Happy 15th Anniversary To "Reclaiming History"

[Jim Brunsman]

Boggles the logical mind how anyone could have anything but contempt for Bugliosi's belligerent blizzard of bull. Live in your magic bubble of delusion if you must, but there is a staggering amount of information that totally contradicts every word of that horrendous book. I would love to debate any lone nutter in any forum at any time. Every one of you owes Oswald's relatives a lifetime of apologies for your shallow "investigations" and unfounded accusations. What is even more staggering is publicizing your ignorance on a forum such as this.

[David Von Pein]

Boggles the logical mind how anyone could have anything but contempt for Bugliosi's belligerent blizzard of bull. Live in your magic bubble of delusion if you must, but there is a staggering amount of information that totally contradicts every word of that horrendous book. I would love to debate any lone nutter in any forum at any time. Every one of you owes Oswald's relatives a lifetime of apologies for your shallow "investigations" and unfounded accusations. What is even more staggering is publicizing your ignorance on a forum such as this.

IMO, the ones residing in a "magic bubble" as well as providing the world with a "blizzard of bull" are the JFK conspiracy theorists. And to think that the 9-month Warren Commission investigation and the 2-year HSCA investigation were "shallow investigations" is simply silly and ridiculous.

Here's something I said a few months before Mr. Bugliosi's book was published:

"Rule #16B of the Conspiracy Theorist Rule Book states -- "When all else fails, just say something is 'fake' or 'phony' or 'doesn't look quite right', and the CTer is off the hook". As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing impossible-to-prove theories regarding evidence manipulation or contamination or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there simply is nothing else for the defense TO argue. Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics (and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to Lee Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently weak case with which [conspiracists] try to combat the physical evidence. And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix." -- David Von Pein; January 11, 2007

[David Von Pein]

Agreed and thanks also for your great site David!

Thank you, gentlemen.

It's nice to see that Vince Bugliosi's immense amount of work on the JFK case has not been forgotten. His book will forever serve as an indispensable JFK reference book. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to my bookshelf (or to my handy PDF copy of the book) in order to look up information concerning some small nearly-forgotten tidbit relating to the assassination. And more often than not, I find the answer I'm looking for within "Reclaiming History" too.

Then, after being very pleased that I found exactly the quote I was searching for in Vincent's massive tome, I'll usually feel compelled to take a snapshot of the quoted passage (via the PDF) so that I can add it to the argument I was making when discussing the case with some conspiracy theorist. Such as this example.

In fact, I quoted from Vincent's book so darn much in my original 2007 book review, it almost caused problems for me. (See link below.)

[David Von Pein]

Another Bugliosi-related link of interest (it's certainly of interest to me at any rate ).....

[David Von Pein]

------- Vincent Bugliosi vs. Modern Technology: -------

[David Von Pein]

[John Iacoletti]

because they'll start arguing impossible-to-prove theories

You mean impossible-to-prove theories like a disassembled rifle in a paper wrapper?

Hell, the entire Oswald-did-it case is one giant impossible-to-prove theory.

[Michael Walton]

The funny thing about this case is that if not for the faked backyard photos, there was no solid evidence on Oswald. None. The entire case is based on after-the-fact innuendo and hearsay testimony. As for old Vince, he's the same person who blew up the entire Manson killings into something more - the "we're going to take over the world" Helter Skelter theory when the Manson murders were nothing more than Manson seeking out someone who xxxxxxx him over. That's all it was so why anyone would think old Vince was the final and ultimate authority on JFK is nuts.

A more detailed analysis of the book which belongs in the bonfires of BS history:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-cranor

https://www.patspeer.com/reclaiminghistoryfromreclaiminghistory