Re: My SINCERE thoughts on Bugliosi's book, 900+ pages into it-I'm shocked
RICLAND
> (I refrain from calling Vince Bugliosi "Bug"---as in "it's the "Bug's
> book"...but I am tempted to write this for "O.J." Von Pien, but I
> digress)
>
> The Warren Report could be dismissed because it was a rite of passage:
> as the late Penn Jones used to say, "The only way to believe the
> Report was not to read it." So, IRONICALLY, other than the 26 volumes
> (no joke), I didn't. The lone-nut books by David Belin (biased), Jim
> Moore (amateurish), and others didn't move me. Gerald Posner bummed
> me---us---out in 1993; kind of the Oliver Stone hangover...it was
> bound to happen (I remember feeling weird going to the malls and
> seeing, for a brief shining moment, JFK assassination sections in the
> book stores. Was I happy? NO---"Mortal Error", "The Man On The Grassy
> Knoll", and a host of other books were cancelling each other out with
> their mutually exclusive theories and ideas. I was jaded at that
> time). The one-two punch was provided by Norman Mailer soon after.
>
> Still, I remained largely undaunted, convinced that no one would ever
> convince me, or at least shake my beliefs, that LHO could not have
> acted alone (or, pehaps, even at all) and that, as Henry Hurt and
> other said in a sort of mantra equal to Penn Jones statement (above),
> and I am paraphrasing, 'the evidence in the Tippit shooting is even
> weaker than in the JFK side of the case against Oswald.'
>
> Then came Dale Myers book...
>
> I am convinced that LHO shot Tippit; Myers and Bugliosi convinced me.
> However, what has shaken me to the core: Bugliosi's book is a very
> convincing tome demonstrating that LHO, far from a hero (patsy) we all
> make him out to be, was a chronic liar, loser, wife beater...and,
> gulp, perhaps [?] the lone shooter of JFK [and no conspiracy?]. My
> work has always stood regardless of whether LHO acted alone (in some
> respects, it is stronger if he did!), as I took great pains to state
> during my SRU presentation and on other appearances (yes, I know i am
> suspicious of a few agents, but that can still be just in the context
> of the cover up of their ineptitude and so forth).
>
> To date, I have not seen or read anything substantive that has
> effectively refuted Bugliosi's main points---to quote Bugliosi (the
> way he used to talk about O.J. Simpson in his 'video'), several are
> splitting the split hairs. The big-picture issues remain.
>
> I have an open mind, I am not finished with the book, and I am not
> totally 'over-the-wall', so to speak...but I am deeply troubled by his
> book and NOT in the way I thought I would be (I was fully expecting
> another Moore-Posner 'easy pickens' shallow LHO-did-it tome...then
> again, with Bugliosi's reputation and intelligence, in hindsight, I
> don't know why I did).
>
> Don't start sending me emails or posts saying "My God, Vince, you're a
> traitor"...like I sad, I haven't "converted" yet. But I am deeply
> troubled by his book (for the kind of reasons McAdams, Von Pien, and
> others would enjoy immensely, no doubt).
>
> In short, I would like to see a DETAILED, POINT-FOR-POINT REBUTTAL TO
> BUGLIOSI'S BOOK (the way it was done in 1993 by Shackelford and
> others)...is it possible? Are we just left with ad hominem attacks,
> faith, beliefs, emotion, and rhetoric in our "defense"?
>
> Sorry to repeat myself, but I am troubled by his book.
>
> Vince Palamara
>
Well done.
What a pleasure reading an honest review.
You're completely wrong, of course, but that's not important.
What's important is that you make a real attempt to be unbiased and for
that you should be commended.
ricland
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
aeffects
Converted to what? Yet? Most CT's could care less if Oswald was
involved, directly or indirectly... Get Oswald in that 6th floor
window and I'm there, then we'll deal wuth the other shooter from the
rear, the one that could shoot... From my standpoint, I don't see any
SS involvement in the assassination, I think a case can be made for
them covering up detail screw up's
But I am deeply
> > troubled by his book (for the kind of reasons McAdams, Von Pien, and
> > others would enjoy immensely, no doubt).
their not overjoyed with anything, its their job... Von Pein sells
books on the internet, .john promotes the WCR, simple as that...
> > In short, I would like to see a DETAILED, POINT-FOR-POINT REBUTTAL TO
> > BUGLIOSI'S BOOK (the way it was done in 1993 by Shackelford and
> > others)...is it possible? Are we just left with ad hominem attacks,
> > faith, beliefs, emotion, and rhetoric in our "defense"?
doubt that will happen, no one has the time nor the energy.... for
what, a book that's in the tank? As to the ad hom attacks, Bug is
right their with the best when it comes to ad hom attacks
> > Sorry to repeat myself, but I am troubled by his book.
Troubled? By this book? A rewrite of the WCR? i'm not.... Coupled that
with Myers direction/work on Tippit...Enough grist for the mill for 20
more years..... LMAO
Frankly, when one appears on national television stating for certain,
the JFK case is closed, Oswald did it. The SBT is FACT... You better
have a bit more than a 3D animation-texture map cartoon version of a
2D piece of 8mm celluloid in your hip pocket or in this case ABC's hip
pocket. Nah, no-tickey no-washy...
don't worry about it Vince, you did a great job with the SS material,
we'll get the ball across the finish line....
p.s. oh, if you gotta say 'YET', you're already there, you just don't
know it yet :)
David Healy
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
Ricland praising somebody about being "unbiased" re. the JFK
assassination certainly provided the "Ironic Laugh Of The Day". This
guy couldn't be more laughable if he tried. He must take lessons.
RICLAND
Seeing how much work you put into your review, David, I did not take any
pleasure slamming it (ok, I'm lying -- I did!), but the point had to be
made your writing is smarmy, unctuous, bullying, over-the-top. It reeks
the way a whore with too much perfume reeks.
Compare that to Vince Palamara's low-key, self-effacing style. His was
10 times more persuasive than yours. It actually got me wondering if I
could be wrong about everything.
In fact, had Bugliosi used Palamara's low-key, self-effacing style his
book would have been roundly applauded by all. You'll note, a lot of the
people thrashing his book make a point of saying they think he's a
brilliant guy, or that they met him and he was a cool/charming dude.
These people wanted a kick-ass book from Bugliosi; they wanted him raise
the bar.
But Bugliosi did not do this. Instead he gave us a smarmy, unctuous,
bullying, lying, over-the-top prosecutor's brief.
RICLAND
> On Jun 21, 9:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I wonder why Palamara deleted his review? Second thoughts I guess.
>
>
with Thunderbird you right-click and select the delete the post opiton
-- after selecting it in the index (it must be your own post).
SecretServiceguy
Well, I don't have the energy to reproduce it verbatim, so here is the
essence (and many of you won't like it): I am deeply troubled by
Bugliosi's book...but NOT for the reasons most of you feel. He does an
incredibly good job for the case that Oswald acted alone; INCREDIBLY
good. I am almost at page 1000 and it is devastating. rather than ad
hominem attacks (to Bugliosi [or me lol]), 'say it ain't so, Palamara"
rejoinders, or splitting hairs and then splitting the split hairs (as
Bugliosi himself would say), I would love to see an extremely
DETAILED, point for point rebuttal to Bugliosi's work from "our" side--
is it even possible???? And, so you don't have a heart attack, I have
an open mind and my Secret Service research is still intact---gross
negligence and incompetence are indisputable (as even Bugliosi
acknowledges, as did the WR and HSCA, among others). In fact, as I
always say (like a mantra), you can have Oswald in the window all by
himself and there's no conspiracy and a) my work still holds up and b)
if anything, the Secret Service looks even MORE guilty (guilty=they
had even LESS of a threat to overcome that day, not a triangulated
fire, big conspiracy, etc.) and c) my "top 3" are still in the
suspicious category regardless...even if it is for cover-up and gross
negligence (to save their careers, the aency, etc.)
Like I said, DON'T HAVE A PANIC ATTACK: I haven't crossed over (yet
lol)...but, much UNLIKE Moore and Posner, Bugliosi's book has left me
deeply troubled for the case for conspiracy. At a bare minimum, Oswald
killed Tippit (as Dale Myers proved before), Oswald was a wife beater
and a chronic liar who couldn't even hold a job, and to say Oswald had
nothing to do with the events of 11/22/63 is sheer lunacy.
Sorry, ya want honesty, there it is. So far, I haven't seen ANYTHING
(i,.e. Fonzi, Mantik, Thompson et al so-called 'reviews') to dispell
my troubled feelings.
Someone step up and prove Bugliosi wrong in detail, documented, point
for point...I am waiting.
With an open mind and still "on your side",
Vince Palamara
a friend, not an enemy:)
On Jun 22, 8:09 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 9:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder whyPalamaradeleted his review? Second thoughts I guess.
Lone
Oswald was a CIA patsy- asset( out of a dozen) from the beginning
selected by Ruth Paine in 1957, whose mother was a good friend of Mary
Bancroft Allan Dulles mistress.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harold Weisberg, father of the "CT Community" said
and I quote: "After 35 years of looking, I have found
no connection between Oswald and the intelligence
community". But you know better huh??
Lone
It's the other way around: you ll hardly find a person Oswald knew
without ties to the IC
Gil Jesus
Gee, I hope not. That presentation was pretty good.
tomnln
> Harold Weisberg, father of the "CT Community" said
> and I quote: "After 35 years of looking, I have found
> no connection between Oswald and the intelligence
> community". But you know better huh??
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182531000.8...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
SecretServiceguy
> Does this mean I have to take your vids down from my youtube channel ?
> Gee, I hope not. That presentation was pretty good.
please, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like I said, he presents a powerful
case...I haven't converted :)
vince palamara:)
SecretServiceguy
I haven't converted...I am just saying that Bugliosi has made a
powerful case (unlike the laughable attempts of previous authors)...I
have an open mind and am hopeful someone on our side will set me
straight.
vince palamara :)
SecretServiceguy
O.K. , I am breaking hearts (my e-mail inbox is bulging)---forget what
i said, it wasn't a sworn, notarized blood oath...I keep saying I
haven't converted...my, oh my...LET'S ALL TAKE A DEEP BREATH, we're
among friends :) :O)
on your side still,
vince palamara:)
> > vince palamara:)- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "But the point had to be made your writing is smarmy, unctuous, bullying, over-the-top. It reeks the way a whore with too much perfume reeks." <<<
At least I'm in good company, since you said this a second later.....
>>> "Bugliosi did not do this. Instead he gave us a smarmy, unctuous, bullying, lying, over-the-top prosecutor's brief." <<<
And yet, incredibly, even though Ricland thinks that VB's style and my
style are identical (via the above insults), he manages to say this in
his same post (based on reading a "review" of VB's book by someone
else).....
"...actually got me wondering if I could be wrong about everything."
So, in essence, the "smarmy, unctuous, bullying, lying, over-the-top
prosecutor's brief" wasn't nearly good enough (not even close) until a
certain Mr. Palamara came along to say that the very same material
that Ricland says is "smarmy, unctuous, bullying, {and} lying" COULD
possibly be good enough to prove the LN case.
Good job Ric-Kook. That's thinking for yourself!
You're still batting 1.000, as in: Every post you make is totally
worthless.
Martin Shackelford
referring to his Source Notes and End Notes as well as the text. It is going
to be a long process, even longer than going through Posner's book in 1993,
as I did for The Investigator.
Martin
"SecretServiceguy" <vince...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182529119.9...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
Oliver Stone's JFK-some will believe a little or part of it-some will
believe most of it -and some won't believe hardly any of it...
SecretServiceguy
vince palamara
On Jun 23, 6:11 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> I'm currently going through Bugliosi's book, slowly and painstakingly,
> referring to his Source Notes and End Notes as well as the text. It is going
> to be a long process, even longer than going through Posner's book in 1993,
> as I did for The Investigator.
>
> Martin
>
> "SecretServiceguy" <vincebet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -