JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on April 16, 2021, 03:35:51 PM
-
Some points about Bugliosi that often go unnoticed:
- I watched the below video of an interview of Vincent Bugliosi. At 1 hour and 7 minutes in he says that Nixon was not part of the Watergate incident. These seems like a radical position to take.
- According to his Wikipedia page "Bugliosi is on record for believing that Senator Robert F. Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy."
- In his book Reclaiming History, Bugliosi makes the case that the Odio incident might well have happened (even though the WC and HSCA thought it didn't happen).
These all seem like radical positions to take and not in keeping with the conservative tone one would expect from him.
Perhaps we got Bugliosi all wrong?
-
I think Bugliosi conjured up the "Helter Skelter" business in the Manson case to provide a narrative for that crime for the jury. It had little to do with his race war theory. Manson was attempting to cover up a drug-related murder by one of his associates by making it appear that the person responsible was still on the loose and committing similar crimes while his associate was in jail. The messages left at the crime scene were intended to make the police believe the crimes were all linked. Instead Bugs used them literally as a motive for the crime. My only criticism of his analysis of the JFK assassination is that he allows the CTers to drag the discussion down into the gutter. It is understandable to become frustrated at the lack of logic and insanity applied to the basic evidence in that case, but in the context of writing a book on the subject it makes him sometimes come off as petty when ranting against those nutty claims.
-
I think Bugliosi conjured up the "Helter Skelter" business in the Manson case to provide a narrative for that crime for the jury. It had little to do with his race war theory. Manson was attempting to cover up a drug-related murder by one of his associates by making it appear that the person responsible was still on the loose and committing similar crimes while his associate was in jail. The messages left at the crime scene were intended to make the police believe the crimes were all linked. Instead Bugs used them literally as a motive for the crime. My only criticism of his analysis of the JFK assassination is that he allows the CTers to drag the discussion down into the gutter. It is understandable to become frustrated at the lack of logic and insanity applied to the basic evidence in that case, but in the context of writing a book on the subject it makes him sometimes come off as petty when ranting against those nutty claims.
it makes him sometimes come off as petty when ranting against those nutty claims.
So, you've got something in common with Bugs Thumb1:
-
Well, it is unclear in my mind if Nixon was involved right from the beginning. Certainly, after the initial burglary, he became involved in the coverup to protect his lieutenants and his own reputation. Admittedly, it would be strange for his lieutenants to order the burglary without authorization from the very top, but Nixon and his lieutenants kept the ultimate truth from us. I suspect Nixon did order the burglary beforehand.
Certainly, I strongly disagree with Bugliosi on the 2000 Presidential Election. I don’t see the U. S. Supreme Court stealing the election from Gore. Instead, I see the U. S. Supreme Court trying, as best they could, to clean up the mess created by the Florida State Supreme Court. What people forget is that initially, the Florida court tried to change the law so that instead of having a fair statewide recount, which Florida law allowed during the Contest phase, they would have an unfair, biased recount of just 4 strongly Democratic counties. Only very late in the game, December 8, did the court finally allowed the original Florida law to start a statewide recount. By this time, it was too late. The Florida legislature was up in arms and was ready to appoint its own slate of Electors when the U. S. Supreme Court shut the whole sorry process down.
Bugliosi was wildly wrong to buy into the RFK assassination conspiracy theories.
While very knowledgeable about the JFK assassination, spent more time than anyone else studying it (I believe), and came to the correct conclusions, his overall approach was impossible. To shoot down every conspiracy theory. The CT community can produce far more false scenarios than any one man could ever disprove. He truly was attempting one of the labors of Hercules which could never by accomplished by any mortal.
I think that in general, Bugliosi was not real skillful in finding the truth.
-
it makes him sometimes come off as petty when ranting against those nutty claims.
So, you've got something in common with Bugs Thumb1:
Yes, we both deal with nuts. In his case, he is writing a book for the public. In my case, I'm responding directly to them.
-
Yes, we both deal with nuts. In his case, he is writing a book for the public. In my case, I'm responding directly to them.
And both of you arrogantly and mistakenly believe you know it all (when in truth you have no answers to the easiest of questions) and both are extremely petty.
In his case, he is writing a book for the public.
No. He wrote it for the money. Judging by how badly it sold, the public wanted nothing to do with it. Whenever somebody needs a book of that size (so many words) to explain a simple case of a guy in a window shooting a guy in a car, it's pretty obvious that something is up.
In my case, I'm responding directly to them.
No, you don't responde to anything. You just regurgitate the same old crap over and over again.
-
Some points about Bugliosi that often go unnoticed:
- I watched the below video of an interview of Vincent Bugliosi. At 1 hour and 7 minutes in he says that Nixon was not part of the Watergate incident. These seems like a radical position to take.
- According to his Wikipedia page "Bugliosi is on record for believing that Senator Robert F. Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy."
- In his book Reclaiming History, Bugliosi makes the case that the Odio incident might well have happened (even though the WC and HSCA thought it didn't happen).
These all seem like radical positions to take and not in keeping with the conservative tone one would expect from him.
Perhaps we got Bugliosi all wrong?
From what I understand, Nixon wasn't involved in the Watergate burglary but he did attempt to cover it up.
The RFK thing definitely isn't radical at all. It's probable that there was a conspiracy based on the forensic evidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/06/the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-tape-were-13-shots-fired-or-only-8/
The Odio incident is one of the loose ends that point to Oswald potentially having co-conspirators. I appreciated his honesty in admitting that it might've happened.
None of the examples you cited seem radical to me...
-
No matter what you think about Bugliosi, he did manage to convince a jury that LHO was guilty. Yes, it was a mock trial. However, it appears to me to have been the most objective of all the mock trials of this case that I have seen.
-
No matter what you think about Bugliosi, he did manage to convince a jury that LHO was guilty. Yes, it was a mock trial. However, it appears to me to have been the most objective of all the mock trials of this case that I have seen.
How many mock trials of this case have you seen?
Many details that would have been highly contested in a normal trial, or would likely not be admissible, were agreed upon by stipulation between the lawyers at the mock trial. The witness testimony was also limited to just a few questions, where such testimony could have gone on for days during a real trial. And the chances of finding a truly impartial jury after so many years of media attention for the case were not great.
-
How many mock trials of this case have you seen?
Many details that would have been highly contested in a normal trial, or would likely not be admissible, were agreed upon by stipulation between the lawyers at the mock trial. The witness testimony was also limited to just a few questions, where such testimony could have gone on for days during a real trial. And the chances of finding a truly impartial jury after so many years of media attention for the case were not great.
I have seen one other (which was produced before the Warren Report was published). And read about a few others. One of the more significant differences is that these other mock trials were scripted. The one in London was not scripted and was designed to be more like a real trial.
-
How many mock trials of this case have you seen?
Many details that would have been highly contested in a normal trial, or would likely not be admissible, were agreed upon by stipulation between the lawyers at the mock trial. The witness testimony was also limited to just a few questions, where such testimony could have gone on for days during a real trial. And the chances of finding a truly impartial jury after so many years of media attention for the case were not great.
Yeah, gone on and on forever like you blowhard Oswald arse-kissers, when in fact Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy.
Re the mock trial
Wikipedia:
Bugliosi based much of the book on his preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald. The mock trial involved an actual US judge and US citizens acting as jurors, and Oswald was defended by prominent trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Bugliosi obtained a verdict of "guilty." He wrote in the Introduction to his book:
'My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used.'
-- Vincent Bugliosi
-
Yeah, gone on and on forever like you blowhard Oswald arse-kissers, when in fact Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy.
Re the mock trial
Wikipedia:
Bugliosi based much of the book on his preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald. The mock trial involved an actual US judge and US citizens acting as jurors, and Oswald was defended by prominent trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Bugliosi obtained a verdict of "guilty." He wrote in the Introduction to his book:
'My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used.'
-- Vincent Bugliosi
Thumb1:
-
And both of you arrogantly and mistakenly believe you know it all (when in truth you have no answers to the easiest of questions) and both are extremely petty.
In his case, he is writing a book for the public.
No. He wrote it for the money. Judging by how badly it sold, the public wanted nothing to do with it. Whenever somebody needs a book of that size (so many words) to explain a simple case of a guy in a window shooting a guy in a car, it's pretty obvious that something is up.
LOL. Yes, I'm sure there was a big market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination that concludes Oswald is guilty and is so heavy it almost can't be picked up. Obviously, the intent was not to make money. If he and the publisher wanted to do that, they would have made up some nutty conspiracy theory and kept it short for those like minded kooks with limited intelligence and attention spans.
-
LOL. Yes, I'm sure there was a big market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination that concludes Oswald is guilty and is so heavy it almost can't be picked up. Obviously, the intent was not to make money. If he and the publisher wanted to do that, they would have made up some nutty conspiracy theory and kept it short for those like minded kooks with limited intelligence and attention spans.
Why would Bugliosi change the nutty story he was always going write after receiving his six-figure advance?
I probably won't get an answer (as per usual), but why would the publishers pay Bugs a massive advance if their intent was not to make money?
-
Yeah, gone on and on forever like you blowhard Oswald arse-kissers, when in fact Oswald killed Tippit in front of witnesses and Rosetta-stoned Kennedy.
Re the mock trial
Wikipedia:
Bugliosi based much of the book on his preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald. The mock trial involved an actual US judge and US citizens acting as jurors, and Oswald was defended by prominent trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Bugliosi obtained a verdict of "guilty." He wrote in the Introduction to his book:
'My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used.'
-- Vincent Bugliosi
Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...
putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald
Says it all, really..... Thumb1:
If the mock trail did really come anywhere close to a real trial, there wouldn't have been a need for Bugs to write his door stopper. The size of his book is the best evidence to show that the mock trail only scratched the surface.
Btw
Yeah, gone on and on forever
Gone, to where?
-
Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...
putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald
Says it all, really..... Thumb1:
If the mock trail did really come anywhere close to a real trial, there wouldn't have been a need for Bugs to write his door stopper. The size of his book is the best evidence to show that the mock trail only scratched the surface.
Btw
Yeah, gone on and on forever
Gone, to where?
Gone, to where?
Ever deeper down the never-ending Oswald-lover rabbit hole. Where nothing is provable, nothing is knowable, and nothing is believable.
And you have no idea why Bugliosi wrote his book, fool.
-
Gone, to where?
Ever deeper down the never-ending Oswald-lover rabbit hole. Where nothing is provable, nothing is knowable, and nothing is believable.
And you have no idea why Bugliosi wrote his book, fool.
And you have no idea why Bugliosi wrote his book, fool.
I bet (you think) you have.....but are not going too clueless to say, right?
Btw... the escalation of nastiness on your part is becoming a good way to measure the increasing level of your frustration with your total lack of ability to present and/or defend an even remotely persuasive argument.
-
Why would Bugliosi change the nutty story he was always going write after receiving his six-figure advance?
I probably won't get an answer (as per usual), but why would the publishers pay Bugs a massive advance if their intent was not to make money?
Maybe take a look at the title: Reclaiming History. You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book. That book was intended to rebut the loons who for decades have spread all manner of lies. It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.
-
Maybe take a look at the title: Reclaiming History. You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book. That book was intended to rebut the loons who for decades have spread all manner of lies. It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.
As expected, no answer to the very simple question why a publisher would pay Bugs an six-figure advance for a book that was not expected to sell. Typical "Richard"!
Maybe take a look at the title: Reclaiming History. You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book.
History is what it is. So why would anybody feel the need to reclaim history? Even less so if there was no market for it....
It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.
Actually, no it wasn't. It was a vain attempt to explain away all the massive discrepancies in what was supposed to be a "rock solid" case but never was.
-
As expected, no answer to the very simple question why a publisher would pay Bugs an six-figure advance for a book that was not expected to sell. Typical "Richard"!
Maybe take a look at the title: Reclaiming History. You can't seriously believe that there was a huge market for an 8lb 1600+ page book.
History is what it is. So why would anybody feel the need to reclaim history? Even less so if there was no market for it....
It was an important book to begin reestablishing the truth about the assassination of an American president.
Actually, no it wasn't. It was a vain attempt to explain away all the massive discrepancies in what was supposed to be a "rock solid" case but never was.
I gave you the answer. You just didn't like it. Again, do you think there was a huge market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination? If not, why do you think the publisher paid for it? Why don't you try to provide an answer for once instead of playing the endless contrarian? Publishers often publish books that they know will not make any money. They have plenty of rubes who will buy best sellers. That allows them the luxury of publishing more intellectual books that appeal to a smaller group. They may have received positive media press for the Bugs book. He was a big name but they certainly didn't expect to sell many copies.
-
And you have no idea why Bugliosi wrote his book, fool.
I bet (you think) you have.....but are not going too clueless to say, right?
Btw... the escalation of nastiness on your part is becoming a good way to measure the increasing level of your frustration with your total lack of ability to present and/or defend an even remotely persuasive argument.
I don't have to have an idea as to why Bugliosi wrote his book: He told us himself, fool.
In the meantime:
> No frustration required on my part, let alone an 'increasing level' of same, Sluggo.
> No point arguing about who killed who (so-to-speak), when said who killed who was witnessed doing just that @Tippit, while Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process, Mr Pretend-Lawyer.
-
I gave you the answer. You just didn't like it. Again, do you think there was a huge market for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination? If not, why do you think the publisher paid for it? Why don't you try to provide an answer for once instead of playing the endless contrarian? Publishers often publish books that they know will not make any money. They have plenty of rubes who will buy best sellers. That allows them the luxury of publishing more intellectual books that appeal to a smaller group. They may have received positive media press for the Bugs book. He was a big name but they certainly didn't expect to sell many copies.
Publishers often publish books that they know will not make any money.
What a hilarious BS! :D
Bugs spends years writing a book to "reclaim history" and he does so in the knowledge that hardly anybody will read it because it won't sell and a publisher, who is in the business of selling books, throws away a six figure advance to Bugs for a book he knows won't sell.
And to you that somehow makes sense?
On what planet do you live?
-
I don't have to have an idea as to why Bugliosi wrote his book: He told us himself, fool.
In the meantime:
> No frustration required on my part, let alone an 'increasing level' of same, Sluggo.
> No point arguing about who killed who (so-to-speak), when said who killed who was witnessed doing just that @Tippit, while Rosetta-stoning Kennedy in the process, Mr Pretend-Lawyer.
You just can't help it... You need to reply, don't you? Such compulsion.... amazing!
Btw pull the other one....
-
Publishers often publish books that they know will not make any money.
What a hilarious BS! :D
Bugs spends years writing a book to "reclaim history" and he does so in the knowledge that hardly anybody will read it because it won't sell and a publisher, who is in the business of selling books, throws away a six figure advance to Bugs for a book he knows won't sell.
And to you that somehow makes sense?
On what planet do you live?
I guess that I missed your explanation as to why the publisher would pay him for a 1600+ page book on the JFK assassination? You think it was to make money? LOL. How much money did they make on this 8lb book? It's a common practice in the publishing and movie industry. They can make a few profit whales that allow them to finance projects that have artistic or intellectual merit but will not make money.
-
Not everything is strictly about money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History)
In 2007, Bugliosi told Cynthia McFadden of ABC News that in the preceding seven years, he had devoted 80 to 100 hours per week working on the book.[3]
In discussing publication of this version in a 2009 interview with Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times, Bugliosi described Reclaiming History as his magnum opus. He said it was the work of which he was most proud.[11] Comparing its sales to those for his 1974 bestseller Helter Skelter, he said to Morrison, "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."[11]
-
Not everything is strictly about money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History)
In 2007, Bugliosi told Cynthia McFadden of ABC News that in the preceding seven years, he had devoted 80 to 100 hours per week working on the book.[3]
In discussing publication of this version in a 2009 interview with Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times, Bugliosi described Reclaiming History as his magnum opus. He said it was the work of which he was most proud.[11] Comparing its sales to those for his 1974 bestseller Helter Skelter, he said to Morrison, "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."[11]
And yet, he obtained a six figure sum as advance. Not bad for somebody who doesn't want to make money! You LN lot are hilarious.
-
And yet, he obtained a six figure sum as advance. Not bad for somebody who doesn't want to make money! You LN lot are hilarious.
Six figures can mean anything from one to almost ten million dollars. Do you know the amount? I would suggest that for a high powered attorney’s lifestyle, one million dollars for essentially seven years of his life would not be THE incentive. And that is the message that Bugliosi was conveying when he said: "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."
However, there were potentially more sales in a shorter, less expensive book. And some royalty money in a movie:
In 2008, Bugliosi published a shorter paperback edition of this book, titled Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It concentrated on the events of the assassination and aftermath. This version was adapted for the movie Parkland (2013). A second edition of his paperback was issued as Parkland (2013), to tie into the movie's release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History)
-
Six figures can mean anything from one to almost ten million dollars. Do you know the amount? I would suggest that for a high powered attorney’s lifestyle, one million dollars for essentially seven years of his life would not be THE incentive. And that is the message that Bugliosi was conveying when he said: "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."
However, there were potentially more sales in a shorter, less expensive book. And some royalty money in a movie:
In 2008, Bugliosi published a shorter paperback edition of this book, titled Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It concentrated on the events of the assassination and aftermath. This version was adapted for the movie Parkland (2013). A second edition of his paperback was issued as Parkland (2013), to tie into the movie's release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History)
Hilarious.
I would suggest that for a high powered attorney’s lifestyle, one million dollars for essentially seven years of his life would not be THE incentive. And that is the message that Bugliosi was conveying when he said: "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."
Who cares what Bugs claimed his incentive was. The question is what commercial publishing house is going to pay upwards from a million dollars in advance for a book that is not expected to sell?
I really would like to know the name of that publisher, so I can contact him about this book I'm going to write and for which a million in advance will do nicely.
-
Hilarious.
I would suggest that for a high powered attorney’s lifestyle, one million dollars for essentially seven years of his life would not be THE incentive. And that is the message that Bugliosi was conveying when he said: "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."
Who cares what Bugs claimed his incentive was. The question is what commercial publishing house is going to pay upwards from a million dollars in advance for a book that is not expected to sell?
I really would like to know the name of that publisher, so I can contact him about this book I'm going to write and for which a million in advance will do nicely.
I really would like to know the name of that publisher, so I can contact him about this book I'm going to write and for which a million in advance will do nicely.
W. W. Norton & Company is the publisher. If you already have authored two or more #1 bestseller books you should have no problem getting that kind of money.
Here is what Alan Wolfe of the Washington Post said about the book:
To say that Bugliosi wants to strike a nail in the coffin of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists is putting it mildly; he wants to drive a tractor trailer through their ranks and scatter everyone in sight. Is such an effort really necessary? I am afraid it is, which is another way of saying that we ought to be grateful for Bugliosi's obsession.
-
I really would like to know the name of that publisher, so I can contact him about this book I'm going to write and for which a million in advance will do nicely.
W. W. Norton & Company is the publisher. If you already have authored two or more #1 bestseller books you should have no problem getting that kind of money.
Here is what Alan Wolfe of the Washington Post said about the book:
To say that Bugliosi wants to strike a nail in the coffin of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists is putting it mildly; he wants to drive a tractor trailer through their ranks and scatter everyone in sight. Is such an effort really necessary? I am afraid it is, which is another way of saying that we ought to be grateful for Bugliosi's obsession.
W. W. Norton & Company is the publisher. If you already have authored two or more #1 bestseller books you should have no problem getting that kind of money.
Sure, but Bugs wasn't writing this book for money, right?
-
Six figures can mean anything from one to almost ten million dollars. Do you know the amount? I would suggest that for a high powered attorney’s lifestyle, one million dollars for essentially seven years of his life would not be THE incentive. And that is the message that Bugliosi was conveying when he said: "if you want to make money, you don't put out a book that weighs 7 1⁄2 pounds and costs $57 and has over 10,000 citations and a million and a half words."
However, there were potentially more sales in a shorter, less expensive book. And some royalty money in a movie:
In 2008, Bugliosi published a shorter paperback edition of this book, titled Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It concentrated on the events of the assassination and aftermath. This version was adapted for the movie Parkland (2013). A second edition of his paperback was issued as Parkland (2013), to tie into the movie's release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaiming_History)
Not wanting to be pedantic but six figures is less than one million, it could be as little as 100,000
-
Nobody will read Weidmann's book if they read mine first:
"Oswald Killed Tippit &
Ate Kennedy's Lunch"
-
You just can't help it... You need to reply, don't you? Such compulsion.... amazing!
Btw pull the other one....
Your years-long obsession with me is duly noted, Sparky.
-
Nobody will read Weidmann's book if they read mine first:
"Oswald Killed Tippit &
Ate Kennedy's Lunch"
Are there pictures in it?
-
Your years-long obsession with me is duly noted, Sparky.
As I said; you just can't help it... You need to reply, don't you? Such compulsion.... amazing! :D
-
W. W. Norton & Company is the publisher. If you already have authored two or more #1 bestseller books you should have no problem getting that kind of money.
Sure, but Bugs wasn't writing this book for money, right?
No one has said that. I have already pointed out what Bugliosi said in response to comparing sales of Reclaiming History to his other books. I said that everything isn’t strictly about money.
-
As I said; you just can't help it... You need to reply, don't you? Such compulsion.... amazing! :D
Such compulsion repulsion
-
Are there pictures in it?
Hopefully there are lots of shots of the chicken sandwich. Maybe there is a blurry photo of someone in a white suit in the TSBD doorway who could be Colonel Sanders. He can be given a clever nickname like the "Chicken Man" or "Mr. Cluckenstein."
-
Not wanting to be pedantic but six figures is less than one million, it could be as little as 100,000
Thanks Dan, my mistake. That’s peanuts for a multi #1 best seller author.
-
Thanks Dan, my mistake. That’s peanuts for a multi #1 best seller author.
But it's still a lot of money for a book that isn't expected to sell.
Btw I don't know what the exact figure was, but I recall reading somewhere that it was over a million
-
But it's still a lot of money for a book that isn't expected to sell.
Btw I don't know what the exact figure was, but I recall reading somewhere that it was over a million
If it was over a million, it would be a seven figure number. Not a six figure number, as you have been saying.
Also, the book does have a (low) best seller ranking, so it apparently was expected to sell enough to make it worthwhile for the publisher. The Bugliosi comment that I pointed out was in response to questions comparing this book’s sales to his earlier #1 best selling books. So it is all relative. I think he was also trying to say that the large amount of time he spent writing Reclaiming History was so great that he wasn’t expecting to ever be adequately compensated monetarily. If you calculate seven years of 80 to 100 hours per week, lets say average of 90, that’s 32,760 hours. If you multiply that by an average attorney’s fee of, lets say, $500 per hour (he would actually command much more), that equals $16,380,000. They would have to sell a lot of books to be able to pay Bugliosi that much money. He apparently was saying that his motivations included other things besides money.
-
That book was intended to rebut the loons who for decades have spread all manner of lies.
Well then it failed miserably, as Bugliosi was the loon spreading lies.
-
Well then it failed miserably, as Bugliosi was the loon spreading lies.
"We all need someone we can lean on, and if you want to, you can lean on..." "The Bug".
'Here are twelve lyin' jurors who all say they never heard of me or Sharon Tate or the murders -- you believe that? They've made up their mind. I'm the one they're going to send to the gas chamber; with my long hair I'm a perfect scapegoat.'" - Charles Manson
https://www.straight.com/arts/1283716/extended-interview-50-years-after-manson-murders-tom-oneills-disturbing-new-book-chaos
Extended interview: 50 years after the Manson murders, Tom O'Neill's disturbing new book CHAOS seeks to dismantle the myths of Helter Skelter
by Adrian Mack on August 9th, 2019
...Maybe it was all of those things, but whatever the reason: the Helter Skelter motive, in total, looks very much to its skeptics like a cover-up orchestrated by Bugliosi, presumably at the behest of the same people or organizations that inexplicably protected and then jettisoned the Manson Family. In CHAOS, O’Neill’s seriocomic dance with the former prosecutor reads like a mothballed Coen brothers script, as the vainglorious Bugliosi alternately cajoles, deflects, lectures, defames, threatens, and otherwise buzzes around the author in an effort to defend both Helter Skelter and his reputation. It becomes clear that he was rattled enough to keep a quiet tab on O’Neill’s research. So who or what was this guy?
“That’s the question,” replies O’Neill, with a laugh. “He was compromised, ya know, before he even got the assignment to do the Tate-LaBianca murders. The D.A.’s office should have fired him, and he should have been disbarred when they found out what he had done in the milkman case in ’68. So, if anybody was ever easy to be leveraged, it was him.”
The “milkman case” became public when Bugliosi ran for L.A. district attorney in ’72. Convinced that his wife Gail had been impregnated by their milkman, it emerged that he’d used his status and public resources to terrorize the innocent man and his family. An exasperated Gail, O’Neill writes, assured them her esteemed husband had “mental problems”.
When he ran again in ’74, a much darker episode surfaced. Allegedly, Bugliosi had beaten his own pregnant mistress so badly that she miscarried, and he used his influence inside the criminal-justice system to make the problem disappear. After his last heated interview with Bugliosi in 2006, O’Neill was unsurprised when an onslaught of verbose, defamatory letters arrived at the offices of his first publisher, Penguin.
The author sounds genuinely pained when he mentions what he and his eventual collaborator Dan Piepenbring had to cut from CHAOS for reasons of length, including a chapter on Bugliosi’s quixotic effort to support the Warren Commission findings with his 2007 book Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Mirroring O’Neill’s journey, it consumed Bugliosi for two decades, the chief difference being that he was trying to reinforce, not dismantle, what many believe to be a government-stamped cover up.
“I don’t like to speculate,” offers O’Neill, “but some pretty serious researchers—and there are serious assassination researchers out there—are convinced that Bugliosi was, let’s just say, obligated to certain federal agencies, or had been for his entire career, to write a book like Reclaiming History, and to present a false narrative like he did in Helter Skelter.”
In the end, that’s what CHAOS is really about: false narratives, handed to the public in neat packages and bestowed, in O’Neill’s excellent phrase, with “the aura of finality”. The effect is such that the release of Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood has prompted every hack with a byline to proclaim once again that Charles Manson killed the ’60s.
Except he didn’t, anymore than Hitler or Genghis Khan did. It was infinitely more complex than that, and what we think we know, with such sublime certainty, merely fixes us in an ideological position that benefits those who maybe did, actually, kill the ’60s. Maybe Helter Skelter provided cover for a unique kind of American fascism that was field-testing its tech, branding the nightmare event for future generations.
With a sigh, O’Neill mentions that his research could have yielded a chapter on a contemporaneous event also covered in the fingerprints of the CIA and its clandestine mind surgeons: the killing of Robert Kennedy and subsequent conviction of a man with no memory of his role, Sirhan Sirhan. And he has a different take these days on the weaponized term “conspiracy theory”.
“I don’t use it as much as I used to,” he says, wryly. “I do have more respect for people who research these kinds of alternative histories. I’m a lot less naive. I’m a lot less trusting. Which is sad in a way, but you have to become what you become. I always questioned authority, I’m pretty liberal in my politics, and didn’t really completely trust government and law enforcement. But now I’m so skeptical about everything I see reported about a crime, or anything. It’s just pretty disheartening to know how people can lie so easily and cavalierly. It shocked me.”
What isn’t easy, for the decent among us, is to consider our own programming, whether it's applied explicitly through the hard vectors of state and corporate propaganda or the softer channels of entertainment. But it is necessary. Why do we think what we think?
O’Neill has another great phrase to describe the way consensus reality gels around myth. He calls it “inert history”. With CHAOS, the author has unearthed dozens of leads Vincent Bugliosi and his sponsors fought hard for five decades to keep hidden, and he ardently hopes that others will now follow up on what he spent two of those decades coaxing out of a sealed record. In this sense, history becomes dynamic again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS
Operation CHAOS or Operation MHCHAOS was a Central Intelligence Agency domestic espionage project targeting the American people from 1967 to 1974, established by President Lyndon B. Johnson and expanded under President Richard Nixon, whose mission was to uncover possible foreign influence on domestic race, anti-war and other protest movements. The operation was launched under Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Richard Helms by chief of counter-intelligence James Jesus Angleton, and headed by Richard Ober.[1][2] The "MH" designation is to signify the program had a worldwide area of operations.[3] ...
...and Richard Ober just happened to be friends, since boyhood in Scarsdale, NY, with James Kelsey Cogswell, III.
See - https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2851.msg108179.html#msg108179
-
Just (finally) finished Marr's updated Crossfire and wouldn't mind adding Bugliosi's tome to my collection. Any recommendations on where to purchase? (UK resident). Cheers.
-
Just (finally) finished Marr's updated Crossfire and wouldn't mind adding Bugliosi's tome to my collection. Any recommendations on where to purchase? (UK resident). Cheers.
I would suggest getting the Kindle version from Amazon (particularly for the search feature). Even more for the price difference compared to a hard copy. And the Kindle version is currently on sale for $29 US (normally $49). If you really want the hard copy, I can sell you mine (gently used) for half the current price ($125) at Amazon. However you would need to also pay the freight to UK from the US. PM me if interested.
-
Just (finally) finished Marr's updated Crossfire and wouldn't mind adding Bugliosi's tome to my collection. Any recommendations on where to purchase? (UK resident). Cheers.
Try eBay. I got a used copy for, I think, under or about $30 and it included the CD with the end notes. It was in excellent condition.
They (US version) currently have several for under $25. Not sure about the shipping charges and you'll probably have trouble finding ones that ship to the UK. I do think you'll want the CD so the Kindle version won't do.
-
I think Bugliosi conjured up the "Helter Skelter" business in the Manson case to provide a narrative for that crime for the jury. It had little to do with his race war theory. Manson was attempting to cover up a drug-related murder by one of his associates by making it appear that the person responsible was still on the loose and committing similar crimes while his associate was in jail. The messages left at the crime scene were intended to make the police believe the crimes were all linked. Instead Bugs used them literally as a motive for the crime. My only criticism of his analysis of the JFK assassination is that he allows the CTers to drag the discussion down into the gutter. It is understandable to become frustrated at the lack of logic and insanity applied to the basic evidence in that case, but in the context of writing a book on the subject it makes him sometimes come off as petty when ranting against those nutty claims.
Wow! Never thought I'd say this but you're spot on with this, Richard, about the bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns narrative Vince came up with about Manson. As you say, it was much simpler. And as well, Manson had a dream to be a singer and wanted to get revenge on Doris Day's son when he was turned down. Melcher had been staying at Cielo so he thought he was still there. And he had already crashed into Cielo weeks before the murders where he came across Tate and a photographer outside in broad daylight. And what few people realize is he had already cased the LaBianca home because he attended a party that the backyard of faced the LaBianca home.
But old Vince spinned his fantastical Helter Skelter take over the world yarn. Talk about a conspiracy theorist!