A valuable Big Picture book, one with many new sources for study, which bring in much fascinating information. The light [Swanson] sheds on men like Nitze and Acheson show just what hollow clowns the so-called Wise Men of the media really were. [The book] also demonstrates just how powerful and dangerous the Military Industrial Complex has become. By showing Kennedy's opposition to it, he may have also shown why Kennedy was killed, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

Bob Groden has been a true champion of the case for the public. He has devoted much of his adult life trying to show that the Warren Commission was nothing but a sham meant to conceal the true facts of Kennedy's death. His current book is a decidedly mixed bag of virtues and liabilities. But taken as a trilogy, his last three books form what is the best photo library available in book form on this case, writes Jim DiEugenio.

This book is really an entry level book for the novice, an overview of the assassination that tries to touch all of its aspects. ... Its major themes, like the shooting sequence and the identification of the conspirators are not well constructed and some of his conclusions are not supported by the latest findings. And his criticism of Jim Garrison was unfortunate and unjustifiable. After finishing the book you are left with the impression that it was probably written in the 90s and not in 2013, writes Vasilios Vazakas.

This is a good enough documentary for the novice, but it does not contain enough information that is vital to understanding this complex case. I also believe that there were plenty of good researchers to recruit instead of David Kaiser, who, with all due respect, is just a better version of Robert Blakey, writes Vasilios Vazakas.

[Livingstone] was once a heroic pioneer in the medical evidence. His books (and Lifton's contributions, too) were invaluable introductions for me. For that I am still grateful to both. Unfortunately, I see little of value in this book, but rather lots of pointless confusion. The book should not have been written-and it should not be read, concludes David Mantik.

At the end, Palamara lists a very good chronicle of failures by the Secret Service in Dallas. It goes on for three pages. It is very provocative and even disturbing. The author uses it to crystallize the argument he has been making without being explicit about it [, concluding] that the Secret Service was not just negligent, but culpable in the assassination. With the amount of evidence in the first half of the book, it's hard to disagree with him, writes Jim DiEugenio.  

The first installment of a long and detailed critique of Myer's arguments for Oswald's culpability in the Tippit murder.

The second and concluding installment of a long and detailed critique of Myer's arguments for Oswald's culpability in the Tippit murder.

There is an almost pathological use of conditionals; may have, perhaps, could have, if, etc. Conversely, there is an overabundance of hackneyed declaratives where conditionals should have been used, as well as an over-reliance on unnamed sources. And yet this dogged pursuit and elucidation of the documentary record is supposed to be the sine qua non of these two books, writes Bill Davy.

I actually wish the film had been longer so it could incorporate more of [the] facts and more of the revelations of the Assassination Records Review Board, since these all but closed the book on this ersatz debate about JFK and Vietnam, writes Jim DiEugenio.