In this final installment of his review of the History Channel series, Arnaldo Fernandez concludes: “With Castro as vantage point instead of the CIA, Baer was not tracking Oswald to articulate a true picture of the past, but to drive the historical truth away.”
After mixing Oswald with the anti-Castro and CIA-backed paramilitaries of Alpha 66 in a weird pot made of “special intent to kill President Kennedy soup”, Baer keeps on blighting a big-budget TV show by ignoring the body of the evidence, writes Arnaldo Fernandez. With an insert by Milicent Cranor on the History Channel's version of the "jet effect".
Frank Cassano and Arnaldo Fernandez return with a review of part 4 of the The History Channel series, entitled “The Cuban Connection,” in which Baer and Bercovici stage what our authors call “a hell of a sleight of hand”: the claim that the anti-Castro Cubans collaborated with the pro-Castro, Marxist wannabe killer Oswald, in order to get rid of JFK – a collaboration the CIA and FBI completely missed.
Along with Arnaldo Fernandez, Frank Cassano continues the critical tracking of this History Channel series – apparently no longer being aired in the United States – with a review of part 3, “Oswald Goes Dark”.
While advertising ad nauseam that his “new investigation” uncovers “new evidence”, Baer remains tethered to a pair of fallen trees: The Warren Commission Report and the Red conspiracy theory masterminded by the CIA. Both have long been knocked down, writes Arnaldo Fernandez.
Bob Baer announces his "Shenonism" by presenting long-known facts as somehow exciting new findings. He then conveys them to the viewer as a big deal, because the Warren Commission couldn’t grasp them. Baer simply overlooks or—even worse—sweeps under the carpet all the sound research performed after the JFK Records Act, writes Arnaldo Fernandez.
What the Bishop-Veciana-Oswald connection may actually have involved could be hidden among the 1,100 long-suppressed CIA records related to the JFK assassination, including four of Phillips’ operational files and Veciana’s routing and record sheet, conjectures Prof. Fernandez.
An "incredibly improbable memoir ..., and the most incredible thing is how much of the story is demonstrably true", remarks Joseph Green, who further observes that "the author adopts a straightforward prose style and appears to be doing his best to give the truth as he sees it. For that he deserves some kudos."
In the second installment of this book review/essay, Jeff Carter focuses on questions of authenticity, alteration, and the NPIC analyses which occurred over the week-end of the assassination but which the CIA later tried to deflect and all but make disappear from the record.
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."
If Shaw had restrained himself, or if he had had an editor to point out the problems with his design, then this would have been a good and valuable book about Dorothy Kilgallen: who she really was, what we know and do not know about her death. But such was not the case. I would actually recommend Sara Jordan’s informative and objective essay instead, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Whoever decided that this script needed to be played out on the wide screen of a darkened theater was simply wrong. It seems that the writer and director realized that mistake on the way to production. They then tried to justify that decision. In this reviewer’s opinion, it did not work, writes Jim DiEugenio.
This author would not walk across the street to see Posner speak about either the JFK or King case. I have a hard time thinking that Stone could master the JFK case in just a matter of 3-4 years, and am skeptical of the case made against Lyndon Johnson. In watching this confrontation it appears I was correct about these suspicions, laments Jim DiEugenio.
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.