Reply #6: Reclaiming History from Reclaiming History: a thorough examination of a selective use of evidence [View All]

[Gabi Hayes]

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2

this is a reallllly long link, and hard to edit into a digestible bunch, but he breaks down Bugiosi's 'strongest' prosecutorial points (and, again, this is all this book is: a 1600 page brief, based on his smarmy appearance in a TV mock trial from decades ago.)

it's very much worth reading, though, if you buy into coincidence theory.

the assassination has become a matter of dogma to most who have strong beliefs re: who did it, and I doubt anyone would be swayed. I don't think I can be persuaded that Oswald did it alone, despite the supposed incontrovertible evidence supporting his singular responsibility. it really boils down to who's grinding whose axe with whose evidence

who does one believe?

big media?

big government?

big law?

or a bunch of self-serving conspiracy nuts?

you know, the sorts of people who thought Nixon was a crook, or that Iran Contra involved the highest levels of government actors, or that Valerie Plame was outed at the highest levels of government? or that our government illegally invaded myriad other nations for lord knows what reasons?

who could possibly believe anything along those lines?