General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. [View all]MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Please stop crying and turning this subject into the fan section at some football game. What good does it do to cry that I thought Bugliosi's take in his book on JFK was crap? This doesn't give you license to accuse me or others of not reading on the subject. Start an objective search on the subject matter if you have interest in the subject.
I'm not here to provide you testimony on what I must know on Bugliosi's book. I can't tell you why that piece of work was poorly done. I feel his omissions in it were evident, based on what I read from somebody who reviews many books on the subject, Jim DiEugeneo. He, in my opinion, is a one of the BEST reviewers ON the subject. Most of what I read from Bugiosi's book were sections within the reviews, plus what I thumbed through at the book store, to see if those sections existed. I'm not here to convince you as much as I am to weigh opinion based on other books I referenced or interviews I've heard. I'm still doing it and hope you are, too.
What I've done is read, read some more, then I listen. I didn't just listen to one interview or one show from Black Op Radio. I've spent a great deal of time reading and listening to old shows, newer shows, interviews, which include things such as Mae Brussel's early radio shows (she actually read the entire 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits of the WCR). I also found Col. L Fletcher Prouty's interviews to be the closest thing to first hand military coup reporting prior to and during the Kennedy assassination, and based on what his role was during it, there is nothing closer to getting an understanding of a coup d'état. It appears to HAVE happened here. This isn't a fad, it's a interest one takes over many years of wanting to understand this subject.
On the other hand, I'd like to think you've listened to actual interviews with those living during the Kennedy presidency, or those intimately involved inside the military during that time. Who would know more of the actions of Kennedy's Chiefs of Staff? Who would be able to explain a historical scheme of other coup d'état across the CIA's spectrum but by those who were probed in these interviews? Why wouldn't I be informed by reading OR listening to authors who span their works based on their research of the assassination from the late 1960s to contemporary times. This also includes examining the Zapruder frames, or reading what Specter said about the "magic bullet theory", and conclusions by the ARB. These sorts of things I've devoted time to to are in an effort to learn, not root for "my team".
Why WOULDN'T any Democrat want to learn by history in order not to repeat it? Persons living through the entire period of time when the circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination are important to this understanding. Bugliosi did not do any favors in convincing anyone that he did his homework with that book. Too often, he ridiculed the alternate conclusions rather than seek his logical conclusion and that speaks for itself. He didn't offer anything outside an ideology to conclude "Oswald did it"... which is HOGWASH.