Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bruce Fernandez

Who supports/promotes the shills?

Recommended Posts

You missed it, Ken. The excerpts posted by Greg came from a review of Bugliosi's book written by David Mantik.

There is an interesting story behind this review and Bugliosi's response to this review, which I added into chapter 9b of my website, in which I go through Bugliosi's footnotes regarding the shooting itself one by one, and prove him to be a total hypocrite.

From chapter 9b:

In 2008, it became apparent that Vincent Bugliosi's misrepresentation of the Kennedy assassination witness statements was no one-time mistake, and that such misrepresentations were for him quite possibly business as usual. A website was created for his book, with excerpts from many of the positive reviews cited above. Included in these quotes, however, was a quote from an unexpected source, noted conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik. The quote read: "It is likely that [Reclaiming History] will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case. . . . It is a masterpiece."

This was a bold and deliberate misrepresentation of Mantik's actual comments, however, which read, in part:

"It is likely that this book will stand as the magnum opus of this case--though not without serious flaws...I would liken the book to a house held aloft by a multitude of stilts...The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he (Bugliosi) wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science...As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, and then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups...B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project..In its own way, it is a masterpiece--a truly great prosecutorial brief...As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. How can one dialogue with a lawyer who hides behind his chosen experts? Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. The gap between the different cultures is simply too large."

Now this was clearly a negative review, calling into question not only the accuracy of the information presented in the book, but Bugliosi's ability to interpret the information. Even so, in May 2008 the abbreviated quote in which Mantik appeared to rave about a "masterpiece" was put on the front pages of Four Days in November, the scarcely-noticed paperback abbreviation of Bugliosi's monstrous book.

On 6-12-2008, Bugliosi's number one fan David Von Pein sent Bugliosi's secretary an e-mail complaining about this and other developments. He posted this online. It concluded:

"I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which

I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik

review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing

after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.

It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY

kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to

bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes.

And that's not a good thing at all, in my view."

Von Pein received no response to his complaint, and the bastardized "quote" of Mantik praising Reclaiming History continued to be featured on its website.

This was not surprising, however. In his e-mail, Von Pein airily dismissed that Bugliosi was aware someone had twisted Mantik's words to help sell his book. And yet Bugliosi was not only almost certainly aware of this deception, he was almost certainly the engineer behind this deception. In late 2007, when the first negative reviews of Reclaiming History bubbled to the surface, Bugliosi responded by sending angry letters to his critics--to show them the error of their ways. I have read one such letter. In this letter, Bugliosi not only threatened his critic with a lawsuit, but quoted liberally from what he contended were proper reviews of his book. One such quote furnished by Bugliosi came from David Mantik's largely negative review of his book. It went like this: "It is likely that (Reclaiming History) will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case...It is a masterpiece."

While it's certainly possible that someone from Bugliosi's publisher furnished him this quote, and that he innocently repeated it, it seems highly unlikely that Bugliosi would fail to read a review by a prominent conspiracy theorist, particularly one in which the writer called his book "a masterpiece." As a result we can feel quite certain that Bugliosi knows full well his use of the quote is deceptive. And that he simply doesn't care.

Thanks Pat, yes I did miss that he was referencing Mantik's review , Sounds as if the publishers extraction of comments from the review served it's purpose.

My point was that it was almost certainly Bugliosi himself who extracted the comments. If he was so upset about a negative review that he would write a personal letter to the author in which he threatened litigation, he would most certainly have read a supposedly positive review from a prominent conspiracy theorist. It follows then that he read Mantik's review, and extracted the comments himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what your intent is/was, but it seems as if you were trying to get VB's publisher to use your review of his book instead [of] Mantik's.

That thought never crossed my mind, Ken. To think that a major publisher like W.W. Norton would even consider (for a second) using a review blurb written by some nobody in Indiana named David V.P. is laughable.

I can just envision somebody picking up VB's "Four Days" book in a book store and seeing a blurb written by me on the back cover....

"Who in the wide, wide world of sports is David Von Pein? And why is a review by this nobody attached to a major book like Bugliosi's?"

:)

VB did not have THE HARD FACTS on his side,

You say such a thing because you have proven yourself on this forum to be a person who doesn't have the slightest idea what the words "Hard Facts" mean.

You didn't elaborate as to why you thought DiEugenio's review was overload while at the same time allowing VB hundreds of pages to sell his point of view.

Try reading the complete series. You'll get the general idea after about 15 pages or so....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-the-complete-series

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your intent is/was, but it seems as if you were trying to get VB's publisher to use your review of his book instead on Mantik's.

That thought never crossed my mind, Ken. To think that a major publisher like Norton would have used a review blurb written by some nodody in Indiana named David V.P. is laughable.

I can just envision somebody picking up VB's "Four Days" book in a book store and seeing a blurb by me on the back cover....

"Who in the wide world of sports is David Von Pein? And why is a review by this nobody attached to a major book like Bugliosi's"

VB did not have THE HARD FACTS on his side,

You say such a thing because you have proven yourself on thjis forum to be a person who doesn't have the slightest idea what the words "Hard Facts" mean.

You didn't elaborate as to why you thought DiEugenio's review was overload while at the same time allowing VB hundreds of pages to sell his point of view.

Try reading the complete series. You'll get the general idea after about 15 pages or so....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-the-complete-series

"Who in the fu** is David Von Pein? And why is a review by this nobody attached to a major book like Bugliosi's" That can be said about most of the names linked to book reviews.

Try reading the complete series. You'll get the general idea after about 15 pages or so.... As I said, I read the links, that was enough. Some info you have on your site is useful, when it gets to your opinions, they're not worth anything. DiEugenio was basically correct, you are basically incorrect.

You say such a thing because you have proven yourself on thjis forum to be a person who doesn't have the slightest idea what the words "Hard Facts" mean. You say this just after I point out where you refer to the SBT as a 'hard fact'. I posted the definition of theory above and part of that definition does not include that 'theories are hard facts'. or did you miss that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You say such a thing because you have proven yourself on thjis forum to be a person who doesn't have the slightest idea what the words "Hard Facts" mean."

You always refer to "Hard Facts", but you seem reluctant to discuss the "Hard Fact" that, according to the medical evidence the WC decided to go with when they cooked up the SBT, the Magic Bullet had to travel a right to left course through JFK's neck that would have likely put this bullet in Greer's right armpit, not John Connally's.

As David Josephs is so fond of saying, "the evidence is the conspiracy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always refer to "Hard Facts", but you seem reluctant to discuss the "Hard Fact" that, according to the medical evidence the WC decided to go with when they cooked up the SBT, the Magic Bullet had to travel a right to left course through JFK's neck that would have likely put this bullet in Greer's right armpit, not John Connally's.

Absolutely the best comment on this topic I've ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...