One of the most respected researchers and writers on the political assassinations of the 1960s, Jim DiEugenio is the author of two books, Destiny Betrayed (1992/2012) and Reclaiming Parkland (2013/2016), co-author of The Assassinations, and co-edited Probe Magazine (1993-2000). See "About Us" for a fuller bio.
About the first fifty pages of Undeniable Truths is pretty much undeniable. The next fifty pages are a decided mixture of truth and question marks. Most of the last 200 pages do not at all merit the title. In fact, that part is, in large measure, nothing more than conjecture. And much of that conjecture is ill-founded, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
In light of the recent developments in our understanding of JFK's foreign policy vision, Jim DiEugenio writes: "In sum, this is not a bad book. And I think some of its faults can be explained by Shaw’s association with the Wall Street Journal and the Hoover Institute. But in my opinion it could have been much better".
We all owe thanks to Paris Flammonde for sailing against the current. He didn't care about being "respectable." He understood that, with the MSM, there really was no such thing as being respectable on the JFK case. For the simple reason that they had prostituted themselves on the subject in every way, and from the very start, writes Jim DiEugenio.
As I mentioned in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, when David Phillips was trying to convince Vincent Bugliosi to write a book on the JFK case, he mentioned two examples to follow. ... The second was Oswald's Game. In the upside down world of Jean Davison on the JFK case, it would not surprise me if she took the suspect conspirator's recommendation as a complement, writes Jim DiEugenio.
I didn't agree with John and Mike on every issue. But most of the time they were on the right track. Beyond that, they provided a serious and credible counterweight to the nonsense of the dying MSM. We are all a bit poorer with their leaving us, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Slideshows for three presentations on JFK's foreign policy given in 2013, 2014 and 2016.
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.
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.