DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr. Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and omissions and lies, etc.
And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on DiEugenio's part, I have to ask myself this question (which is the same question that all reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?
And after pondering the above inquiry, the only logical answer I can arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.
Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS [later to be ten] of his anti-VB book review.
It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics (dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy that appear within Bugliosi's massively complete 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly, well-documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History" defies all belief.
PAT SPEER SAID:
Your post makes no sense, David. Bugliosi spent 2600 pages talking about the assassination--at least half of this was him arguing against other people's viewpoints. So now DiEugenio spends a hundred or so pages arguing against Bugliosi's viewpoint--and you call this obsessed?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I do.
As I said previously, DiEugenio is in "VB Overload" mode. And anyone who knows anything at all about Vince Bugliosi--THE MAN himself--would instantly recognize DiEugenio's continual and seemingly never-ending attacks on Bugliosi's magnum opus as being way, way "over the top".
And DiEugenio's nit-picking certainly doesn't win him any CT medals either (and, yes, Jim is nit-picking in many instances in his soon-to-be NINE-PART "review").
PAT SPEER SAID:
And [you, DVP] infer from this that he must be wrong about a lot of it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, absolutely. I do infer that very thing you just said. Jim's subjectivism is on full display every step of the way in his Everything Bugliosi Says Is Dead Wrong review (especially in the double-length segment on the Garrison case; but since Jim D. is a Garrison-ite personified, I don't think I need to elaborate further on Jim's motives for making that portion of his "review" a double-length diatribe).
PAT SPEER SAID:
Well...ding ding ding--doesn't the same hold true for your hero Bugliosi? Mustn't he be wrong about a lot of stuff, too? If not, why not?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Because Vince has a little thing called THE HARD FACTS on his side. Could that be it, Pat?
On the other hand, people like Mr. DiEugenio do everything within their power to completely ignore (or mangle) those HARD FACTS surrounding President Kennedy's death.
Of course, that type of shameful behavior on the part of Warren Commission critics is nothing new. Just look at Mark Lane and Jim Garrison for two high-profile examples of "evidence manglers". They are/were two of the best in that department (IMO).
You, Pat Speer, are much like DiEugenio, in that you are so firmly entrenched in chasing shadows and make-believe theories that you cannot (or will not) see the Oswald-Did-It forest for the trees. And that Oz-Did-It forest is a HUGE FOREST too....without question.
Although, Pat, I do have to give you more credit on some things than most other conspiracy theorists....because at least you acknowledge the fact that the head shot came from the REAR.
You've got the specifics of that rear head shot all screwed up (naturally), and you know that the ONLY AVAILABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE does not support your theory about WHERE that bullet entered Kennedy's head....but at least you don't think Jimmy Files did it with a Fireball from behind the picket fence. And for that, I salute you. :)
PAT SPEER SAID:
One should consider that Bugliosi wrote letters to editors claiming even CTs like David Mantik agreed that his book was brilliant. He was thereby quoting Mantik out of context. Mantik, if I recall, said something like Bugliosi's book was a brilliant prosecutor's brief, but a failure as history.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're 100% correct about that, Pat. And I've written some Internet pieces concerning that very subject [two of which are HERE and HERE].
However, I think it's quite possible that Bugliosi (still to this day) hasn't read Dr. Mantik's ENTIRE "Reclaiming History" book review. It's possible that Vince's publisher (W.W. Norton) culled Mantik's "it is a masterpiece" blurb on their own (and they probably did), and then put those out-of-context words on the "RH" website and also in Bugliosi's 2008 JFK paperback book, "Four Days In November". But I'm still wondering if Mr. Bugliosi HIMSELF really knows that that blurb was taken out of context?
But, you're right, that was a dirty trick by the publishers (but not necessarily by Vincent himself), because that Mantik blurb should never have been used to promote Bugliosi's two JFK books ("RH" and "Four Days").
In fact, on June 12th, 2008, I went so far as to send an e-mail to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary about the Mantik blurb. Here's an excerpt from that e-mail:
"I'm actually kind of embarrassed for Vince when I see those two brief review blurbs of Mantik's showing up online at the RH site, because they are also taken totally out of context. Mantik is actually bashing the book and its author--not praising it/him. .... It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And that's not a good thing at all, in my view." -- DVP; 06/12/08
PAT SPEER SAID:
Anyhow...DiEugenio has as much right to criticize Bugliosi as Bugliosi did to criticize Stone. How can you have a problem with that?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, Mr. DiEugenio has every right to write whatever he pleases....about Mr. Bugliosi or anyone else. And he has done so.
But, likewise, I have every right to totally disagree with him (in print). And I do.
David Von Pein
August 31, 2009
