Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. 53 pieces of Evidence against Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

In a communist, defiant, salute. And then asked to be represented by a communist lawyer.

Oswald was defiant to the end.

How are you doing on the Koolaid? Still have enough, or do we need to order some more?

[John Iacoletti]

In a communist, defiant, salute.

...and your evidence for that would be..... ?

[Michael T. Griffith]

To get a good idea of just how bad, how misleading, how sloppy Bugliosi's book is, read the following critiques of it:

Historian David Wrone's evisceration of Bugliosi's book
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html

Dr. Gary Aguilar's devastating review of Bugliosi's book
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html

Milicent Cranor's debunking of Bugliosi's poor scholarship
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers.html

[Paul May]

To get a good idea of just how bad, how misleading, how sloppy Bugliosi's book is, read the following critiques of it:

Historian David Wrone's evisceration of Bugliosi's book
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html

Dr. Gary Aguilar's devastating review of Bugliosi's book
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html

Milicent Cranor's debunking of Bugliosi's poor scholarship
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers.html

“Evisceration”. “Devastating”. “Debunking”. Sure, I’ll take the time to read 3 conspiracy theorists critique Bugliosi’s work. I can go directly to Amazon and read thousands. Objectivity? Doesn’t exist. Hyperbole? Of course. Most of the arguments being made are about the “style” of Bugliosi’s writing. I found it very entertaining. His timing of how the event played out? Spot on. As a reference work? As good as it gets. Oswald only shot and killed Kennedy. Was it a conspiracy? I have no idea. Nor does Mr. Griffith, Mr.Wrone, Ms.Ferrell or Ms. Cranor. Nobody in 57 years can or has proven a conspiracy with hard, credible, undisputed evidence. Why? No evidence exists.

[John Iacoletti]

Nobody in 57 years can or has proven with hard, credible, undisputed evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy.

And around we go.

[Thomas Graves]

Nobody in 57 years can or has proven with hard, credible, undisputed evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy.

And around we go.

If Oswald acted alone, given the maze of the TSBD, the general unreliability of eyewitnesses, the rough stock on the Carcano, the fact that Fritz didn't tape record the interrogation sessions, the fact that it was lunchtime during a presidential motorcade and most of the TSBD employees were outside the building, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc, etc, ..... well, what kind of "hard, credible, undisputed evidence" would you expect to find?

LOL!

--  MWT 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Bugliosi's propaganda book has been shredded by JFK assassination scholars. See, for example, the following:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/Boo_Review.pdf (Dr. David Mantik's 21-page critique of Bugliosi's book)

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi

http://www.ctka.net/death_of_naa.html

[John Mytton]

Bugliosi's propaganda book has been shredded by JFK assassination scholars. See, for example, the following:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/Boo_Review.pdf (Dr. David Mantik's 21-page critique of Bugliosi's book)

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi

http://www.ctka.net/death_of_naa.html

Wow, JFK assassination scholars, that's hilarious, how many of your "scholars" have even looked at more than a handful of different cases and how many have actually stepped into a courtroom and either prosecuted or defended anybody? Bugliosi had the vast courtroom experience of prosecuting over 100 varying cases which included over 20 murder cases and therefore understood how to analyse eyewitnesses and evidence, whereas the majority of the "JFK assassination scholars" as compared to Bugliosi have virtually zero experience outside of this little bubble and show time and time again absolutely no deductive reasoning skills.

Btw Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 cases out of 106  felony jury trials, how many court cases have you or any of your mates won?

JohnM