Unlike The Kennedy Detail, Clint Hill has written (again, with Lisa McCubbin) a fine book. That said, it is best to take some of his pre-assassination “reenactments” of statements made by others with a huge grain of salt, while also noting–with interest–those assassination and post-assassination revelations and statements that do ring true and are of interest to all, writes Vince Palamara.
Although very well written, along with some nice photographs, as well, The Kennedy Detail is really a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite history ... and absolve the agents of their collective survivor's guilt .... In the eyes of those from the Kennedy detail, the assassination was the act of TWO "lone men": Oswald, who pulled the trigger, and JFK, who set himself up as the target, writes Vince Palamara.
McAdams likes to warn us about how “noise” clouds our perceptions. He should know, he’s directly responsible for a great deal of it, asserts Frank Cassano.
Line after line, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, McAdams trudges tirelessly onward, selectively using testimony to reach a particular conclusion. Though readers may find that it’s perhaps a bit short on fact, and a tad thin on logic, JFK Assassination Logic more than compensates by being wonderfully long on misguided patriotism, concludes Gary Aguilar.
There are some valid criticisms in the book and Livingstone is to be properly praised for them. He certainly straightens out certain issues that needed to be elucidated in Horne’s very long five volume series. But when one adds up the ratio of good criticism to everything else in the volume, it is not a very good batting average, writes Jim DiEugenio.
This farce of a program proves that, as with the three old main networks, the cable TV channels are almost pathologically incapable of telling anything close to the truth about Kennedy’s assassination. All the rules of journalism are now thrown out the window ... with no one exercising any kind of fact checking or standards review, laments Jim DiEugenio.
If we are to be serious about historical revisionism, we need to have explanations built on the best facts available. If we ignore basic facts and instead present the facts as we would prefer, we are creating a work of fiction – which this book resembles a great deal, writes Joseph Green.
While I dislike intensely what [Heymann has] written, I can imagine the situation from his point of view. In his mind, he's a crafty guy who figured out a way to make a great living, while breaking, to my knowledge, no enforceable laws to do so. That he broke all laws of decency and historical faithfulness, if you put yourself in his shoes, is beside the point, writes Lisa Pease.
In the early days after the Rolling Stone article appeared, it appears that [Saint John] and his brother actually had a good deal of skepticism towards what their father had told him about the mechanics of the assassination. What happened to that skepticism? ... Hunt's personal story, with some good supplementary research about his father and mother, could have been politically interesting and personally compelling. But it didn't come out that way, concludes Seamus Coogan.
Hancock and Wexler's belief that Ray took up a bounty being offered on Dr. King's life is simply not supported by any credible evidence. They provide no proof that he at any point heard about such an offer and, in their endless speculation aimed at doing so, try to place him in a bar that did not open until six months after they claimed he was there, writes Martin Hay.
An interesting, well-organized, and crafted book. [Haslam] has given us a documented, insightful, and arresting alternative to the unsatisfactory, or missing, official story [of Mary Sherman's death]; that alternative may have huge implications down to the present day. His work deserves attention and accolades, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
What Baker does with the JFK and Watergate episodes is symptomatic of the rest of the book. He wants to somehow implicate the Bushes in crimes for which there is next to no evidence, while not reporting on the ones for which there is plenty of evidence, writes Jim DiEugenio.
James DiEugenio reviews Dean T. Hartwell's book on forty years of government cover-ups.
Copyright 2016-2022 by kennedysandking.com • All Rights Reserved