Martin Hay is a writer and musician living near London. He has been a keen student of the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King for over 15 years and, as well as contributing popular articles to CTKA, maintains his own well-regarded blog, The Mysteries of Dealey Plaza.
Aside from Shane O'Sullivan's mostly worthwhile Killing Oswald, there has been very little of note that has even attempted to counter the MSM's seemingly endless deluge of propaganda with reliable evidence and solid reasoning. A Coup in Camelot clearly aims to fill that void. Unfortunately, however, it falls considerably short of the mark, writes Martin Hay.
Martin Hay reviews «Klandestine» by Pate McMichael on the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination.
Martin Hay reviews an article published by Haag in AFTE, about which he concludes: "It is little wonder ... that Lucien Haag limited his defense of the 'Magic' Bullet Theory to a (misleading) discussion of Governor Connally's wounds. After all, no matter how impressive his credentials and extensive his experience, there are some problems that no man can make disappear."
I expected that authors Mel Ayton and David Von Pein would add nothing to our understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy, and that is precisely what they did. I expected they would regurgitate the same tired old arguments and trot out the usual roster of long-discredited witnesses, and they did just that. And I expected that they would pontificate on the evils of "conspiracy theorists" at every available opportunity and, lo and behold!, they did, writes Martin Hay.
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.
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.
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.
There is really nothing new in the book and its central thesis is simply not supported by the evidence. That CIA rogues were a part of the plot to kill Kennedy has been written before and in a far more persuasive manner than Nolan manages, writes Martin Hay.
By any standards, Lane's resume is impressive, and I have a great deal of respect for the man. So it is with heavy heart that I must say his latest and most likely his last book on the murder of JFK is—for me at least—a little disappointing, writes Martin Hay.