Part 10 of a scathing review debunking Vince Bugliosi's JFK book is now online

[Valienteman]

Must-read:

http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_10_review.html

Bugliosi is God to the "Oswald-did-it" crowd, since their first Gods (the warren commission and gerald posner) now have no credibility. Read all 10 parts of the critique.

[zappaman]

1. Just got Bugliosi's book

And look forward to comparing it to other books I've read like BEST EVIDENCE, CROSSFIRE, and RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.
Will get back to you and let you know if I consider Bugliosi my GOD.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Bugliosi makes far more.sense than...

Jim DiEugenio. Beyond that, it's going on nearly 50 years since the assassination and 4 separate investigations have found that Oswald killed JFK.

Are you guys close to blowing the lid off this thing? What are you waiting for?

[deconstruct911]

3. David Ferrie a protected pedophile?

Do you deny he knew LHO & Barry Seal?

Not too many operation 40 guys left, so were not really waiting for anything.

[SDuderstadt]

4. As usual...

your post is so incoherent, I haven't got the foggiest notion wtf you are babbling about, dude.

[Valienteman]

5. I found the post coherent. He asked you if Ferrie (the guy with the two suicide notes) knew Oswald

You did not respond.

[SDuderstadt]

6. I DID respond...

I said his post.was incoherent...Duh.

[MinM]

8. Richard Schweiker came to his own conclusion: "The CIA killed Kennedy"

Show #484
Original airdate: July 22, 2010
Guest: Jim DiEugenio
Topics: Bugliosi book review Part 9 - second half

# Play Part Two Interview - Jim DiEugenio

# Bugliosi review con't
# A list of people who were not of the "tin-foil-hat" crowd that believed in a conspiracy
# http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKschweiker.htm">Richard Schweiker came to his own conclusion: "The CIA killed Kennedy"
# The Church comittee was critical of the FBI's investigation and said the Warren conclusions were suspect
# Bugliosi barely covers the Church Committee
# Kennedy rejected every plea to send troops to Vietnam
# LBJ took every opportunity to send troops there
# Within two months, NSAM 273 is changed and the Pentagon suggests sending troops to Vietnam...
# ...Nothing has changed in Vietnam. The troops should come home as JFK was trying to do...
# ...LBJ's government is well on it's way to escalating the war against Kennedy's policy
# Johnson knew it would take ten years and 538000 troops to fight in Vietnam
# This was to be an unreasonably difficult war to fight and not worth the trouble...
# ...Johnson escalates the war anyway
# Jim shows how the entire Vietnam conflict was drafted in advance...Bugliosi, as usual, left that out
# Bugliosi is trying to reverse the historical roles of JFK and LBJ
# "He paints LBJ as a reluctant warrior", as explained above...
# JFK NEVER committed troops and was bringing everyone out of Vietnam by the end of '65 and...
# ...LBJ, as soon as Kennedy died, escalated the conflict
# To write history correctly you need to assemble EVERY fact and use those facts to assemble the book
# Bugliosi simply does not do this in Reclaiming History. Perhaps it should be renamed "Re-writing History"

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black484b.mp3

---

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKschweiker.htm

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/10/philadelphia-pennsylvania.html

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination

A subcommittee headed by Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart looked into the JFK assassination, focusing primarily on how the FBI and CIA worked with the Warren Commission.

The Schweiker-Hart report described what they found: "The Committee has...developed evidence which impeaches the process by which the intelligence agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and by which they provided information to the Warren Commission. The evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient..." Former FBI Assistant Director Alex Rosen told the Committee that the FBI was not actively investigating conspiracy, but was "in the position of standing on the corner with our pockets open, waiting for someone to drop information into it..."

Schweiker was more blunt, saying that the Warren Commission had "collapsed like a house of cards," and that the Kennedy assassination investigation was "snuffed out before it began" by "senior intelligence officials who directed the coverup." The Schweiker-Hart Report focused on evidence and allegations that Castro was behind the JFK assassination, but also uncovered indications that these were part of a frame-up...

Senator Richard Schweiker "the JFK assassination investigation was snuffed out before it even began"

[zappaman]

9. I heard it was the mob

and LBJ

[Valienteman]

10. Impossible. the mob never helped the CIA do stuff

Right?

[zappaman]

11. my bad

I didn't mean the mob, I meant the secret service.

[Valienteman]

12. The whole secret service personnel?

That's preposterous. Some of them may have been involved, but not "The Secret service" as a whole.

You are beating strawmen.

[zappaman]

13. and LBJ

I left him out.
oh, and Gerald Ford.
oops, almost left out Castro.
oh, and Hoover...can't forget Hoover...

[Valienteman]

14. The CT community does not accuse Ford, Castro and Hoover of conspiring to kill Kennedy

Your strawmen grow in size and number.

Hoover is mostly mentioned as part of the cover up, as well as the Warren Commission, Ford included.

[zappaman]

15. lol

wouldn't covering up the crime make one an accessory to murder?
oh, and the CT community certainly does accuse Castro...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,393540,00.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2871

[Valienteman]

16. Do DiEugenio, Mars, Horne, Pease, , Douglas, Gerald McKnight, Mark Lane, etc. etc. accuse Castro?

Your definition of "CT community" is certainly funny. It goes something like, "If anyone accuses Castro of killing Kennedy, then the CT accuses Castro of killing Kennedy."

Which reminds me of a nice topic to discuss with you. Why did the CIA's DRE accuse Castro of killing Kennedy?

[zappaman]

17. oh, my bad

I didn't realize there was some sort of membership program for the "CT community".
You guys pay dues?
And where is this "community"?
Can you see it on GOOGLE EARTH?

[Valienteman]

18. You made a sweeping statement about CT, you tell me

Do tell us more about this monolithic group which you accuse of blaming Castro for killing Kennedy. You said, "the CT community certainly does accuse Castro."

[zappaman]

19. I gave you links to folks that believe Castro killed JFK

is there some sort of secret handshake or membership card to know if they are in the "CT community"?
You tell me.

[Valienteman]

20. You called that unknown fringe pair of guys "The CT community"

Do tell us. Do they have a membership card?

Who is Tim Gratz?

Let's see. I assume you frequent this board a lot. How often do you argue with CT'ers claiming Castro killed Kennedy? By the way, you have ignored my request to discuss why the CIA's DRE accused Castro of killing Kennedy on November 22, 1963. You have not told us whether you read DiEugenio's review either.

[zappaman]

21. you are the one who used the term "CT COMMUNITY"

How about YOU define it?

[Valienteman]

22. We are the ones, buddy. We are

And you know the CT community is the group of people who believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. And if you are going to make a sweeping statement, you mention those who represent the mainstream of that group. A few Republicans approve of the job Obama is doing, for example. In your world, you would call Republicans "Obama supporters," since you call the "Castro-killed-Kennedy" crowd the "CT community".

And please tell me who Tim Gratz is.

We'll continue our debate regarding your breaking news that Castro didn't kill Kennedy tomorrow as I am now going to bed. Be here around 11am eastern time (hopefully by that time you will have read DiEugenio's review, which you have dodged).

[zappaman]

23. you didn't answer the question...buddy.

So, everyone who believes JFK was killed by a conspiracy is the "CT COMMUNITY"...except the ones who believe Castro was involved?
Any other qualifications needed to be part of the community?
You can go to bed whenever you want.
I certainly don't expect any answers from you.
After all, it's been 47 years and you still don't have any!
:rofl:

[Valienteman]

29. I answered it, and you distorted

I didn't say those who believed Castro was involved were not part of the CT community. I compared them with Republicans who approve of the job Barack Obama is doing. In your world, Republicans in general love Barack Obama, since a tiny few Republicans approve of him.

And pasting a laughing smiley doesn't mean you are really smiling. You know you feel uncomfortable by calling two unknown fringe guys "CT Community" and ignoring the DiEugenio review that prompted this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

31. "I answered it and you distorted"...

says the guy who goes on to say, "In your world, Republicans in general love Barack Obama, since a tiny few Republicans approve of him".

Your strawman attacks are no less laughable under this "persona" than they are under all your previous iterations, dude. Too funny.

[Valienteman]

32. Oh gee, you copy and pasted a quote I made without elaborating on it

What a killer argument. You did not even examine the analogy. Why? Because you do, you lose. Go ahead. Tell us how a Republican fringe group does not compare to a CT-fringe group. Don't just copy and paste and flee. We are now going to start a sub-thread on why you think my analogy was wrong.

(p.s.: What did you think of DiEugenio's review?)

[zappaman]

33. "CT community" was YOUR term, not mine

And since you obviously can not define what that is, you bring some bizarre analogy about republicans and Obama.
Now I see why it's been 47 years that your "community" has been mocked and ridiculed for your wacky theories.
When you busting this thing wide open, Inspector Clouseau?
Tick...tick...tick...

[Valienteman]

35. Oh noes! CT have been mocked by those who don't believe in CT. Thanks for the breaking news

We have learned so much from you today. First we learn that Castro didn't kill Kennedy, now we learn that LN have always made fun of CT.

I defined CT community, by the way, and you distorted my definition. And like sduder, you did not explain why the Republican analogy was bizarre. You simply said it was bizarre, as if it wasn't predictable that you would call any analogy I made bizarre.

p.s.: CT Community is our term. You referred to the fringe pair as "the CT community." It's our baby now.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Do you understand what a "strawman"...

is?

With all due respect, your latest "persona" is no different than all your other run-of-the-mill, garden variety" nonsense, dude.

DiEugenio is an idiot. That doesn't really require elaboration

[Valienteman]

36. Wow. Some in-depth analysis there. "DiEugenio is an idiot"

If you are so concerned about logical fallacies, why do you respond with an ad-hominem attack? Busted.

[zappaman]

37. why won't you define the "CT community"?

your words.

[Valienteman]

38. "and the CT community certainly does accuse Castro.." Your words

it's our baby.

I gave you a definition in comment #22 and you pretended I didn't. And I explained how calling a fringe of a group "the group" makes no sene. What is your definition?

p.s.: What do you think about DiEugenio's review, zap?

[zappaman]

44. oh so this is your definition?

"And you know the CT community is the group of people who believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy."
Except if they think it was Castro.
and who else?
who is part of this community and how isn't?
are there dues?
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

39. Dude...

I'm not "debating" DiEugenio. Do you understand what an ad hominem argument actually is?

As for you, you're nothing more than a garden variety, run-of the the-mill conspiracist who's not worth trifling with, other than to mock to other intelligent posters. Sorry.

[Valienteman]

40. I don't know what an "ad homing" argument is. Do you mean "ad hominem?

It's apparent that you are not familiar with the fallacy. I can define the ad-hominem with an example though:

"Jim DiEugenio's part 10 review is flawed because I consider Jim DiEugenio to be an idiot." That is an ad-hominem attack.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

I'm not debating DiEugenio.

I'm not debating you, either. Apparently the words "garden variety" and "run-of-the-mill" are going over your head.

[Valienteman]

42. What is so hard about having an opinion on a review?

The thread is about DiEugenio's review. Are you not interested in the topic of the thread? And yes, You've been debating me.

[SDuderstadt]

43. No, I haven't...

except, perhaps, in your mind.

I do, however, reserve the right to point out your silliness to other posters. You should have learned that in your previous incarnations here.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Valienteman]

46. Wow. I am surprised you didn't give us another "Castro didn't kill Kennedy" post

Now your argument changes to: "DiEugenio's review is flawed because I accuse this guy of having several screen names".

LOL.

well, that answers Sduderstadt's question as to what a strawman is.

[SDuderstadt]

47. That isn't a strawman...

"Valienteman" just tripped himself up again.

[Valienteman]

48. Yes it is n/t

[SDuderstadt]

49. What's hysterical here is that...

"Valienteman" creates a strawman in his mischaracterization of what Z-man said in order to falsely accuse Z-man of a strawman.

Oy.

[Valienteman]

50. I found some hysterical things: Zap not opining on DiEugenio's review, and your ad-hominem attack

On DiEugenio, despite your alleged concern about the use of logical fallacies.

Considering that this thread is about DiEugenio's review, that's a remarkable omission, and the "Castro didn't kill Kennedy" argument is a strawman in this particular thread. Strawmen are very easy to beat up. They are made of straw. They cannot fight back. And the "Castro didn't kill Kennedy" argument has those same characteristics. To criticize DiEugenio require thought and work. And not everyone is willing to think and do research.

[zappaman]

51. "Castro didn't kill Kennedy" is your assertion

strawman.

[Valienteman]

52. You brought up the Castro didn't kill kennedy strawman. And the Gerald Ford strawman

Then I commented on what a strawmen those were.

Remember? you said,

"oh, and Gerald Ford.
oops, almost left out Castro.
oh, and Hoover...can't forget Hoover.."

I was about to say you are getting confused, but you have been confused all along.

[zappaman]

53. nope.

I presented evidence that Castro killed JFK.
YOU maintain that the researchers that say that aren't part of the "CT community".
But, you refuse to tell us who the CT Community is.
Get it?

[Valienteman]

54. You keep pretending that I refuse to tell what the CT is

Despite the fact that I did. And you keep falsely stating that I spoke about anyone being "part of" the CT community as opposed to your sweeping "The CT Community" label. You labeled the fringe duo as "The CT Community." True or false? Are you going to claim that you labeled the fringe duo as "part of" the CT Community? You went beyond that.

Now moving on to your claim that Castro killed Kennedy: LMAO! Do you realize that you are now officially think Vince Bugliosi is a clueless writer? Bugliosi didn't even accuse Castro of killing Kennedy! How dare he miss the obvious, right? What about Posner. Did Posner miss the obvious too?

[zappaman]

55. yes Castro killed JFK

can you prove he didn't???
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

56. "Valienteman" doesn't realize that you are...

parodying the "truther community", dude.

[Valienteman]

57. Oh I get it. You are trying to dodge the question as to who brought up the strawmen

Do you maintain that I brought up the Castro-killed-Kennedy argument? Or do you admit to having brought it up as a way to avoid the DiEugenio review and having lied about it being my "assertion"?

Hey Zappaman, what do you think about DiEugenio's review?

[zappaman]

58. post #14

first mention of the "CT COMMUNITY"
define the "CT community" please and tell us who is a member and who isn't.
and who decides the membership? You?
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

24. "unknown fringe (pair of) guys"...

Umm, that would describe the entire JFK assassination CT, "community".

I hereby nominate this post for most unintentionally ironic post of the decade.

[zappaman]

25. damn dude

how many nominees are you up to?

[SDuderstadt]

26. We might have to create...

new categories

[zappaman]

27. so, do you think there is some sort of way

to tell which JFK conspiracy guys are part of the "CT community" and which ones aren't?

[SDuderstadt]

28. It's a...

"distinction without a difference".

[Valienteman]

30. Again, tell us where I said they're not part of the CT Community

We never spoke about anyone being "part of" it. You called them "The CT Community."

You are one of those who think Republicans approve of Obama because a tiny minority of Republicans approve of Obama's job. Now tell us: What do you think of DiEugenio's review of Bugliosi's fail-book?

[MinM]

7. Bugliosi review part 10a-b

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2010.html

# Show #494
Original airdate: Sept 30, 2010
Guest: Jim DiEugenio
Topics: JFK Research

Play Part Two Interview - Jim DiEugenio
# Bugliosi review part 10a

Play Part Three Interview - Jim DiEugenio
# Bugliosi review part 10b

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black494b.mp3

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black494c.mp3

[SDuderstadt]

59. Poor "Valienteman"...

I guess he was just too high-strung.