A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I read the whole book-parts of it more than once. I read all of the endnotes as well. I don't doubt that few here have done this and that may explain some things.

So, you're a big fan of bugliosity, then?   

Is that what you're getting at?  

I suppose that everyone needs a hobby.  🤪

[James DiEugenio]

The surprsing thing about that book is this:

There is nearly nothing new in the entire text or end notes.

How you can work on a book for about 20 years, with two assistant writers, and not come up with anything new is amazing.  But that shows the paucity of their case.

One of the most interesting things about the book is that Bugliosi became a colleague and pen pal of David Phillips. Phillips invited him to met with him in England when he was working on the pseudo trial.  On the JFK case, I guess it was birds of a feather flock together for VInce.  

I should also add, I had thought Paul Hoch was the major consultant on the ersatz show.  He told me it was really Summers who did most of the consulting.

What does one make of that?  Whew.  

[Paul Baker]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How you can work on a book for about 20 years, with two assistant writers, and not come up with anything new is amazing. 

Nothing new was required to prove what amounts to an open-and-shut case. All of the salient facts were established many years before, in the aftermath of the assassination.

[James DiEugenio]

LOL

2,700 pages on an Open and Shut case?

ROTF

[David Von Pein]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

2,700 pages on an Open and Shut case?

The only reason Vince's book is that long is because of the conspiracy theorists that VB was responding to.

(As if Jim didn't know that.)

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, its actually longer than 2700 pages.

Because the book is oversized.  I would say if it was normal sized, it would probably come in at around 3300 pages.  All to repeat the WC.

As I showed,  the book is a bunch of hot air.  It never should have been that long for the simple matter that VB just did not have anything new to say.  The book is an argument by length and by invective.  Bugliosi was trying to simply say, well geez look how thick this book is.  It must be right. And if I add a lot of insults, then hey i really must be right. Which is why the character matters I brought up are not at all irrelevant--the man did have a dark side.  A friend of Vince's who I met in Dallas told me about this, so I know it was a definite plan of VB's.  He was also a lawyer and  Vince revealed to him that this was his concept going in, to make an argument by invective and by length.  It did not serve him well as the book is a clunker in every way.  When you have to lie in your introduction, what does that tell you about the book?  And no one except me noted the lie.  And then I proved it.

For the life of me, I do not know how you can write a book on the JFK case without going anywhere. As I showed in my critique of Vince's version of Clinton/Jackson, Bugliosi was just utterly ignorant of those two towns. And his dumb comments on that incident were based upon that ignorance.  As were Jean Davison's dumb comments. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/davison-jean-oswald-s-game)

Neither Vince nor Davison showed any evidence of ever leaving their offices.  Does not that tell you something about the authors?  They were afraid of what they would find out.

Edited August 9, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

Albert Einstein once said something like, "If you can't explain something straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it."

Yet, some people equate truth with an abundance of verbiage - as in the case of ponderous tomes like the Warren Commission Report and Reclaiming History.

Another example of expensive, government-funded gibberish is the NIST "report" on the WTC demolitions on 9/11.  Among other glaring omissions, the NIST "computer simulated" analysis managed to completely ignore basic Newtonian physics, and any physical or chemical analysis of the WTC debris (including the thousands of tons of pulverized concrete and liquefied steel.) Not surprisingly, the NIST refused to publish the "data" used in their computer simulations.

Edited August 12, 2019 by W. Niederhut
typo

[James DiEugenio]

One of the really big problems with the WR was trying to supply a motivation for Oswald.

Because the indications from both LHO and Marina were that he liked Kennedy.

I never thought I would see a worse try at this than from the WC. It was pretty bad.  But Bugliosi's was even worse.  It was just complete nonsense.  Really embarrassing.

And this is bad because lawyers know that although its not necessary to prove motive--you only have to prove intent--it is very helpful in a murder case.

So in addition to his pitiful attempt to paper over all the obvious forensic and evidentiary problems in the WR, he also failed at that.  

Edited August 9, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

...lawyers know that although its [sic] not necessary to prove motive--you only have to prove intent...

You don't really have to prove "intent" either. The prosecuting lawyer's only burden of proof is to prove that the defendant committed the crime he was charged with committing. And Vincent Bugliosi most certainly met his burden of proof (with plenty of room to spare) when it comes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2007 book "Reclaiming History". And only an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist who is hell-bent on pretending Oswald was innocent could possibly argue otherwise.

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by David Von Pein

[W. Niederhut]

Advice appreciated, Jim.

I've never been a fan of censorship, but a few of the bugliosers here probably need to be filtered.

A professor at my alma mater used to tell his students to, "Read the good stuff.  Life is too short to waste reading crap."

[James DiEugenio]

Welcome WN.

BTW, the way you do this is to hover the cursor over the person's name, then you do a pull down.  Then it gives you a choice on how much of the person's activities you wish to ignore.

Edited August 11, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Baker]

Quote

I've never been a fan of censorship, but a few of the bugliosers here probably need to be filtered.

It's the most effective way of maintaining bias.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Paul Baker

[James DiEugenio]

LOL, 😃

ROTF as I endure spasms of uncontrollable laughter.😁

This accusation of bias comes from a  scientist who will not even admit that the CBLA was smelly from the start.

By the way, from what I have been able to dig up, it was first originated in the JFK case.  But the FBI did not think it was ready for prime time.  Guinn perfected the hoax.

Baker, the scientist, cannot bring himself to admit that. VIncent Guinn made a lot of money covering up the facts in the JFK case.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

It's the most effective way of maintaining bias.

No cult welcomes heretics in its midst.  The JFK conspiracy community is simply a cult, no different from any other.  It is essentially a religion with its own little denominations and denominational squabbles but ultimately a brotherhood united by a one-point statement of faith: Oswald Didn't Act Alone.  It's all way beyond "maintaining bias."  It is "preserving dogma."  Any critic is challenging who these folks are at their very core.  You may as well try to proselytize a 32nd-degree Scientologist into Eastern Orthodoxy.

They are not searching for truth.  They know the Truth - about the JFK assassination, the King assassination, 9/11, UFOs and every other subject in which conspiracy thinking predominates.  If you dare to disagree, you don't know the Truth and are probably quite stupid as well or possibly even a disinformation agent planted by those Dark Forces who are trying to maintain the conspiracy.

[Deleted my snarky comments about Jim - I don't need to stoop to his level]

Be my guest, evict the Lone Nut heretics from your midst!  Let Jim and some of the others wear robes and funny hats and decide, like the college of cardinals, who is worthy!  I used to post under the illusion that this forum actually had a substantial body of readers who might appreciate different perspectives.  Now I know it's just a whacked-out cult with a tiny readership, and I post only to amuse myself when I am otherwise Really Bored.

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Guest

[W. Niederhut]

FYI, folks.  Speaking as a psychiatrist who has had experience treating people involved in cults, my impression is that the JFK assassination research community is the precise OPPOSITE of a cult.

For one thing, it is largely a community of educated scholars who have been drawn to the subject of JFK's assassination by intellectual curiosity and rational skepticism about the ubiquitous, fraudulent narratives in our mainstream media.

In contrast, cult members are typically drawn to cults through manipulation and brainwashing by sociopathic, charismatic leaders.

In cults, intellectual curiosity and open dialogue questioning authoritarian dogma is anathematized-- the precise opposite of the dynamic on this forum.

Scholarly people here often disagree with each other and poke holes in each other's arguments, in the process of better understanding the facts.

The reason that the specious arguments of Warren Commission Report defenders here consistently fall flat is that intellectually curious people see through the nonsense.  That's why they ended up here in the first place.