Joseph McBride Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 my Amazon.com review of RECLAIMING PARKLAND A splendid scholarly work and a great read October 11, 2013By Joseph McBride The best book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (and there are many fine ones) remains Sylvia Meagher's 1967 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: THE WARREN COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITIES, AND THE REPORT. Meagher was a private citizen who took it upon herself first to compile a proper index to the Warren Report and then to dissect its findings piece by piece in as thorough and revealing an autopsy as has ever been done (and in stark contrast to the dishonest U.S. Navy autopsy performed on President Kennedy). The logic and lucidity of Meagher's counter-argument is devastating and breathtaking in its brilliance. So when I compare James DiEugenio's new book, RECLAIMING PARKLAND: TOM HANKS, VINCENT BUGLIOSI, AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION IN THE NEW HOLLYWOOD, to Meagher's masterpiece, that is the highest compliment I can pay to a book on the assassination. The great public service DiEugenio provides us today is to do a relentless and deeply knowledgeable autopsy on another one of several attempts to replicate and rescuscitate the discredited Warren Report. This is the thoroughly specious, monstrously long, arrogant, and mendacious work by former prosecutor Bugliosi entitled RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY. That ridiculous yet pernicious book, first published in 2007 and later whittled down to more readable dimensions, ostensibly served as the basis for the lamentable 2013 movie PARKLAND, a dishonest and shoddy attempt to rewrite Oliver Stone's impressive JFK, which was attacked for the wrong reasons. Critics of Stone claim he falsified evidence to exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was presenting and dramatizing actual evidence to replace the falsified "so-called evidence" (as Oswald himself called it) used by the Warren Report. Bugliosi, like Gerald Posner and other overrated fabricators, has tried again to hoodwink the public into believing the phony conclusions of the original Report. These disinformation specialists have not succeeded, since as many as eighty percent of the public are sharp enough to disbelieve the official version. What DiEugenio does so well is to patiently read through Bugliosi's grotesque pile of lies and tear it apart piece by piece, showing the contrary and actual evidence that discredits his myriad errors and omissions. His prose, like Meagher's, is lucid, sober, and yet devastatingly mocking in a subtle way. RECLAIMING PARKLAND is a great read and will be even for someone who hasn't tried to climb through Bugliosi's jungle of prose and notes. DiEugenio is one of the most scholarly writers on the assassination. He has digested the wealth of material that has been revealed in the last two decades since the creation of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. And he has made himself familiar with all the other evidence brought forth by independent researchers in books, magazines, journals, and forums (including his own fine magazine, Probe). He writes entertainingly and incisively and is an excellent teacher about the assassination. Any reader will learn a great deal of surprising information from RECLAIMING PARKLAND, on a wide range of important topics concerning the case. This is a book for both newcomers to the case and for seasoned researchers; succeeding in that double mode of address alone is quite a feat. And DiEugenio does a devastating job skewering Tom Hanks and his recent dud of a movie about the assassination, which spends half of its time misrepresenting key facts and the other half leaving out evidence that would discredit itself and show that Oswald was, in fact, innocent. The public is following Sam Goldwyn's dictum: "If people don't want to go see a picture, nobody can stop them." Or as Sam also said, "Go see it and see for yourself why you shouldn't see it." DiEugenio provides disturbing analysis of why filmmakers such as Hanks distort our history and how the CIA and other elements of the U.S. government have managed to get Hollywood to cooperate so thoroughly in that deception. A footnote: For those interested in more of what DiEugenio has to say, go to the Feral House website for parts of RECLAIMING HISTORY that his publisher suppressed, with further background on Bugliosi and Hanks and a section on the legend created about Oswald's non-visit to Mexico. Seehttp://feralhouse.com/killing-jfk-th...iversary-game/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) The great public service DiEugenio provides us today... "Great public service"??? What a load of garbage. DiEugenio hasn't gotten a thing right yet. And I doubt he started a winning streak with his whining about Tom Hanks. DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 92) Edited October 13, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Mr. McBride - thanks forosting this review. I. Read the 40 page chapter on Chicago and Mexico that was edited out of the book, and it is very detailed and revealing. I don't know David Von Pein, but of course his reputation precedes him. I don't suppose that he read this chapter. What is clear is that he always throws the baby out with the bathwater if its related to conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The researchers who he finds nothing but faults with have done so much good work. Of course its possible that one or another conclusions they come to might not be true. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But to dismiss entirely their works because some of their conclusions are easier to poke holes in doesn't dismiss the good work they do. This chapter on Chicago and Mexico, where DiEugenio destroys Bugliosi is a case in point. Is David Von Pein prepared to believe Bugliosi when he so cavalierly dismisses evidence of coverup in Mexico City? I guess so. In my opinion its David Von Pein who is wedded to a version of history that is patently false, not the writers and researchers who he mocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 boycott tom hanks! I have a set of your cards mr. brancato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) boycott tom hanks! I think we should toast the cat. He released a Big Tom Hanks Movie -- "Capt. Phillips" -- the same weekend as his cinema amputee "Parkland". I'll drink to a man who recognizes his mistakes and buries them. And make no mistake -- "Parkland" has been buried. The only question now is who is more embarrassed about their product -- Tom Hanks with "Parkland" or Skeptic Mag with Dave Reitzes' bouquet of debunked Nutter talking points? Edited October 13, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) The great public service DiEugenio provides us today... "Great public service"??? What a load of garbage. DiEugenio hasn't gotten a thing right yet. And I doubt he started a winning streak with his whining about Tom Hanks. DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 92) you're sounding suspiciously like your lone nut glee club at alt.conspiracy.jfk... is it infectious? Btw, Hanks makes a ton of money, but he's still a lone nut-shill moron! He could of saved himself all sorts of professional grief, he should of enlisted in the Army. Edited October 14, 2013 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) He [DVP] always throws the baby out with the bathwater if it's related to conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The researchers who he finds nothing but faults with have done so much good work. Of course it's possible that one or another conclusions they come to might not be true. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But to dismiss entirely their works because some of their conclusions are easier to poke holes in doesn't dismiss the good work they do. James DiEugenio of Los Angeles believes in so many things that are so incredibly wrong, they could fill up the L.A. Coliseum. The number of things Jim gets RIGHT are so far outweighed by all of the stupid and wrong things he believes (e.g., Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, Oswald never took any large bag into work, Oswald didn't go to the embassies in Mexico, Oswald never shot at Walker, Oswald never even ordered or took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 OR Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210, all the documents relating to Oswald's purchases of the rifle AND the revolver are fake, Ruth Paine has "CIA" stamped on her forehead, Buell Frazier is a xxxx, Linnie Randle is a xxxx, Will Fritz helped Ruby to shoot Oswald by opening up a "pocket" in the DPD basement [that's one of my all-time faves there ], the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker, and Truly never even happened at all, and a thousand other preposterous things), therefore is it reasonable to believe anything he has to say about the JFK and Tippit murder cases? How many times does a conspiracist have to cry wolf (or, in Jim DiEugenio's case, "Everything's fake!") before you stop listening to him entirely? Perry, your witness. Edited October 14, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 How many times does a DVP type have to cry “ believe me Red Ridinghood, there are no such things as wolves."? Also, as anyone who watched the Perry Mason tv show knows, Perry's adversary in court lost every episode, save one. Thus the person saying "your witness , Perry" was a notorious, continuing loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) Thus the person saying "your witness , Perry" was a notorious, continuing loser. Come to think of it, it would be better if the DiEugenios of the world just stayed inside the framework of a Perry Mason episode. Almost all conspiracy theorists wallow in fiction 24/7 anyway. They'd be right at home on the CBS set with Perry, Della Street, and Lieutenant Tragg. Edited October 14, 2013 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 the 40 page chapter on Chicago and Mexico that was edited out of the book Paul, where is this available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 David Andrews - there is a link to the excised chapters at the end of Joseph McBride's post that begins this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Thanks, Paul. I blame Sam Goldwyn for making me miss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now