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.
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."
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Revisiting the Medical Data
by Mantik, David W. M.D., Ph.D., At: Journal of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
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.
David Josephs reviews arguments for Oswald having "planned" the shooting and finds them both contradictory and without rational foundation.
The 1964 Norman Redlich memo presented to Warren Commission lawyer J. Lee Rankin.
Jim DiEugenio presents in five parts why, 50 years on, the Warren Report can no longer be taken seriously.
Despite its mistakes this is a decent enough book for the novice and general public who are not aware of the machinations of deep politics and JFK assassination case, writes Vasilios Vazakas.
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.