Doug Horne’s Response to the Attacks on His Work in Bugliosi’s New Book, “Reclaiming History.”

[Doug Horne]

I just read Mr. Bugliosi’s rather severe criticism of my work on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board, where I served initially as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records team, and was eventually promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. Specifically, he took issue with my conclusion in a 1998 research memo that 2 different brains were examined following President Kennedy’s death:

-President Kennedy’s brain, on Monday, November 25, 1963; and

-A second (fraudulent) brain---not that of President Kennedy---during the period between November 29-December 2, 1963.

Based upon testimony and interviews conducted by the Warren Commission staff, the HSCA staff, and the ARRB staff, I concluded that President Kennedy’s severely damaged brain, which provided unassailable evidence of President Kennedy being shot from the front, was examined by Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell less than 3 days after the conclusion of the autopsy on the body, and was photographed by Navy civilian photographer John Stringer on that day, November 25, 1963.

I concluded that Stringer’s photographs of JFK’s brain, which would have provided proof that JFK was shot from the front and that a bullet exited the back of his skull, were suppressed by the Federal government and are not the brain photographs found in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today.

I also concluded that a second brain---not President Kennedy’s---was examined by Humes and Boswell between November 29 and December 2, 1963, that Army pathologist Pierre Finck (the “outside man” involved in the autopsy, in more ways than one) was invited to this second examination, and that an unknown Navy photographer (not John Stringer) photographed the specimen being examined. It is the photographs of this fraudulent specimen, I concluded, which showed a completely different pattern of damage than JFK’s brain (namely, rear to front), that are in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today. It is my firm belief that Dr. Finck, who arrived late at the autopsy on the body Friday night after the brain had been removed, and who was excluded from the review of the first draft of the autopsy report on Saturday, November 23, was used as a “dupe” for purposes of “authenticating” the photographs of the second brain specimen introduced into the official record, in the event that was ever required.

In summary, my findings that Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell participated in an officially sanctioned coverup of the medical evidence are based upon several foundations:

-A rigorous timeline analysis of when various persons recalled meeting to conduct “a brain exam” and when they examined brain tissue revealed that there were two separate events.

-Navy photographer John Stringer, under oath before the ARRB, disowned the brain photographs in the Archives, because (1) they were taken on a type of film he did not use; (2) they depict “inferior”” views of the underside of the brain which he was certain he did not shoot; and (3) the photographs of several individual sections of brain tissue that he did photograph were not present.

-Retired FBI Agent Frank O’Neill, who was present at the autopsy on the body on November 22, testified to the ARRB that the brain photos in the National Archives could not possibly be of President Kennedy’s brain, because there was too much tissue present; O’Neill testified that more than half of President Kennedy’s brain was missing when he saw it at the autopsy following its removal from the cranium, and his objections to the brain photographs in the Archives were that they depict what he called “almost a complete brain.” Furthermore, both O’Neill and Gawler’s Funeral Home mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy’s brain was missing, and each man unequivocally demonstrated the location of the missing brain tissue in my presence by dramatically placing his right hand on the back of the right side of his own head, behind the right ear. In contrast, in the brain depicted in the Archives photographs, the right cerebellum is completely intact, and the occipital lobe of the right cerebrum is largely intact.

This concludes a brief---and accurate---summary of the research memo that Mr. Bugliosi takes such objection to.

Now, I will address Mr. Bugliosi’s criticisms.

He called my research memo of June 1998 “obscenely irresponsible,” and yet admits that he did not even try to contact me to discuss his objections to it. I will let the reader decide who was “obscenely irresponsible.”

The tone of Mr. Bugliosi’s attack on my work is unbalanced---it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully) to rebut my work, he used a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and circular reasoning. There is nothing scholarly about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion.

When one strips away the ridicule and ad hominem attacks, Bugliosi is essentially saying that because he knows that there was only one brain exam following JFK’s autopsy, that any time I find evidence that indicates otherwise, that I am wrong and engaging in fantasy.

Anyone who reads this section of Bugliosi’s book (pages 434-447), and nothing else, will be unaware that virtually all of the objections he raises to the logic of my hypothesis are already addressed in my research memo of 1998.

Bugliosi attempts to smear me with the use of the word “insane” three different times, as well as with the use of the words “crazy” and “aberration.” This is nothing more than a cheap prosecutor’s trick, employed in court every day by prosecuting attorneys presenting a one-sided version of the evidence in an adversarial proceeding, in an attempt to impugn any evidence that contradicts their own argument. Anyone who reads the relevant pages in his book will recognize Bugliosi’s sophistry for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit the opposition’s evidence.

I learned long ago that when an opponent cannot successfully counter his opposition’s arguments with logic, he will often employ ridicule and personal attacks. In doing so, Bugliosi has engaged in “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” has revealed the depth of his desperation, and has done nothing to advance the scholarly debate of the JFK assassination in this country.

I can only conclude that Mr. Bugliosi must have felt that his personal belief system (supporting the Warren Commission’s basic conclusions) was severely imperiled by my work, for him to use such scurrilous tactics to try to discredit my hypothesis.

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998, before you reach your own independent conclusion about what happened in 1963. Mr. Bugliosi’s invective cannot be properly evaluated without reading, for yourself, that with which it takes issue. My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

[Evan Marshall]

I just read Mr. Bugliosi’s rather severe criticism of my work on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board, where I served initially as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records team, and was eventually promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. Specifically, he took issue with my conclusion in a 1998 research memo that 2 different brains were examined following President Kennedy’s death:

-President Kennedy’s brain, on Monday, November 25, 1963; and

-A second (fraudulent) brain---not that of President Kennedy---during the period between November 29-December 2, 1963.

Based upon testimony and interviews conducted by the Warren Commission staff, the HSCA staff, and the ARRB staff, I concluded that President Kennedy’s severely damaged brain, which provided unassailable evidence of President Kennedy being shot from the front, was examined by Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell less than 3 days after the conclusion of the autopsy on the body, and was photographed by Navy civilian photographer John Stringer on that day, November 25, 1963.

I concluded that Stringer’s photographs of JFK’s brain, which would have provided proof that JFK was shot from the front and that a bullet exited the back of his skull, were suppressed by the Federal government and are not the brain photographs found in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today.

I also concluded that a second brain---not President Kennedy’s---was examined by Humes and Boswell between November 29 and December 2, 1963, that Army pathologist Pierre Finck (the “outside man” involved in the autopsy, in more ways than one) was invited to this second examination, and that an unknown Navy photographer (not John Stringer) photographed the specimen being examined. It is the photographs of this fraudulent specimen, I concluded, which showed a completely different pattern of damage than JFK’s brain (namely, rear to front), that are in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today. It is my firm belief that Dr. Finck, who arrived late at the autopsy on the body Friday night after the brain had been removed, and who was excluded from the review of the first draft of the autopsy report on Saturday, November 23, was used as a “dupe” for purposes of “authenticating” the photographs of the second brain specimen introduced into the official record, in the event that was ever required.

In summary, my findings that Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell participated in an officially sanctioned coverup of the medical evidence are based upon several foundations:

-A rigorous timeline analysis of when various persons recalled meeting to conduct “a brain exam” and when they examined brain tissue revealed that there were two separate events.

-Navy photographer John Stringer, under oath before the ARRB, disowned the brain photographs in the Archives, because (1) they were taken on a type of film he did not use; (2) they depict “inferior”” views of the underside of the brain which he was certain he did not shoot; and (3) the photographs of several individual sections of brain tissue that he did photograph were not present.

-Retired FBI Agent Frank O’Neill, who was present at the autopsy on the body on November 22, testified to the ARRB that the brain photos in the National Archives could not possibly be of President Kennedy’s brain, because there was too much tissue present; O’Neill testified that more than half of President Kennedy’s brain was missing when he saw it at the autopsy following its removal from the cranium, and his objections to the brain photographs in the Archives were that they depict what he called “almost a complete brain.” Furthermore, both O’Neill and Gawler’s Funeral Home mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy’s brain was missing, and each man unequivocally demonstrated the location of the missing brain tissue in my presence by dramatically placing his right hand on the back of the right side of his own head, behind the right ear. In contrast, in the brain depicted in the Archives photographs, the right cerebellum is completely intact, and the occipital lobe of the right cerebrum is largely intact.

This concludes a brief---and accurate---summary of the research memo that Mr. Bugliosi takes such objection to.

Now, I will address Mr. Bugliosi’s criticisms.

He called my research memo of June 1998 “obscenely irresponsible,” and yet admits that he did not even try to contact me to discuss his objections to it. I will let the reader decide who was “obscenely irresponsible.”

The tone of Mr. Bugliosi’s attack on my work is unbalanced---it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully) to rebut my work, he used a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and circular reasoning. There is nothing scholarly about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion.

When one strips away the ridicule and ad hominem attacks, Bugliosi is essentially saying that because he knows that there was only one brain exam following JFK’s autopsy, that any time I find evidence that indicates otherwise, that I am wrong and engaging in fantasy.

Anyone who reads this section of Bugliosi’s book (pages 434-447), and nothing else, will be unaware that virtually all of the objections he raises to the logic of my hypothesis are already addressed in my research memo of 1998.

Bugliosi attempts to smear me with the use of the word “insane” three different times, as well as with the use of the words “crazy” and “aberration.” This is nothing more than a cheap prosecutor’s trick, employed in court every day by prosecuting attorneys presenting a one-sided version of the evidence in an adversarial proceeding, in an attempt to impugn any evidence that contradicts their own argument. Anyone who reads the relevant pages in his book will recognize Bugliosi’s sophistry for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit the opposition’s evidence.

I learned long ago that when an opponent cannot successfully counter his opposition’s arguments with logic, he will often employ ridicule and personal attacks. In doing so, Bugliosi has engaged in “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” has revealed the depth of his desperation, and has done nothing to advance the scholarly debate of the JFK assassination in this country.

I can only conclude that Mr. Bugliosi must have felt that his personal belief system (supporting the Warren Commission’s basic conclusions) was severely imperiled by my work, for him to use such scurrilous tactics to try to discredit my hypothesis.

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998, before you reach your own independent conclusion about what happened in 1963. Mr. Bugliosi’s invective cannot be properly evaluated without reading, for yourself, that with which it takes issue. My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

Being a retired Homicide Cop I've never beeen a hero worshipper but certainly have the greatest respsect for people like Horne, Fonzi, Weisberg, etc-the Emporer is not only naked, God was not particualrly generous to him.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998 ...

My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

I will ask Rex Bradford if he might be able to obtain a copy and post it on maryferrell.org

[Rex Bradford]

I think I have to do a better job of getting the word out about all the materials on www.maryferrell.org, admittedly perhaps too hard to find among almost 500,000 pages.

Ten of Doug's memos have been online for some months now:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1113

The one in question here is #6, though I recommend reading them all.

Rex

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998 ...

My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

I will ask Rex Bradford if he might be able to obtain a copy and post it on maryferrell.org

[Dawn Meredith]

I think I have to do a better job of getting the word out about all the materials on www.maryferrell.org, admittedly perhaps too hard to find among almost 500,000 pages.

Ten of Doug's memos have been online for some months now:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1113

The one in question here is #6, though I recommend reading them all.

Rex

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998 ...

My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

I will ask Rex Bradford if he might be able to obtain a copy and post it on maryferrell.org

Thanks Rex for posting Doug's excellent memo. Bugliosi let it go to his head back in the 80's when he prosecuted LHO in a mock trial. I think he's in someone's pocket. No one with more than 4 brain cells believes the WC nonsence. I have no plan to get his book. It would just infuriate me.

I totally agree with Doug's post: that people like the bug resort to name calling when they don't have the facts on thier side. He gives my profession (atty.) a bad name.

Dawn

[David G. Healy]

I just read Mr. Bugliosi’s rather severe criticism of my work on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board, where I served initially as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records team, and was eventually promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. Specifically, he took issue with my conclusion in a 1998 research memo that 2 different brains were examined following President Kennedy’s death:

-President Kennedy’s brain, on Monday, November 25, 1963; and

-A second (fraudulent) brain---not that of President Kennedy---during the period between November 29-December 2, 1963.

Based upon testimony and interviews conducted by the Warren Commission staff, the HSCA staff, and the ARRB staff, I concluded that President Kennedy’s severely damaged brain, which provided unassailable evidence of President Kennedy being shot from the front, was examined by Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell less than 3 days after the conclusion of the autopsy on the body, and was photographed by Navy civilian photographer John Stringer on that day, November 25, 1963.

I concluded that Stringer’s photographs of JFK’s brain, which would have provided proof that JFK was shot from the front and that a bullet exited the back of his skull, were suppressed by the Federal government and are not the brain photographs found in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today.

I also concluded that a second brain---not President Kennedy’s---was examined by Humes and Boswell between November 29 and December 2, 1963, that Army pathologist Pierre Finck (the “outside man” involved in the autopsy, in more ways than one) was invited to this second examination, and that an unknown Navy photographer (not John Stringer) photographed the specimen being examined. It is the photographs of this fraudulent specimen, I concluded, which showed a completely different pattern of damage than JFK’s brain (namely, rear to front), that are in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today. It is my firm belief that Dr. Finck, who arrived late at the autopsy on the body Friday night after the brain had been removed, and who was excluded from the review of the first draft of the autopsy report on Saturday, November 23, was used as a “dupe” for purposes of “authenticating” the photographs of the second brain specimen introduced into the official record, in the event that was ever required.

In summary, my findings that Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell participated in an officially sanctioned coverup of the medical evidence are based upon several foundations:

-A rigorous timeline analysis of when various persons recalled meeting to conduct “a brain exam” and when they examined brain tissue revealed that there were two separate events.

-Navy photographer John Stringer, under oath before the ARRB, disowned the brain photographs in the Archives, because (1) they were taken on a type of film he did not use; (2) they depict “inferior”” views of the underside of the brain which he was certain he did not shoot; and (3) the photographs of several individual sections of brain tissue that he did photograph were not present.

-Retired FBI Agent Frank O’Neill, who was present at the autopsy on the body on November 22, testified to the ARRB that the brain photos in the National Archives could not possibly be of President Kennedy’s brain, because there was too much tissue present; O’Neill testified that more than half of President Kennedy’s brain was missing when he saw it at the autopsy following its removal from the cranium, and his objections to the brain photographs in the Archives were that they depict what he called “almost a complete brain.” Furthermore, both O’Neill and Gawler’s Funeral Home mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy’s brain was missing, and each man unequivocally demonstrated the location of the missing brain tissue in my presence by dramatically placing his right hand on the back of the right side of his own head, behind the right ear. In contrast, in the brain depicted in the Archives photographs, the right cerebellum is completely intact, and the occipital lobe of the right cerebrum is largely intact.

This concludes a brief---and accurate---summary of the research memo that Mr. Bugliosi takes such objection to.

Now, I will address Mr. Bugliosi’s criticisms.

He called my research memo of June 1998 “obscenely irresponsible,” and yet admits that he did not even try to contact me to discuss his objections to it. I will let the reader decide who was “obscenely irresponsible.”

The tone of Mr. Bugliosi’s attack on my work is unbalanced---it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully) to rebut my work, he used a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and circular reasoning. There is nothing scholarly about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion.

When one strips away the ridicule and ad hominem attacks, Bugliosi is essentially saying that because he knows that there was only one brain exam following JFK’s autopsy, that any time I find evidence that indicates otherwise, that I am wrong and engaging in fantasy.

Anyone who reads this section of Bugliosi’s book (pages 434-447), and nothing else, will be unaware that virtually all of the objections he raises to the logic of my hypothesis are already addressed in my research memo of 1998.

Bugliosi attempts to smear me with the use of the word “insane” three different times, as well as with the use of the words “crazy” and “aberration.” This is nothing more than a cheap prosecutor’s trick, employed in court every day by prosecuting attorneys presenting a one-sided version of the evidence in an adversarial proceeding, in an attempt to impugn any evidence that contradicts their own argument. Anyone who reads the relevant pages in his book will recognize Bugliosi’s sophistry for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit the opposition’s evidence.

I learned long ago that when an opponent cannot successfully counter his opposition’s arguments with logic, he will often employ ridicule and personal attacks. In doing so, Bugliosi has engaged in “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” has revealed the depth of his desperation, and has done nothing to advance the scholarly debate of the JFK assassination in this country.

I can only conclude that Mr. Bugliosi must have felt that his personal belief system (supporting the Warren Commission’s basic conclusions) was severely imperiled by my work, for him to use such scurrilous tactics to try to discredit my hypothesis.

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998, before you reach your own independent conclusion about what happened in 1963. Mr. Bugliosi’s invective cannot be properly evaluated without reading, for yourself, that with which it takes issue. My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

Doug,

can I repost the above to alt.conspiracy.jfk/alt.assassination.jfk?

David Healy

Great Zapruder Film Hoax

[Peter Fokes]

Doug,

can I repost the above to alt.conspiracy.jfk/alt.assassination.jfk?

David Healy

Great Zapruder Film Hoax

Hi David,

I was about to ask Doug the same question. I hope he agrees.

Peter Fokes

[Myra Bronstein]

I think I have to do a better job of getting the word out about all the materials on www.maryferrell.org, admittedly perhaps too hard to find among almost 500,000 pages.

Ten of Doug's memos have been online for some months now:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1113

The one in question here is #6, though I recommend reading them all.

Rex

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998 ...

My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

I will ask Rex Bradford if he might be able to obtain a copy and post it on maryferrell.org

Thanks Rex for posting Doug's excellent memo. Bugliosi let it go to his head back in the 80's when he prosecuted LHO in a mock trial. I think he's in someone's pocket. No one with more than 4 brain cells believes the WC nonsence. I have no plan to get his book. It would just infuriate me.

I totally agree with Doug's post: that people like the bug resort to name calling when they don't have the facts on thier side. He gives my profession (atty.) a bad name.

Dawn

I've been wondering why the second attorney at Bugliosi's mock trial was Gerry Spence, instead of a genuine expert/attorney like, oh I dunno, Mark Lane.

[Charles Black]

Since I have only read about 150 pages of the Bug's work, I should withold comment, and would.... were the work worthy of such a courteousy.

It has been my lifelong habit when studying, to vigorously outline and make comments on imporant points which I feel are particularly noteworthy, or at times "absolutely incorrect".

I have decided that I cannot continue this process with the B's monstrous "work" if I am to ever finish. I have several pages (legal pad) already filled with not only untruths, but absolute lies !

Though the book is well documented...THE LIES ARE NOT ! It would not even take a particularly long time student to detect them. They LEAP forward !

I now must decide whether to trash this fictional megalith, or just continue my reading and forget the note taking.

The "errors" are so numerous that one could develop a mental disturbance by attempting to find a starting point for listing them.

Either Mr. Bugliosi has gone insane....truly believes that his readers are mentally retarded...or I must hope for the sake of his soul, that enough satisfaction was derived from the money that "some" agency or group paid him, that was worthy of trashing a lifetime reputation, along with "some" very good work", in order to now enter into the forefront of those whose life work has been the continuance of this Conspiracy.

Yes ! It is my most avid belief that Vince Bugliosi's name can be added to those involved in the CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP the Nov. 22, 1963, Coup d'Etat.

He deserves the same "respect" as those other U.S. Presidents, Congresssmen, Bureau and Agency Chiefs, members of the Judiciary and OWNERS of the major media, who have jointly and severally CONSPIRED to overthrow the U.S. Government.....and who very obviously continue to do so.

This book, and the reasons for its nearly inumerable lies and misgivings, if read by persons of only semi average intelligence, should be the defining NAIL in the COFFIN of those who do not believe in the "CONSPIRACY FACT" !

To any intelligent body, this work is as horrifically self defeating as it is monstrously large.

As Dr. Goebell's once said, "the larger the lie....." ! This book should tend to prove the good doctor "wrong again"!

I hope the company with which I have chosen to associate Mr Bugliosi will not go unnoticed.

Charles Black

Edited May 21, 2007 by Charles Black

[Myra Bronstein]

...

As Dr. Goebell's once said, "the larger the lie....." !

...

Apparently Bugliosi took that very literally and decided to produce the largest heaviest book.

In terms of sheer tonnage he wins hands down.

[Pat Speer]

First of all, I read Doug's excellent memos years ago at Rex's history matters website. Thank you Doug, for all your work, and thank you Rex for putting it online for folks like myself.

Second of all, having studied Doug's memo re the brain, and having come to a different conclusion than the one proposed in the memo, I can state with some credibility that his thought process is not insane and that the scenario he describes is not crazy. It is a definite possibility, and one that deserved and deserves examination. He would have been remiss not to mention this possible scenario.

Doug, as the New York Times has reviewed Bugliosi's book and stated what a delight it is that he tears into conspiracy theorists with so little mercy, they should give yourself and others who've looked into the case in an official role and concluded a conspiracy was likely, e.g. Blakey, Cornwell, Fonzi, Sprague, Tannenbaum, Wecht, equal time. Have you approached the Times about publishing such a letter?

[William O'Neil]

Since I have only read about 150 pages of the Bug's work, I should withold comment, and would.... were the work worthy of such a courteousy.

It has been my lifelong habit when studying, to vigorously outline and make comments on imporant points which I feel are particularly noteworthy, or at times "absolutely incorrect".

I have decided that I cannot continue this process with the B's monstrous "work" if I am to ever finish. I have several pages (legal pad) already filled with not only untruths, but absolute lies !

Though the book is well documented...THE LIES ARE NOT ! It would not even take a particularly long time student to detect them. They LEAP forward !

I now must decide whether to trash this fictional megalith, or just continue my reading and forget the note taking.

The "errors" are so numerous that one could develop a mental disturbance by attempting to find a starting point for listing them.

Either Mr. Bugliosi has gone insane....truly believes that his readers are mentally retarded...or I must hope for the sake of his soul, that enough satisfaction was derived from the money that "some" agency or group paid him, that was worthy of trashing a lifetime reputation, along with "some" very good work", in order to now enter into the forefront of those whose life work has been the continuance of this Conspiracy.

Yes ! It is my most avid belief that Vince Bugliosi's name can be added to those involved in the CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP the Nov. 22, 1963, Coup d'Etat.

He deserves the same "respect" as those other U.S. Presidents, Congresssmen, Bureau and Agency Chiefs, members of the Judiciary and OWNERS of the major media, who have jointly and severally CONSPIRED to overthrow the U.S. Government.....and who very obviously continue to do so.

This book, and the reasons for its nearly inumerable lies and misgivings, if read by persons of only semi average intelligence, should be the defining NAIL in the COFFIN of those who do not believe in the "CONSPIRACY FACT" !

To any intelligent body, this work is as horrifically self defeating as it is monstrously large.

As Dr. Goebell's once said, "the larger the lie....." ! This book should tend to prove the good doctor "wrong again"!

I hope the company with which I have chosen to associate Mr Bugliosi will not go unnoticed.

Charles Black

Charles , keep taking your notes , it only hurts for a little while. Might make for some interesting discussion down the road. Once again Random House puts out another tome of distraction, for the sake of public confusion and to render them weary of the subject.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I hope students of the JFK assassination will see the Bugliosi book release as a gift - an opportunity to raise public awareness of issues and controversies unlikely to be surpassed until 2013, the 50th anniversary of the killing.

Be smart. Take advantage of the eyes and ears that will be focused on the topic in the next few months. Don't become mired in Bug-bashing. It's not only pointless, you'll only be using up your own energies which could be better spent elsewhere. Do it in honor of Tim Carroll.

[Michael Hogan]

I hope students of the JFK assassination will see the Bugliosi book release as a gift - an opportunity to raise public awareness of issues and controversies unlikely to be surpassed until 2013, the 50th anniversary of the killing.

Be smart. Take advantage of the eyes and ears that will be focused on the topic in the next few months. Don't become mired in Bug-bashing. It's not only pointless, you'll only be using up your own energies which could be better spent elsewhere. Do it in honor of Tim Carroll.

Nicely put Mark.

[William Kelly]

..... Once again Random House puts out another tome of distraction, for the sake of public confusion and to render them weary of the subject.

Bill,

My copy of Bugs book is by W.W. Norton, the same folks that brought us the 911 Commission Report.

BK