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.

Tuesday, 26 November 2013 20:14

Cold Case JFK vs. Cold Hard JFK Facts

A critical review of the NOVA production (November 14, 2013) – "Cold Case JFK."

Friday, 22 November 2013 15:09

Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years

bor email header 1

Courtesy Len Osanic and Black Op Radio

 

Tuesday, 29 October 2013 21:17

James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland

Jim DiEugenio's second book on the JFK assassination, which takes Bugliosi's pretentious and inflated bag of obfuscation as its framework for dismantling the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, and the HSCA, and for further revealing how beholden the film and TV industry has become to Washington in general and to the CIA in particular.  A masterful dissection of a rotting corpse, and the rightful heir to Accessories after the Fact. [Al Rossi]

Sherry Fiester [uses] established science-based protocols to determine events and causalities, not to search for manufactured support of an a priori conclusion, write LeBlanc and Dragoo.

Oliver Stone and Zach Sklar reply (yet again) to media criticism of JFK.

Published in News Items

A valiant book that sometimes stumbles and falls short of its proclaimed goal ... On the other hand, the author does a skillful job on several core topics, writes Dr. David Mantik.

Monday, 15 April 2013 19:08

Harrison E. Livingstone, Kaleidoscope

kaleidoscope cover

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.

 

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.

Find Us On ...

Sitemap

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.