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.

Martin Hay reviews an article published by Haag in AFTE, about which he concludes: "It is little wonder ... that Lucien Haag limited his defense of the 'Magic' Bullet Theory to a (misleading) discussion of Governor Connally's wounds. After all, no matter how impressive his credentials and extensive his experience, there are some problems that no man can make disappear."

What could have been an important and sterling volume is seriously compromised with a lot of litter. Instead of being up there with Rakove and Muehlenbeck, it stands a couple of steps downward, with Thurston Clarke’s mixed bag of nuts, concludes Jim DiEugenio.    

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.

A valuable Big Picture book, one with many new sources for study, which bring in much fascinating information. The light [Swanson] sheds on men like Nitze and Acheson show just what hollow clowns the so-called Wise Men of the media really were. [The book] also demonstrates just how powerful and dangerous the Military Industrial Complex has become. By showing Kennedy's opposition to it, he may have also shown why Kennedy was killed, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

Oswald's Game really tells us more about the biases and obsessions of Jean Davison on the Kennedy case than it does about its ostensible subject. Which is really the worst thing one can say about a biographer, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

The once progressive co-author of A Populist Manifesto with this book has written the worst kind of alternative history, one seriously colored by the view from the present, and more specifically, of those who won and those who lost, with a decided bias in favor of those who won, writes Jim DiEugenio.

    Jim DiEugenio reviews Columbia University economist and author Jeffrey Sachs' latest book, which examines Kennedy's famous 1963 American University speech.       

[Livingstone] was once a heroic pioneer in the medical evidence. His books (and Lifton's contributions, too) were invaluable introductions for me. For that I am still grateful to both. Unfortunately, I see little of value in this book, but rather lots of pointless confusion. The book should not have been written-and it should not be read, concludes David Mantik.

Taken as a whole, this is a valuable book. When coupled with Muehlenbeck's Betting on the Africans, much needed light has now been cast over the specifics of Kennedy's dealings with the Third World: how these broke with the past, and how LBJ and Nixon then returned them to their previous state, writes Jim DiEugenio.