Myra Bronstein Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 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.... You know, it is an excellent post. The sheer size of Bug's book (and disc) are almost custom made to bog down researchers for years refuting his nonsense and name-calling. But some debunking should be done, it's just a balancing act. Other's have suggested that we post reviews on Amazon et al, and I think that's a reasonable doable step. I really like what this person has done in just four short essays: http://tinyurl.com/2coajv A concerted effort, individual or organized, to post calm informative debunking (or supportive) reviews of various books on the major websites would yield a lot of bank for the buck. Especially since it'd be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Bradford Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 (edited) 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. BK The Henry J. Sloman 11-22-63 document may be viewed here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2 The JWAVE-to-DIR cable says that "Henry J. Sloman arriving MEXI 22 Nov...." I found it kind of funny that Bugliosi misread MEXI as "next", and thus writes: A CIA document dated the day of the assassination and released by the CIA in 1997 under the JFK Act reads, “Henry J. Sloman arriving next 22 Nov [which, literally, would be the following year] ....." If this is typical of his scholarship, well.... Rex Edited May 24, 2007 by Rex Bradford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 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," ... We aren't one big happy community? ... Oh wow. 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