Re: ANOTHER MYTH STARTED BY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS (RE: "RECLAIMING HISTORY")
David Von Pein
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
WHAT ARE MOST PEOPLE REALLY SAYING ABOUT IT?
==================================
In my second rebuttal of James DiEugenio's April 2010 article entitled
"David Von Pein: Hosting Comedy Central Soon?", I mentioned the fact
that Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History", had received
far more positive reviews at Amazon.com than it had negative reviews.
And I thought I'd repeat that same Amazon information (and I've added
several more interesting "RH" statistics) in this new thread, to
isolate it from the other stuff in this rebuttal article below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/78e762a534fa835a
------------------
During his appearance on "Black Op Radio" on April 15, 2010 [linked
here: http://Box.net/shared/orxsobj3l0], conspiracy theorist James
DiEugenio couldn't help but take a few more verbal swings at author
Vincent Bugliosi and Vince's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
Near the end of the program, DiEugenio said this about Bugliosi's
book:
"The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom
Hanks." -- Jim DiEugenio; 4/15/10
Well, Jim, let's just take a minute or two and examine the review
statistics currently at Amazon.com for Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History":
As of this moment [on April 29, 2010], the book has received 187
customer reviews -- including my own (which, naturally, included a
deserved 5-Star rating, and can be seen at the link below):
http://Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8
The average "star" rating at Amazon.com, as of this writing on
4/29/10, is 3.63 stars (679 total stars, divided by 187 reviews at
Amazon's USA website).
And out of those 187 reviews, 99 of them are 5-Star (maximum) reviews
while another 18 people gave the book a 4-Star rating, and another 16
people have given it a 3-Star ranking:
So, when doing the math, this means (based on Amazon's current crop of
reviews) that 133 out of 187 people have given "Reclaiming History" a
BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE rating (3 stars or higher). That figures to 71.1%
of the reviews.
So, almost 3 out of every 4 reviewers at Amazon.com are essentially
saying "Thumbs Up" to Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book. Only 28.9% of the
reviewers have given the book a poor rating of 2 stars or 1 star. And
52.9% of the reviewers (99 of 187) think the book deserves a PERFECT 5-
Star rating.
Now, considering all of the built-in things that Vince's book had
going against it from the get-go in 2007 -- such as the fact it's
absolutely enormous (2800+ pages, including the CD-ROM disc), and the
fact it has a high retail price ($49.95), and the sad-but-true fact
that 75% of the American public (per the 2003 Gallup Poll) believe in
a conspiracy in the JFK case -- I'd say that those stats for
Bugliosi's book at Amazon are remarkably good.
Now, let's check out some other Internet sites which are selling
"Reclaiming History" and see how the book's ratings shape up at those
locations:
At Amazon's Canadian website (Amazon.ca), as of April 29, 2010,
Bugliosi's JFK book has received 13 total reviews (note: there are
never nearly as many customer reviews listed at any of the foreign-
country Amazon websites when compared with the USA site), and 61.5% of
those thirteen reviewers have given "Reclaiming History" a very good
"star" rating -- 7 perfect "5-Star" ratings and 1 four-star
endorsement. 5 people (38.5%) thought the book was a total bust,
giving it one star:
http://Amazon.ca/product-reviews/0393045250/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
So, at Amazon's Canadian site, the average rating is currently 3.38
stars. Not too bad for a book that most conspiracy theorists at the
various Internet forums think is nothing but a steaming pile of shit.
Now let's take a look at the "RH" data at Amazon's United Kingdom site
(Amazon.co.uk):
There are currently 9 total reviews listed at Amazon.co.uk for
"Reclaiming History", and 67% of those reviewers have given the book a
5-Star score. Here's the breakdown:
5 Stars -- 6.
4 Stars -- 1.
3 Stars -- 0.
2 Stars -- 1.
1 Star --- 1.
Average Rating -- 4.11 out of 5 stars.
http://Amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0393045250/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Just for fun, let's also have a gander at Amazon's site in France
(Amazon.fr):
There's just one review for Vince Bugliosi's masterpiece at the French
site, and it is a perfect 5-Star review. (It was written, btw, by
Francois Carlier, who sometimes posts at these acj/aaj newsgroups.)
http://Amazon.fr/product-reviews/0393045250/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
We now move on to Barnes & Noble booksellers:
At B&N, as of this date, there have been 25 "ratings" posted for the
book "Reclaiming History" (18 of these "ratings" are written reviews,
while the remaining 7 are apparently ratings from other people who
have created an account at B&N but did not elect to write a full
review for the book).
The average B&N rating is currently 4 stars (out of 5). And 9 of the
18 people (50%) who wrote reviews for the book have given it the
maximum of 5 stars:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Reclaiming-History/Vincent-Bugliosi/e/9780393072129
And then there's a place called "Powell's Books", which at the present
time has two reviews listed for "Reclaiming History", and both of
those reviewers have given Bugliosi's tome a perfect 5-Star rating:
http://www.powells.com/biblio?show=HARDCOVER:NEW:9780393045253:49.95#customer_comments
So, Mr. DiEugenio, what was that you were saying about only Tom Hanks
believing the things written in "Reclaiming History"?
David Von Pein
April 16, 2010
Revised April 29, 2010
David Von Pein
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2344.0.html
>>> "BORING. PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME." <<<
Well, geez, you could at least have possessed the decency to tell me
that BEFORE I did all that work with those "RH" statistics, which are
statistics that prove that conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio
don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about when they
(he) say stupid things like this:
"The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom
Hanks." -- James DiEugenio
>>> "I don't need to read these reviews from book sellers on "Reclaiming History". Why should I?" <<<
Oh, I don't need to read the reviews either. In fact, I read none of
them.
But that's not the point of my thread-starting post. The point was
this:
When CTers say things like "The only person who believed it
["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks" [DiEugenio; 4/15/10], it
showcases their lack of knowledge about what the "mainstream"
reviewers (aka: the majority of regular people who buy books and write
reviews for them at Amazon and elsewhere) are saying about Bugliosi's
book.
I certainly don't need to read the reviews to debunk the above silly
quote uttered by Jim DiEugenio. All I needed to do is exactly what I
did do -- search the Internet book sites and check out what the
ratings are for "Reclaiming History".
And when you do that, you'll find that the VAST MAJORITY of people who
have chosen to write reviews for Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book have
given a healthy "THUMBS UP" to that book (at least as of this writing
on April 29th, 2010).
Simple as that. (Much to the chagrin of Mr. DiEugenio, I would
surmise.)
>>> "I can only give you one person's review....[Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is] BORING!!!!" <<<
LOL. Yeah, the LN truth probably is considered "boring" to most
conspiracy-happy, fantasy-craving individuals of Planet Earth.
OTOH, it's quite remarkable (to me anyway) that some people who
obviously have a great deal of interest in the way JFK died in 1963
(otherwise, why the heck sign up to post messages on a "JFK Forum"
like this one?) can actually read Vince Bugliosi's masterpiece of
logic, common sense, and REAL EVIDENCE and then say they were "bored"
by it all.
That's absolutely incredible. (And absolutely silly, too.)
>>> "If your point is what James DiEugenio is saying.....why do you care?" <<<
Apparently Martin Covax must have missed this post:
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2344.msg42666.html#msg42666
>>> "Judging by his [DiEugenio's] article title, using your name in it....there is some sort of vendetta goin' down." <<<
Sort of looks like it, doesn't it?
~shrug~
I enjoy battling the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists like
DiEugenio, though. And that's because it is so easy to knock down
their silly arguments.
As far as the big-ticket items are concerned, DiEugenio (and many
others just like him) never get anything right when it comes to the
JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, which is plainly obvious by the fact
that Jim D. believes Oswald shot no one on 11/22/63. And that's way
below the Mendoza line. In fact, he's been batting .000 in the "How
Many People Did Oswald Kill On November 22?" department for years.
Of course, Jim's not alone with that triple-zero batting average. Many
CTers on the Internet share the same miserable average. Casey Stengel
would be appalled.
>>> "Who cares about the booksellers' "star" system and James DiWhogivesadamn???? Rise above it Dave. Re-arranging your sock drawer would be a better use of time." <<<
There's never a need for that, Martin. My sock drawer is always neat
as a pin. In fact, I call it my "Roger Craig Sock Drawer" -- each pair
of socks is always facing the same direction and is never more than an
inch away from the pair beside it.
>>> "David, Bugliosi's book does not even investigate the role of Jack Dougherty, who was closest to the assassin(s), ok?" <<<
No. Not okay. Dougherty played no "role" in the assassination. He was
questioned by the Warren Commission, and the Commission got everything
there was to get out of him, whether you want to believe that or not.
EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF JACK DOUGHERTY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b7f9edba0d3a8fbe
>>> "As long as you bore people on the internet with your one-sided propaganda and do not show real research effort, like demanding the exhumation of JFK, you are not credible." <<<
Yeah, I can just hear myself making my pitch to the Kennedy family:
"Caroline, my dear, I have no doubt whatsoever that your father
was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting on his own. However, since
there are thousands of crazy conspiracy-thirsty kooks here on Earth
who are more than happy to throw out all of the evidence in the case
and believe that Oswald was set up as a patsy to take the fall for
your dad's murder, I'm afraid I need to ask you a favor -- we need to
dig up your father's body, so that these crazy conspiracy kooks can
then say the following after a new autopsy reveals that your father
was shot only twice and from behind: David Lifton was right after all.
Somebody altered JFK's wounds, and the bastards were somehow able to
totally mask all of those bullets that hit the President from the
Grassy Knoll."
Ouch! My butt is sure sore after Caroline (rightly) just tossed me out
the door.
>>> "[A reprise:] As long as you...do not show real research effort, like demanding the exhumation of JFK, you are not credible." <<<
Are you crazy, Chris? (Silly question, David.) Why in the world would
*I*, a person who feels it's totally unnecessary, want to demand an
exhumation of JFK's body?!
It is YOU, a person who thinks an exhumation is needed, who should be
pounding on the door of every Kennedy family member in Massachusetts.
Don't expect me to look like a fool in front of Caroline. That's your
job, Chris. Hop to it.
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/2009/10/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-viewpoint.html
aeffects
aeffects
roflmfao!