[Shooter 2.5]

Reclaiming history is an apt name for a book that after 1600 pages and 1.5 million words which took about twenty years to write, the author proves to the readers that Oswald killed Kennedy. Now the real question will the theorists actually read the thing? Doubt it.

[MinuteGal]

I've seen Bugliosi interviewed many times on TV. His appearances have never disabused me of my assessment that he's a square shooter with feet firmly planted in reality.

He's a good writer, has a keen legal mind and most importantly, he's got no political axe to grind.

Leni

[Shooter 2.5]

I was at Dealy Plaza last week and I overheard one of the “guides” explain there were seven assassins. The way he explained it, they were all behind the picket fence. That scenario must have sounded like a warzone.

As I was leaving, another of the guides was explaining about the “explosives” going off just before the planes hit the Twin Towers.

Sometimes it can be pretty entertaining but only in small doses.

[spanalot]

Dont you find it a bit strange that Oswald was assassinated by a Mafia bit player , that RFK was assassinated, that Monroe committed suicide , that Hoffa was killed, that Jackie married a geeky albeit powerful greek who could protect her?

Yeah - lone assassin rrrright.

[weegee]

How many more years do we have to wait for JFK’s White House recordings and papers to be released and what will remain 50 years after his death?

Will his guardians have purged what they couldn’t bury?

[Signalman]

“Case Closed” by Gerald Posner.

The definitive book on the JFK assassination.

[Non-Sequitur]

Reclaiming history is an apt name for a book that after 1600 pages and 1.5 million words which took about twenty years to write, the author proves to the readers that Oswald killed Kennedy.

He could have saved himself the effort. Gerald Posner did the same thing 14 years ago in 900 fewer pages.

[rlmorel]

I have only just started listening to the book. I got the book simply because I had read one of his other books and really liked it: ‘And the Sea Will Tell”.

I have heard Buglosi is a bit of a Lefty, but that notwithstanding, I bought the book.

Interesting. He just described an incident where he was speaking at a Lawyers convention of some kind, big crowd, and some lawyers in the crowd started asking him questions about the Kennedy assassination with a tone that clearly displayed their inclination to believe there was a conspiracy.

Buglosi asked to see a show of hands to display who in the crowd did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission, and was astounded by the vast majority of hands that went up, something like 90%. He then said to the crowd something to the effect of “What if I can prove to you in one minute or less, that, although you are all intelligent people, you are not thinking intelligently about the Kennedy case?” There was a stir, his challenge apparently sounded ridiculous...how could he prove in one minute or less that more than 600 lawyers were not thinking intelligently?

Someone shouted out “We don’t think you can do it!” He said, “Okay, start looking at your watches. With the clock ticking, he asked for another show of hands to indicate who had seen the recent movie JFK by Oliver Stone, or at any time in the past had read a book, magazine or article that advocated a conspiracy or tried to discredit the Warren Commission.

Again, nearly the same amount of hands went up. He proceeded to tell the group that he didn’t need a show of hands for his next point. He said: “I am sure that you will all agree that before you form an intelligent opinion on a matter in dispute, you should hear both sides of the issue. As an old West Virginia Mountaineer said: “No matter how thin I make my pancakes, they always have two sides.” With that in mind, how many of you have read the Warren Report?”

It was embarrassing. only a few people raised their hands. In 47 seconds, he had proved his point.

The overwhelming majority had rejected the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to read the commission’s report. He noted he had not even asked how many had read all 26 volumes...not just the single volume summary.

I found that pretty persuasive, and have only just started. As an example of things people say about the assassination (and I see some here) he used example of people saying it was a cheap gun and could not have obtained that kind of accuracy.

As a matter of fact, the actual gun used in the assassination was tested by a Marine Corps expert, who stated that the gun that had cost $12.50 was actually quite accurate and reproducible with repeated firings, at least as good as an M-14. (That is in the Warren Report)

Another fallacy was that Oswald was a lousy marksman. As a Marine, he actually shot a 212 on a range which qualified him as a sharpshooter. (also in the Warren Report)

Additionally, he used the often cited bromide (which I have heard) that nobody has ever been able to simulate repeating the feat of shooting that Oswald was supposed to have achieved. In actuality, it has indeed been repeated a few times, and even improved on. (An expert hit 3 of 3 shots in that time frame on a moving target simulating those speeds and trajectories using nearly the exact type of bolt action weapon)

Mind you, I am only a small way into the book, but I have always had an open mind about this...I always felt “yeah, it might have been more than one person...but nobody has proven it to me...” kind of mindset. If he can be this persuasive before he even gets into the meat of the book...this should be interesting.

[Biblebelter]

I was in the sixth grade when JFK was shot. I decided with my own thinking at the time that it was a conspiracy and nothing has changed my mind since. This is what convinced me. I was looking at Life or Look magazine which had the famous photo of Ruby shooting Oswald. The caption had Oswald’s words which were “Jack, you SOB.” To me that sure sounded not only like someone who knew his killer, but who also it rang to me of betrayal. The motives of Oswald in the plot to kill the President could have been many, considering his suspicious history. But Ruby’s motivation to kill Oswald is where explanations are hard to come by. Ruby was a two-bit low level hoodlum who had little history that would explain his motivations. Bugliosi is a very smart man with a tremendous ego who wants to prove the world wrong and validate his ego. I have often said that we have more facts about the assassination of Julius Caesar than JFK. Caesar was stabbed 23 times. There is great debate about whether the hole in Kennedy’s throat was an entry or an exit wound or simply the incision for the trachea tube which kept him on life support.

[Ditto]

Now the real question will the theorists actually read the thing? Doubt it.

Agree. And the tin foil hat conspiracy industry will claim it's just another cover up and make more millions in the process. It's an enterprise now, not history.

I always accepted the results of the Warren Commission but had some doubts ... until I visited to School Book Depositor in Dallas and looked out the same windows that Oswald did.

The TV views of that area make it look large. It's not. From that window, anyone with a steady hand and a minimal amount of familiarity with a rifle could have made those shots.

That visit ended any doubt that I had. I recommend it to doubters.

[jordan8]

Frame by frame of the Zapruder film. Note the change in Connally's jacket lapel between frames 223-225, which some think may be the moment the bullet struck him. Note also the angle of Kennedy's head in frame 312 and the forward plume caused by the bullet in 313. No ordinary bullet fired from the front could have caused that, though an explosive bullet might have. But that still leaves the undeniable entry wound on the back of the head near the cow lick.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

I don’t know about the theories and all of that. What I do know is that with my own eyes I’ve seen the Zapruder film at least a 1,000 times in the last 35 years and every time I watch it, JFK’s head violently snaps backwards and to the left from the fatal shot.

Since Oswald was above him and behind him to the right, would not a fatal head shot from Oswald have snapped JFK’s head forward in a down angle and to the left?

I mean, I’m no physicist and I’m no doctor, but I have some common sense and I’ve yet to hear a credible explanation as to how a shot from behind and above can cause the head to violently snap backwards and upwards. I doesn’t make sense.

[word_warrior_bob]

I wish everyone who believes Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy would read Case Closed and now Bugliosi’s new book, and THEN try and tell us about their “theories”.

The Kennedy Assasination is the best proof about repeating a lie over and over again and that ANYONE can be brainwashed and/or duped.

Oswald killed Kennedy as sure as OJ killed Ron and Nicole, but many freepers and most of Americans believe otherwise.

[R_Kangel]

I thought about who shot JFK for many years. Then I had a massive epiphany!

I realized that the had to be none other than Bigfoot! This might sound a tad far fetched to some, but think about it for a minute (no longer than a minute otherwise logic might take hold) Bigfoot hangs out in grassy knolls and is always blurry when photographed!

OK, maybe it might sound a little far fetched, but there might be a million dollar screenplay in this somewhere.

I got first dibbs on the copyright!

[x]

Now, after forty years we really have had a "JFK conspiracy." It was strange to hear them talking about it on the radio: "Americans love JFK. The terrorists thought that destroying JFK would deal a blow to the US." Hard to tell where the man ends and the airport begins.

Anyway, if I were a pretentious French philosopher, I'd say that the alleged Kennedy assassination conspiracies have become "hyperreal" -- more real than anything that actually happened in the Kennedy years. But I'm not, so I won't.

[dfwgator]

What does Bugliosi accomplish that Posner already didn’t in “Case Closed?”

[Liz]

ping