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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thomas shows how people like Luis Alverez, John Lattimer and Larry Sturdivan all constructed dubious theories “for the purpose of explaining away the obvious reason for the head snap, and all suffer, not only from implausibility, but from a failure to fit the evidence.”  This is the true strength of the book and the reason why I believe it will be such a valuable contribution to the literature, writes Martin Hay.

David Mantik’s extensive review of Don Thomas’s book has been overhauled and revised; it now appears on his own website. We have removed the now superseded version which first appeared on the CTKA site. Final Version at TheMantikView

I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik.

Despite telling us that “consistency with other evidence is very important to scientists”, he appears to have studied each point in isolation and then cherry-picked the details that fit his own thesis. The one point it can really be said that Dr. G. Paul Chambers Ph. D. both makes and proves in his book is that credentials and a good reputation are no proof against being wrong, concludes Martin Hay.

David Mantik replies to criticisms made by Pad Speer of his conclusions concerning the 6.5 mm bright object and the "white patch".