Bugliosi Is A CT (part 1 of 2)

Part II
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gspLZ825JCE

*NEW RULES* From this point forward I will only approve comments that address the main points of the video. Bugliosi's contradictory statements about conspiracies, the possibility of high level conspiracies, and whether it is possible to keep them a secret. The subject is Bugliosi.

Since Bugliosi is the "man of the hour", as far as WC apologists go, I thought I would post a little background about him. I haven't heard much on the net about this issue and absolutely nothing in the mainstream media, although that doesn't surprise me.

Even though Posner, according to mainstream reporters and even Bugliosi, "ignores or distorts" situations that don't agree with his conclusions Posner got an entire issue of U.S. News & World Report devoted to his book in 1993, along with hours of interview time on television. I guess the press is similarly unconcerned with a flip-flopper, as well as a fact-distorter, as long as they serve to support the WC.

"I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not more than one gun was fired at the [RFK] assassination scene. And I have formed no opinion at this point. What I will say is this: the signed statements given me perhaps can be explained away; but in the absence of a logical explanation, these statements, by simple arithmetic, add up to too many bullets and therefore, the probability of a second gun." -Vincent Bugliosi 1978

In the above statement Bugliosi is essentially saying that there was probably a conspiracy involved in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. He said during the KCOP trial that he presented more evidence that there was a conspiracy than the prosecution argued against one. So all of his talk about "if there was one" or "I've formed no opinion" is ridiculous. He felt so strongly about it that he wanted to reopen the investigation. He entertained ideas of a high level conspiracy. Bugliosi has some serious credibility issues, to say the least.

Here's a link to articles and essays on "Reclaiming History", some by long time researchers of the case (thanks Pat Speer):
http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

An interesting article about the Turner/Christian book that probably wouldn't have been written without Bugliosi's recommendation!:
http://www.ctka.net/turner-christian.html

And Pat Speer's blog:
http://www.patspeer.com/reclaiminghistoryfromreclaiminghistory


Here are links to more of the "Hardball" segment:
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=c313fbd8-2d...

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=cce97f68-b2...

And a transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18941406/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Bugliosi
• RFK
• JFK
• Kennedy
• Oswald
• Malcolm
• MLK
• King
• Jerry
• Owen
• KCOP
• William
• Turner
• Oliver
• Stone
• Jim
• Garrison

[AmusedChild]

So he thinks that there was a conspiracy in the RFK murder, but not one (because there's no evidence of one) in the JFK assassination? Is that what this about? Big deal.

[mcjoe]

He calls people who believe in government conspiracies "zany" but he believes or believed in one. He says that goverments can't keep secrets that big yet he argued that they could, etc. He is a double-minded hypocrite. That's the big deal. Maybe you should stick to videos of kitties ma'am.

[dirtbagrob]

Have you guys heard about his new book - The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

[mcjoe]

Very interesting his remarks about that book not doing so well. He says it's because of a "media blackout". Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

[jkbbr549]

I don't understand. Even if he did believe there was a conspiracy against RFK, what does that have to do with JFK? And yes, he was approached from a British production company. The trial was filmed and showed on Showtime in 1987. I watched it. He himself said he didn't give the JFK matter much thought until he was asked to prove Oswalds guilt in a British court of law some 11 years after his words were spoken about RFK. People change when they learn more facts.

[mcjoe]

And you're wrong, people don't change when they learn more facts", they change when they CHOOSE to (or in this case when the price is right). There are plenty of examples on this page of that. Facts don't get addressed when they contradict with a political agenda and a desire to win an argument.

[mcc1789]

@mcjoe So that means if you ever learned more facts that shed doubt on the JFK conspiracy theories you wouldn't change your mind? Good to know. Perhaps facts "help" people change their minds, does that make sense? For instance Bugliosis might have changes his mind after looking into these cases more. So if facts contradict your agenda or desire, then you ignore them? Everything you've said can apply to your own side too.

[letsgodonk]

Lawyers are trained to argue BOTH sides, Bugliosi is brilliant at this and is a phoney in many ways, but all good lawyers are.

[ImeldaDavies]

funny, bugliosi did apparently believe in a conspiracy for jfk before his book. Go to CTKA Probe for the best take down of Bugliosi currently available. Its by Jim Di Eugenio. Hes the best researcher currently out there, him and Lisa Pease. Check out all their stuff. Man dont bother with John Hankey. david Lifton and Alex Jones groooooooooooooaaannn.

[ImeldaDavies]

Yeah, its good. His JFK stuff is totally shite however. He should have stayed put prosecuting psychotic hippies and warmongering imbeciles.

[ImeldaDavies]

Good point. But Bugliosi is very incorrect. He didnt even write the book himself. So be cautious. I have been looking into this stuff for awhile now -17 years. When I realised their was a conspiracy...not my suspicion of one, the flood gates did open. Just be careful. Theres a ton of shit out there. So go to CTKA/ Probe, and Real history archives. Jim and Lisa rock. Read Jim Douglas's book as well it will send u in a good un bullshit David Lifton/John Hankey/Alex Jones direction.

[ShunyamNiketana]

Demonstrating that Bugliosi has been inconsistent in his perspective on the possibility of conspiracy in the assassinations of JFK and RFK doesn't really prove much, does it? I happen to favor the conspiracy position with regard to the death of JFK, and I wouldn't be surprised by the games high ranking officials are willing to play, but I also respect Bugliosi's right to have seemingly inconsistent perspectives based on his own review of evidence.

[samiemma]

This Jerry Owen-Sirhan angle was HUGE. Too bad for us all that Bugliosi didn't pursue it, instead trying to rehabilitate the corpse of the Warren Report.

[ShutterBun2]

It's hard to consider the opinions of a guy who's done countless hours of research and written a gargantuan, comprehensive text to be "dismissive." If anything, his efforts give currently-held conspiracy theories more credit than they're worth.