JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

[stopbush]

143. Have you even read Bugliosi? Be honest, because I don't see how you would make such a statement

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

had you read his 2500-page book.

As far as not mentioning the "harshest" of the official critiques, you mean the crackpotiest of the crackpots? Should Bugliosi address the "evidence" that JFK's limo driver turned around and shot him, as has been alleged by a few of the "harshest" critics? How about the critics who opine that the bullet that hit JFK in the head must have stopped in his head so as not to hit Jackie, who was in the line of trajectory had the bullet come from the grassy knoll?

Had you read Bugliosi's book - which you obviously haven't - you would know that Bugliosi addresses every MAJOR conspiracy theory out there and pretty much decimates them in his rebuttals. That he opts not to go down the rabbit hole of examining every single crackpot theory - all of which are little more than ham-fisted reworkings and tangential hypotheses on the major CTs that Buglosi does destroy - simply says that after writing THE most in-depth book ever written on the JFK killing, he probably didn't feel the need to swat the CT flies buzzing around him. You guys are never going to go away, you've never met a hair-brained theory you can't embrace wholeheartedly, nor a piece of concrete evidence you can't cavalierly dismiss, so why even engage the crackpots at all? In fact, it's amazing that the "harshest critics" of the WCR have no problem supporting CTs that conflict with each other, a la Oliver Stone's admitted cinematic "fiction."

For such an ardent JFK CTist, I find it odd that you can't be bothered to read Bugliosi for yourself, but choose instead to rely on critiques of his work written by men who don't necessarily have an ax to grind, but who definitely have a buck to be made off the gullible.