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.
In this final part of his review, David Mantik concludes his detailed discussion of the dictabelt evidence and why he disagrees with Thomas's conclusions concerning that evidence.
In part 2 of his three-part review, David Mantik continues his discussion of ballistics, Thomas's version of the single-bullet theory, neutron activation analysis, the Tippit murder, and begins his lengthy review of the dicatabelt evidence.
Thomas shows how people like Luis Alverez, John Lattimer and Larry Sturdivan all constructed dubious theories “for the purpose of explaining away the obvious reason for the head snap, and all suffer, not only from implausibility, but from a failure to fit the evidence.” This is the true strength of the book and the reason why I believe it will be such a valuable contribution to the literature, writes Martin Hay.