Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" Still Going Strong

[David Von Pein]

I noticed today that the book Vince Bugliosi often called his "Magnum
Opus" ("Reclaiming History", of course) is still, five years after Vince's
death, being rated quite highly by people who are reviewing and/or rating
the book at Amazon.com. As of this moment on October 1st, 2020, Vincent's
"Reclaiming History" has received an average "rating" of 4.5 Stars out of
a possible 5 Stars at the Amazon website. Vince, I'm quite sure, would be
pleased with these numbers....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2viu9sr_Ae0/X3WR6sK18HI/AAAAAAABWaU/mx9iqUsuwYwcjvFwqbyGAGOanky40Jg0wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Reclaiming-History-Amazon-Book-Ratings-As-Of-October-1-2020.png

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393045250

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/remembering-vince-bugliosi-1934-2015.html

[19efppp]

It is rather impressive that a dead man can keep pissing into the wind.
Maybe Oliver Stone could make a movie about that. Of course, I'll wait
until its out on VHS.

[Mark]

On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 11:47:06 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
sza> I noticed today that the book Vince Bugliosi often called his "Magnum

+

True. Future CTs will have to answer his seamless argument that Oswald
did it. (Perhaps there won't be many CTs in the future, per Bigdog, when
those of us who remember 11/22/63 are gone. Those who look at the case
afterwards will hopefully see the facts and not the leftist myths.)
Bugliosi's book will never die. Mark

[David Von Pein]

FWIW....

In addition to Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book doing extremely well in
the "ratings" department at Amazon (as of October 1, 2020), I can also
report that the Lone Assassin JFK book that I helped Mel Ayton write a few
years back is also doing pretty good in the ratings category as well, with
an average rating of 4.1 at the present time at Amazon. Looks like there
are at least *some* people out there in 2020 who are willing to accept the
notion that Oswald was guilty. Nice to see:

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt/dp/1939521238

[John Corbett]

I don't dispute that Reclaiming History and Lone Assassin deserves the
high ratings they are receiving but I think you'd find similar ratings for
conspiracy books. For example Rush to Judgement is still receiving 4.5
stars. What these books have in common is the are preaching to the choir.
They tend to sell to people with confirmation bias. I doubt too many CTs
bought RH and likewise with LNs and conspiracy books although I bought
three a long time ago when I still had an open mind about the question of
conspiracy. What I learned from those books is that I should be more
discerning about what I spend my money on.

[MR. X]

Oswald did it alone. I have read many conspiracy books and even the silly
one where the SS officer was blamed for the shooting. The conspiracy books
should be moved to the comedy section in every library.

[John Corbett]

Most conspiracy books have a very short shelf life. They quickly end up on
the clearance table at the bookstores. I guess even bookstores are
becoming passe.

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, there are only a couppe of leftists who think Oswald was part of a
conspiracy. There are a few rightwingers who think Oswakd was part of a
conspiracy.
Most rightwingers accept the WC. Most leftists do not.

[John Corbett]

Bugliosi was a leftist.

I've never seen polling to indicate the breakdown of liberals and
conservatives in the LN and CT camps. Based on the anecdotal evidence I
would say that liberals are only slightly more likely to fall into the CT
camp than conservatives but both camps have people across the political
spectrum. I certainly wouldn't use the word "most" for either group.

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU mean like 57 years?
How many years has Q-QNON been writing?

[davide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:07:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

> I don't dispute that Reclaiming History and Lone Assassin deserves the
> high ratings they are receiving but I think you'd find similar ratings for
> conspiracy books. For example Rush to Judgement is still receiving 4.5
> stars. What these books have in common is the are preaching to the choir.
> They tend to sell to people with confirmation bias. I doubt too many CTs
> bought RH and likewise with LNs and conspiracy books although I bought
> three a long time ago when I still had an open mind about the question of
> conspiracy. What I learned from those books is that I should be more
> discerning about what I spend my money on.

I'm sure you're right about confirmation bias explaining the high ratings.
Plus, I'd say the database of those who have read Lane's "Rush to
Judgment" is immensely larger than those who have read Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" - for several reasons: 1) Conspiracy books are
inherently more intriguing to the average person. 2) Comparatively, Lane's
book got much more press than Bugliosi's book as the topic of the Kennedy
assassination was far more topical and still in the consciousness of many
Americans. It was a contemporary issue. It spent 29 weeks on the New York
Times best-seller list. I do not believe "Reclaiming History" made any
best-seller list. 3) Reading Bugliosi's book is a daunting undertaking for
somebody who has a mere passing interest in the assassination. They'll
never read it. But Lane's book is shorter and attracted many who had a
passing interest.

You simply don't invest the time to read a book that weighs 8 pounds, cost
you nearly $60, has nearly 1.5 million words with thousands of citations,
then go to Amazon and write a review that says, "That was a waste of my
time."

Having said that - I think "Reclaiming History" is the most thorough, most
accurate, most heavily referenced and most compelling book ever written on
the assassination, especially if the reader was entertaining any of the
most popular conspiracy theories. It blows them out of the water. But,
then again, anybody inclined to believe there was a conspiracy in the
Kennedy assassination would probably never read "Reclaiming History."

I don't believe most conspiracy theorists have ever read the Warren Report
- even though many of them claim they have.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John Corbett]

It is my belief Bugliosi was writing RH for the benefit of future
historians. Whatever money he made from it was probably meager in relation
to the amount of exhaustive research he had to do. All the while new
conspiracy claims were being made for him to debunk.

[BT George]

Yeah I think time is the key. With each passing year those who are just
intellectually committed to a conspiracy in the case dwindles and you get
more people who just want to put the topic to bed in their minds with some
*real* historical facts to sink their teeth into.

[John Corbett]

None of us will be around to see it but I would bet that 100 years from
now it will be as readily accepted that Oswald was JFK's assassin as it is
that Booth was Lincoln's assassin. Whereas we know that Booth was not only
part of a conspiracy but the ringleader, there will probably always be
those who suspect a conspiracy even if they can't prove it. The fact that
so many conspiracy theories have been put forth is part of the historical
record too which will make some wonder about it. Kind of like those who
think FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and let it happen.
There is no more evidence for that than there is that Oswald had any
accomplices. We expected an attack but not at Pearl Harbor. Maybe Guam or
the Philippines, but not Pearl.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2020 6:28 PM, John Corbett wrote:
> On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 8:08:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> FWIW....
>>>
>>> In addition to Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book doing extremely well in
>>> the "ratings" department at Amazon (as of October 1, 2020), I can also
>>> report that the Lone Assassin JFK book that I helped Mel Ayton write a few
>>> years back is also doing pretty good in the ratings category as well, with
>>> an average rating of 4.1 at the present time at Amazon. Looks like there
>>> are at least *some* people out there in 2020 who are willing to accept the
>>> notion that Oswald was guilty. Nice to see:
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt/dp/1939521238
>>
>> Yeah I think time is the key. With each passing year those who are just
>> intellectually committed to a conspiracy in the case dwindles and you get
>> more people who just want to put the topic to bed in their minds with some
>> *real* historical facts to sink their teeth into.
>
> None of us will be around to see it but I would bet that 100 years from
> now it will be as readily accepted that Oswald was JFK's assassin as it is
> that Booth was Lincoln's assassin. Whereas we know that Booth was not only

THEREFORe YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE jFK assassination was a conspispiracy,

[Jason Burke]

On 10/10/2020 8:35 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/9/2020 6:28 PM, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 8:08:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> FWIW....
>>>>
>>>> In addition to Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book doing extremely well in
>>>> the "ratings" department at Amazon (as of October 1, 2020), I can also
>>>> report that the Lone Assassin JFK book that I helped Mel Ayton write
>>>> a few
>>>> years back is also doing pretty good in the ratings category as
>>>> well, with
>>>> an average rating of 4.1 at the present time at Amazon. Looks like
>>>> there
>>>> are at least *some* people out there in 2020 who are willing to
>>>> accept the
>>>> notion that Oswald was guilty. Nice to see:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt/dp/1939521238
>>>

>>> Yeah I think time is the key.?? With each passing year those who are just

>>> intellectually committed to a conspiracy in the case dwindles and you
>>> get
>>> more people who just want to put the topic to bed in their minds with
>>> some
>>> *real* historical facts to sink their teeth into.
>>
>> None of us will be around to see it but I would bet that 100 years from
>> now it will be as readily accepted that Oswald was JFK's assassin as
>> it is
>> that Booth was Lincoln's assassin. Whereas we know that Booth was not
>> only
>
> THEREFORe YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE jFK assassination was a conspispiracy,

Yo! Tony-boy! Avoiding all your other foolishness... What does
"conspispiracy" mean?

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 11:35:03 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/9/2020 6:28 PM, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 8:08:20 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> FWIW....
> >>>
> >>> In addition to Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book doing extremely well in
> >>> the "ratings" department at Amazon (as of October 1, 2020), I can also
> >>> report that the Lone Assassin JFK book that I helped Mel Ayton write a few
> >>> years back is also doing pretty good in the ratings category as well, with
> >>> an average rating of 4.1 at the present time at Amazon. Looks like there
> >>> are at least *some* people out there in 2020 who are willing to accept the
> >>> notion that Oswald was guilty. Nice to see:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt/dp/1939521238
> >>
> >> Yeah I think time is the key. With each passing year those who are just
> >> intellectually committed to a conspiracy in the case dwindles and you get
> >> more people who just want to put the topic to bed in their minds with some
> >> *real* historical facts to sink their teeth into.
> >
> > None of us will be around to see it but I would bet that 100 years from
> > now it will be as readily accepted that Oswald was JFK's assassin as it is
> > that Booth was Lincoln's assassin. Whereas we know that Booth was not only
>
> THEREFORe YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE jFK assassination was a conspispiracy,
>

Obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

[BT George]

Yeah I always thought the FDR one was silly on its face. At that point in
time it had not yet been fully realized that the aircraft carrier
(fortunately ours were away from Pearl on Dec. 7) was about to eclipse the
battleship as the main naval weapon. There's absolutely *no way* a
national leader would purposely risk losing most of his prime national
defense treasures in the Pacific just because he was itching for a fight.

[Anthony Marsh]

Conspiracy is when 2 or more people agree to commit a crime. BTW, one can
back out at the least mnute and it's still a conspiracy.

>>
>>> part of a conspiracy but the ringleader, there will probably always be
>>> those who suspect a conspiracy even if they can't prove it. The fact
>>> that

Yes, some people can say it was a conspiracy even if they can't prove
it. Evidnce may be missing or detroyed.