Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Now, as for Bugliosi's book, I would bet good money that not one of you has read any of the scholarly critiques of the book. These critiques document that Bugliosi made many erroneous claims on important issues, and that the book's errors far outweigh its valid points.

For those who might be interested, here are some of the critical scholarly reviews of Bugliosi's book:

Dr. Gary Aguilar's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html

Dr. David Wrone's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html

Michael Green's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html

Pat Speer's review:
https://www.reclaiminghistory.org/speer_2007-07-24.htm
 
Dr. Don Thomas's reviews:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html

Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Reply_From_a_Conspiracy_Believer.html

Dr. Jerry McKnight's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html

Dr. Josiah Thompson's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Epic_Book_Resurrects_Finding_That_Oswald_Acted_Alone_in_killing_JFK.html

I neglected to mention Milicent Cranor's revealing critique of Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers.html

She documents that Bugliosi repeatedly misrepresented the medical evidence and ignored the contradictory results of Lattimer's wound ballistics tests.

Cranor is a currently a senior editor at WhoWhatWhy. She previously worked as an editor of legal and scientific documents and has co-authored numerous peer-reviewed articles for medical journals.

Here are some excerpt from her review:

You will not learn from Bugliosi that the majority of Parkland doctors said the [throat] wound was not ragged. What is more seriously deceptive is that Bugliosi put these words — “ragged edges” — into the mouths of doctors who in fact said the opposite.

Reference 1069 only documents Humes’s questionable claim that, from Malcolm O. Perry, he learned for the first time JFK had a bullet wound in his throat. But Perry never told Humes or anyone else that the wound had “ragged edges.”

Perry implied the wound was definitely not ragged:

“I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged” (7 HSCA 312).

Elsewhere, Perry told the WC that the edges were “neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean.” (3 WCH 372). . . .

Carrico testified in at least two places the [throat] wound was “rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.” (6 WCH 3); “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH 362)

Significant omission: The statement, by Charles R. Baxter, that came immediately before the above selection: “It did not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity rifle bullet.” (6 WCH 42)

[Quoting Bugliosi]"The flying fragments of rib and soft tissue, which were blown out by the tumbling bullet, ripped a large ragged hole in both the shirt and the jacket, just as Oswald’s bullet had done in Dealey Plaza.” (Bugliosi, Endnotes, p.326)

The hole in the front of the governor’s shirt was large, no doubt due to exiting rib fragments, but the hole in the front of the jacket was created only by the bullet, and the small size of this hole indicates the bullet exited straight on, i.e., not sideways, and thus it was not tumbling.

Why would Bugliosi lie about the hole in Connally’s jacket? Why would he want it to appear as though the bullet had exited tumbling?

(1) The alleged tumbling is allegedly caused by the bullet’s alleged journey through JFK.

(2) The alleged tumbling is allegedly associated with the outward movement of Connally’s jacket lapel.

The false evidence concerning the actual size of the hole in Connally’s jacket was manufactured by the late John K. Lattimer, M.D., a well known urologist with powerful connections who wrote several articles, all hard sell and soft science — infomercials, really — that promoted the many aspects of the lone assassin theory. Lattimer’s disinformation on the ballistics of the single bullet theory was based on experiments using mock-ups of Kennedy and Connally (reference #4 below). Lattimer presumably shot Carcano bullets through these mock-ups, then presented various bits of data from the experiments, including the size of the mock torso’s back wound, and the experiment’s jacket lapel — both used to prove the bullet was tumbling.

Lattimer then falsely claimed that the bullet holes in the experiments matched those in the actual case. The similarity of these lies is interesting, expressed here in millimeters for easy comparison:

Back wound, actual size: 15mm
Size per Lattimer: 30mm
Hole in lapel, actual size: 9mm
Size per Lattimer: 30mm

Bugliosi was also very careful in the way he reported a second set of experiments performed by Lattimer to complement the first. When Lattimer fired directly at the simulated torso alone, with no intervening target representing Kennedy’s neck, the mock-up ribs did not push out the lapel, the bullet did not exit tumbling — it came out straight, and the hole in the experimental jacket lapel was small. In Lattimer’s own words, “The jacket did not bulge out and the lapel did not turn over.... With the bullet going straight ahead, wounds to the rib, shirt and jacket were punctate....”

But look how Bugliosi avoids the significant details of this experiment. Not one word from Bugliosi on the size of the hole in the front of the jacket used in the experiment.

[Lance Payette]

The WCR and Reclaiming History are where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of the JFKA without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy crap.

The [Bible is] where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of [reality] without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical [history and science] crap.

See how that works? Religious zealots are all the same, even if their religion is the LN narrative or Harvey and Lee. 

[John Corbett]

The [Bible is] where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of [reality] without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical [history and science] crap.

See how that works? Religious zealots are all the same, even if their religion is the LN narrative or Harvey and Lee. 

There's a fundamental difference between the Bible and the WCR. One is faith based and one is based on evidence.