PAT SPEER SAID:
The L.A. Times review of the book ["Reclaiming History"]...was written with the help of Bugliosi's publicist. In a video-taped interview conducted just before the release of the book, Bugliosi said he wanted his book to be considered a "book for the ages". The Times' review, released just days later, BEFORE the release of this interview on the internet, called the book...a "book for the ages".
According to Bugliosi's publicity machine, he has proven ALL conspiracy theories to be frauds, and has changed the playing field so much that anyone disagreeing with him can be considered insane.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That last sentence sounds pretty close to being spon-on accurate, IMO. :)
And I guess Pat Speer must think that Jim Newton of the Los Angeles Times is part of Vincent Bugliosi's "publicity machine". Right, Pat?
Any proof of that? Or is the term "book for the ages" proof enough for you? It's hard to tell whether you think Newton got the term "book for the ages" from Bugliosi or whether you think Bugliosi stole it from Newton. ~shrug~
FWIW and FYI -- Jim Newton's review of "Reclaiming History" appeared in the "Books" section of the L.A. Times on May 13, 2007 (at least the article is dated 5/13/07 on the Internet, at any rate), which was two days before the official release of Bugliosi's book.*
* The book's release date was moved up from its original one of May 29 to May 15 for some reason. My guess is that Vince and publisher W.W. Norton wanted to get "Reclaiming History" on the market closer to the publishing date of David Talbot's "Brothers", which debuted on May 8, 2007, seven days before "RH" streeted. But, again, that's just a guess on my part.
Now, we can see that Newton's review of "RH" is dated 5/13/07. We can't know, however, the exact date when Newton actually WROTE the review, but I'm guessing it was sometime in early May of 2007. (Seems reasonable to me anyway.)
On April 30, 2007, Vince Bugliosi recorded his pre-release "interview" about the book, which was videotaped by the people at FORA.tv.
That interview is also shown on the front page of ReclaimingHistory.com [which is a site that no longer exists].
In that 4/30/07 "interview" (which doesn't include anyone else talking except Bugliosi; the "interviewer" [if there, in fact, is a real-life person there conducting the interview] is never heard or seen)....Vince does say that he wrote "Reclaiming History" to be a "book for the ages". Quoting VB from the interview in question:
"I think the assassination [of JFK] is...sufficiently important to warrant that there be a book for the ages about it. And 'Reclaiming History' is that book. I mean when I started writing that book, it was to write a book for the ages about the Kennedy assassination. And that's precisely what it is. I don't care if it's 100 years from now or 500 years from now, if people are still interested in the case...this is the book that they are going to have to read. It's a book for the ages and the case was sufficiently important to warrant that type of [20-year] effort on my part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; April 30th, 2007
But Pat Speer is wrong when he says that the L.A. Times "RH" review appeared on the Internet "BEFORE" the 4/30/07 VB interview showed up online.
This post that I wrote on 5/12/07 (wherein I provide a FORA.tv link to the VB interview, although the link does not work now) was posted one day before Jim Newton's review appeared online.
And it's quite likely that the Bugliosi April 30 interview was available to view online at FORA.tv at least a few days prior to May 12th, which is the date when I first discovered it was there.
[NOTE -- Bugliosi's 29-minute-long 4/30/07 interview didn't show up on the "Reclaiming History" website until several days after the RH site was first launched, but the interview was available to watch through the FORA.tv website at some point prior to 7:00 AM EDT on May 12, 2007.]
For those keeping a "VB"/"RH" scorecard (and I imagine there are thousands of people out there doing that very thing; ~grin~), the ReclaimingHistory.com website was launched at approximately 9:00 AM EDT on Saturday, May 5, 2007. [RELATED POST]
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what all this is supposed to mean (or prove) in the conspiracy-filled mind of Pat Speer, but Pat undoubtedly smells a rat with regard to the four words "book for the ages".
In other words, somebody pilfered those four words from somebody else. But even if that phrase was "borrowed" by Mr. Newton from Vince Bugliosi for Newton's Los Angeles Times book review in May 2007 -- what's the difference?
It doesn't really matter in the long run, because any way you slice it (or phrase it), "Reclaiming History" IS a "book for the ages". And there's nothing that Patrick J. Speer or any other conspiracy theorist can do about it.
Bonus VB quote that fits in nicely here:
"The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. .... And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations. I believe this book has achieved both of these goals."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1461 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
July 13, 2009