06-07-2015, 04:46 AM
That book was published many moons ago.
I think Myers has gotten worse in the meantime.
I mean to call RH easily the best book in the field?
Length does not denore quality. It just denotes length.
RH was like the leaning tower of Pisa. As I detail in Reclaiming Parkland, Bugliosi actually took that joke of a trial he did in London as a real measure of the JFK case. It was not in the slightest. He then wrote a book about it, and then Oliver Stone's movie came out. So he doubled down on that.
Then the ARRB started up. And he doubled down again. He told me that the book was actually supposed to be three volumes. When I asked him why it was so long he said, "I've got to knock down all that stuff you and Lisa wrote in Probe." Except he went after everything and everybody. As Jeff Morley said, what kind of historian writes most of his book on what did not happen. Which is why Vince was not a good historian.
And the thing is, I kind of liked Vince personally. And I still think he wrote three good books: The Betrayal of America, No Island of Sanity, and The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder.
The Paula Jones book I thought was especially good. And I think that he was correct legally also. Which would have saved us the whole Clinton impeachment fiasco.
But when I read Reclaiming History and saw what he had done, I mean I was just appalled. Its one thing to be a smart person. Its another thing to use that intelligence to achieve and revivify a false paradigm, using phony evidence. To use one example: Vince pummeled Doug Horne on his two brain memorandum. But he never told his readers about 1.) Stringer's denial of the brain phtographs, and 2.) Humes' saying that there was no upwards trial of particles in the extant head x rays as he wrote about in his report. And that is just dishonest since its apparent he read both ARRB depositions.
I don't know what possessed him to do stuff like that over and over. So disagreeing with his ghost writer Myers', who made some money off this thing, I think RH really hurt his reputation.
I think Myers has gotten worse in the meantime.
I mean to call RH easily the best book in the field?
Length does not denore quality. It just denotes length.
RH was like the leaning tower of Pisa. As I detail in Reclaiming Parkland, Bugliosi actually took that joke of a trial he did in London as a real measure of the JFK case. It was not in the slightest. He then wrote a book about it, and then Oliver Stone's movie came out. So he doubled down on that.
Then the ARRB started up. And he doubled down again. He told me that the book was actually supposed to be three volumes. When I asked him why it was so long he said, "I've got to knock down all that stuff you and Lisa wrote in Probe." Except he went after everything and everybody. As Jeff Morley said, what kind of historian writes most of his book on what did not happen. Which is why Vince was not a good historian.
And the thing is, I kind of liked Vince personally. And I still think he wrote three good books: The Betrayal of America, No Island of Sanity, and The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder.
The Paula Jones book I thought was especially good. And I think that he was correct legally also. Which would have saved us the whole Clinton impeachment fiasco.
But when I read Reclaiming History and saw what he had done, I mean I was just appalled. Its one thing to be a smart person. Its another thing to use that intelligence to achieve and revivify a false paradigm, using phony evidence. To use one example: Vince pummeled Doug Horne on his two brain memorandum. But he never told his readers about 1.) Stringer's denial of the brain phtographs, and 2.) Humes' saying that there was no upwards trial of particles in the extant head x rays as he wrote about in his report. And that is just dishonest since its apparent he read both ARRB depositions.
I don't know what possessed him to do stuff like that over and over. So disagreeing with his ghost writer Myers', who made some money off this thing, I think RH really hurt his reputation.