Reclaiming History? Or Re-framing Oswald?

  • Vincent Bugliosi's massive tome on the JFK assassination purports to be a "comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire case.....The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything."

    We beg to differ. Judge for yourself.

Selected Posts

Also of Interest

Blog powered by Typepad

« Letter to New York Times Book Review | Main | Rewriting History: Bugliosi Parses the Testimony »

June 20, 2007


Ed J

Holy crap. I can't believe someone actually started up a website to air their mindless maunderings on Bugliosi's book. He must scare the bejeesus out of you guys.
The "single bullet" isn't a theory, it's a fact - get over it.

Rod Curtains

The single bullet theory is a fact?
Why wasn't i told about this!, thanks for the heads up Ed J, just goes to show that you CAN actualy break the laws of physics.

Ed J

Which of Mr. Newton's laws were violated?

Brian and Beth

Metallic fragments were found in Kennedy's neck region. Now, just how did 399 leave those? Dump them out the back?
These fragments, first highlighted by a medical panel thrown together by Ramsay Clark in 1968, cannot have been left by CE 399.
Further, Dr. Joseph Dolce of the Army's Edgewood Arsenal, tested the single bullet theory for the Warren Commission with "Oswald's" ammunition and the rifle found on the 6th floor and in each and every instance the bullet was severely deformed just striking a cadaver wrist.
Therefore, Dr. Dolce, was never called to testify before the Warren Commission.
The report---which Dolce was not allowed to write---and the damaging bullet photos were withheld from research for 8 years.
Gee, I wonder why?
And, note, Dolce, the top expert on the issue of wounds ballistics, is nowhere mentioned in the body of Bugliosi's work.
You can't even begin to discuss the single bullet theory without discussing Dolce's devastating critique of the single bullet theory in the April 21, 1964 Warren Commission meeting.

Ed J

I remember when the conspiracy buffs had a problem with the PATH of the single bullet. There was much mumbo-jumbo about the bullet jumping up and changing direction and doing a little dance. Now that the path through Kennedy and into Connally is demonstrably the ONLY path the bullet could have taken, you folks have moved on to pick other nits.
A bullet striking just a cadaver wrist would obviously be much more deformed than one which had been slowed by passage through other bodily tissue.
You folks keep grasping for straws.


I wonder why a Communist would assassinate a President who wanted to negotiate with the Soviets? I wonder why if Oswald were the lone assassin, he wouldn't just shoot Kennedy coming up Elm Street?

Peter McGuire

The Single Bullet Theory can not be proven. It was used to "heal the nation" , most people have never believe. Why do we keep getting it shoved down our throat.

Understand? We don't believe this nonsense. Now what part of "we don't believe it" didn't you understand?

mike orr

Oswald did not shoot kennedy and then stroll down to the lunchroom and get stopped by a policeman while he was drinking a coke. When drs. at parkland say the back of his head was blasted out then it was blasted out. It is the only way Johnson became President. How much more crap can a country have shoved down its throat .You can't get shot in the front from behind. You know that the mannlicher carcano was known as the humane weapon because of its not shooting real well. I also like the carcanos that the test shooters use with a huge scope and a stationary target(JFK)

Norma Susan Smith

Oswald shot President Kennedy but he had help. Who hired (or gave reference) so Oswald could work at the Texas School Book Depository one month before the motorcade went by? Details of the route were issued 72 hours ahead of event. If you believe the Warren Report, it was only by happenstance that Oswald was working there. Does anyone know how to spell gullible?

The comments to this entry are closed.