Aside from Shane O'Sullivan's mostly worthwhile Killing Oswald, there has been very little of note that has even attempted to counter the MSM's seemingly endless deluge of propaganda with reliable evidence and solid reasoning. A Coup in Camelot clearly aims to fill that void. Unfortunately, however, it falls considerably short of the mark, writes Martin Hay.
On the second to last page, Hill/McCubbin write: “As with our previous two books, our overriding concern was to present a factual account to preserve history, while also abiding by the Secret Service pledge to be worthy of trust and confidence.” I would say it is the latter part of that statement that has guided McCubbin, Hill and Blaine through all four books, concludes Vince Palamara.
About the first fifty pages of Undeniable Truths is pretty much undeniable. The next fifty pages are a decided mixture of truth and question marks. Most of the last 200 pages do not at all merit the title. In fact, that part is, in large measure, nothing more than conjecture. And much of that conjecture is ill-founded, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
by Vince Palamara, At: vincepalamara.com
At the end, Palamara lists a very good chronicle of failures by the Secret Service in Dallas. It goes on for three pages. It is very provocative and even disturbing. The author uses it to crystallize the argument he has been making without being explicit about it [, concluding] that the Secret Service was not just negligent, but culpable in the assassination. With the amount of evidence in the first half of the book, it's hard to disagree with him, writes Jim DiEugenio.
A documentary designed to blame President Kennedy for his own assassination by falsely stating that he ordered the agents off his limousine, as well as to perpetuate the official Warren Commission story, writes Vince Palamara.
By any standards, Lane's resume is impressive, and I have a great deal of respect for the man. So it is with heavy heart that I must say his latest and most likely his last book on the murder of JFK is—for me at least—a little disappointing, writes Martin Hay.
Unlike The Kennedy Detail, Clint Hill has written (again, with Lisa McCubbin) a fine book. That said, it is best to take some of his pre-assassination “reenactments” of statements made by others with a huge grain of salt, while also noting–with interest–those assassination and post-assassination revelations and statements that do ring true and are of interest to all, writes Vince Palamara.
Although very well written, along with some nice photographs, as well, The Kennedy Detail is really a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite history ... and absolve the agents of their collective survivor's guilt .... In the eyes of those from the Kennedy detail, the assassination was the act of TWO "lone men": Oswald, who pulled the trigger, and JFK, who set himself up as the target, writes Vince Palamara.