Jim DiEugenio and Bugliosi

[Jack White]

Hey Jack, I noted Jim's part 6 isn't up on the education forum may have been a communication break down. Could you be champ and post it for us. Thanks mate

Oh, and if you could post the date for the debate, it's 24 of Sept.

Ed if you could post that to the Marrs forum as well that would be champion. Have you got a link to Jim's part 6 up on there?

Cheers.

Seamus

here's the link

http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_6_review.html

[Tony Austin]

Jack,

Thank you for putting this article by James DiEugenio on to the forum. It is packed full of interesting information and it is a very thorough rebuttal of the book by Bugliosi. I very much enjoyed reading it.

Reclaiming History is a huge challenge to conspiracy theorists as it is well researched, well written and the author uses his considerable skills as a lawyer to put forward the case for Oswald being the lone gunman and there being no conspiracy. The size of his book is also an important part of that challenge.

I remember last year a couple of friends were visiting me at my house (friends with no interest in the Kennedy assassination) and they saw my copy of Reclaiming History on a table. They asked about the book and I briefly explained what it was about and who wrote it. They examined it for a while and then asked me what I thought about it.

I told them that I had only read part of it at that time, the section dealing with how Jack Ruby got down into the basement of police headquarters before he shot Lee Harvey Oswald. I then said that I found this section to be full of misleading and inaccurate information and I could see that Mr Bugliosi had missed out a large amount of important information that showed that Ruby could not have got down there the way the Warren Commission said he did, this being version that Bugliosi supports. I will never forget my friends reaction, "gosh! really! is that really what you found?"

I should not have been surprised by their reaction, the general public (and I include myself in this) is very prejudiced towards large books. If we see a book written by people that are well know and well qualified that is a huge tome running to many hundreds of pages we tend to assume that this is a great textbook on the subject and what is written inside must be the truth. This prejudice starts when we are at school, we learn to trust huge textbooks in the school library as the place to get truthful and accurate information.

This is what makes Bugliosi's book so dangerous. His book is so huge that in future it is likely to end up in public libraries and university libraries as the great 'textbook' on the Kennedy assassination. It will be viewed as the definitive work on the subject, the thruth about what really happened. It is important that people like James DiEugenio write articles on Reclaiming History to try to meet the challenge of this book.

Bugliosi talks about Gerald Posner's book 'Case Closed' and mentions the many errors and inaccuracies that conspiracy theorists have been able to find in that book. He then goes on to say "They will have a much harder time with me" However, this is not the case, as DiEugenio has shown us it is not difficult at all, all you need to have is a good knowledge of the subject.

Vincent Bugliosi is an anagram of 'invincible gusto' and Mr Bugliosi is certainly full of gusto, however, he is not invincible.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Tony Austin

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Vincent Bugliosi is an anagram of 'invincible gusto.'

Proof by intimidation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Proof by verbosity)

Jump to: navigation, search

It has been suggested that Shotgun argumentation be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Proof by intimidation or proof by verbosity is a reference to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the authors that others simply affirm the illogic, lest they be forced to sift through the minute, illogical details.[1] The term is also used when the author is an authority in his field presenting his proof to people who respect a priori his insistence that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial or because he simply says so. Usage of this term is for the most part in good humour, though it also appears in serious criticism.[2][3] More generally, "proof by intimidation" has also been used by critics of junk science to describe cases in which scientific evidence is thrown aside in favour of a litany of tragic individual cases presented to the public by articulate advocates who pose as experts in their field.[4]

Gian-Carlo Rota claimed in a memoir that the term 'proof by intimidation' was coined by Mark Kac to describe a technique used by William Feller in his lectures.[5]

[edit] Argumentum verbosium

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called argumentum verbosium) that tries to persuade by overwhelming the reader or listener with such a volume of material that a proposition sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, or is so laborious to untangle and check that the proposition is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' statement, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull [xxxx]."[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity

[Tony Austin]

Vincent Bugliosi is an anagram of 'invincible gusto.'

Proof by intimidation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Proof by verbosity)

Jump to: navigation, search

It has been suggested that Shotgun argumentation be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Proof by intimidation or proof by verbosity is a reference to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the authors that others simply affirm the illogic, lest they be forced to sift through the minute, illogical details.[1] The term is also used when the author is an authority in his field presenting his proof to people who respect a priori his insistence that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial or because he simply says so. Usage of this term is for the most part in good humour, though it also appears in serious criticism.[2][3] More generally, "proof by intimidation" has also been used by critics of junk science to describe cases in which scientific evidence is thrown aside in favour of a litany of tragic individual cases presented to the public by articulate advocates who pose as experts in their field.[4]

Gian-Carlo Rota claimed in a memoir that the term 'proof by intimidation' was coined by Mark Kac to describe a technique used by William Feller in his lectures.[5]

[edit] Argumentum verbosium

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called argumentum verbosium) that tries to persuade by overwhelming the reader or listener with such a volume of material that a proposition sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, or is so laborious to untangle and check that the proposition is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' statement, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull [xxxx]."[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity

Thanks for that Raymond, my intention was to express a personal opinion in a mildly amusing way. I hope somebody out there found it funny...

[Ron Ecker]

"Invincible gusto." That's almost too good to be true. I went to Wikipedia to see if Vincent Bugliosi is his real name. It apparently is. But I found there the strange information that Bugliosi does not own a computer.

Who in this day and age, a successful attorney and author or anyone else who can certainly afford it, would not own a computer? What educated, informed individual, or an individual who would like to be informed, would want nothing to do with the "information highway"? For such a person to have no computer strikes me as totally weird.

I assume he's Catholic, so I wouldn't think computers are against his religion. I just don't get it.

[Pamela Brown]

I have been lugging RH to the dog park every day for the last few weeks, to force myself to read it. It seems to be one long rant against those who dare to disagree with the WCR. The chapter on the movie JFK is quite telling -- though Stone repeatedly called the movie the countermyth to the WCR myth, the Bug insists on trying to debunk it as though it is history. He of course misses the irony that neither JFK nor the WCR are history. And, of course, neither is RH, no matter how many times he tries to shove it down our throats.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Pat Speer]

"Invincible gusto." That's almost too good to be true. I went to Wikipedia to see if Vincent Bugliosi is his real name. It apparently is. But I found there the strange information that Bugliosi does not own a computer.

Who in this day and age, a successful attorney and author or anyone else who can certainly afford it, would not own a computer? What educated, informed individual, or an individual who would like to be informed, would want nothing to do with the "information highway"? For such a person to have no computer strikes me as totally weird.

I assume he's Catholic, so I wouldn't think computers are against his religion. I just don't get it.

I met Bugliosi in January at a book-signing. He is indeed a weird egg, full of himself, and his belief his arguments are irrefutable. He is also an atheist.

[Pat Speer]

I have been lugging RH to the dog park every day for the last few weeks, to force myself to read it. It seems to be one long rant against those who dare to disagree with the WCR. The chapter on the movie JFK is quite telling -- though Stone repeatedly called the movie the countermyth to the WCR myth, the Bug insists on trying to debunk it as though it is history. He of course misses the irony that neither JFK nor the WCR are history. And, of course, neither is RH, no matter how many times he tries to shove it down our throats.

Pamela, you might find chapter 9b at patspeer.com interesting. I compare Bugliosi's assaults on Stone with his own deceptive use of footnotes and citations, and demonstrate quite clearly, IMO, that Vincent Bugliosi is the "real" Oliver Stone.

[David Andrews]

Who in this day and age, a successful attorney and author or anyone else who can certainly afford it, would not own a computer? What educated, informed individual, or an individual who would like to be informed, would want nothing to do with the "information highway"? For such a person to have no computer strikes me as totally weird.