Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
W. Niederhut

A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'

Recommended Posts

      After reading James DiEugenio's latest book, along with reviews of the new CHAOS book about Charles Manson, I'm wondering if the English language neds a new verb, in honor of Vincent Bugliosi-- to "bugliose."  Here's my suggestion.

   bugliose (booly-OSE)  verb. :  to bamboozle about historical events with lengthy discourses that completely misrepresent the facts.

Example:  "The public was bugliosed about 9/11 by Phillip Zelikow."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LOL

😀

His book on JFK is an argument made through length and insult.  The shocking thing about it is how little there was that was new in it.  Considering he had a million dollar budget and two assistant writers and took like 15 years to write it.  

BTW, I am working on my review of O'Neill's book, Chaos, right now. And I previewed that review for Len Osanic on BOR which will be on tomorrow night. 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL

😀

His book on JFK is an argument made through length and insult.  The shocking thing about it is how little there was that was new in it.  Considering he had a million dollar budget and two assistant writers and like 15 years to write it.  

BTW, I am working on my review of O'Neill's book, Chaos, right now. And I previewed that review for Len Osanic on BOR which will be on tomorrow night. 

       I haven't read CHAOS yet, but I read a review of the book by Kevin Barrett at the Unz Review today.   Should be interesting.

       As for big budget bugliosing, the NIST report on the 9/11 WTC demolitions comes to mind.  They spent years, and a lot of taxpayer money producing that ridiculous computer "simulation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my book, I concluded that Bugliosi was not good at complex matters.

After reading the O'Neill book, he makes a pretty decent case that this was not what happened in Tate/LaBianca.

I disagree with Kevin Barrett.  The book is much better on the exposure of Bugliosi than it is on the matter of what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The book is much better on the exposure of Bugliosi than it is on the matter of what actually happened.

It's the fault of the co-writing strategy accepted by the publisher: The narrative is that the author worked and suffered for years, and finally had to just stop and put out what he could.  That's a seriously flawed strategy, like a private detective novel with no discovery at the conclusion.  It's honest, but so is tapping out of a fight.  What was called for was more research funding and better advice (viz the Robert Kennedy coverup in LA), to put O'Neill's findings into perspective for him, and to cause all involved to not stop there.

That said, I think one of the strengths of the book is the the record of how many civilians and law officers stonewalled O'Neill's investigation, and how much earlier law enforcement and the government-funded psych operations obfuscated the case facts and kept Manson out of jail and pimping away (in all senses of the word).  So - a valuable book regardless.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In my book, I concluded that Bugliosi was not good at complex matters.

After reading the O'Neill book, he makes a pretty decent case that this was not what happened in Tate/LaBianca.

I disagree with Kevin Barrett.  The book is much better on the exposure of Bugliosi than it is on the matter of what actually happened.

       I'm interested in what O'Neil has to say about UCLA psychiatrist Jolyon "Jolly" West and MK-ULTRA. 

       Will your review of CHAOS be published at K & K, or another site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be published at K and K.

I have learned the hard way that online journals do not like long pieces.  They want something at about 1500 words.

I just cannot review a book in that space.  Its even hard to review a movie with that restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
deleted

 

 

Edited by Robert Harper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just used this lovely verb in the thread on the two at the TT

Edited by Robert Harper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

I just used this lovely verb in the thread on the two at the TT

Aren't you proud?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/31/2019 at 4:24 PM, W. Niederhut said:

After reading James DiEugenio's latest book, along with reviews of the new CHAOS book about Charles Manson, I'm wondering if the English language [needs] a new verb, in honor of Vincent Bugliosi-- to "bugliose."  Here's my suggestion:

   bugliose (booly-OSE)  verb. :  to bamboozle about historical events with lengthy discourses that completely misrepresent the facts.

Oh Brother (with a huge Capital B)! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  LOL.gif

This ridiculous thread authored by Mr. Niederhut just might take first prize in the "Pot/Kettle" category here in the year 2019. Because the only people who are doing any "bamboozling" and "misrepresenting the facts" regarding the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are the conspiracy theorists, not people like the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, that's for sure. (Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.)

And I find it humorous to see how the number of Bugliosi-haters has grown in just the last few years, with the VB-bashers now not content to verbally assault Vince for just his opinions on the JFK case....but now we're getting a whole new wave of 21st-century Vince bashers, who now suddenly have a desire to toss Vince under the bus for his work on the Charles Manson case as well----even though all rational people who have even a slight knowledge of the details surrounding that particular murder case know beyond any doubt that the "Helter Skelter" theory was rooted in fact (based on what Bugliosi was told by other members of Manson's "Family"). But those facts will naturally be totally ignored by the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists of the world. Pathetic.

If you want to read some of the best "Vince-isms" (as I like to call my favorite VB quotes), go here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

Samples....

"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Addendum....

And, of course, practically every time an Internet conspiracy theorist opens his mouth, he proves the point that Vince made in this gem....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy”

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh Brother (with a huge Capital B)! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  LOL.gif

This ridiculous thread authored by Mr. Niederhut just might take first prize in the "Pot/Kettle" category here in the year 2019. Because the only people who are doing any "bamboozling" and "misrepresenting the facts" regarding the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are the conspiracy theorists, not people like the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, that's for sure. (Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.)

And I find it humorous to see how the number of Bugliosi-haters has grown in just the last few years, with the VB-bashers now not content to verbally assault Vince for just his opinions on the JFK case....but now we're getting a whole new wave of 21st-century Vince bashers, who now suddenly have a desire to toss Vince under the bus for his work on the Charles Manson case as well----even though all rational people who have even a slight knowledge of the details surrounding that particular murder case know beyond any doubt that the "Helter Skelter" theory was rooted in fact (based on what Bugliosi was told by other members of Manson's "Family"). But those facts will naturally be totally ignored by the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists of the world. Pathetic.

If you want to read some of the best "Vince-isms" (as I like to call my favorite VB quotes), go here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

Samples....

"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

Dave, I get the feeling your trying to bugliose us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Man, is everyone as sick as I am of that pot/kettle diversion[?]

You might be sick to death of it, Jim, but it's oh so undeniably true.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...