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

« Vincent Bugliosi's Misnamed "Reclaiming History" | Main

December 21, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834203cd553ef00e54facdf1a8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Review of Reclaiming History:

Comments

Ed J

Another review attacking Bugliosi's book without addressing his evidence.

You try to lump him together with Posner while neglecting to mention that in "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi is extremely critical of Posner's book.

And as to Robert Kennedy - to posit that he would participate in a coverup of his brother's murder for "political reasons" is an astonishing slur against his memory. If Robert Kennedy had any information that anyone but Oswald was involved in the assassination, he'd have moved heaven and earth to bring those responsible to justice.

Ryan Post

This is just another typical critique/review from a disgruntled conspiracy. Throw out a bunch of blanket statements like "Bugliosi...hasn’t laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy" and then hope that others accept those statements as fact.

Then there's this statement: "The book’s use also lies in demonstrating that it may not be possible for one person to fully master, or give a fair accounting of, this impossibly tangled mess of a case." Bugliosi, himself, says in the book that even after 20 years of writing, he couldn't possibly call his book a complete, exhaustive resource on the entire assassination, because there's so much information surrounding the case.

But this is typical of conspiracists when they're backed up against the wall. Use half-truths, blanket statements, and mis-characterizations and hope that most people are too intimidated by a 1,600-page book to read it and find out that it blows all of their own "research" out the water.

Sour grapes.

neaguy

Well, isn't that nice. Two more lone shooter theorists who don't want to deal with the evidence.

The reality is that Dr. Aguilar has, like Dr. Wrone before him on this site, annihilated Mr. Bugliosi's book.

Bugliosi did some wonderful work on the RFK case when he went after the walking bible, that preacher Jerry Owen who was involved in some still unknown way with Sirhan Sirhan prior to his shooting of RFK.

But his work on the JFK case has only served to obfuscate the facts and issues, apparently with the two writers who posted prior to me.

Since Harold Weisberg completely destroyed the Warren Report in 1965 in his book Whitewash, there hasn't been anyone who's provided what the Warren Commissioners failed to do: the full truth about who shot JFK.

Pat Speer

I couldn't help but notice the irony of Ryan's post. He says that Bugliosi admits the case is too big for one man to master, and then claims it blows ALL the research of conspiracy theorists out of the water. Is this a joke? It has to be, right?

In my article, available on this webpage, and in chapter 4c of patspeer.com, I discuss the NAA tests performed on Oswald's cheek cast, and reveal that Bugliosi totally misrepresented and/or ignored this important element of the case. This is just one of the many aspects of the case where Bugliosi's lawyer's brief falls flat.

Ryan Post

"I couldn't help but notice the irony of Ryan's post. He says that Bugliosi admits the case is too big for one man to master, and then claims it blows ALL the research of conspiracy theorists out of the water. Is this a joke? It has to be, right?"

Where is the irony in that? There are a ton of assassination researchers (even those who lean towards "conspiracy") who have said and written about their admiration of Bugliosi's work as an unprecendented amount of research in comparison to any other book on the assassination. Just because he pointed out that it's impossible to write one book that includes every bit of information possible on the case, doesn't negate the fact that his book is the most comprehensive and thoroughlu-researched book on the assassination that's ever been written.

Pat Speer

The irony, Ryany, is that Bugliosi and his supporters admit his book is incomplete one second, and then claim his book refutes ALL conspiracy theories the next. You can't have it both ways. Either Bugliosi's book is complete, and covers everything, or it is not, and there are questions suggesting a conspiracy that remain unanswered.

While the second scenario is obviously true--even Bugliosi admits the Odio incident probably happened and that he can't make sense of it--for some reason people (most loudly Bugliosi himself) keep repeating that he debunks ALL conspiracy theories. Well, repeating it doesn't make it so. It's as if he's afraid to admit that there's anything he doesn't know.

Which is ridiculous. While Bugliosi's over-all knowledge is probably as great as anyone's, there are a number of researchers who would tear him to shreds on a number of topics on which he knows next to nothing. If he really wanted to write a great book, he should have had it proofread by the research community. Then he would have had a chance to correct his errors, and answer the challenges of reviews such as the one written by Dr. Aguilar.

P.S. Bugliosi's silence is deafening. Does the prosecutor lack a defense?

GLA

Ed J writes:

"You try to lump him together with Posner while neglecting to mention that in "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi is extremely critical of Posner's book."

If he would bother to actually read my review, he'd discovered not only that I did indeed mention Bugliosi's criticisms of Posner, I highlighted them.

I hope this comment was made in haste and is not reflective of Ed, generally.

Gary A.

GLA

Ed J writes:

"You try to lump him together with Posner while neglecting to mention that in "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi is extremely critical of Posner's book."

If he would bother to actually read my review, he'd discovered not only that I did indeed mention Bugliosi's criticisms of Posner, I highlighted them.

I hope this comment was made in haste and is not reflective of Ed, generally.

Gary A.

Ed J

Mr. Aguilar,
I just reread the whole of your entry on this site and the only reference I see to Posner is this:

"Although his prosecutorial, conclusions-driven style is redolent of Gerald Posner’s in Case Closed, the last attorney-written book to defend the Warren Commission, Bugliosi’s endless self-congratulation and his arrogant condescension make his book far more insufferable."

If this is critical of Posner I must be reading in "haste" again because I don't see it. In this line you definitely lump them together.

If, however, you want me to "bother" to read the rest of your piece, please post it here in it's entirety.

zelduh

Hi Vince! Um.. I mean...
Hi Ryan and Ed J!
I know how difficult it is to click on a link to read the entire article, but it's really easy.

Just click here, --> --> -->http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History
and you will be transferred magically to Dr. Aguilar's ENTIRE (and rather brilliant) article.

Zel

The comments to this entry are closed.