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.
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.
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.
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.
The bullet or large fragment that Nolan turned in was obviously not from Oswald's rifle. If it was, the FBI would have flaunted it as absolute proof of the accused assassin's guilt. Instead, it provided absolute proof that Connally was hit by a bullet from a different assassin. Until recently, only Hoover and a handful of others were aware of that, concludes Robert Harris.
Jim DiEugenio presents factors which in 2011 could have judicially favored re-opening the RFK case.
I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik.
There is much of value [in this book], if you are willing to spend a lot of time sifting through five volumes. If it had been half as long, it might have been twice as good, writes Jim DiEugenio.