It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reclaiming Baloney

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:27 PM
Here it is December 24th and I am at home at last, having made one desperate kamikazi-like swoop on the stores this afternoon to do ALL my Christmas shopping.

"So what", you say. "Suck it up and pay brother. That's life."

You're right. Many others have had the very same experience this afternoon. If you are a lucky child, Christmas can be a happy experience but for many others it is made up of equal parts desperation, anguish and, yes, joy.

I could go on reflecting on Christmas, life, relationships, sadness and fleeting joy, as I did this afternoon in a large bookstore, hunting for that perfect read for my mother, until I caught sight of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" ($68. CAN)

It's a big fat book and it needs to be because with it, veteran prosecutor, Bugliosi, asserts that he has put all the toothpaste back into the tube, that messy people like our own Jim Marrs have spread all over the place. The book upholds the findings of the Warren Comission, that lone nut gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, was JFK'S assassin.

I didn't buy the book (I'm not giving this dude any money.) but I would like to read it. If I haven't read it, how do I know what it says? Well, Mr. Bugliosi was on a local radio station here in "muddy" York (the old name for Toronto) stumping for the book. He was interviewed at length and made his opinion's clear.

I picked the book up and perused it. It is very detailed. I read another book by Mr. B. and I have to say that his prose is workmanlike but not artful. He's a relentless didact.

One thing I did notice though, is that he has reproduced the famous photo of Oswald in his backyard, holding the M-C carbine. The photo's caption presented it without comment, as if Jack White had never darkened anyone's door with all of his intelligent perspicacity.

I was wondering if Jim had seen Bugliosi's book yet and had any comment on it. The radio interviewer here in Toronto seemed to think that conspiracy nuts like myself are afflicted with some kind of misplaced religious fixation and that hopefully the intelligent former D.A. will straighten us all out.

Mr. Marrs is Vincent Bugliosi doing what I think he's doing, i.e., reclaiming baloney?

[edit on 24-12-2007 by ipsedixit]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:17 PM
Howdy ipsedixit,

Mr. Bugliosi is reclaiming baloney in that he is trying to reclaim the discredited Warren Commission. Keep in mind that Mr. Bugliosi has a background as a prosecutor and in his weighty tome has presented a well-argued prosecution brief against Lee Harvey Oswald. And, like any good prosecutor, he has only presented the evidence that would convict the accused. Like the Warren Commission before him he has systematically omitted anything that might be used as a defense. Add to this cherry-picking of evidence the fact that he tries to bamboozle the reader with inconsequential filler, such as the pages 1142 to 1143 where he presents a fictitious conversation between Jack Ruby and a made-up gangster he names Vito which he writes “would have had to have taken place if organized crime” had sent someone to ask Ruby to kill Oswald. It reads like a bad script from the Sopranos. When Ruby asks Vito how they arrived at such a plan, Vito replies, “Fuhgedaboudit. Jack.” Sheesh. In his index, there are eight references to Joseph Stalin, who was dead long before JFK was killed. Yet, there are only two references to Bill Newman, who, along with his wife, Gale, were probably the closest witnesses to JFK at the time of the fatal head shot. Neither of these two references mention that Newman was on Dallas TV about an hour after the shooting telling the audience that the shot came from back behind them on what they call the “knoll”. I could provide a list of important witnesses never mentioned in this book but it would take up too much space. I could also counter the five pieces of evidence Mr. Bugliosi claims prove Oswald’s guilt but I haven’t the time. One, however, was that Oswald fled the book depository which proved he was guilty. However, a close reading of the Warren Commission volumes shows that Oswald said his boss told him to go home as there would be no further work that day, which is true. It is also true that the headcount of depository employees which accounted for all but Oswald was actually taken about 2 p.m. at a time when Oswald was already in custody. One taken about 1 p.m. indicated more than 50 employees unaccounted for. Within the first 20 pages of this 1,612 page opus, Mr. Bugliosi refers to conspiracy researchers as “zanies,” “sillies,” “silly buffs,” “cuckoo birds,” “crackpots,” “nuts,” “publicity seekers” and spreaders of “moonshine.” If someone has to resort to name calling, they must not have much of an argument. He also cannot even get his facts straight. He refers to “ABC commentator Chet Huntley” when anyone who was alive at the time knows Huntley worked for NBC. (p. 239) On pp. 421 and 422, Mr. Bugliosi explains how he determined that the “single bullet theory” (one slug through both JFK and Gov. Connally) was correct by playing with his fingers. He calls the testimony of witness Jean Hill into question by saying that she only made things up her claim of a Grassy Knoll gunman in later years. He never mentions her January 1964 FBI report where she also stated that she saw someone firing from the Grassy Knoll. On page 952, he states emphatically, “You cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you.” I guess he forgot that Oswald was recorded by newsmen as saying, “I’m just a patsy!” This is much more than declaring innocence, this is saying he was set up to take the blame. Yet neither the Warren Commission nor Bugliosi entertain one moment of consideration that some of the evidence against Oswald was planted or contrived. On page 965, Mr. Bugliosi blithely writes about “the presence of nitrates from gunpowder residue on his [Oswald’s] hands.” Yet, the official Dallas Police paraffin test reports states traces of nitrates on his hands but no gunpowder and no gunpowder or nitrates on his face. Nitrates can come from several different sources, including book ink. It is well known that Oswald was moving book boxes with printing on them that morning. I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. Reclaiming History is a waste of money. If you want a shorter, more readable account of the assassination, go buy the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission. I truly believe the purpose of Mr. Bugliosi’s book is not to convince anyone of anything but to simply provide an excuse for talk show appearances, news sound bites and headlines that Oswald did it all by himself, so as to generate continued controversy in the younger generations at a time when national polls show between 75 and 85 percent of the public now knows that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. You see, if you can keep the assassination controversial, then nothing will be done about it. Pretty slick plan, right?

Jim Marrs

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:53 AM
reply to post by Jim Marrs

Thanks for the response Jim. It must have been somewhat galling for an honest researcher like yourself to have to read through such a mountain of drivel. I wonder sometimes how people like Bugliosi and many of the Bush administration's 9/11 story apologists get up the nerve to look at themselves in the mirror every morning.

On another note I have finished reading William Reymond's, JFK: Autopsie d'un crime d'etat. Reading your book Crossfire is on my urgent "to do" list. The Reymond book is very interesting, but suffers from a very serious shortcoming, that is, very few footnotes. The writing is very good though. His account of the Warren Commission report and how it was put together borders on the hilarious at times.

I would like to re-read the Raymond book and carefully compile many questions that arose the first time I read it and come back to the forum with some of them. Anyway, I'm so glad you make time for this forum. Thanks for doing it.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:20 AM
Has anyone watched the new series on HBO Autopsy: Postmortem with Dr. Michael Baden where the famed forensic pathologist "investigates" famous historical cases including the JFK assassination? This sell-out of a human being came to the conclusion that the assassination happened just as we were told. I couldn't believe my freakin' ears. I once had a lot of respect for Baden.

I'd love to see another famed forensic pathologist, Cyril Wecht, go head to head with Baden. Wecht has been a long time proponent of a conspiracy involving JFK.


posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by Dr Love

I haven't seen the programs that you are talking about but I have watched the "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (all parts) and am familiar with Dr. Wecht's views. The chances of a debate like the one you suggest between Wecht and Baden or say between Marrs and Bugliosi are negligible. I don't think people like Bugliosi and possibly Baden really believe what they are saying.

It boggles my mind how many "willing servants" operate in this world, furthering criminal agendas.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:19 PM
Howdy ipsedixit,

You are absolutely correct. There will likely be no public debate between the "experts" over JFK's assassination as that would provide a forum for a true exchange of evidence and information. It is much better for the globalists who were behind the assassination to simply used the corporate mass media they own and control to periodically spew forth unchallenged pronouncements of Oswald's guilt and hope that future generations will finally tire of the game and stop investigating on their own. After all, there is always another celebrity's life to place in the light of the media and other such meaningless distractions.

The question of "willing servants" is quite interesting. Some hawk the "party line" to maintain their income and prestigous positions while others are on someone's payroll (perhaps through private grants and academic faculties). Others are simply "aginers," who enjoy the notoriety of being against whatever topic is offered up. And, then, there are always the shallow-minded, who read one or two official sources and come to a conclusion which cannot be swayed by the facts.

Jim Marrs

new topics

top topics

log in