember...& right he praised patricia Lambert's book as well, so
he would be familliar with her writing style.

[aeffects]

When it comes to book publishing, David Lifton has sources everywhere,
inside AND outside JFK assassination related matters. Ball is in
Lambert's court...

Also, it been posted in the last few day's that DL win a Pulitzer
Prize, DLifton was *nominated* for a Pulitzer Prize in History in 1980
or '81, NOT awarded a Pulitzer...

Has Bugliosi or Tink Thompson been nominated for anything like that?

[tomnln]

NOTICE how mlowery STEALS a LOT of My Lines.

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SKN8i.14332$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

[Martin Shackelford]

As a colleague of his, she also did research on the Secret Service.
But the best source on whether she wrote the Garrison chapter for Bugliosi
is Lambert, and she denies it.
Or do you think Ken Rahn is making that up?

Martin

<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22760-466...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...

[Martin Shackelford]

Posner was. That was such a joke that they decided not even to GIVE the
prize that year.

Martin

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180978114.1...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

[lazu...@webtv.net]

I don't know Martin, and neither does anybody else at this point...a
denial from Lambert doen't mean much as I don't find her book
credible..we'll see..

[justm...@gmail.com]

David,
It's quite obvious these "kooks" as you refer to them haven't
researched Bugliosi's background anymore then they have Oswalds. Their
lack of knowledge on both subjects is the reason for their bashing and
childish behavior. They have no proof of any claims they make. For the
most part they just like to hear themselves talk. Apparently they are
green with envy over the exposure and fame Bugliosi has made for
himself over the years.
Bottom line is, they can't argue with the facts in the book so they
will try to discredit VB in any way they can. The finer point to this
bashing is rather then sounding intelligent they are showing exactly
what stupid asses they really are.

Maybe it's time for these expert researchers to go sit in the fake
trees along Dealy Plaza with Lifton and wait for the next attempt to
assassinate a president. Then you'll have a birds eye view with all
the facts correct. Possibly Jim Mars will borrow a spaceship from one
of his ET friends and hover around as backup! :)
Justme

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1181038768....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
justm...@gmail.com says...

>
>On Jun 5, 5:28 am, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>> I don't know Martin, and neither does anybody else at this point...a
>> denial from Lambert doen't mean much as I don't find her book
>> credible..we'll see..
>
>David,
>It's quite obvious these "kooks" as you refer to them haven't
>researched Bugliosi's background anymore then they have Oswalds. Their
>lack of knowledge on both subjects is the reason for their bashing and
>childish behavior. They have no proof of any claims they make. For the
>most part they just like to hear themselves talk. Apparently they are
>green with envy over the exposure and fame Bugliosi has made for
>himself over the years.
>Bottom line is, they can't argue with the facts in the book

Strangely enough, "justme1952" has been completely absent from any of my posts
doing *EXACTLY* this... see any post with "Omissions, Misrepresentations, and
Probable Outright Lies" in the title.

Why is that, one wonders?

[Martin Shackelford]

I don't find her book credible either--but I find her denial that she wrote
part of Bugliosi's book credible.

Martin

<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13035-466...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...

[Martin Shackelford]

Several of us have already noted that some of the "facts" in the book aren't
facts at all.

Martin

<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181038768....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I don't find her {Lambert's} book credible either..." <<<

Which means you actually think Garrison IS credible?

Egads! Garrison's own wife wouldn't even support the unscrupulous
snake. A divorce soon followed.