The first in a two-part installment in which Jeff Carter reviews a book that "reveals some new – albeit not earth-shattering – information", but is also "imbued with a certain partisanship, not limited to family interests, which dulls the author’s critical thinking in some key areas."
My advice about this heavily weighted apparatus [11.22.63] which produces next to nothing is to avoid it at all costs. All it really produces is more money for King and J. J. Abrams – like they need it. It is nothing more than a stupid, demeaning waste of time, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio reviews the career of the University of Minnesota professor of philosphy of science, observing that his rather lax attitude toward critical analysis of scholarly sources, coupled to his taste for the "Sensational Solution", are responsible for the demise in respectability of this self-proclaimed authority on conspiracies.
I was seriously disappointed by this book ... because it fell so far short of its announced goals (of explaining and promoting critical thinking), writes David Mantik.
In reply to Michael Shermer and the LA Times, David Mantik asks why the media refuse to accept the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion that Oswald was framed.
This 2013 account of the first generation Warren Commission critics is based on Praise from a Future Generation (Wings Press, 2007) by John Kelin, just published in an e-book edition.
Ron says "that all is uncertainty, that we'll never know who killed Kennedy or why to any degree of certainty." Well, with Ron leading the way that is probably true. ... To people who know something about the JFK case, and the ARRB declassified files, it is Ron who is the wingnut theorist. The idea that JFK was killed as a result of a high level plot is not a theory. It is a provable fact. End of story, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio exposes the disingenuousness and silliness of the anti-conspiracy arguments of David Reitzes and John McAdams, comparing them to those of the media shill Michael Shermer.
deHaven-Smith has written some interesting material about the historical aspect of how conspiracy facts and thinking have been dealt with in American culture. But where the book gets into trouble is when the author tries to present his own rubric about how the public should deal with these types of crimes, writes Larry Hancock.