Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi

Reclaiming History's subtitle is "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy," and its intent is telegraphed in the main title. Much of America has come to believe that there is more to the JFK assassination that the government has told us, and people have bought into a variety of shadowy conspiracy theories or the idea that "we'll never know what happened that day." As such, many people hold to an alternate history of the events of 11/22/63. This book seeks to reclaim the actual history of the assassination by setting forth the facts as discovered at the time. It also debunks (yea, ridicules) the various conspiracy theorists and "researchers" who have posited that the assassination was a conspiracy perpetrated by the Cuban government, Cuban exiles, the Mafia, the Russian government, LBJ, the CIA, and/or a variety of other supposed conspirators.

Bugliosi's book is extensively researched, footnoted, and careful in its factual assertions. A detailed description of the events surrounding the four days around the assassination starts the book, and that 320 pages is a thorough, minute-by-minute history of its own. Those who have casually come by an alternative theory about the assassination by watching Oliver Stone's preposterous myth "JFK" or from one of the dozens of TV specials would do well to read this section of the book if no other. It will likely lead to reading the section(s) of the book that debunk their favored theory, which comprise another major section of the book. Also included is a long and detailed biography of Lee Harvey Oswald and his family. The biography was a bit of a slog, but it is worth reading all the detail if only to realize what kind of a man Oswald was, and why he would do what he did.

Bugliosi also does a thorough, if frequently repetitive, job of laying out some facts that are often cited by what I'll call "casual" conspiracy believers. "Oswald was a terrible shot." No, he earned a Marine sharpshooter rating. "No one can fire three shots with that weapon that fast." Yes, they can, as proven by several tests done with people using that rifle who had the same training as Oswald, who in fact beat the time Oswald shot the three bullets, one by a couple of seconds. "The magic bullet had to make a right turn in midair to hit John Connally." No, Connally was in a jump seat to Kennedy's front left, and a reenactment showed it was a straight line through Kennedy's back and to the places it hit Connally. "People heard more than three shots and only three bullets were fired by Oswald." No, 95 percent of the witnesses in the plaza heard three shots, and only a few thought they heard more. "There were people who shot from the front." Not according to the eyewitness testimony that day. Most of the "grassy knoll shooter" "witnesses" came forth years after the assassination, after Mark Lane began propounding his lame conspiracy theories. Bugliosi is able to debunk each of their testimonies, many of whom could be proven to have been in other states at the time.

My only criticism of Bugliosi's massive effort is his frequent dismissals of the conspiracy theorists via well-deserved but off-putting mockery. (This after making a good case, by the way. The ad hominem is never his sole attack, though it is added as an emphasis pretty often.) Though deserved, it piles up to petulance when you read straight through. Which is hard to do, by the way. It is understandably VERY long, over 1600 oversized pages of small text, not including reference footnotes, which are included on a DVD along with the Warren Commission report and other documents. Still, it's a riveting read and a terrific doorstop.

I'm glad I read this as I know the JFK assassination by Oswald will get scrutiny again this year since it's the 50th anniversary.

I got this from the library in early October 2012. I rechecked it out for the maximum of 6 times before finally finishing it about January 15, 2013. It was too big for travel, hence I read other books over the holidays and during business trips during this window, but it's a major commitment. After I finished, I read the review the New York Times ran when it came out in 2007. They discussed how long it is, and also that they were sure it was meant as a reference book, not something that anyone would actually read through. Now they tell me.