Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #4 -- strawman.  What "alleged massive conspiracy"?  And there he goes with the "credible" nonsense again.

[Matt Grantham]

 There were certain type of conspiracy theorists who served a purpose Pretty sure LBJ was at least quoted that he believed a larger conspiracy may have existed. This of course was not an especially veiled reference of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy Yet it served as a most excellent rhetorical function since you could imply a Soviet conspiracy without ever providing the slightest bit of evidence

[John Iacoletti]

By now it has to be more than obvious to the reader of Reclaiming History that Bugliosi is a lawyer, not a scientist.  He doesn't understand or follow the scientific method.  He doesn't understand or follow basic logic either.  He calls rhetoric and conjecture "evidence", he calls his unsupported opinions "common sense", and he hypocritically pretends that his religious belief that Oswald killed Kennedy is somehow different from somebody else's religious belief in a conspiracy.

[John Iacoletti]

Bugliosi Fallacious Argument #5 - "vast conspiracy" strawman again.

Here we see Bugliosi doing what he does best:  reiterating the same argument he already made, giving it a different number, and pretending like it's something new.  That's how you end up with a 1600 page book in desperate need of an editor.

[John Iacoletti]

2. Not only is there no credible evidence that organized crime, the CIA, Castro, LBJ, and so on, conspired with Oswald to murder the president, but such a plan would be incredibly reckless, irrational, and dangerous for any of these persons or groups to even entertain, and hence, unlikely and far-fetched
RHVB

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #2 - non-sequitur

Not only does he invoke the "credible" nonsense once again, but he thinks it somehow follows that something is unlikely simply because he considers it to be dangerous.

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #6.

Speaking of silly arguments: 

"I don't think a conspiracy would have been done that way, therefore there was no conspiracy".

[John Iacoletti]

Fallacious Bugliosi Argument #7 - yet another non-sequitur.

"I don't believe someone involved in a murder plot would ever do anything I consider 'mundane', therefore there was no conspiracy.  But on the other hand a lone-nut murderer would definitely do mundane things like watch television the night before and take in a movie afterwards."

[John Iacoletti]

Tony, I don't understand your point. You eat, sleep and breathe this topic and I barely have a passing interest it (no disrespect intended) so I'll need to have it explained differently.

Well maybe before you start throwing around the word "kook", you should actually learn the evidence.  Like how the tape dispensers worked.