About That Snowden- Leaked "Top Secret" Video With The English Speaking Alien

Image of EBE on Snowden's recently released file video from June, 1964

The unusual "top secret" alien video released by Edward Snowden on Aug. 21  - prefaced as "Project 220675" -  has incepted a lot of ruckus in cyberspace. It was evidently uploaded by Snowden as part of his recent NSA files release and still has millions of viewers puzzled, and debating its credibility. The take appears to be about 5 to 1 that the "alien" (actually an EBE or "extraterrestrial biological entity" - which claims to be from Earth's past) is either a puppet or CGI creation.  Both presumptions are nonsense as I will show, and probably explained by the fact those offering them weren't alive or watching TV back in 1964. Nor did they have an appreciation for 1964 technology.

First, let's start eliminating complaints that don't hold water:

1) "It was made in 2016 and fake-dated June 9, 1964"

Nope. It was indeed, made in June, 1964 as the cover title indicates. The diction of the "interrogator" as my linguist friend "Rebecca" observed,  "places it totally in the 1960s" including the cadence, accentuation, nasal emphasis and mid-Atlantic origin for that time, as well as turn of phrase, e.g. "Try me"  One seldom, indeed, hears anyone saying "try me" these days. At least I haven't and wifey admits the same.

2) "There was no really good color TV back then"

Not true! The 'Bonanza' western was very popular in 1963-64 and in full color. Walt Disney's 'Wonderful World of Color' had been airing since 1959.  The color in the Snowden -leaked video file is certainly not a patch on what one saw back then, but that is what 52 years storage can do.

3) "The 'alien' is  either a puppet or bad CGI"

Actually, neither. Not CGI because the technology didn't exist in  1964. Nor a puppet because the blinking eyes and mouth motion make it improbable.  It was likely a carefully costumed human, of which many were seen on sci -fi TV shows ca. 1963- 64 including 'The Twilight Zone' and 'The Outer Limits': See e.g. this "alien" from the latter show:


Note the dimensions of the expanded skull in relation to the narrow jaw, which is somewhat similar to the 220 675 "alien".  Some have commented that the latter's "glowing eyes" had to be cgi, but this again isn't true. Check out the Outer Limits episode 'The Galaxy Being' featuring a microwave alien with glowing eyes. It would be within 1964 TV technology to have those superposed on a skull such as shown above, and 'Voila!' we have Snowden's EBE. Well, at least a fair approximation.

See also this image below from  the Outer Limits episode 'Nightmare":


Before continuing, I sent my Barbadian friend John Phillips (a bio-geneticist and biologist)


the file video link, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwIozu-plFM


He vehemently disagreed with my take. According to him:

"Your hypothesis is a clever debunking but doesn't hold up. This thing, whatever it is, is quite real. Look at the articulation of its limbs. More important,  pause it and examine the scale (width)  of its limbs and the contours of head and neck in relation to its shoulders. There is no normal, non-deformed  human that could fit into any such costume.  If not an actual alien, it is clearly a genetic experiment gone  awry.  A mutant? Maybe carried out at Area 51? Who knows? But it's definitely not a human in make up!"

I pressed him also as to whether it might be a puppet but he concurred with my own assessment that the blinking eyes make that - if not impossible- about as likely as our having another major hail storm at our location before the end of the year.  (However, as I summarize at the end, it could have been one of the earliest animatronic robots - which appeared at Walt Disney World by the early 1970s. Wikipedia also notes that by 1965 the first animatronics figure of a person was created by Disney. This is not to say prototypes weren't around before then - and they certainly weren't beyond the capacity of the military or security state to create - say for simulation or training purposes).

Perhaps the most trenchant objection widely seen on the net is:

4) "Look how few people are interested in it, no big news media are touching it!"

This is the key point for why few people are going to take it seriously even IF it was real.  My argument is that the video file IS real in that it was made in June, 1964 as the date cover stamp indicates.  But it is not real in the sense of a literal interrogation of a real alien from Earth's future. The giveaway is the label tag at very bottom of the cover title lead -in, which identifies the source as:

Air Technical Intelligence Center  (ATIC)

But as anyone who's investigated UFO claims knows, that designation was changed on September 21, 1959 to Aerospace Technical Intelligence Center.  The failure to alter the source label tells me that what we are looking at is indeed from June, 1964 but is a simulation of an alien interview, not an actual one.  (Or, if you prefer, a mock interview.) Another clue that it's just a simulation is the "MAJ 12" on the same title, which refers to Majestic 12. This was supposedly a covert group of top specialists, scientists, government honchos,  military who were keeping alien, UFO files from the public. But up to now no one has proven this secret group exists, although my now deceased middle brother Jerome (who served in the USAF)  did show me some documents headed "Majestic 12 - Secret Eyes Only" in 1986. Alas, I've been unable to independently confirm the authenticity. (If I can locate the files I will post scans.)

Barbadian psychologist Dr. Pat Bannister - who also proposed a theory of mind linking lying and conspiracy awareness,, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/04/higher-iq-liar-children-conspiracy.html


Once told me that the constant debunking of events "at the extreme spectrum of believability"  e.g. like alien abductions (which a few of her patients claimed) and UFO -alien visitations, meant that if actual evidence ever was revealed it would be unlikely to be accepted. She called it the "cry wolf" template. Repeat a wild claim often enough, have it or some variation repeatedly debunked, and ultimately when the real claim is validated no one will believe it anyway.

In Ufology the hoax examples are endless, from the George Adamski scam to more recent UFO and alien abduction hoaxes and claims - which anyone can find by googling.

But what interested me more than the imagery was the content of the ATIC agent's exchange with the purported EBE. I found most of the EBE's answers compelling and logically coherent - as I will show -but way too prolix for a genuine EBE or alien. It appeared to me more like a human (or disguised human voice)  delivering prepared responses that were intended to push the interviewer to hone his own questions. Again, more like a simulated questioning than a real one.

The  ATIC interrogator first demands: "State planet of origin." To which the EBE replies: "Earth."   My initial reaction was "Hogwash!" - as it followed too closely the 'Conquest of the Planet of the Apes' script where three ape astronauts from Earth's distant future end up on Earth in its past (ca. 1972). However, before passing immediate judgment I wanted to hear more:

The ATIC agents then states, "OK, yesterday and I quote, you told us, and I quote, 'thousands of light years to get here.'" The EBE answers "Yes." The ATIC  interrogator then demands that the entity tell the truth, and delivers a threat ("I'll wring your damned neck!"  ?? ) that has been subject to audio distortion. The EBE answers, "It is truth. I am from Earth. From your future. To travel in time is to travel in space. Offset spatial divergence."

This is a correct description of  relativistic displacement through time, which also involves movement through space back to where an object was during the target time, or forward to where it will be. Thus, movement can occur in time, and have a space offset. For example, stay where you are- maybe sitting on a chair -  and let one minute elapse on your watch. You have performed a 'movement in time' and a corresponding movement in space of 460 m, based on Earth's rotation rate of roughly 1,000 mph. (I.e. you are not simply sitting on a stationary Earth but a rotating Earth).

This imaginary spatial displacement can also be easily be computed, using the speed of light c:

Im(x) = i(300,000 km/s x 60 s) = 18,000,000(i) km

That is, you have traversed 18 million imaginary kilometers or 11.25 million miles in imaginary space. (Im(x) is the symbolic representation for an imaginary space (x) transition. This concept can also be used to invoke hypothetical extraordinary distances (and velocities, i.e. v = 2c) to show imaginary times can be obtained- but this would necessitate backward displacement in time.

For time dilation we have from special relativity:

t' = t [1 - v²/c²]^½

Let, v = 2.0 c  (the EBE's  rate of displacement) so:

t' = t [1.0 – 2.0]^½ = t [-1.0]^½ = it

There are 9.5 x 10¹⁵ meters per light year

Take D = 2,000 LY:

D = (2,000 Ly) x (9.5 x 10¹⁵ m/Ly)= 1.9 x 10¹⁹ m

Or: D = 1.9 x 10 ¹⁶ km

The time t' required is imaginary – worked out from::

(-1t/2.0) x (1.9 x 10¹⁶  km) / (300,000 km/s]  =  -i3.1 x 10¹⁰ s

On this basis it appears the EBE is referencing a "space-like interval" between two events: his own origin event departure point, and his (past) Earth arrival event.   From Wikipedia:

"When a space-like interval separates two events, not enough time passes between their occurrences for there to exist a causal relationship crossing the spatial distance between the two events at the speed of light or slower. Generally, the events are considered not to occur in each other's future or past. There exists a reference frame such that the two events are observed to occur at the same time, but there is no reference frame in which the two events can occur in the same spatial location.
For these space-like event pairs with a positive spacetime interval (${\displaystyle s^{2}>0}$), the measurement of space-like separation is the proper distance, ${\displaystyle \Delta \sigma }$:

${\displaystyle \Delta \sigma ={\sqrt {s^{2}}}={\sqrt {\Delta r^{2}-c^{2}\Delta t^{2}}}}$   (proper distance)".

The ATIC agent  then asks, "So aliens took over our future?" The response is "No" and the entity then explains that it evolved from us.  In the spacelike interval context given above this makes sense. It evolved from us perhaps over millions of years and came from our future in imaginary time - i.e. as if using a faster than light mode of spatial displacement.  In essence then, when the time between two events is shorter than that which light would take to traverse them (at c = 300,000 km/sec) the interval is "spacelike" and no causal relationship exists. Thus the previous example using v = 2c fits this mode.

The EBE is then asked what it is doing here on Earth now. It answers, "Observing. Since evidence was destroyed." The ATIC interrogator asks "How?" and the EBE's answer is "Nuclear war." When asked to expand on that, the EBE responds: "Dogma. Political and religious dogma. It is the root of all major conflict of your species. In your next century, access to weaponry of mass destruction by states that are ruled by dogma will destroy your species".

Note first the EBE's reference to "the next century". Since the interview year is 1964 and the comment was made in the 20th century then the "next century" is the current one - the 21st. Right now, the stage is already being set for possible nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. Each has 50-150 nuclear weapons and (as reported, p. 11,  in the latest TIME) moved closer to conflict after 18 Indian soldiers were slain in Kashmir in a recent attack by Pakistani-led terrorists, Jaish -e-Muhammad.  Quote: "Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is now under pressure to retaliate with military force."

Another "dogma" state, North Korea, has recently conducted its 5th successful nuclear test and is working toward mounting nuclear warheads on ICBMs that can reach the U.S. Nations such as Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are all ruled by dogma, and all possess, or are attempting to possess, nuclear weapons.

Most interesting to me is when the question is asked, "So you know how the universe was created?" To which the entity responds: "Yes." The ATIC questioner then asks, "So you've seen God?" The EBE's answer is "We have evolved past a need for superstitions, the need for a god and other myths."

This suggests that the EBE or its impersonator is indicating that beyond a certain evolutionary stage the brain will have advanced beyond the need to entertain deities. Recall that this tendency is a particular property of the OAA or orientation association area. (See e.g. Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief’.  by Andrew Newberg and Eugene Daquill). For more on this see: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/god-is-found-inside-brain-1.html

The  ATIC interrogator then suggests, "How about we concentrate on your time?" The entity responds, "You are not capable of accepting or understanding the discoveries of my time." The interrogator responds, "Try me." The EBE's response is, "the nature of the universe, the origin of so-called life, it is known."

The ATIC interrogator also asks the EBE, "So how was the universe created and why is it so perfectly made for us?"

This has been suggested by some (e.g. Whitley Streiber) to be a clue that the video is a hoax because  the fine tuned universe idea  "didn't arise until much later" (likely with Fred Hoyle's 1984 book 'The Intelligent Universe'). But in fact, the idea had been around since 1961 when physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.  This was then refined to the "anthropic principle" - proposed in Poland ca. 1973-   that  held only we on Earth have benefited from such fine tuning.

The EBE's response is direct and takes note of the modern multiverse proposal:

"There are an infinite number of universes.. Each with different physical properties. Virtually all do not support like, such as you know it We exist in a universe that does support so-called life."

The EBE (or EBE impersonator) is not referring to Hugh Everett's 'many worlds' interpretation of QM but rather actual parallel cosmi incepted from the selfsame primordial vacuum state (via inflation) as our own universe. Thus, an actual primordial vacuum - not a human observer or consciousness making observational choices- is the source of the real parallel universes. Hence, all putative parallel universes plausibly emerged from the primordial vacuum the way ours did, e.g. from the Big Bang. See e.g.:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-there-parallel-universes.html

Just as interesting is when the ATIC agent inquires: "What happens when we die?"  Whereupon the EBE replies: "Death is a human construct. It does not exist. You will experience, you have experienced, every instance of a so-called life."

The ATIC agent seeks clarity,  asking: "So let me get this straight. There's no death and we all experience each other's lives". To which the EBE responds, "In essence, yes."

This is rather esoteric but might refer to Frank Tipler's notion of "eternal return" discussed in his book, The Physics of Immortality. A Wikipedia summation can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

An alternative interpretation is one I explored four years ago,  As I noted:

"(Stuart) Hameroff's basic argument then, is that death doesn't mean the final termination of consciousness, so much as the end of its localization. If that is so, you cease to be a "person" or an individual identity and instead merge with other dispersed quantum wave forms (I have called them "B-waves" or de Broglie waves) to enter an "oceanic" state. "

I added that this oceanic state was identified as the "implicate order" by physicist David Bohm, in his superb book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'.  It referred to a higher dimensional reality into which we are subsumed. 

At another point the ATIC agent interjects: "So you know the meaning of life?" The answer is, "Not meaning, nature." The interrogator responds, "What's the difference?" The EBE's  answer is, "Meaning is ascribed. Nature is the objective reality."

This is a subtle point that might be missed by many. "Meaning" is what our limited brains impose on physical reality to make it more accessible.  Our brains' frontal lobes  evolved to parse meaning  seek it out  It is often culturally or religiously molded and often independent of actual facts, evidence. Nature is associated with objective physical reality, i.e. independent of our brains' filters on that reality.  For example, human brains have evolved to search for meaning or purpose in the universe which is a major reason they cling to God or promote the invention of gods. These artifacts help us to assign meaning to our lives which - to the brain - would otherwise be "meaningless".

Another crucial interlude opens when the ATIC interrogator asks, "What do you base your morality on?" The answer is "Compassion and evidence."   The first part could easily be traced to Buddhism where compassion - for all living things - is the primary virtue taught. As an example, the compassionate person extends and enhances life for all things, even insects, birds, rats etc.. He is also incapable of hateful or destructive thoughts or inimical beliefs toward others. On the other hand, the angry person entertains hate and vicious beliefs, including that his beliefs are superior to all others and indeed, that if others don't cooperate with them they will suffer grievous future harm - perhaps in a "next life". To the Buddha, this sort of thinking exemplified the epitome of desire turned inward toward spiritual arrogance and pride.

The second aspect, "evidence" has been a long time element of scientific Materialist morality, meaning that we predicate behavior on the evidence that it is constructive for the whole community not a small part of it.  An evidentiary morality, indeed, would most likely be based on provisional ethics, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/08/absolutist-ethics-needs-to-be-replaced.html

In summary, this video is definitely entrancing but I simply don't buy that it is a literal interview with an actual EBE. (Apologies to John Phillips, but I believe he is wrong - as he is on global warming- which he claims is "not all human-induced").  My conclusion is that it is an elaborate simulation of a potential future encounter in which an EBE might be interviewed. Perhaps ATIC intended it as a training exercise just in case a genuine EBE turned up. What is this EBE in the simulation? Possibly an audio animatronic robot, into which a pitch-altered human voice has been piped (though some insist an analysis was done which rules that out, but they haven't cited any specific source).

Or it could be a severely anorexic person made up as an EBE.  Who knows?   In any case, what was encouraging was to at least behold answers, responses to the ATIC agent  that would do any actual EBE (or alien) proud.

Vince Bugliosi's Magnificent Obsession - and Delusion (3)

We now continue to skewer Vince Bugliosi's "6 myths" of the JFK assassination, at the heart of his massive propaganda piece, Reclaiming History.

Myth 4: A second gunman shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll

Bugliosi claims there “is no substantive evidence that any shot was fired from the grassy knoll” but he is totally wrong. In fact, as we saw with 'Myth 3' (previous blog) if we take Jackie's actions and account for them as genuine (as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film) there is no wiggle room other than there had to be a second gunman. No other explanation accounts for a piece of JFK's skull being sent hurtling backwards over the limo trunk with Jackie in pursuit. Such a dynamic effect would never have come from a rear (to the limo) shot.

Indeed, the ONLY full governmental investigation (remember the Warren Commission was organized at the behest of LBJ, not congress!) by the House Select Committee on Assassination, concluded there was a 95% probability of two gunmen, one of which fired exactly from the grassy knoll based on the careful analysis of echograms from impulses retrieved off a dictabelt recording by Dr. James E. Barger and Mark Weiss. This original work was also later fully reinforced by the paper 'Echo Correlation Analysis and The Acoustic Evidence in the JFK Assassination Revisited' by D.B. Thomas, published in 'Science and Justice' , 2001, (Vol. 41, pp. 21-32)

Though the FBI, and a percussionist (Steve Barber, using a recording from a Gallery magazine) and the NSA under a team by Dr. Norman Ramsey, all attempted to refute the acoustic findings their efforts were basically for naught. A key impediment to the analysis of the latter was that: a) the team was not compromised of acoustic experts, and b) their conclusions could not be confirmed, nor did they offer any basis by which the results might be replicated - a necessary condition of good science.
On the other hand, the paper by D.B. Thomas went over all the acoustic data with much more refined analysis and arrived at the conclusion that the Barger-Weiss team was correct, and there were at least 4 shots as indicated by the telltale impulses, two of which were spaced 1.66 seconds apart .

Lastly, analysis of the Nix film as well as a print taken at the instant of the head shot by Mary Moorman, shows the face and figure outline of the grassy knoll shooter, now nicknamed “badge man” because a police uniform and badge stand out after the image is computer enhanced. Most of the work on this was due to photo-optic and film specialists Jack White and Gary Shaw. Their astounding results are visibly evident in the excellent Nigel Turner BBC documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 6. When witness Tom Arnold was presented with a photographic blowup of the enhanced image, he studied it, quickly perceived his own outline in the photo and also that of the shooter. At that point, he broke down and had to stop the interview. He added that if he had known in advance what he would be shown, he’d not have consented to the interview.

Bugliosi’s other claim in connection with this myth, that “the knoll would have been within view of all the people coming down Elm Street” is just factually wrong. Mark Lane’s video documentary- Rush to Judgment- wherein he actually walks from Elm Street to behind the picket fence on the knoll with S.M. Holland, clearly contradicts Bugliosi. The fence (at that time) is easily taller than either of the two men, and one could certainly crouch down and not be seen. If the prospective shooter wore a police uniform (or even a suit), he’d have the perfect camouflage and no one would ask questions. If they did, a response like “Security!” would trigger an instant backoff

We also know several Secret Service Commission books (equivalent to IDs) were stolen the night before and anyone operating behind the picket fence could have thenproduced one or more as cover, even if observed by a curious person. Hence, even if someone had observed anyone near or behind the fence, the encounter would be easily neutralized.

Myth 5: Oswald was timid and easily manipulated by the CIA or the Mob

Here, Bugliosi seems to be oblivious to the well-known CIA process of “sheep dipping”. 'Sheep-dipping' is a code word employed by the CIA to refer to the manipulation of a 'sponsor'(decoy) to be used in one or more covert operations. The goal of the manipulation is generally to associate with the sponsor some image, to enable the more ready belief later, that the decoy is solely responsible for a given course of action, including one leading to executive action (assassination of a head of state).  In Oswald’s case, the sheep-dipping would have been initiated years in advance from the time of his fake defection (in the CIA’s Fake Defector Program). Thereafter, bogus communications and even body doubles would have been employed to advance and consolidate the ruse.

Military Science Professor John Newman gives the best documented instance in the case of an Athens, TX cattleman, Eldon Hensen, while attempting to make contact with the Cuban Embassy in July, 1963 (Newman,: 1995, Oswald and the CIA, Carroll & Graf Publishers, pp. 362-63.)   According to Newman (ibid.):

"What the CIA Station in Mexico City did to Eldon Hensen in July, 1963 was to 'step into' his reality and direct it in a way designed to achieve the Agency's objectives- in this instance to see what he was up to.

This CIA capability, to surreptitiously enter into someone's life to control or manipulate it, was made possible in this case by the telephone taps."

Henson isn’t the only example, and author James Douglass (JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, 2007, Orbis, p. 266.)  also shows that Thomas Arthur Vallee, who was to have been the Chicago assassin for Kennedy’s proposed visit on Nov. 2, 1963, was also sheep-dipped, and likely selected for patsy-hood using a false defector program that the ONI set up in 1959.  Had JFK traveled to Chicago, we’d likely only have heard of Vallee and never known a Lee Harvey Oswald. Vallee and Oswald were simply interchangeable pieces on the CIA’s chess board for executive action, yet Bugliosi professes not to have a single clue about it. Incredible then, how in 1,518 main pages, and over a thousand endnote-footnote others, he couldn't muster evidence that Douglass could in a book less than one third the size of Bugliosi's!

Frankly, if I needed a research assistant, and with this monumental display of inefficiency, Vince Bugliosi would be the last one I'd ask for!

Myth 6: Jack Ruby was working for the Mob when he killed Oswald

Here Bugliosi evinces just plain, unfathomable ignorance. An ignorance that might have been even mildly remedied had he simply been energized enough to try to locate the relevant, documented FBI files on Ruby’s past connections. But clearly it was too much trouble,  or he realized finding such threatened to subvert his propaganda piece, so he elected to just write them off.

Mark North, using actual FBI files, documents many of Ruby’s Mob connections in his book, Act of Treason- including his reported “gangster connections in Dallas”, especially to Joseph Civello, the Mafia boss in Dallas The same files disclose that Ruby, on October 26, 1963, “placed a 12 minute person to person call to Irwin S. Weiner at Weiner’s Chicago home”.

It is further noted that Weiner was a “prominent Chicago Mafia associate” and “instrumental in coordinating the flow of cash between the Teamsters and Las Vegas casinos." (North, op. cit., pp. 333-34).  

Of course, it is more than possible that Bugliosi’s Myth 6 is conveniently founded on “what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. That is, in restricting the definition of “working for” to a fully vested worker, as opposed to a contractor- temporary operative. This pseudo-difference also emerged in connection with Clay Shaw in New Orleans, and whether he worked for the CIA or not. Years after the (Jim) Garrison trial, with release of files, it would become evident that Shaw was indeed a CIA Contract Agent.


As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"


Was Shaw therefore “working for the CIA”? Well, if one is a word purist or pedant he’d likely say ‘No’, disavowing all contract agents (which likely would also negate Lee Oswald as a contract agent for the FBI or ONI despite his having operative numbers). However, I find these distinctions purely artificial, and to all intents, counterproductive. If one is a contract agent- then he or she is assuredly working for the agency that hired him or her as a contractor. Splitting hairs over these semantic nuances is a sterile game in the end, and a fool’s errand.

In the same way, whether Ruby worked for the Mob in the 50s, and was (by 1963) merely possessed of “Mob connections” – is neither here nor there. As a former Mob operative (for Santos Trafficante) in the 50s, gun-running into Cuba, all that was required for his operational re-emergence in late 1963 was an outstanding liability, with which he could be assisted.

Such a liability might well have been his outstanding owing of more than $40,000 in back excise taxes to the federal government, plus $20,000 in other back taxes. A phone call could then have assured Ruby his tax problems would “disappear” if he performed one more job: offing Oswald. (Particularly critical since Carlos Marcello – New Orleans Mob boss- was involved in at least one contract offer that Hoover knew about since September, 1962 – hence North’s insistence Hoover was guilty of treason. Eliminating Oswald would make even the more remote Marcello connections go away.)

Is Bugliosi’s book believable? Credible? Sure, if one has consciously ignored the multifold aspects of the assassination, and not ascertained the connections between all the players.  Or, if one is a Hollywood-ish dilettante and looking for a new "gig" for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, and fancies that a monstrous tome of 2,646 pages is all that's needed to convince people (and himself)  that history is "reclaimed". But those of us who have actually done the work, our own investigations, such as those I disclose in the Appendices of my book, will not be swayed.

The sad truth is that any major HBO series produced by Hanks and his Playtone buddy Goetzman, will merely add to the ambiguity and distortion matrix that’s prevented us from arriving at the truth for more than four decades. In the final analysis, all Bugliosi has succeeded in achieving is adding another layer of  protective cover for those behind the “Unspeakable”. Sadly, Hanks and Goetzman will have been his accomplices if their specious series is televised. And no, Mr. Hanks, it will not "upset conspiracy types" so much as disappoint those of us who had taken you for a sincere truth-seeker, as opposed to a poseur and CIA media asset - like Max Holland.

Next: Bugliosi's Other Errors of History, Fact and Science.