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.
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.
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.
Not only did neither [Gerald Posner nor Vincent Bugliosi] address Dr. Perry's inconsistencies, neither ever mentioned the official HSCA memo to counsel Robert Tanenbaum concerning the plausible explanation Mr. Gochenaur gave for the doctor's flip-flopping, writes Gary Aguilar.
In part 1 of his three-part review, Dr. Mantik looks at Don Thomas' treatement of the ballistics evidence, the backyard photographs, and the President's wounds.
Supplementary material on terminology, ballistics and acoustics referred to in David Mantik's review of Don Thomas.