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

« A Crime Scene Between Two Hard Covers | Main | Bugliosi, Bowles and the Open Mike »

August 20, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834203cd553ef00e54ee1ec6b8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Ass of You and of Me:

Comments

Pat Speer

I, too, find the constant criticism of conspiracy theorists as "anti-American" revolting and idiotic. I've read over and over that Joachim Joesten was a communist blah blah blah. Well, I recently found his book Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy?--I've been looking for Kennedy-related books in used bookstores for years and this was the FIRST time I'd ever even seen it--and bought it.

I was totally surprised. First, the book was written BEFORE the Warren Report came out (although the printing I obtained included a chapter written afterwards, reviewing the report.) Second, Joesten makes it crystal clear that he is writing the book in hopes the questions he raises will be answered in the report, and that he was giving a copy to the Commission so they could answer his questions and refute his claims before the publication of their report. That the Commission did take the time and answer many of his questions is to both their credit and Joesten's, and yet people like Bugliosi and Posner would have us believe that men like him were merely scavengers feeding on the public's grief and feeding them lies in return. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Ed J

Typical. You not only aren't interested in facts, you actually run from them.

"I have not read the book in its entirety and do not intend to. Its point of view is plain as day, and taking the time to dissect and expose its fallacies is, for me, an errand of too few returns."

You don't take "the time" because you have nothing. Bugliosi has the shooter, the weapon, the ammunition, the physics and the logic.

Pat Speer

Ed, please read the other essays on this website, and see if you still agree that Bugliosi's book closes the case.

Ed J

Talk about an "errand of few returns". The conspiracy buff essays are all very much alike. They nitpick at the Warren Commission without ever coming up with another killer or weapon supported by one shred of physical evidence.

One of these essays addresses Kennedy's throat wound. If it was a wound of entrance (which it demonstrably was not), where the hell is the exit wound?

And you guys talk about a "magic bullet".

Please read Bugliosi's book and then see if you still agree with the essays on this website.

Pat Speer

Ed, I assure you Bugliosi came up with nothing most of us haven't read before. You seem to be operating from a "since we don't know what happened we should jump at what we've been told" perspective, while most of us are operating from a "since it doesn't add up as Oswald, something else most have happened" perspective.

My forte is the medical evidence. I did far more research on this than Bugliosi and came to some drastically different conclusions. My research is available at patspeer.com. You might want to start with the videos. Part 1 shows that Bugliosi's top source on the medical evidence, Dr. Michael Baden, failed to understand one of the autopsy photos, and testified with it upside down. It gets worse from there.

Ed J

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said: "we don't know what happened".

It is clear from all the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the murderer of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, you offered no response to my question which I repeat here (since the medical evidence is your forte):

"Where the hell is the exit wound?"

Pat Speer

Ed, I don't believe the throat wound was an entrance wound.

To be a conspiracy theorist, or realist, one doesn't have to have all the answers. One merely has to have looked into the case long enough and deep enough to know that many of the answers we've been told, e.g. the single-bullet theory, are bunkum.

Many single-assassin theorists spend a lot of time convincing themselves that such a thing is POSSIBLE, when they ought to be thinking if it is REASONABLE to assume it happened. While some like to argue that it is MORE REASONABLE than the alternatives presented by CTs, that's not really an argument, as there is NO reason to believe CTs have exhausted every possible solution to the crime, and there is no real reason that we should choose a possible solution over a reasonable one.

Some of the ongoing arguments between CTs and LNers could very well be akin to drunkards arguing over whether the moon is cheddar or American cheese. Maybe, just maybe, it's not even cheese.

Witness the "6.5 mm" fragment visible on the x-rays. People have been arguing for years whether it was actually on the back of Kennedy's head or was added to the x-ray. On my webpage, I spend some time demonstrating that it was neither, and that it was in fact the large fragment removed during the autopsy.

Pat Speer

Ed, I don't believe the throat wound was an entrance wound.

To be a conspiracy theorist, or realist, one doesn't have to have all the answers. One merely has to have looked into the case long enough and deep enough to know that many of the answers we've been told, e.g. the single-bullet theory, are bunkum.

Many single-assassin theorists spend a lot of time convincing themselves that such a thing is POSSIBLE, when they ought to be thinking if it is REASONABLE to assume it happened. While some like to argue that it is MORE REASONABLE than the alternatives presented by CTs, that's not really an argument, as there is NO reason to believe CTs have exhausted every possible solution to the crime, and there is no real reason that we should choose a possible solution over a reasonable one.

Some of the ongoing arguments between CTs and LNers could very well be akin to drunkards arguing over whether the moon is cheddar or American cheese. Maybe, just maybe, it's not even cheese.

Witness the "6.5 mm" fragment visible on the x-rays. People have been arguing for years whether it was actually on the back of Kennedy's head or was added to the x-ray. On my webpage, I spend some time demonstrating that it was neither, and that it was in fact the large fragment removed during the autopsy.

Rob K

How many "conspiracy believers" have answered these questions: What was Oswald doing in a movie theater, AWOL from work, carrying a pistol, a little over an hour after an assassination that had taken place outside the building in which he was employed? Why did he attempt to shoot a police officer, M. N. McDonald, with that pistol?

Vince

Both the essay and the comments habitually conflate "coming to the same goss conclusion as the Warren Report" with "defending the Warren Commission". They are not the same thing and it is a egregious red herring. How would you like to be made responsible for every stupid statement made by a CT, simply by being one?
I've read dozens of books on the assassination (strictly at the hobby level, not claiming to be an expert) and I've not seen anything that shakes the Oswald CONCLUSION. I've seen some interesting "yeah, but" type things, but I've never seen a coherent alternative theory. It's amusing to come up with a factoid, and then gleefully trumpet "Something Else Happened!!!!" but without tying it together into a story and defending it, you've (collective you) set the bar so low that there's no accomplishment in clearing it.
I hate to say it, but writing a review of a book the author hasn't read is sadly typical.

The comments to this entry are closed.