4 ms·

Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination is highly recommended. It destroys the conspiracy narrative. It's so impressively thorough.

by pwned1 5y ago

kylebenzle 5y ago
'During his [Vincent Bugliosi] eight years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. He is also a best selling author.' You don't get a 99% conviction rate by being honest, I would say this wouldn't be a great choice of person to put ANY faith in really. I MUCH prefer Colin McLaren's take, an ex police investigator who took on the "case" in his retirement as if it were any other cold case in his book, JFK: The Smoking Gun. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi [2] https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Smoking-Gun-Colin-McLaren/dp/1743179537 https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Smoking-Gun-Colin-McLaren/dp/1743...
- pwned1 5y ago
  Sorry, but "he's not honest because I say so" isn't an argument. Let's say he isn't honest. Ok. His citations and endnotes themselves are hundreds of pages (I think over 1,000 pages). I've frequently checked many of them, because I was curious about this or that topic. Nothing was out of context or false. On the other hand, I frequently will look at quotations or documents cited by the conspiracists and more often then not the quote is either 1) out of context or lacking important context, or 2) false.
- jldl805 5y ago
  If you're trying to convince people that you're a rational investigator, not batshit conspiracy theorist, making blanket dismissive judgements about his lack of honesty based on your subjective interpretation of his conviction rate is not going to help.
  - d1a2n 5y ago
    "subjective interpretation" god you guys are so pretentious. You try so hard to sound like a smarty pants that you'll throw in fancy sounding language for the sake of it. The guy has an interpretation, it is subjective because it is his, contrast with "objective" interpretation which means interpretation you think is correct. But you use "subjective" rhetorically to suggest that it is a property of his argument that makes it weak rather than a label you give it after reflexively recoiling because someone has contradicted your scientistic, trust the experts, "the government wouldn't lie to me, praise the state!" ideology
    - jldl805 5y ago
      I'd just say I also wouldn't trust anyone who thinks the word "subjective" is a pretentious, smarty pants word, lol.
      - d1a2n 5y ago
        Nah mate it isn't the word, it's the use. Tell me, triple jabbed?
nextstep 5y ago
Here’s a great book on why you shouldn’t believe anything Vincent Bugliosi says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_CIA,_and_the_Secret_History_of_the_Sixties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_C...
- pwned1 5y ago
  I read that book too. Both are fascinating. That's why you rely on primary sources. Bugliosi's JFK book is forebodingly well documented. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes. I've spent years reviewing books from "both sides" and none are perfect. But on balance, the conspiracy books rarely stand up to even the most basic fact checking.
e15ctr0n 5y ago
Jesse Ventura's book on the assassination is also highly recommended. It provides a great alternative to the Lee Harvey Oswald narrative. It's so impressively thorough. They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK (October 1, 2013, Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell & David Wayne) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17593244-they-killed-our-president https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17593244-they-killed-our...

Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination is highly recommended. It destroys the conspiracy narrative. It's so impressively thorough.

by pwned1 5y ago

Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination is highly recommended. It destroys the conspiracy narrative. It's so impressively thorough.

kylebenzle 5y ago

'During his [Vincent Bugliosi] eight years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. He is also a best selling author.' You don't get a 99% conviction rate by being honest, I would say this wouldn't be a great choice of person to put ANY faith in really. I MUCH prefer Colin McLaren's take, an ex police investigator who took on the "case" in his retirement as if it were any other cold case in his book, JFK: The Smoking Gun. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi [2] https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Smoking-Gun-Colin-McLaren/dp/1743179537 https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Smoking-Gun-Colin-McLaren/dp/1743...

pwned1 5y ago
Sorry, but "he's not honest because I say so" isn't an argument. Let's say he isn't honest. Ok. His citations and endnotes themselves are hundreds of pages (I think over 1,000 pages). I've frequently checked many of them, because I was curious about this or that topic. Nothing was out of context or false. On the other hand, I frequently will look at quotations or documents cited by the conspiracists and more often then not the quote is either 1) out of context or lacking important context, or 2) false.
jldl805 5y ago
If you're trying to convince people that you're a rational investigator, not batshit conspiracy theorist, making blanket dismissive judgements about his lack of honesty based on your subjective interpretation of his conviction rate is not going to help.
- d1a2n 5y ago
  "subjective interpretation" god you guys are so pretentious. You try so hard to sound like a smarty pants that you'll throw in fancy sounding language for the sake of it. The guy has an interpretation, it is subjective because it is his, contrast with "objective" interpretation which means interpretation you think is correct. But you use "subjective" rhetorically to suggest that it is a property of his argument that makes it weak rather than a label you give it after reflexively recoiling because someone has contradicted your scientistic, trust the experts, "the government wouldn't lie to me, praise the state!" ideology
  - jldl805 5y ago
    I'd just say I also wouldn't trust anyone who thinks the word "subjective" is a pretentious, smarty pants word, lol.
    - d1a2n 5y ago
      Nah mate it isn't the word, it's the use. Tell me, triple jabbed?

nextstep 5y ago

Here’s a great book on why you shouldn’t believe anything Vincent Bugliosi says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_CIA,_and_the_Secret_History_of_the_Sixties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_C...

pwned1 5y ago
I read that book too. Both are fascinating. That's why you rely on primary sources. Bugliosi's JFK book is forebodingly well documented. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes. I've spent years reviewing books from "both sides" and none are perfect. But on balance, the conspiracy books rarely stand up to even the most basic fact checking.

e15ctr0n 5y ago

Jesse Ventura's book on the assassination is also highly recommended. It provides a great alternative to the Lee Harvey Oswald narrative. It's so impressively thorough. They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK (October 1, 2013, Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell & David Wayne) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17593244-they-killed-our-president https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17593244-they-killed-our...