Guest Stephen Turner Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 About two years ago, on this Forum, I undertook an indepth, and detailed rebuttal of Posners "Case Closed" which is now in the index, and is hopefully a useful guide to newcomers to the case. It crossed my mind to attempt the same with Bugliosi's epic tome, but at over 1600 pages it would, to say the least, be a daunting task. Would other researchers be willing to join me? we could either collaborate, or agree to rebut individual sections. I had a lot of fun booting Posners sloppy, one sided research around the Forum, How about we tear the Bug a new one....Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Steve, I had the idea of getting COPA or DPUK members active in taking a chapter each and taking it apart, whether it be Bugliosi or Poser and setting up a single purpose website wih each chapter critique. A lot of people in DPUK feel that we are more a social club than anything else. There are a lot of well read members of the organisations and of this forum that do not necessarily conduct any research. I will hopefully knock out an article for the DPUK echo on the issue of collecive research and then post a relevant extract here. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 John, good idea, if you require any assistance email me, I would be happy to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 John, good idea, if you require any assistance email me, I would be happy to help. John and Steve, Amazon has recently gotten into the forum business. They've created discussion forums for the books they sell. A few of us are already squaring off with David Von Pein on the Bugliosi forum. When you've completed your journey through Vince-land, you may wish to post it on the Amazon forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Pat, Yes I had noticed the discussion going on. I pointed out to Von Pein that he was praising a book that was not released yet. He responded by proclaiming that Bugliosi's reputation ensured a great book. This would be anther arena where these issues could be tackled and rebuttals posted. Perhaps a list of recently released books that require reviews. For those in the reseach community that see themselves in a publiciy role, this would be ideal. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 (edited) Rather than taking Bugliosi on and start a debate over each item of evidence and issues he brings up, why not just take David Talbot's perspective, that whatever happened in Dallas, even if one lone assassin killed JFK, it was still a conspiracy. The evidence is overwhelming, if the lone-assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald, then it wasn't just a conspiracy but a more specific covert operation, and coup. If all the evidence Bugliosi gathers points to Oswald, then that points to conspiracy too. In addition, whenever there is a real head - on debate over the assassination, instead of allowing them to frame the debate between LN vs. CT, we must refocus the primary issue to the withholding of crucial JFK assassination records by the government, despite the JFK Act. If Oswald did it alone because he was psycho, then why are the JMWAVE records still being withheld? All of the media attention given the debates Bugliosi is fueling should be funnelled into the overall theme that the Kennedy assassination remains unresolved, and it should be wrapped up while it still can be. The resulting publicity of all this media attention will help generate Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act as well as opening other legal avenues that can generate new evidence and witnesses in the case. Arguing over the details of Dallas will help increase the generation of noise and media buzz, and maybe set some people straight about the facts, but we should not lose sight of the overall and attainable short range goals of obtaining new evidence and new witness testimony. We don't want to win an argument with Bugliosi, like brownie points in a school forensic debate, we want to solve the crime in our lifetime. BK Edited May 18, 2007 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Rather than taking Bugliosi on and start a debate over each item of evidence and issues he brings up, why not just take David Talbot's perspective, that whatever happened in Dallas, even if one lone assassin killed JFK, it was still a conspiracy. The evidence is overwhelming, if the lone-assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald, then it wasn't just a conspiracy but a more specific covert operation, and coup. If all the evidence Bugliosi gathers points to Oswald, then that points to conspiracy too. In addition, whenever there is a real head - on debate over the assassination, instead of allowing them to frame the debate between LN vs. CT, we must refocus the primary issue to the withholding of crucial JFK assassination records by the government, despite the JFK Act. If Oswald did it alone because he was psycho, then why are the JMWAVE records still being withheld? All of the media attention given the debates Bugliosi is fueling should be funnelled into the overall theme that the Kennedy assassination remains unresolved, and it should be wrapped up while it still can be. The resulting publicity of all this media attention will help generate Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act as well as opening other legal avenues that can generate new evidence and witnesses in the case. Arguing over the details of Dallas will help increase the generation of noise and media buzz, and maybe set some people straight about the facts, but we should not lose sight of the overall and attainable short range goals of obtaining new evidence and new witness testimony. We don't want to win an argument with Bugliosi, like brownie points in a school forensic debate, we want to solve the crime in our lifetime. BK excellent, Bill Kelly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Rather than taking Bugliosi on and start a debate over each item of evidence and issues he brings up, why not just take David Talbot's perspective, that whatever happened in Dallas, even if one lone assassin killed JFK, it was still a conspiracy. The evidence is overwhelming, if the lone-assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald, then it wasn't just a conspiracy but a more specific covert operation, and coup. If all the evidence Bugliosi gathers points to Oswald, then that points to conspiracy too. In addition, whenever there is a real head - on debate over the assassination, instead of allowing them to frame the debate between LN vs. CT, we must refocus the primary issue to the withholding of crucial JFK assassination records by the government, despite the JFK Act. If Oswald did it alone because he was psycho, then why are the JMWAVE records still being withheld? All of the media attention given the debates Bugliosi is fueling should be funnelled into the overall theme that the Kennedy assassination remains unresolved, and it should be wrapped up while it still can be. The resulting publicity of all this media attention will help generate Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act as well as opening other legal avenues that can generate new evidence and witnesses in the case. Arguing over the details of Dallas will help increase the generation of noise and media buzz, and maybe set some people straight about the facts, but we should not lose sight of the overall and attainable short range goals of obtaining new evidence and new witness testimony. We don't want to win an argument with Bugliosi, like brownie points in a school forensic debate, we want to solve the crime in our lifetime. BK Certainly one of the single most rational approaches which I have ever read. Unfortunately, after having chased so many "red herrings", it is most unlikely that the government is likely to chase another one, even if it is in fact a true red herring. It is now "lost" in with all of the imposters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Well, I'm going out and spend my last $50 on the Bugs book. As Tony Summers has suggested, maybe there's grounds for a good libel case, and that's how we'll get the needed new witness testimony under oath? That's my beer money for the week. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 You can always start home brewing Bill, I tried it once before. The point of this exercise that Steve and myself have been discussing would be most beneficial for UK and European researchers, who would feel uncomfortable meddling in a legal capacty in another nations history. At the very least, an exercise such as this would organise researchers who would ordinarily only commit only to a perihperal reading of the case. In creating this framwork for a specific project, we can then call upon it for future projects with a more defined end. Any suggestions as to how we can contribute to the legal methods that you previously outlined? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 You can always start home brewing Bill, I tried it once before.The point of this exercise that Steve and myself have been discussing would be most beneficial for UK and European researchers, who would feel uncomfortable meddling in a legal capacty in another nations history. At the very least, an exercise such as this would organise researchers who would ordinarily only commit only to a perihperal reading of the case. In creating this framwork for a specific project, we can then call upon it for future projects with a more defined end. Any suggestions as to how we can contribute to the legal methods that you previously outlined? John Hi John, I wouldn't worry about UK resarchers meddling and interloping in another nation's history, especially when American historians, writers and prosecutors won't do it right. As for forming a framework for a project to respond to the Lone Nut postions on the evidence, I like the idea of doing an Annotated Warren Report or Annotated Reclaiming history - publishing what WR says, Posner says, the Bug says, then more reasoned analysis from Scott, Newman, Summers, et al., letting the reader decide which version is worth beliving. As for contributing to the legal avenues I suggest that in order to get the Congressional Hearings we need we must first make a Congressional Briefing presentation of examples of records destroyed, missing and wrongfully with held. The Congressional Hearings will not be concerned with who killed JFK, but rather the status of the records and the response of the government agencies to the JFK Act, focusing on issues like the SS destruction of their records after the JFK Act was passed, and the failure of the CIA to produce the Joannides and JMWAVE records, etc. This will only happend when the responsible subcommittee of the Waxman Committee on Government Oversight decides to hold them, and like all such committees, they hold hearings on whatever is politically expedient. To make the JFK Act a politically expedient issue, we must take advantage of the current mainstream media interest in the case and bring up the JFK Act and the missing, destroyed and with held records EVERY time there is an opportunity. And everytime the mainstream media publishes something, that is an opportunity to respond, and while every response as a letter to the editor or internet posting will not make a difference, together they will contribute to the overall wave of public support that is necessary to generate the hearings we need. Posner and Holland and even Blakey are now on the same page with Jeff Morely and Lesar, et al on insisting that the Joannidies records be released, so its an issue that unifies the divergent interests. Maybe David Talbot can mention the still sealed records and the necessity for JFK Act oversight hearings when he talks to the public and the media? When Bugliosi himself, or someone rights a review of his book, a quick, few sentence response, calling attention to the still-sealed records, could help turn the ripple into a more sweeping tidal wave of public support for opening the records. If I knew the direct route through the administrative beauracracy, I would take it, but right now, it looks like all roads lead through the Waxman Oversight Committee. In the meantime, it's back to what David Talbot calls "the Media Wars." If this were a boxing match, I would say we are now in the eighth round, having lost almost all previous rounds, but this one is winable, and we may need a knockout. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Am actually running through Bugliosi's Reclaiming History backwards. I looked up a dozen or so references from the index and am quite surprised at how much new information he has in there. I knew he couldn't rehash Posner and he actually characterizes most people pretty accurately. Other than his wrong conclusions, blatant misscharacterazing of all conspiracy theorists into one big happy "community," misreading of the evidence and blind disregard to the most significant research being done today, Bugliosi actually provides new details of research he is trying to debunk. Since his conclusions were drawn before undertaking pen to yellow legal tab, Bugliosi was ripe to be fed some records that I've never seen before, like CIA Record 104-10075-10179-Nov.22, 63, which the Bug relegates to an endnote in his CD ROM, but is actually as explosive as a document can be. Bugliosi characterization of John Judge, Jim Lesar, Jeff Morely and others seem fair enough to me, though Tony Summers may not like being continually refered to as a "conspiracy theorist," I don't see much grounds for libel. Unfortunately, Lane, Blakley, Waldman and Fester are conspiracy theorists too, so its easy for the Bug to put everybody into one big "community," that really doesn't exist. I think Bugliosi's book is more readable than I imagined, is unconvincing in making its case, and those who read it will see through his wrong interpetations, and maybe even go and buy the other books by people he puts down - Fonzi, Summers, Hurt, et al... BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I really don't understand why anyone with any knowledge of the JFK assassination would buy Vince Bugliosi's book. Just wait and check it out from your local public library, if you absolutely have to read it. I won't be reading it, just like I didn't read Posner's "Case Closed." I don't think you have to read those kinds of books to know what's in them, and how impossible their conclusions are. As time goes on, I find myself agreeing more and more with Vince Salandria. He postulated that the coverup was so transparent because the conspirators wanted people to know the lone assassin nonsense was impossible. Really, do we think that high-level government and intelligence officials couldn't come up with better, more believable stuff than the single-bullet theory? Why wouldn't they at least have planted a bullet that looked as if it had caused some damage, for instance? Despite this, I still don't think they would have left any written document that says anything about them planning to assassinate John F. Kennedy (although that wouldn't be too much more ludicrous than planting CE 399 in its pristine condition). Thus, while I certainly agree that everything related to the JFK assassination should have been released to the public (without redactions) a long time ago, I really don't think any "smoking gun" is out there in the still unreleased files. I don't find Bugliosi the least bit credible, and when he smears someone like Mark Lane, none of us should allow him to get away with that. I don't care if it's Mark Lane, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer, Sylvia Meagher or any other critic who is now, for some reason, distrusted by many researchers; none of them have the credibility problems that Bugliosi or Posner have. Why is Lane now criticized by so many in the research community? He was one of my early heroes. "Rush To Judgment" was a seminal work, bringing to light many of the inconsistencies of the official non-investigation and the accompanying film of the same name included important interviews with several witnesses ignored by the authorities. If someone can prove Lane made a few mistakes, that still leaves him well ahead of the FBI, the Dallas Police, the Warren Commission and their official apologists in the media, with their countless errors, distortions and lies, still ongoing over forty years after the assassination. Whether it's body alteration, film alteration, Harvey and Lee, shots from the sewer, the Umbrella Man shooting poision darts, even Greer shooting JFK, none of these oft-criticized theories are as flawed and impossible as the official version of events. I don't think we should give Bugliosi credit for anything except continuing the lie. No one who produces a book of this size, even if he copied much of it from the Warren Report/"Case Closed," can claim ignorance about the subject matter. Bugliosi knows very well that Oswald shot no one that day. He knows this was a high-level conspiracy. But, it is more profitable, since the big publishing houses, like the rest of the establishment press, are controlled by those who push the lone assassin nonsense as a constant mantra, to support the official story. Bottom line- if Bugliosi, or anyone else, is saying Oswald shot JFK, then we should be lining up together in opposition against him, despite our petty differences. Why do so many of us continue to humor these parasites who profit from a massive historical lie? Can Bugliosi make the holes in JFK's coat and shirt move up? Can he change the almost perfect condition of CE399? Can he change the almost universal reaction of witnesses and police, who ran towards the grassy knoll/railroad area right after the shots, because that's where they all thought the shots had come from? Does he/can he explain why the Warren Commission called irrelevant witnesses like Viola Peterman, who knew Oswald only as an infant and hadn't seen the family for over 20 years? What innocent explanation could there be for something like that? Can he explain why the same intrepid "investigators" failed to call crucial witnesses like Admiral Burkley and some of the closest witnesses to the limousine? Can there be an intelligent soul that accepts an "investigation" that can somehow locate an irrelevant, forgotten footnote to the Oswald family like Viola Peterman, but not locate the president's personal physician? We need to take off the gloves and bring up this kinds of stuff, in the infrequent opportunities we have in the media to debate gold diggers like Bugliosi and Posner. They can attack "conspiracy theorists" all they want, but they can't debate points like the ones I cited above. Of course, they usually don't have to, because the CTers that are permitted to debate them invariably play into their hands, instead of citing things that cannot, under any circumstances, be defended. Just my long and rambling two cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Monday media blitz. "Bugliosi's book, which denies all conspiracies, has the ring of truth - scrupulous, irrefutable truth - and I predict it will be the line that historians 100 years from now will take on this story." http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/pla....xml&coll=2 It's "irrefutable." Resistance is futile... "The second hit President Kennedy in the upper back, passed through him and struck Texas Gov. John Connally; the third burst open the president's head. It is eminently reasonable to assume that Oswald's errant first shot, which missed everyone and everything in the motorcade, was nonetheless captured on the Z film, too." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1179530398...=googlenews_wsj Keep repeating the lies keep repeating the lies... "In those days, apparently, it was normal practice for the president's car to be followed in motorcades by another car carrying correspondents from the two great American wire agencies of the day, the Associated Press and United Press International." http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070519-110928-5558r.htm No it was not normal for the press vehicle to be so far back but the moonie times wouldn't know or care. Whatever, resistance is futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Brown Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I don't find Bugliosi the least bit credible, and when he smears someone like Mark Lane, none of us should allow him to get away with that. I don't care if it's Mark Lane, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer, Sylvia Meagher or any other critic who is now, for some reason, distrusted by many researchers; none of them have the credibility problems that Bugliosi or Posner have. Why is Lane now criticized by so many in the research community? He was one of my early heroes. "Rush To Judgment" was a seminal work, bringing to light many of the inconsistencies of the official non-investigation and the accompanying film of the same name included important interviews with several witnesses ignored by the authorities. If someone can prove Lane made a few mistakes, that still leaves him well ahead of the FBI, the Dallas Police, the Warren Commission and their official apologists in the media, with their countless errors, distortions and lies, still ongoing over forty years after the assassination. Whether it's body alteration, film alteration, Harvey and Lee, shots from the sewer, the Umbrella Man shooting poision darts, even Greer shooting JFK, none of these oft-criticized theories are as flawed and impossible as the official version of events. ‘Divide and conquer’ Good post Don. When I’ve finished reading the last books I purchased with my hard earned money, researched and written by ‘conspiracy theorists’ I will be off to the Central Library in Liverpool to loan ‘Case closed’ and Vince Bugliosi's book. I’m sure they will have copies. I wouldn’t put a penny into the pockets of any defender of the official version of the JFK assassination. Chris Brown. 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