The first in a two-part installment in which Jeff Carter reviews a book that "reveals some new – albeit not earth-shattering – information", but is also "imbued with a certain partisanship, not limited to family interests, which dulls the author’s critical thinking in some key areas."
We here publish two letters written by Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht to the editors of the the journal of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners concerning the ludicrous claims made by PBS' program on the JFK assassination.
In this two-part essay, Jim DiEugenio builds on unpublished material obtained by Roger Feinman from CBS in order to reconstruct how the 1967 CBS special became the shameless defense of the Warren Commission's case against Lee Harvey Oswald that it was.
Milicent Cranor debunks the "Thorburn" position invoked by Lattimer to explain JFK's movement at Z313.
Examines the evolution of the placement of the "final" shot and the question of the plat of Dealey Plaza prepared for the Warren Commission.
A critical overview of Dale Myers, the ABC network's 3D animation expert who produced a flawed recreation of the Zapruder film.
This book is really an entry level book for the novice, an overview of the assassination that tries to touch all of its aspects. ... Its major themes, like the shooting sequence and the identification of the conspirators are not well constructed and some of his conclusions are not supported by the latest findings. And his criticism of Jim Garrison was unfortunate and unjustifiable. After finishing the book you are left with the impression that it was probably written in the 90s and not in 2013, writes Vasilios Vazakas.
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.
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.