Although there are some interesting and worthwhile aspects to this book, overall I found it really disappointing. It is ... unconvincing in its overall thesis, and uses questionable sources and witnesses to advance parts of its presentation, while leaving out more credible evidence that works against that particular presentation. It pains me to write like this, since I like Mr. Hancock and think he and his organization have done some good work, writes Jim DiEugenio.

The arresting religious-intelligence phenomenon that formed the focus of Evica's final work relates not just to Oswald, but other figures in the assassination landscape, like Ruth and Michael Paine, and Ruth Kloepfer. It had been ignored for too long and it took Evica to open up the issue, writes Jim DiEugenio.

Jim DiEugenio deems the television documentary by Roger Stone a transparent set-up with little that is new and little discussion of the evidence.

The book's use also lies in demonstrating that it may not be possible for one person to fully master, or give a fair accounting of, this impossibly tangled mess of a case, writes Gary Aguilar.

The amount of bunching of the suit coat in the Jefferies film is not significant enough to raise the entrance wounds to the base of the neck. It is an experiment that can easily be done, writes Chuck Marler.

Just how extensively this new Jefferies film will be used to promote jacket-bunching to explain the jacket/body discrepancy remains to be seen, writes John Kelin.

With statements like Mr. Goetzman's, one doubts if Goetzman, Hanks and Paxton really read Bugliosi's 2,740 pages or any of the critical literature released prior, or subsequent, to Reclaimimg History - especially within a month's time.

Michael Green takes Bugliosi to task on the evidence, arguing for a national security state cover-up through the mass media.

Jim DiEugenio remarks on the July 2, 2007 issue of Time featuring seven essays on JFK, that he "can't recall a previous time when Time actually printed a genuine pro-conspiracy essay on the Kennedy case in its pages."

Time magazine ran this short piece with David Talbot arguing for and Vincent Bugliosi against.