(PART 166)


>>> "I looked at CTKA and didn't see any mention of [Mark Lane's review of Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book]?" <<<


It's on Mark Lane's website [as of March 2008 anyway; as of March 2012, however, Lane's "It Is Round" review of VB's book is gone from Lane's site]. It was written by Lane several months ago.

Mark Lane, in his 42-page anti-Bugliosi rant, actually has the huge (and hilarious) gonads to say that Bugliosi makes "wild accusations" (Lane's exact words) when it comes to the evidence in the JFK case.

I wonder if that includes all the times that Vince follows the actual evidence where it actually leads--to Lee Harvey Oswald and only him--instead of following the fantasy-filled yellow brick road toward conspiracy? Mr. Lane didn't say. He just thinks that Vince offers up "wild accusations, instead of facts". It's definitely pot/kettle time here, folks.

Another humorous portion of Mr. Lane's anti-VB outburst is when he criticizes Bugliosi for not researching the JFK case any sooner than he did (which was 1986, when Vince got involved in the Mock Trial of Oswald for London Weekend Television), with Lane suggesting that the only reason Vince ultimately wrote "Reclaiming History" was to make a buck (even though, of course, it took 21 years to write and research the book, and Vince certainly knows that if you want to make a bunch of money off of a book project, you don't take 21 years to write an encyclopedic-style tome and charge $49.95 retail for it; and Vince has said this very thing since the book came out in May 2007).

But can't the same type of arguments be made when talking about a whole bunch of "johnny-come-lately" (so to speak) authors who didn't come along with their so-called case-breaking books until decades after the assassination? And they certainly wanted to make a few bucks off of their books too, didn't they?

I guess perhaps people like Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann and John Armstrong and Brian "JFK WASN'T SHOT IN THE HEAD AT ALL!" Andersen are exempt from the same rules that Vince Bugliosi must adhere to (per Mr. Lane).

Go figure.

If you really want to see some "wild accusations" (circa 1967 anyway), just get ahold of a video copy of Mr. Lane's film "Rush To Judgment". A lot of wholly untrue and unfounded "accusations" and theories can be located within that film.

As for Mr. Bugliosi's excellent publication, the truth rests within it (and the actual evidence against Oswald also resides within it, of course)....and the majority of readers who are taking the time to write reviews for VB's "Reclaiming History" at Amazon.com are in complete agreement with me about the book as well, with well over half of the reviews (to date) reflecting a perfect "5-Star" rating. .....

Amazon Customer Reviews for "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (through March 9, 2008):

149 Total Reviews:*

5-star: 85 (57%)
4-star: 11 (7%)
3-star: 12 (8%)
2-star: 9 (6%)
1-star: 32 (21%)

* = These stats include my own personal 5-Star review as well.

An excerpt from a recent "RH" review:

"Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, assassinated President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and Bugliosi makes this clear to anyone who is interested in the truth. Unfortunately, many people choose to believe in a conspiracy and will not be swayed by any amount of facts or logic, but if you have an open mind and are willing to devote the time and effort to reading this book, then Reclaiming History will surely convince you once and for all of Oswald's guilt." -- Thomas R. Higgerson; March 9th, 2008

David Von Pein
March 2008