Book Description
Broadcast journalism came of age in the Kennedy Assassination crisis and helped to hold a mourning nation together. Four reporters on the scene relate their experiences.
Customer Reviews:
A worthy contribution to history free of myth and full of facts.......2007-04-03
There are so very few books that convey a sense of "being there" when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. This outstanding book takes the reader back to that fateful weekend of November 22nd 1963 in Dallas, Texas and does so in an open, honest and compelling manner.
"When the News Went Live" is written by four journalists who were in Dallas on that day covering the presidential visit. Bob Huffaker and the other three newsmen share many interesting stories that you will not find elsewhere and that have been untold for many years no doubt to all but their personal friends. This is why the book is such a valuable contribution to the historical record. Such first hand observation regarding not just those few seconds in Dealey Plaza, the murder of Officer Tippet and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, but how in fact the entire story unfolded, makes fascinating reading.
As an aid to anyone interested in the assassination, this book is a must have. I would emphasize - rarely do you find first hand knowledge like this - much of what is written on this subject is written by people many steps removed from the event where fact and fiction merge into one. Not so here. A fabulous book which is refreshingly free of the conjecture and myth that is so common in the Himalayan pile of work on the Kennedy assassination and is highly recommended.
Two Shortcuts To Becoming A Lone-Assassin Believer: Watch The 11/22/63 Real-Time Live TV Coverage....And Then Read This Book.......2007-01-02
"With three shots from a mail-order rifle, Lee Oswald set off a worldwide tragedy that developed too fast to print. .... Broadcast journalism came of age in that crisis of grief and uncertainty, and as it drew its mourning audience, it helped to hold the nation together." -- Bob Huffaker; From the Preface of "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963"
----------------------
"When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963", published in 2004, paints a vivid word picture of many of the incredible events that surrounded President John F. Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, as seen through the eyes of four journalists -- Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, and Wes Wise -- who covered those events as they happened for CBS affiliate KRLD-TV and Radio in Dallas.
President Kennedy's shocking and appalling assassination on November 22, 1963, was the very first really big "Watch It Unfold Live On TV" news event of the television era, with four full commercial-free days being devoted to nothing but exclusive assassination-related coverage by all three major TV networks (with KRLD's on-the-scene Dallas reporters frequently feeding CBS-TV headquarters in New York).
And the four reporters whose intriguing stories unfold within this 224-page hardcover volume were right smack in the thick of things during the rapidly-developing events -- from the initial sketchy bulletins that told of the President being shot in Dealey Plaza during a motorcade drive through the city of Dallas -- to the announcement of JFK's death at Parkland Hospital -- to the capture of the accused assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a nearby movie theater -- to Oswald's very own murder on live TV (with Bob Huffaker reporting live from the basement of the Dallas Police Department, where the single gunshot from Jack Ruby's pistol added yet another hard-to-believe chapter to the weekend's nightmarish story).
It was a mesmerizing weekend in American (and television) history, to say the least. And those days are re-lived with clarity in this engaging book by way of the recollections of four men who lived through and reported on those events when they were occurring.
"When The News Went Live" contains several excellent black-and-white photographs, too (some of them I haven't seen published elsewhere).
On a personal level, I have had the pleasure of communicating (via e-mail) with Bob Huffaker several times. He has been very cordial and gracious whenever answering the questions that I had for him. His personal insights into the events revolving around JFK's death are fascinating glimpses into the past, and are insights that I have enjoyed reading immensely.
A sample e-mail excerpt from Mr. Huffaker:
----------------------
"David, you're right about the presidential visit and motorcade being the main attraction that all Dallas media were covering, of course. But all our stations had limited capabilities for doing mobile TV, which then demanded either cables or microwave dishes--as well as a receiving dish within line-of-sight beaming or bouncing.
Hence the pool TV arrangements, limited to three planned locations. The local TV stations did live TV from the FTW {Fort Worth} breakfast, Love Field, and the Trade Mart. But this was, indeed, the day the news went live on television, unplanned.
WBAP-TV in Fort Worth had a non-running TV van, which they had towed all the way from Cowtown to Dallas Police headquarters, and we sent both of our KRLD-TV vans into duty--the Bread Truck at DPD and the Blue Goose on the 24th to the county jail, etc.
This was the first time in TV history when on-the-spot news suddenly demanded to go live from the scene. Before that, radio news on-the-spot descriptions such as ours that day were common (like the Hindenburg broadcast--radio only), and live TV was usually reserved for major speeches, sports, etc.
Bob" -- E-mail to this writer; May 30, 2006
----------------------
Relating to the subject of "WHEN THE NEWS WENT LIVE", I'd like to offer up the following observations as an extension of this book review.....
To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 10 gunshots being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts from that dark Friday in American history.
After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November 22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture "JFK".
Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion, provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as well).
Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison-endorsed nonsense of:
"Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today here in Dallas!!"
What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by the SINGLE SHOOTER, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr. Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors.
Upon evaluating virtually all of the TV networks' live assassination footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at an even more-cockeyed "8-to-10-shot" shooting scenario, as purported by Mr. Groden and some other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.*
* = And Mr. Groden's theory (that sports from 8 to 10 gunshots) also features an additional hunk of lunacy, in that Groden thinks it's very likely that NONE of these eight to ten shots came from the "Oswald window" in the Book Depository! (I'm not making this crazy stuff up here. I promise. Anyone who owns a copy of Robert Groden's 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" can check out Groden's preposterous theory for themselves, on pages 20-40.)
The bottom line is -- Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little evidence and information being broadcast that would support any type of a "conspiracy" whatsoever; and certainly no "conspiratorial" evidence that has ever panned out and "proved" that a multi-gun plot ended JFK's life in Dallas.
This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November 22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders.
And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country (including Messrs. Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix, and Wise) would have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-proving angle during that weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure. But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet to occur all these many years later.
To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman".
For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated "Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three shots" account that was reported during those early hours just after the shooting.
For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is heard multiple times on November 22nd saying he heard "3 shots" fired.
Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.
Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard, Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President Kennedy.
In addition, Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, who were both riding in the Secret Service follow-up car directly behind JFK's limousine, can also be added to the lengthy list of witnesses who heard precisely three gunshots.
And then there's also amateur filmmaker Abraham Zapruder, who took the most famous 26-second home movie in history when he captured the entire assassination with his 8mm Bell & Howell movie camera -- Zapruder showed up on live TV about 90 minutes after the President's murder took place and gave a graphic account of the horrifying event that had taken place in front of his very eyes.
Mr. Zapruder told the WFAA-TV viewing audience that he had heard two or three shots (but definitely no more than three), and he also demonstrated on live television where on the President's head he had seen the effects of the fatal gunshot. Zapruder puts his hand over the right-frontal portion of his own head to demonstrate where he saw the blood coming from JFK's head.
That's pretty amazing "LIVE" stuff from Mr. Zapruder's own lips (within approx. an hour-and-a-half of the assassination). And it's especially incredible and amazing if there had actually been many more than just two or three shots fired at the President, and if the fatal shot had actually (as many CTers believe) caused a huge hole in the BACK of John Kennedy's head, instead of the location where Zapruder placed it on live television -- i.e., the RIGHT SIDE AND FRONT portion of the head.
How could the so-called "conspirators" have possibly gotten THAT lucky with respect to Abraham Zapruder's live "on-the-air" WFAA-TV statements and head-wound "demonstration"? How?
And -- Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to "manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing only TWO shots, which is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy Plot")?
Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY (again) when virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired" conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Depository.
Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being "synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the other shots.
And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or not? I ask you.
Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to say the least.
Again -- I'd advise all conspiracy theorists to sit down and watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a "Multi-Gunmen Conspiracy" lurking within ANY of those original broadcasts. If anybody finds proof of a conspiracy via those means, please let me know. And let the world know too.
David Von Pein
December 2006
January 2007
Out of the Past.......2006-04-04
We have become accustomed (yea, verily, some would say desensitized)to horror unfolding before our eyes in our very own living rooms. Bob Huffaker's book brings us back to a time before the desensitization, when we could scarcely believe what our eyes were telling us. I recommend this book highly to those who were there, watching as I was, and even more so to those who were not there. The young, raised in an era of suicide bombers, need to understand that it was not always thus.
very good press reporting.......2005-07-30
1963 nov 22 brought to life again but with more professionalism.some very interesting facts that confirmed my own thoughts .
JOURNALISM CLASSIC AND INSIDE SCOOP.......2005-05-07
I stayed up all night reading when my copy of When The News Went Live, Dallas 1963 arrived. This book is a classic and should be included in the curriculum of every journalism and political science classroom in America.
Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix and Wise have written the Texas story of the Kennedy assassination, the inside scoop on Oswald's murder and the history of the evolution of modern journalism. These four men were Dallas television reporters, on the scene and on their own, in the middle of the news story of the century.
It is a salute to their training and their integrity as newsmen that their coverage under duress stands today as a compelling rendering of those fateful moments. I am glad they were the early ones on the scene, for they were the ones who broke the news to me in my elementary classroom. The story gives their perspectives more fully; all these years later, this book helps me understand the events and how they affected Texas and the nation.
Bob, Bill, George and Wes were there in Dallas with their Southern sensibilities. They weren't easily pushed around or manipulated that dark day and still aren't. They were taught to tell the truth as objectively as possible, and they reverted to that training and their good common sense when placed in positions lesser men might have blown or exploited. These four men cared about truth and justice and fairness and still do. I hope all young journalists will read this and learn about balanced reporting.
Book Description
Cuba's number 2 official today — Commander Juan Almeida — was secretly working with JFK in November 1963 to overthrow Fidel. The US government recently revealed Almeida's work for JFK, allowing the updated trade paperback of Ultimate Sacrifice to tell the full story for the first time (complete with new photos and documents).
The authors obtained the story from almost two dozen associates of John and Robert Kennedy, starting in 1990 with JFK's Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Their accounts are supported by thousands of newly-released files at the National Archives.
Almeida's "palace coup" set for December 1, 1963, was to be backed up by US forces "invited" in by Commander Almeida, then Chief of the Cuban Army. However, three Mafia bosses being targeted by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy used several CIA assets to infiltrate the secret plot and murder JFK.
This resulted in cover-ups by officials like RFK and LBJ, to prevent the exposure of Almeida and a possible nuclear confrontation with the Soviets. The new edition explains why Almeida was not a double agent, why Fidel suspected Almeida's ally Che Guevara, and what Fidel did in 1990 when he finally found out about Almeida's work for JFK.
Customer Reviews:
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED.......2007-10-16
A clear, understandable recital of the facts. Well documented.
One of the best-if not the best,I've read on the subject.
There is a great deal of material, but can be digested.
Clear and precise in showing WHY and HOW things happened on Nov 22, 1963.
Too Many Unsubstantiated Facts Leading Nowhere.......2007-09-13
As with most books about the JFK Assassination, 'Ultimate Sacrifice' suffers from its own evangelism; having decided on a theory, the authors opt for proselytizing over objectivity. Authors Waldron and Hartmann start by taking themselves and their theory much too seriously, trying to convince the reader of the correctness of their conclusions by presenting a gigantic load of so called facts to overwhelm the reader. Most of these "facts", however, are far from substantiated, coming as they are from the usual secondary sources rather than original research, while ignoring much good evidence that detract from them.
There are way too many assumptions of unproven allegations in this book for me to take the authors' conclusions seriously, despite the new evidence they provide from some admirable original research to try to back them up. To take just a few examples:
1. The authors accept without question that Oswald was an American agent before he went to Russia. They cite the usual suspicious, yet inconclusive evidence about this such as the 'phony' suicide attempt, Oswald seen with unsavory characters while in Japan, an alleged false defector program the US was supposed to have run, and just the general feeling that it seems to make sense. And yet, the authors completely ignore the much greater evidence opposed to this inference found in the well-researched chapters on Oswald's time in Russia in the Mailer biography, much of it coming from KGB sources who had been watching him constantly. Indeed, not one shred of spy-like behavior was made evident too them by their subject during his entire stay.
2. The authors believe Oswald did not take his Marxism seriously, but was only pretending to be a true believer as part of his cover. Were this true, Oswald must have been the best method actor of all time, never getting out of character, even with his wife and close friends. And oh yes, all those commie books in his room were `planted'. Amazing analysis!
3. The authors decide to accept with little question the interpretation of the ambiguous ballistic and medical data of the assassination that best fits their theory, namely that the fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll, while discounting the Single Bullet theory. Once more they completely neglect the most scientific data available that counters this notion: the Barger Acoustic analysis done during the HSCA hearings. Nor do they cite the excellent analysis of the first shots in the Zapruder film done for the Frontline special on Oswald that clearly shows the flap of Connelly's collar being flipped up as the bullet -- the same bullet that emerged from Kennedy's throat -- passes through into his shoulder.
There is much more of this type of thing, too much so for me to find much value in what evidence the authors do present. I say this believing indeed that JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy involving elements of Cosa Nostra and CIA. But the breadth of scope of their arguments is just too much for the lack of depth of the evidence they provide.
Do not mistake me, there is some value in this book. The research on the Tampa and Chicago threats is intriguing. The details on the CIA-Mafia assassination plots is both informative and believable. And the presentation of Ruby's ties to Organize crime is the most convincing and thorough I have seen. Unfortunately, when the authors try to cover all the mysterious associations of Johnny Roselli, the Mafia point man on the assassination, they mainly rely on a single secondary source, All American Mafioso by Charles Rappleye and Ed Becker while completely neglecting to cite the most curious close friendship he maintained with top CIA officer William K. Harvey, point man for Executive Action assassinations, until his death. The same tactic of using a very small number of JFK assassination books to back up their arguments is used to show the actions and meaningfull associations of the other mobsters involved in the conspiracy as well.
What is needed in the field of JFK assassination research is not more rehash of old and untested data to backup new conspiracy theories, but a well constructed analysis focused on manageable areas of the assassination using original research, including validating rather than blindly accepting evidence cited in previous works. At times Ultimate Sacrifice does attempt this, but far too seldom; and in the end, the books bites off more than it can chew and concludes very little.
Worth the time.......2007-08-16
I finished this book. Took awhile, but did it. Close to 900 pages. "We'll explain further in another chapter," or words to that effect were sprinkled throughout and wore thin, but explain they did. I've wondered, over the years, why RFK wasn't more aggressive about pursuing the truth and why he presented obstacles to Garrison's investigation, etc--and this book explains all that and more. The theories make sense, and the documentation is laid out nicely. And next to Bugliosi's bag of hot air and overwrought opinion, Ultimate Sacrifice looks even more important. I see it's now available in paperback, so the investment is halved. I'd say it surely deserves a spot on serious researchers' shelves.
The Mafia Did It: A Script and Play Written By CIA Productions Inc........2007-07-26
This is a difficult book for one to get his head around. Not only because the subject matter unfolds like a reverse Russian Doll - as each new puzzle is opened, a larger more interesting one with an even deeper subtext emerges -- but also because of the artful ambiguity with which the source documents (upon which the story is based) makes themselves an integral part of the plot itself.
This is my fourth attempt at writing a review, the first two having been rejected out of hand; and although the third was accepted; mercifully it too was later withdrawn after I tried to amend it several times. However, if this one is accepted, after my third reading of the book, I will not be amending it.
Prologue
As an integral whole, there is yet another way to view the JFK assassination story told here. Imagine it to be an intramural chess game between competing teams within the U.S. government. On one side are the Kennedy brothers, whose goal is C-Day and presumably a return of Cuba to a free and independent state. On the other side, are the anti-Kennedy forces which includes: the front line of the CIA, the mob, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, the moneyed anti-Kennedy interests, primarily centered in Texas, and the state of Israel. The goal of side B is to checkmate the Kennedys, using C-Day as the cornerstone of the cover-up.
Each side has an array of forces and assets to deploy during the course of the game. And while the pawns, or minor pieces are interchangeable (and consist of Cuban exiles, low-level FBI and CIA operatives, Mafia, hired foreign assassins and their related patsies) the heavy artillery, or the pieces on the back rows of the respective sides, are not. The Kennedys have as their heavier artillery: the U.S. State Department, key executive advisors, various aspects of DOJ, and disparate elements of the intelligence community, including DIA. Importantly, neither the CIA nor the FBI are reliable major pieces for the Kennedy side, but the Kennedys seem to be unaware of this unreliability. Both sides also have at their discretion use of the press to either signal or conceal their respective side's motives and strategies.
The heavy artillery for the anti-JFK side include the middle echelon of the Mafia, namely, Santos Trafficante, Carlos Marcellos, John Roselli, and Sam Giancana; the upper hierarchy of the CIA itself, namely, Richard Helms, William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald, James Jesus Angleton, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, E. Howard Hunt, and David Atlee Phillips. At an even higher echelon of movers and shakers, (above the level of the government) for the anti-JFK side, one must also include the important but invisible hand of the Texas moneyed interest led by H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison with LBJ as their number one lieutenant. And then there is the Don of dons of the mob, Meyer Lansky. Finally, there is Israeli concern over JFK's attempt to deny that nation nuclear status. Arguably it is these behind-the-scene controllers, from deep within the shadows of the CIA, the FBI, Texas moneyed interests and the Massad, that are the real drivers of the chess game.
The Rules of Engagement
Now, the rules-of-engagement is where this chess game really gets interesting. While for the most part the Kennedy's side remain in the dark about what the other side is up to, their own moves are not only transparent to their opponents, but are also subject to manipulation and secret rearrangement by them. The Kennedys personally, and their plans specifically, are repeatedly tripped-up and penetrated again and again. They are cajoled, blackmailed, and stalked repeatedly until they are both eventually killed. No other strategies or maneuvers are successful or even intended to be successful. Under such asymmetric rules of engagement, is there any wonder that it is not a foregone conclusion that the side with knowledge dominance is the one most likely to win the chess game?
The Script
The story of this book is about how the Kennedy brothers, after no less than some twelve different failures by the CIA/Mafia to depose Castro, beginning in 1959, decided to concoct and enlist its own White House plan. It consisted of using a Black Cuban Major, Jose Almeida, along with no less than the infamous Che Guevara himself as turncoats in an attempt to wrest Cuba away from the revolutionary-recently-turned Communist, Fidel Castro. If the newly released documents can be believed, under severe domestic pressure to do something before the 1964 election cycle, the Kennedys seem to have lost all their sense and their normally balanced decision-making abilities in favor of this cockamamie Hollywood version of returning Cuba to a democracy.
No matter who is credited with checkmating the Kennedys, and the authors of this script say that it was the Mafia "who done it," the script still has all the earmarks of "written by CIA Production Incorporated," stamped all over it. The spots on the CIA Leopard just never seem to change. While the integrity of these authors is not itself being questioned, it does seem that they have made among the most naïve of all possible interpretations of the newly released information. Their incessant - even embarrassingly droning and shrill attempt to "pin the tail of the donkey" onto the Mafia, "just does not wash." From the very beginning, it has a hollow ring to it.
By leaving out even a suggestion that others among the real heavy hitters on the anti-JFK side, may have been involved, may have played even a minor role, this rendition raises more questions than it answers: Suddenly and inextricably the Mafia becomes all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful, leading the white House, the FBI, and the CIA and the Kennedys around by their respective tails, while all of the other major players -- the disgruntled cabals within the CIA itself, J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ, the Moneyed Texas interests, Meyer Lansky and the Massad - all make only cameo appearances in this carefully stage-managed production.
While no one doubts the Mafia's ability to kill a President of the U.S., the author's shrill theme that the "Mafia did it," begins to wear thin early on, and is incongruent with what the Mafia could and could not be able to do to facilitate both the murder and the cover-up of the assassination plot. They certainly could not have implement the cover-up without confederates very, very high up in, and well above the government. Thus the big flaw in the book is that all of heavy-handed finger-pointing at the Mafia, including "C-Day itself," is but an elaborate smoke screen to give additional cover to the real architects of the assassination.
This book leaves no clues as to whom, or what group that might be.
Two stars
Very Interesting.......2007-06-27
I have read alot of books regarding JFK, and I have to say that this one was very interesting.
Book Description
Paul Christopher, at the height of his powers as a secret agent, believes he knows who arranged the assassination and why. His theory is so destructive of the legend of the dead president, though, and so dangerous to the survival of foreign policy that he is ordered to desist from investigating. But Christopher is a man who lives by and for the truth, and his internal compunctions force him to the heart of the matter. He resigns from the Agency and embarks on a tour of investigation that takes him from Paris to Rome, Zurich, the Congo, and Saigon. Threatened by Kennedy's assassins and by his own government, Christopher follows the scent of his suspicion - one breath behind the truth, one step ahead of discovery and death.
Customer Reviews:
Blowback!.......2007-08-20
Reading the synopsis of this novel I nearly skipped it because I didn't want to read another crackpot Kennedy assassination theory. However, I have recently become a fan of Charles McCarry's Paul Christopher novels so I gave it a go anyway. I have to say I didn't read this as quickly as is my wont, and it is a dense novel with many characters. However, the end result is a very credible story of who might have been behind the murder; but more than that, it read true as to the background of characters and settings from Italy to Viet Nam to the Congo in that period.
I only recently became aware of some of the revisionist history being written concerning the assassinations of the Ngo brothers in Viet Nam and how that was a real turning point in the war, with everything downhill from that point on. McCarry was writing a lot of this as fiction 30 odd years ago. Interesting. He presents an understanding of Vietnamese culture I had never encountered before, and it was very enlightening.
Filled with nefarious characters, a "rendition" kidnapping, revolutionaries, double agents and intrigue aplenty, there is also a nicely detailed love story of Paul Christopher and his Molly that fills out a tale that has the feel of real people and places and real history being made. I am working my way through the series, and although what was recent history when written in 1975 is now almost ancient history, it is a good starting place to enter the world of Paul Christopher and Charles McCarry. Well worthwhile.
Top Secret -- Need To Know.......2007-06-26
I first read this in 1975. I started reading in the early evening, read it straight through to the end. Stunned by the breathtaking authenticity, I read it through again, immediately, entirely.
When I looked up, the sun was shining through my window. I had been at it for over 16 hours.
This book became my benchmark for its genre.
I am a student of the CIA, especially the 1960s evolution of the Agency. Today the head of the Clandestine Service (also then euphemistically called the Deputy Director of Plans, and today called the Deputy Director for Operations) would never dream of meeting a CIA officer in the street, but in the 1960s it was a practice. The episodes in the Congo were authentic. The tradecraft was authentic. The rivalry between the Agency and the military Special Forces continues to this day.
The book is probably authentic to a fault. One reviewer complains that the reader is kept in suspense because the author keeps secrets already know to his characters from the reader.
But isn't that what secrecy is all about? Even the reader, after all, is not entitled to know everything. Need to know. I found that an outstanding literary device, given the genre of the book.
There's more on this theme. McCarry's next book, The Secret Lovers, actually takes place before The Tears of Autumn. But the two stories dovetail together, and this second (but chronologically earlier) book deliciously dovetails with The Tears of Autumn, and even innocuously explains secrets that were left hanging in the Tears of Autumn.
McCarry was actually a field officer of the CIA, operating covertly in Europe, Africa and Asia. He knew of what he wrote. His description of Feung Shui, the powerful concept of Chinese geomancy, is absolutely spot on. Ask any Asian.
Finally, McCarry's style of leaving all emotion out of his principal character, and his overall writing style, strengthens the overall proposition of the tale. This is an intelligence report. Delivered by an intelligence operative. Take it or leave it. Yes, it reads like a Haiku should -- all the emotion is provided by the reader. The truth itself needs no embellishment.
-- Tonet
Excellent spy novel.......2006-08-01
Thankfully this author's books are coming back into print and I have yet to be disappointed with any of them. Without sounding condescending, (or elitist), McCarry's books are "intellectual" thrillers in the best sense - i.e. much like Littell, Furst or early LeCarre - in that they make the reader think and the books are also almost impossible to put down. McCarry's books track Paul Christopher, covert agent in the "The Outfit", who is a multi-lingual, globe-trotting ladies' man, rarely carrys a gun, doesn't drive fast expensive cars and doesn't blow stuff up. On the other hand he knows a lot of people who do all the above (and more), and be them friend or foe, Paul is usually very busy staying at least one step ahead of them. In this volume we find our hero searching for the truth behind the tragic events, both in Vietnam and the U.S., of November 1963, bouncing from continent to continent. (As an aside the view into Vietnamese culture in this book is fascinating). The answer(s) he finds are troubling, creative and seemingly involve everyone but the journey in ascertaining them is what makes this book a great read. Highly recommended.
Who shot JFK? It's obvious!.......2006-05-28
McCarry crafts a more plausible Kennedy assassination theory than most conspiracy devotees. Kennedy countenances (at a minimum) the assassinations of Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother on 1 November 1963 (so says the book; in reality the date was 2 November). Three weeks later, JFK is assassinated in Dallas. US agent Paul Christopher concludes that the Vietnamese did it. He quits the agency and sets out to prove it. The tale sprawls across 4 continents with rapid pacing as he chases down the truth.
The book's interesting characters are mostly believable, at once familiar yet not completely typecast. Christopher is the expert and honest US agent. David Patchens is the honest-broker spy chief. Foley is the JFK worshipper and political operator. The Truong toc is the ancestral head of Diem's family (OK, not so familiar, but intriguing). Luong plays Christopher's trusted agent (guess what happens to him!). And there's a Cuban agent, a Mafia don, a Vietnamese fortune-teller, and more. Molly, Christopher's obligatory love interest, provides important motivation, but is otherwise uninspired.
The book gives readers a peek into Vietnamese culture that is quite interesting. The book also suggests that if the American people had been told the connection between the assassinations that support for the war, not yet fully under way, would have dried up overnight.
Highly recommended for fans of the spy genre.
Best in depth look at Vietnamese culture.......2006-05-08
This is one of the best and most believable Kennedy assassination theory novels that I have read. McCarry takes the reader through the fascinating rituals and cultural idiosyncracies of the ancient Vietnamese people. The story unfolds at a brisk pace with no wasted passages. Paul Christopher is a classic protagonist somewhat similar to Bill Granger's Deveroux in the later November Man series. With diverse characters and various plot lines all coming together in the end, Christopher's startling discoveries are not enough to overcome the fanatical protections of Kennedy's loyal sycophants.
Book Description
"The big daddy of the conspiracy books on the JFK assassination, and one that can't be taken lightly. A sheer tour de force that may be the final word until 2039--when government files on the case can be unlocked."--Kirkus Reviews
Customer Reviews:
fascinating and wonderful publication.......2007-09-18
If you like details, you will like this book. The author, very eloquently and orderly states what one witness after another saw and heard in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day in Dallas. After reading this book it is beyond my imagination how anyone could believe the Warren Commission's report. The author is not being biased toward conspiracy, but merely presents facts, and what I really appreciated was what he said in the preface, warning us, the reader to trust or believe no one, not this author, not the researchers and most definitely not the government, who have already been proven to have made so many, many errors involved in this case. Mr. Marrs, admonishes us to read all the information and then to think for ourselves and come to our own individual judgement. Reading this in the preface, just compelled me to read this book and it was wonderfully put together and helped me to make my own judgement. Anyone interested in the assination of Presdient John F. Kennedy owns it to himself or herself to read this book.
A book that was worse than the movie........2007-08-06
I purchased this book as part of a graduate school course in history. Though centered on the JFK assassination, the course dealt with how historians are to use evidence to reach logical conclusions. Marrs' book is an example how not to infere evidence. Marrs often takes incredible leaps of fantasy to declare the presence of a conspiracy or manufactures out right lies to present his case. Marrs using various theories to attempt to disprove the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. But Marrs knowingly presents half-truths and omits critical parts of witness testimony and forensic evidence. "Crossfire" is one of many books that trumpet the presence of a conspiracy of government officials and mobsters to kill President Kennedy; like the others, Marrs' work is no better than a supermarket tabloid. If you must read this book, you should also read Posner's "Case Closed", a reasonable counter to Marrs' wild allegations.
The Place To Start.......2007-07-26
Jim Marrs is responsible for two of the finest "conspiracy overview" books ever written - this tome, and his "Alien Agenda." His writing is first rate, and although the book is hefty and somewhat dense, it manages to remain readable throughout.
If Marrs has shown an unfortunate tendency, it is to take on the role of a "conspiracist's clearinghouse," and he sometimes tends to dump information from completely conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable areas of research, which can make some of his work seem scattershot or, worse, downright crazy in spots. This tendency emerges to a small extent in "Crossfire," more in "Alien Agenda," and becomes almost overpowering in "Rule By Secrecy" or "The Terror Conspiracy." That being said, Mr. Marrs seems to put more value on getting as much information as possible out there, without picking and choosing only those elements which tend to support the theories he personally endorses.
If you want a real starting point for understanding the events that climaxed in Dealey Plaza, this is the place to go.
at best..........2007-07-25
The blurb said "twenty five years after the event." That forty four years might be a...TAD more correct, right there should tell you something. And that Oswald wasn't (only maybe peripherely) involved is SO "last century." Be forwarned, Marrs has this fixation on those naughty aliens that've, uh, blowing up space capsules, 9-11, tsunami (what IS the "plural" for that word?), and...well, don't waste your time or money like I did. Heaven help his students if he really DOES "teach a class." Uh........"More Kool-aid, Reverend Jim?"
Tin Foil Hats on too Tight.......2006-12-25
You got to love Jim Marrs, with books like "Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids" you know you are in the presence of true "Wackoism"
So it's no surprise that old Jim is also into Aliens, Chemtrails and other such Woo Woo AND the main man of the grassy knoll crowd.
If you believe the rot in this book then I know this guy in Nigeria who has millions of dollars he need to get to the US and he will split it with you if you only.................
Product Description
Someone Would Have Talked goes beyond proving a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Over 14.000 documents, White House diaries, telephone logs, and executive tape recordings detail how the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, managed a cover-up that changed the future of our country. A second conspiracy designed to mislead the nation, the world, indeed, history. Someone Would Have Talked was written to demonstrate with available information, the cover-up, the leaks, Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby and the people that did talk, providing a cohesive and coherent explanation of events. And in doing so this book gives the reader an introduction to the history of the secret war against Castro and against Communism during the 1960s, an introduction that is vital to an appreciation of the individuals, and their motivations. Someone Would Have Talked deals with specific people who talked about their personal knowledge of a conspiracy in the murder of a President. These individuals include four men associated with the CIA s JM WAVE station in Miami Florida. Two of them were senior CIA officers, one a veteran of three years of Castro assassination projects and the other a three year prisoner of Castro - and an organizer and participant, along with a former U.S. Ambassador, in one of the most potentially explosive Cuban penetration missions ever conducted.
Customer Reviews:
Superb History, Highly Relevant to 9/11 and Lies by Cheney & Other Neocons.......2007-09-06
I've read one other book that led me to conclude that I had to read this one, both in relation to what is now known about the Warren Commission Report. I consider these important because precisely the same kind of cover-up happened with the 9-11 Commission, and I strongly believe that Dick Cheney should be impeached and then indicted along with Rudy Gulliani and Larry Silverstein and Donald Rumsfeld for the murder of thousands by controlled demolitions and a missile into the Pentagon that destroyed all the computers needed to understand the missing 2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld was being grilled on by Congresswoman McKinney on 10 September.
This is a phenomenal piece of work that makes superb use of social network analysis (who knows who) to connect the dots.
The bottom line: Kennedy was killed by Cuban exiles who set Oswald up as a patsy. Oswald was at his usual lunchroom place in the library where he had reason to be, and the Chief of Police of Dallas is on record as saying they could never connect Oswald to either the window from which the shots were a llegedly fired, or the gun that was claimed to be the assassination weapon. The first officer to enter the building minutes after the shooting placed Osxwald at his usual place in the lunchroom, and Oswald tested negative for gunpowder residue.
Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, including a staged call to the KGB specialist in assassination, and other trails were left with the intent of proving that Castro had Kennedy assassinated, and hoping to both punish Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs betrayal and for cracking down on Cuban exile missions at the same time that he was authorizing 13 sabotage missions to Cuba.
The evidence is compelling. Robert Kennedy was worried about Castro retaliating against him and his brother. It is now clear that CIA training of Cubans to assassinate Castro was in fact turned against Kennedy.
Three CIA employees are featured: David Philipps who specialized in the big lie; E. Howard Hunt, and David Morales, Operations Chief of JMWAVE under Ted Shackley.
The conspiracy to point the finger at Castro failed, but the true assasins were allowed to go undiscovered because Lyndon Johnson and the Presidents physician began am immediate cover-up, as did the FBI, CIA, and the Secret Service.
The book is compelling in demonstrating that ample warnings had been received by the Secret Service, to the point that the President was personally briefed by Bobby Kennedy, but JFK went ot his death on his own volition--he blew off the warnings.
The cover-ups by the three agencies bear a stricking resemblance to the cover-up of the Oklahmoa City bombing, where unexploded thermite bombs were found on some pillars, and the "loner" theory simply does not stand up. Similarly, Cheney, Gulliani, and Silverstein pre-arranged for the scooping and dumping of the evidence of controlled demolitions from 9-11, and Rumsfeld covered up the fact that a missile, not an airplane was targetted on the Pentagon by our own treasoous officers willing to obey an illegal order and murder their own for the Zionist-NeoCon cause, while also destroying the computers holding evidence of where the "lost 2.3 trillion dollars had gone.
The exiles boasted privately of having been promised additional new funding by the mafia, including the Jewish mafia with casino interests in Cuba, provided they took care of Kennedy and incited an invasion of Cuba.
It is not clear from the book if other US leaders sanctioned the killing. I am inclined to think not. Hoover had all the blackmail material he needed to keep his job. Johnson does not come into the picture until after t he fact, when it became clear that if Bobby Baker talked, Johnson would go to jail for blatant contacts with organized crime and for blatant use of his office to obtain bribes from military-industrial corporations.
In this book Ruby is a patsy paid to murder Oswald when Oswald is arrested and unable to make the theater meeting where he would probably have been subdued and transported to Cuba or Mexico to die under circumstances incriminating Castro. Ruby was probably told he would be freed or pardoned, and money was his primary motivation.
A series of key witnesses who were willing to talk were murdered, and Johnson personally immunized FBI agent Regis Kennedy, Oswald's handler, to keep him from talking.
Admiral Burkley, JFK's personal physician, handicapped and stopped most of the atopsy process, and concealed and manipulated evidence to support the lone gunman theory. The Navy hospital staff received a gag order similar to the one given the crew of the USS Liberty after they were deliberatedly attacked by Israel and many of them murdered by our so-called ally.
There are several take-away bottom lines relevant to today, as Dick Cheney seeks to attack Iran in the same illegal way he ordered the attack on Iraq using lies and his secret authority:
1) We cannot trust our elected politicians. They lie to us.
2) We cannot trust the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service. They lie to us.
3) We cannot trust government commissions, neither executive nor legislative, they are exercises in deception and lie to us.
The author is meticulous is documenting the long list of unsung heros whose personal research has over time brought out the truth. Similarly, I am quite certain that within five years Cheney, all the neocons, Gulliani, and Silverstein will be meticulously impeached and indicted and covicted in the public eye. They may escape to Dubai, but the truth will be known.
The book documents Johnson's offer of a $1 million bribe to Bobby Baker to keep quiet and allow the investigation to go down the path that Johnson orchestrated, of a Warren Commission brow-beaten into validating an FBI conclusion that was known to be false by all conceerned.
The books comes with great note and appendices. The author has made superb use of telephone records, diaries, and known social and professional connections. The only thing I missed from this was a two page diagram of the network as it is described.
The book is also exceptional for clearly identifying additional paths for further investigation.
I put the book down with the strong feeling that We the People need to reject every sitting member of Congress and every current candidate for President. We need to elect a transpartisan Executive team with a Cabinet announced beforehand that also publishes a balanced sustainable budget before election day, and we need to demand that every piece of legilsation henceforth be published in full one week prior to its being voted on, with no secret earmarks. The military-industrial complex is not our enemy--they are simply doing what they have been incentivized to do. Our enemy is the complete corruption of the Democratic and Republican parties, the complete corruption of our election system, and the lack of transparency on how all taxpayer funds are spent. We can fix this. A good start would be the redirection of half the Pentagon budget toward waging peace, ending our ties with all 42 of the dictators Dick Cheney embraces with such fervor, and the elimination of two thirds of all existing secret programs, using the funds instead to stand up a Multinational Information Sharing Activity that supports stabilization, reconstruction, and peacekeeping everywhere, and completely free connectivity for the five billion poor to a global network of 100 million volunteer tutors who can teach the five billion "one cell call at a time."
Some other books I recommend that tie this one to today's events and the pattern of lies, lies, and more lies:
A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, And the Case That Should Have Changed History
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'
Fog Facts : Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin (Nation Books)
Very Latest Research Made Dangerously Intelligible.......2007-07-17
Dangerously Intelligible? I mean for the people who participated in the conspiracy! There is nothing sharp-edged about the author's presentation of the facts. I have never read a book that is so calm and evenhanded in its tone and manner in which it analyzes the data. That is probably why Lone Nutters will never want to debate Larrry Hancock on radio, TV, or Gutenberg's press.
It is amazingly clear. It is probably the Tenth Book I have read on the Assassination, and I wish that I had read it first. If you are thinking of recommending a book to a novice it should be this one.
Its amazing that I could recommend it to a novice given the stunning amount of new information gleaned from the very latest research. How one can integrate this new info with the older background narrative so clearly is beyond me (as well as Joan Mellon and Lamar Waldron).
The complex interrelationships between JM-WAVE, Langley , Hoover and the local FBI offices are-- as they recommend to novelists-- shown not told. Nowhere did I get the sense from Ultimate Sacrifice of the writer protesting too much (mob did it , mob did it). Rather, Larry shows the complex interelationships between Organized Crime and CIA in a clear way that, in my reading, does not make JM-WAVE'S denial nearly as plausible as it seems in Waldrons' doorstopper.
The bulleted point-sumaries at the end of each chapter help the new reader structure the potentially mind-boggeling amount of detail. It is perhaps the one book that is at once so advanced and also so accessible to new students of the assassination. No praise can be too high.
Better than most pro conspiracy books, but the conclusions are pure speculation.......2007-07-05
This book is a reasonable contribution to the ongoing and probably never ending debate. I say reasonable in that it is at least well written and organized - unlike so many on the subject. But does it make sense - no, not in a million years. So three stars for effort rather than content !
So it seems therefore I am at odds with most of the other reviewers here. The degree of knowledge shared within the "JFK assassination community" is extremely high and is evident on Amazon and other web based forums. However it never ceases to amaze me how often books like this receive such good reviews by people who clearly have such a high degree of knowledge on the subject. How on earth can you believe Larry Hancock's conclusions is a mystery to me. Surely you cannot.
Why ? Because most of the authors presentation of "what actually happened" is pure conjecture and as such this book joins that long list of pro conspiracy none sense that I am afraid, has deluded the majority of the American public for nigh on 45 years. Forget the grassy knoll and the man with the seizure and all those other HUGE red herrings. All the shots were fired from above and behind and yet - and yet - this author like so many just ignores that and the overwhelming evidence against Oswald. Take for example the quantum leap of a theory that the gun barrel that was seen pointing out of the TSBD sixth floor window was merely a device for framing Oswald and that other shooters were positioned around Dealey Plaza. Says who ? Where is the evidence ? Who says it was a ploy ? Larry Hancock ! Based on what ? Why oh why would you shoot from the front and have your patsy to the rear. And why did Oswald shoot Tippet if he were not at all involved ? The list of questions goes on and on. The books conclusions are utter nonsense and I suspect the author knows it deep down. Otherwise he is deluding himself.
Vincent Bugliosi has written a far more believable book. Buy both and make up your own mind.
Appropriate Title.......2007-05-27
An appropriate title. One of the favorite media approaches to the investigations is to say that someone would have talked if there was a conspiracy. Well, someone in the media would have to listen. And they don't. There are still those who say that there is no really new evidence, nothing you could take to court. Like any investigation, you may or may not end up with court evidence. If what you end up with is something that you couldn't necessarily take to court that doesn't mean that the information, and the picture drawn from it, isn't reasonably accurate and valid. Mr. Hancock's book mines a lot of words spoken in the year prior to President Kennedy's death. The words are very similar, come from different people at different times and places. In and of themselves, they could be the random babbling of some people for different reasons. But the words tend to emmanate from a rather small circle of people in and around certain mob-connected men who are closely acquainted with some Cuban exiles and their case officer/trainers. It's a compelling picture. Mr. Hancock has pretty well stayed away from dramatic accusations and personal theories in favor of just drawing the picture and letting the reader come to his/her own conclusions. Actually, that's pretty much what goes on in court. In this matter, the court is that of public opinion. And the more that the public is informed by Mr. Hancock's work, as well as Lamar Waldron's ULTIMATE SACRIFICE and other such investigations, the more that the public is reinforced in its overwhelming belief that there was a conspiracy in President Kennedy's death and that there was a cover-up at various levels of government. This belief has existed for decades now, in spite of the braying of the mainstream media that the Warren Commission was right. The lesson? Ignore the mainstream media. Read Larry Hancock's and Lamar Waldron's and Josiah Thompson's and countless other valuable, well researched works on this subject.
Kennedy story just doesn't go away.......2007-05-14
I'm always interested in learning more about the assassination of President Kennedy and could not put Hancock's book aside as soon as it arrived. Forget the history channel if you want to learn truth about this murder and read Hancock's book instead. He provides fresh details, names and places that were new to me and I try to keep up with all new books on this topic (including a recent favorite, Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. Couldn't put it down ...
Book Description
For over forty years the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been obscured. This book releases us from a crippling distortion of American history.
This extraordinary and historic book required twenty years to research and write. The oft-challenged findings of the Warren Commission—Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed President John F. Kennedy—are here confirmed beyond all doubt. But Reclaiming History does much more than that. In addition to providing a powerful and unprecedented narrative of events and a biography of the assassin, it confronts and destroys every one of the conspiracy theories that have grown up since the assassination, exposing their selective use of evidence, flawed logic, and outright deceptions. So thoroughly documented, so compellingly lucid in its conclusions, Reclaiming History is, in a sense, the investigation that completes the work of the Warren Commission. In it, Vincent Bugliosi, the nation's foremost prosecutor, takes on the most important murder in American history.
At 1:00 p.m. on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead, the victim of a sniper attack during his motorcade through Dallas. That may be the only fact generally agreed upon in the vast literature spawned by the assassination. National polls reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans (75%) believe that there was a high-level conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald. Many even believe that Oswald was entirely innocent. In this continuously absorbing, powerful, ground-breaking book, Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history.
The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his best-selling Outrage, Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America capable of writing the definitive book on the Kennedy assassination. This is an achievement that has for years seemed beyond reach. No one imagined that such a book would ever be written: a single volume that once and for all resolves, beyond any reasonable doubt, every lingering question as to what happened in Dallas and who was responsible.
There have been hundreds of books about the assassination, but there has never been a book that covers the entire case, including addressing each and every conspiracy theory and the facts, or alleged facts, on which they are based. In this monumental work, the author has raised scholarship on the assassination to a new and final level, one that far surpasses all other books on the subject. It adds resonance, depth, and closure to the admirable work of the Warren Commission.
Reclaiming History is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud on the American public. Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare. At last it all makes sense.
Customer Reviews:
Bugliosi proves TWO things............2007-10-18
The first thing that the author proves is that President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, as was Dallas police oficer J.D. Tippet, the long-ignored second murder victim of November 22, 1963.
The second thing proven by this volume, and indeed by some of these reviews, is that it was and always will be utterly imposible for some people to accept that a young, handsome, charismatic and energetic president was taken from the citizens of his country by a warehouse clerk with a mail order rifle. "He must", they seem to say, "have died for something!"
This is a comprehensive and fascinating book that, piece by piece, establishes Oswald's guilt. And, piece by piece, it deconstructs each and every conspiracy theory of any note over the nearly last half-century. For anyone with an interest in this event and, just as importantly, an open mind, this book will be a long and fascinating journey. For those who are certain that President Kennedy was a victim of some widespread and malevolent conspiracy, this book is not for you. As Bugliosi notes, most all of those who have advanced a conspiracy theory (apart from a few charlatans and those who are obviously in it for the money) are concerned, patriotic Americans. But the evidence is here to be read.
Just be warned: this is not only a book that is difficult to put down; at about 1600 condensed pages it's pretty darn difficult to pick up as well !
The Multiple Personality History.......2007-10-09
I'm a little over halfway through this book, and my impression is that this is two separate books: 1) A solid chronological history of the Assassination and 2) what I like to call Bugliosi's badgering prosecution.
When Bugliosi's in Book 1 mode, he's great. An excellent storyteller whose predilection for detail provides probably the best narrative for the entire assassination I've ever read. Fortunately, he starts off in this mode, so if you only read the beginning, you're in the clear. The initial history of the four days in Dallas is as good a narrative as you're going to read.
It's book 2 mode which is problematic, when Bugliosi is so adamant on his points that he stresses things by sneering at the alternatives. He creates his own straw dogs by saying that the alternatives are so fantastic and illogical that only his viewpoint could possibly be the truth. He is constantly harping on this. What is troubling is that the Warren Commission explanations (which is Bugliosi's belief, as well) are pretty fantastic and illogical themselves. Also, he lays out a case for each facet of the assassination, and, convinced of the rightness of his conclusions, uses these conclusions to bolster other conclusions, not really aware that he's building a house of cards.
Conclusion: In spite of the you-can't-possibly-be-right-if-you-disagree tone, it's well written, very readable (particularly when he sticks to the facts). If you're a conspiracy buff, you'll want to read it just to see what arguments you have to overcome to make your case, as they are well presented, despite Bugliosi's hectoring. If you want something that's going to give you the full story on the assassination in one volume, then this is probably your book. The book, due to its weight, is also excellent for flattening curled photos and papers.
Pushed Me Over.......2007-10-03
Over the last 20 or so years, based on various things that I have read or heard, I came to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the murderer of JFK. I could not say, however that there was not a conspiracy. This was not because I necessarily believed that there was one, but rather due to the fact that I hadn't read enough or heard enough to be able to say, without a doubt, that there wasn't one. Mr. Bugliosi has taken care of that for me. In spite of some of the flaws mentioned in previous, serious reviews, I still believe that he is spot-on in his conclusions. I think any book of this size is apt to have it's share of flaws. Some will point to those as "proving" Bugliosi is wrong, but that is just a continuation of the "one little inconsistency or unexplained event trumps the overwhelming mountain of evidence" school of thought.
As for those who claim Mr. Bugliosi is working for this government agency or the other, or who claim he is promoting right-wing fiction, they need to take a closer look at his history to see that they really are talking from at best a position of ignorance and at worst a position of outright intellectual dishonesty.
Others have claimed amazing, fictional "facts" that discredit Bugliosi, such as the doctors at Parkland (all of them, of course) saying the neck wound was an entrance and not an exit. These are not facts, unless one believes just repeating something infinitely makes it one.
All in all, an excellent book for explaining the truth of November 22, 1963. Here's hoping Mr. Bugliosi will do the same for September 11, 2001.
Absolutely Gripping - Solidified my thoughts on the case.........2007-10-02
I was 9 years old when Olver Stone's JFK was released - and that film and subsequent studies about Kennedy in school piqued my interest into the entire assassination. In 1993, after seeing a documentary on CBS or NBC, made for the 30-year anniversary of the tragedy, I REALLY got interested - at at age 11, started scouring the public library, devouring as many books on the assassination that I could. Although my personal research is paltry compared to the real buffs (on either side of the conspiracy debate), and my own interest in the case has waned over the years (puberty and whatnot), JFK has remained a subject of interest, and I have read dozens and dozens of books, seen countless documentaries and read the Warren Commission's report (though not all 40 volumes - just the 900 page paperback). Because of the film JFK, and the fact that the vast majority of the books written on the subject are pro-conspiracy, my young mind was shaped into that way of thinking. Although never a hardcore conspiracy believer, I certainly believed in not only government cover-up, but found the idea of a second gunman very, very probable. In the last four years or so, that has significantly changed -- seeing the 3-D recreation of the Zapruder film in 2003 or 2004 completely obliterated my previous thoughts, thoughts I had held for more than a decade (which at the time amounted to half of my life). Any waning questions I had about a cover-up or broader conspiracy were pretty firmly squelched after reading Vincent Bugliosi's fantastic, fantastic book.
While certainly ambitious (you could say overly so) and audacious with its goal - to undo 40 years of misinformation - the book largely succeeds. I say largely, because even though I give this book 5-stars (no question, to me, it is worth it) - the sheer breadth of the book and the concentrated nature of the information does not make this the easiest read for someone who comes to the subject with little interest or advanced knowledge. For those individuals, I highly recommend the unabridged audible download of the book, read wonderfully by Edward Herrmann -- I listened to it while on a long road trip with some friends, after reading the book, and it was engrossing and engaging in a way the written word can sometimes be overwhelming.
Issues of the denseness of the text aside, the book is just fantastic - Bugliosi does a unbelievable job laying out the events and then critiquing the aftermath, the theories, the criticisms and the public response. I have read more about those 4 Days in November than most people my age, but I was so captivated by Bugliosi's description and breakdown, it was almost like hearing the story for the first time. "Story" is an interesting word choice, because really, that is what the Kennedy saga has become: a story; a fable. More than just a historical event, the mythical nature of that presidency and especially it tragic end has become so much larger than life, it is easy for even rationale thinking people to get swept up into the idea of conspiracy, espionage and deceit. A mental case with an $8 rifle, a good marksmanship record and a perch overlooking the motorcade doesn't seem worthy of all that build up. Nonetheless, as Bugliosi so successfully lays out the facts, the "theories" and the reasons why those theories are almost all garbage (say "almost" because some theorists aren't nutty and as with most crimes, all the answers will never be exposed -- just because I buy the government's analysis doesn't mean that questions don't still exist), that's exactly what happened. We don't like to think that great figures of power can be taken down by nutcases with cheap guns -- but they can.
Even now, I consider Oliver Stone's JFK to be an all-time favorite film. The difference, however, is that I no longer believe that film to have any real bearings in reality. I still think it is a fantastic cinematic achievement and has had a larger impact on how the zeitgeist views a historical event than any other film in history (whether that impact was positive or negative can be debated - but the impact cannot -- though I may now disagree with the theories espoused in that film, I will always be grateful to it for introducing me to a subject I might otherwise never have given much thought).
Heavy-Handed Prop of Official Theory, Omits Information & Misleads Readers.......2007-10-01
Does this book blow away JFK conspiracy theories as advertised, and put a nail on their coffin? Is this book the answer for the overwhelming majority who question the facts of the case nearly 50 years later, does this book tie up loose ends and finally end the debate? Absolutely not, and don't let anyone tell you it does without your own research. I recommend this book for dedicated researchers who want to include this with the "Warren Commission Report" and "Case Closed" as the leading pro-Oswald did it alone resources.
However, "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi (VB) is essentially a beefed-up lawyers brief that contains no original research, and just props up the same official line by rehashing old evidence and dismissing all alternative theories. Keep in mind that VB, while a great lawyer and sound debater, is not familiar with scientific evidence, and his book is over a 21 year project that suffers from a lack of clarity, and extensive length, 1,300 pages of small type plus hundreds of pages of endnotes.
The book is not exactly a hit job, since VB even slams fellow lawyer Gerald Posner for his treatment of the Rose Cheramie incident, the Slvia Odo problem, and his handling of the Bethesda patholigists. In astonishing fairness and balance, VB calls it "strange" that the HSCA would state there was no witnesses at Bethesda who say gaping right rear head wound, when in fact there were dozens. And VB calls the Rose Cheramie and Slyvia Odo incidents "troubling." But VB commits the same sins he laments others. He omits contrary information, misleads readers, and attacks the opposition. Plus the tone of the writing is tiresome, very condescending and arrogant.
1) VB mentions that Malcolm Kirduff announced the president's death at Parkland Hospital. He leaves out the fact that he did while pointing to the right temple as a bullet wound, and tells a reporter that the bullet entered the right temple.
2) VB leaves out the testimony of the Parkland nurses, who ALL said the JFK had a gaping wound in the right rear of the head and that the throat wound was a CLEAR entrance wound.
3) VB tends to include witness testimony located in the WC and HSCA, but leaves out testimony made with private investigators. For example Kenny O'Donnel and Dave Powers. And Bulgiosi fails to mention the ARRB depositions from credible witnesses like Sandra K. Spencer. This is not acceptable.
4) VB's whole case is built on his strongly stated assumption that the state would not cover-up crimes, nor evidence of a crime, and that official reports cannot be censored. Nor would state powers help plant evidence. IF you belief VB and trust power that much, then this book if for you. But if you look at the world today, you should know better and this book rings hollow, because an EDUCATED person would know that national leaders can be removed by the CIA (Iran 1953, Iraq 2003), crimes and evidence can be planted or made up (Iraq WMD, Florida boot camp case, Pat Tillman).
Link for Proof that VB LIED:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers
It is divided into sections, the first part is Four Days in November a timeline of events, the middle section goes over the life of Oswald, then a response to the various conspiracy theories, then the investigations, a comparison of the incredible coincidences between Abe Lincoln and JK, the conclusion is a collection of quotes on JFK's legacy and an interview with Marina Oswald that just seems out of place. VB refused to include the autopsy photos, and endnotes are on a CD.
It is apparent that there is physical evidence against Oswald. But VB keeps driving that point home again and again, dismissing contrary evidence or opinion simply because of that and thus he KNOWS Oswald is guilty. But this is no ordinary murder, it a presidential assassination and VB does not factor in the potential for planted evidence to frame Oswald in a political assassination. Altough in VB's credit, he comes to the personal conclusion that President Kennedy would not have expanded the war in Vietnam.
Why is it that all the leading investigations in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the WC, HSCA, and work of Gerald Posner, were done by lawyers? Lawyers can argue a case either way, and are not always drawn to facts and truth (as in the OJ case, the Bush v. Gore decision, and many other cases prove). Bulgliosi should know better. Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter anyone?
There remains strong evidence for conspiracy in the public and private investigations of the assassination, and thus this case remains OPEN.
Book Description
BOOK DESCRIPTION: ASSASSINATION SCIENCE provides a collection of studies by physicians, scientists, and other serious students that is intended to place the investigation of the death of JFK on an objective and scientific foundation. The contributors are among the best-qualified individuals to ever examine the medical and the photographic evidence in this case, including a world authority on the human brain who is also an expert on wound ballistics, a physician with a Ph.D. in physics who is also board certified in radiation oncology, a philosopher who is an expert on critical thinking and also a former Marine Corps officer, a physician who attended both the dying President and Lee Harvey Oswald at Parkland Hospital, a leading expert on the photographic evidence who served as a special advisor to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA),and other highly-qualified students of the assassination of JFK.
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is distinctive among works on the assassination of President Kennedy for several reasons, First, it is the only collaborative study that brings together the original work of physicians, scientists, and other serious students: there are eleven contributors, rather than only one. Thus, readers have the benefit of exposure to the research efforts of multiple investigators who set forth their findings in clear and accessible language. Second, it includes the most important studies of the medical evidence since the publication of David Lifton's BEST EVDIENCE in 1980 and the most important studies of the Zapruder film ever presented. These results completely undermine previous investigations of the death of JFK, including especially the official government inquiries of the Warren Commission and of the HSCA.
Third, it provides the only comprehensive and detailed critique and response to a series of articles published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) in 1962-63. These articles, which were based upon interviews with the physicians who performed the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, were hyped by the Editor-in-Chief of JAMA, George Lundberg, M.D., who proclaimed that they were being welcomed into the "peer reviewed" literature on the assassination, in spite of the fact that they had not been refereed by experts on the crime and he knew that at the time. Nevertheless, they received enormous attention by the national press, even though they were based upon the selection and elimination of evidence to provide a biased report in support of a predetermined conclusion.
Fourth, it reports and explains the most important scientific findings in the history of the study of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which include:
* the discovery that some autopsy X-rays have been fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot from in front;
* the discovery that other autopsy X-rays have been altered by the imposition of a 6.5 mm metal object that was not present on the original X-rays;
* the discovery that diagrams and photographs that are supposed to be of the brain of JFK must be of the brain of someone other than John Kennedy;
* the discovery that the President alone was hit by at least four shots: one to his throat (fired from in front), one to his back (fired from behind) and two to his head (fired from behind and from in front);
* the discovery that the official "magic bullet " theory cannot possibly be true;
* the discovery that an absolute minimum of at least six shots were fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination;
* the discovery that the Zapruder film of the assassination, which has been viewed as the nearest thing to "absolute truth" by some, has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques;
* the discovery that Lee Harvey Oswald appears to have been framed using manufactured evidence, including the back-yard photograph;
* the discovery that the Warren Commission inquiry was a political charade featuring -a phoney bullet -a phoney limo -phoney wounds.
* Fifth, it reports and records repeated efforts to bring these discoveries to the attention of the American people, including a national press conference held in New York City on 18 November 1993, which explained many of these findings and how they were discovered, but which the nation's newspapers have yet to print; strenuous and repeated attempts by telephone, letter, and fax to convince the American Broadcast Network (including Nightline and ABC WORLD NEWS WITH PETER JENNINGS) to cover this story that were without success; repeated efforts to inform the nation's leading newspaper, The New York Times, that its coverage of the assassination, including book reviews and even obituaries, was biased and irresponsible, but which The Times has chosen to completely ignore.
Sixth, it reports and records repeated and strenuous efforts to bring these new findings and discoveries, which completely undermine previous investigations by the federal government, to the attention of the Department of Justice. The correspondence between James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., and Mary Spearing, Chief of the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, provides a case study of the difficulties encountered in the pursuit of justice in a bureaucracy. In spite of his best efforts, he was unable to convince the Justice Department that the new findings concerning the fabrication of the X-rays and the substitution of diagrams and of photographs dictate a reinterpretation of the evidence in this case, even though previous government inquiries took for granted that this evidence was authentic.
Seventh, it reports and records sustained efforts by American citizens to contribute their time and their talents to clarifying the nature of what has previously been assumed to be the "best evidence" in this case in an effort to bring closure to the American people. The members of this group, including distinguished scientists and recognized authorities within their respective fields, have sought to fill the vacuum created by the failure of the government to adequately investigate the assassination and to compensate for the dismal record of the press by reporting new discoveries that appear to demonstrate conclusively that there was a large-scale conspiracy and cover-up by the government in the death of JFK.
The studies published here are thus intended to convey at least three general lessons. One, that even journals as prestigious as JAMA are not immune from political abuse, indications of which abound with respect to its coverage of the medical evidence in this case. Two, that new discoveries, including scientific findings of fundamental importance, continue to be made, supporting the possibility that truth is not beyond our grasp. Three, that journals, newspapers, and agencies on which we all depend do not always serve the people's interests. The pursuit of truth, the protection of justice, and the preservation of democratic institutions require eternal vigilance. As long as we are ignorant, we are not free.
Customer Reviews:
Stunning meticulous well researched Book!!!.......2007-08-17
This is one of the best books on the JFK Assassination.it is very detailed and meticulous in evidence and research.if this book does not convince you that there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of JFK no other book will.as a companion volume may I suggest Murder in dealy plaza!!
About that Magic Bullet Theory - Discovery Channel Proved It!.......2006-09-30
When this book says the Magic Bullet Theory has been proven to be false, I'm not sure what they are saying because the definition is vague. What I know for a fact is that the Discovery Channel conducted an identical test of the shot into an identical model with real human bones, skin tissue, shaped exactly like Kennedy/Connelly, from the exact distance, exact same shot. Everything as it as in 1963, including the very same bullets from the manufacturer, even the same batch, same gun - everything exact!
This test proved without any doubt in my mind that the bullet did do the things the Warren Commission claimed, because the seat in front of Kennedy was slightly lower to the left! YOU IDIOTS! YOU MORONS! The seat position caused it to look like the bullet turned in mid air (idiots!). They photographed what the bullet did in the exact shot environment and the reason it didn't go into the dummies leg, as the only difference, was because it hit two bones. The video showed the bullet going sideways into Connely's back.
So you scholars couldn't figure that out? We out here assume that you take all these things into consideration when you analyze evidence - that is a major oversite by conpiracy theorists. The bullet did those things - it was proven on Discovery Channel before our very own eyes! They made fools of you all on that magic bullet oversite!
I'm just so disgusted with you guys that you couldn't figure out the simple geometry behind why the bullet appeared to turn in mid air. And the actual "pristine" bullet came out nearly "prestine" in the test too!
Regardless, there was a conspiracy inspite of the ridiculous Magic Bullet fiasco - evidence of the badgeman and his being I.D.'d as Tippit in the photo based on his unusual hairline features. Tippit was the one Oswald allegedly shot and killed. The conpirators had Tippit on the Knoll in his Dallas Police Officer uniform, and he is the sniper who blew Kennedy's head off. The digital enhancement shows him as the assassine. The conpirators then made it look like Oswald shot and killed him that day when it was another one in the web of lies who took him down.
If Fetzer hasn't conceded to his possible erroneous conclusion about the Magic Bullet Theory after witnessing the Discovery Channel experiment, then he isn't facing reality.
Just type in "badgeman" in google and the evidence of the math they did on the digital shot will show you it was Tippit who shot JFK.
Whatever it takes ..........2006-09-29
Though the non-existence of the Magic Bullet is as every bit certain as the Sun Rising in the East; the MB theory having been concocted by lawyers, not doctors & then mysteriously "fine tuned" for good measure by (Dr., not) Gerald Ford.
But if you wanna delve into shot trajectories, gun scope technology, shadowy characters and the like please visit the "JFK Karaoke" website (aka JFK Lancer) for the latest quotes.
Don't be in a big hurry, though ... we will have gone through another 75 or so presidents before THAT bus pulls out of Dealey Plaza and gets on with the show.
Why Do So Many Conspiracy Theorists Believe In A JFK Assassination Plot That Could Not Possibly Have Been Successful?.......2006-02-07
Who assassinated President John F. Kennedy in 1963? .... Was he killed as the result of a large-scale conspiracy, as depicted in Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture? .... Was Lee Harvey Oswald merely an innocent "Patsy", being manipulated and handled by a group of evil conspirators? .... Was it just a small conspiracy involving only two or three individuals? .... Or did Oswald, all by himself, murder the President?
James H. Fetzer's answer -- A massive conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the burdensome task of re-arranging all of the various pieces of evidence surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that Mr. Fetzer advocates in "Assassination Science".
And yet -- somehow, some way -- that's exactly what Mr. Fetzer and many other CTers think occurred. I.E.: Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in the conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was actually being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away and pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November 22 (physical evidence such as .... guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells, and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee Harvey Oswald.*
* = And people think the parting of the Red Sea was a "miracle". Heck, the Red Sea trick was nothin' compared to what this ultra-clever gang of infallible assassination plotters and cover-up operatives pulled off in late '63. Perhaps Moses was in Dallas on November 22, helping out with this JFK mess after THREE OR FOUR different assassins decided to take aim at JFK, even though the desired end result of this "plot" was to frame just ONE LONE PATSY in the Book Depository for the murder. (~LOL~ at the thought of such a Patsy plot actually be dreamed up in the weeks prior to 11/22/63.)
It seems to me as though Mr. Fetzer has never met a conspiracy theory he hasn't loved and accepted with open arms, no matter how silly it sounds (the "Zapruder Film Hoax" balderdash being a prime example, which is the Crown Jewel of "Nutty JFK Theories").
My answer, however, to the "Who Shot JFK?" question is a little less complicated -- Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK and another man (policeman J.D. Tippit) on 11/22/1963 A.D., in Dallas, Texas, USA. ~Mark VII~
The string of evidence lending credence to Oswald's lone guilt is a mile-and-a-half long -- particularly with respect to Officer Tippit's murder, which is a second November 22nd killing that many, many conspiracy theorists (for some odd reason I've never been able to figure out at all) seem to think Oswald had nothing to do with. Such an incorrect notion by CTers only makes me more skeptical about any other "conclusions" such conspiracists might have reached with respect to other aspects of the JFK murder investigation as well. Because Oswald's guilt in Tippit's death couldn't be more obvious, even if Lee Harvey had been photographed firing the four bullets into the policeman's body.
And speaking of JFK assassination theories that are deserving of a large dose of "skepticism" -- I'd like to know what's wrong with casting a good-sized hunk of doubt upon by far the most-popular and most widely-accepted-as-fact conspiracy theory in the whole JFK case -- i.e., the "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy, Frontal Head Shot" theory?
Every piece of physical evidence in the case supports the Lone-Assassin conclusion arrived at by the Warren Commission and supports Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the two murders LHO was accused of committing. Evidence such as: guns, bullets, bullet cartridge casings, JFK's autopsy report, and fingerprints.
And is it truly reasonable to think that ALL of this stuff pointing only to Oswald's guilt was "faked" by a bunch of conspirators who were attempting to frame Oswald? I say no, it is not reasonable, especially if the CTer(s) making the claim of evidence fakery truly believe(s) that most or all of the bullet evidence was monkeyed-around-with by local and federal authorities after the assassination.
Because there is no way on this Earth that all of those various Dallas cops were "planting" evidence within minutes of JFK's murder (and Tippit's too), as some CTers seem to think. That notion is not only nutty and lacking any actual proof that it ever happened, it's also a rather vile and despicable allegation against such DPD and Sheriff's Office members like: Eugene Boone, James Leavelle, Luke Mooney, M.N. McDonald, Gerald Hill, Will Fritz, Jesse Curry, Seymour Weitzman, J.C. Day, Herbert Sawyer, Bob Carroll, Glen King, and dozens of others as well.
Given the known physical evidence surrounding the Kennedy case -- and the fact that a large percentage of this evidence was collected by an organization (the DPD) which had MANY members who were actively involved in this evidence-gathering process -- Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as sin.**
** = And the Dallas Police Department couldn't have possibly in a million years have had on its force that Friday in 1963 nothing but evil, lying, crooked "cover-up agents" who wanted to frame an innocent person for the murder of two men .... all the while these many, many officers apparently don't give a damn that the real killers got off scot-free for the murder of not only the President of the United States, but also for the murder of one of Dallas' own police officers, 11-year DPD veteran J.D. Tippit. And if there's one thing that cops hate with a passion, it's a cop killer. To believe that many different DPD members would deliberately want to let Officer Tippit's "real killer" just drift off into the sunset, unpunished, is something too silly to even talk about.
Given the above common-sense knowledge about the DPD, if the very popular "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory isn't worthy of being skeptical of, then I don't know what would be. And I have yet to encounter a single CTer who will admit out loud that the crackpot "Multiple-Shooter Patsy Plot" they have placed their faith in was, indeed, the wisest and most well-thought-out of all assassination plans for this band of Patsy Framers to attempt to carry out in Dealey Plaza.
It's my firm opinion that NOBODY, no matter how insane they might have been, would have deliberately placed three, four, or five different riflemen (and possibly a dart-thrower with a loaded umbrella as well, who was in full view of tons of witnesses) in Dealey Plaza to shoot President Kennedy and somehow expect to pull off a perfect "framing" of one single "Patsy" named Oswald.
Such a foolish Patsy Plot would never have been considered for even one solitary minute by any group of people who were concocting some sort of scheme to rid the world of President John F. Kennedy. Which, in my own opinion, is the BIGGEST reason of all to know that it never happened that way on November 22nd, 1963!
Because the ONLY possible way that such a Multiple-Gun, Single-Patsy pre-planned assassination plot could have been successful is if the Almighty Himself had a hand in "fixing" every single thing that would have undoubtedly revealed the conspiracy very quickly afterwards via such a cuckoo scheme.
There's also this important fact to consider when discussing possible "evidence tampering" -- If Oswald was framed as a Patsy and if all of the ballistics evidence had been "planted" and/or "manipulated" by the authorities in some way to make Oswald look guilty, there would have to have been THREE separate law-enforcement agencies involved in willingly falsifying evidence in the "Oswald Frame-Up" (and I'm referring to JUST the bullet/ballistics evidence alone here).
Why?
Because .... People from three different organizations (two federal agencies and one local in Dallas) were responsible for collecting the rifle, the bullets, the bullet fragments, and the bullet shells in the JFK murder case and placing those items into the official record of the case. Those organizations being:
1.) The Dallas Police Department .... which initially found the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, as well as having found and collected the three spent rifle shells (from that same Oswald weapon) in the Depository's Sniper's Nest just after the assassination.
2.) The U.S. Secret Service .... which was the organization that first handled "Stretcher Bullet CE399" (a bullet that was positively fired from Oswald's rifle) after it was handed over to the Secret Service by Parkland Hospital employee Darrell C. Tomlinson on the afternoon of 11/22/63.
3.) The FBI .... which was responsible for investigating JFK's murder after taking control of the physical evidence in the case from the DPD. The evidence that was seized by the FBI shortly after 11/22 included the Oswald rifle, which means that if the two front-seat bullet fragments that were initially discovered by the Secret Service on 11/22/63 had been "faked" or "replaced" in some manner to implicate only Oswald and his weapon, it would have had to have been the FBI who "faked" these fragments -- because the SS was not in possession of Oswald's rifle at any point prior to the SS handing over CE567 and CE569 (the two front-seat limousine bullet fragments) to FBI Agent Orrin Bartlett. Bartlett then delivered these fragments to FBI Special Agent Robert A. Frazier at 11:50 PM on the night of November 22, 1963, in Washington.
Therefore, via the CT-perceived point-of-view of ---> "All Or Most Of The Authorities Who Came Within A Country Mile Of Any Of The Assassination Evidence Were All Lying Crooks Who Were Trying Their Best To Frame An Innocent Young Man By The Name Of Oswald" (which is a post-assassination posture that has, indeed, been adopted by several paranoid assassination researchers) --- if a "Frame The Patsy" plot actually did occur in 1963 with respect to John Kennedy's death, it was an absolutely PERFECTLY-coordinated, multi-organizational cover-up job, whose participants in said plot ran the gamut from the DPD, to the Secret Service, and right on up to the FBI as well.
To think that such a "blanket", across-the-board cover-up and "Oswald Frame-Up" operation was underway within literally minutes of JFK's death, and was carried out without a hitch by members of all of the various entities mentioned previously, is akin to believing in the tooth fairy. It just simply could not have happened.
And, given the vast amount of physical evidence that would have needed to be placed into a perfectly-arranged "Lee Harvey Oswald Really Did This Instead Of These Two Or Three OTHER Assassins Who Were Aiming Rifles At John Kennedy" basket after the shooting, it's a pretty safe bet that the following sentence is 100% accurate ---
If the CTers are correct about this "Oswald Was Only A Patsy" business, then it must have been an act of God that enabled the success of the conspirators' plot.
Because nothing short of Divine Intervention could have rescued such an inane assassination plan. Nothing.
-------------
Footnote -- The quote shown below was said by this book's author/editor (Jim Fetzer) in a review he wrote right here at Amazon.com for another JFK pro-conspiracy publication ("Ultimate Sacrifice"). And while I fully agree with Mr. Fetzer's "1-Star" rating of that "Sacrifice" volume, I found this quoted portion of his review to be quite humorous (in a "pot-kettle-black" sort of fashion):
"I am deeply saddened that anyone should be taken in by this rubbish, but gullibility knows no bounds. It is embarrassing that Thom Hartmann, who has many admirable qualities, should be associated with a work of such obvious disinformation about the death of JFK." -- James H. Fetzer; February 5, 2006
VERY Good, but ULTIMATE SACRIFICE the best book ever .......2005-12-20
While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination.Still, worth your time.
Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
Pittsburgh, PA
BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)
Customer Reviews:
Grace and courage under fire!.......2007-07-09
Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 75 percent of the general public - only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.
This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.
Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back, and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.
Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)
The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations farther vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.
In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these politically criminal bastards to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.
Oh. Grow up, America!
Edit
Not a rehash of "A Heritage of Stone.".......2007-01-27
I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.
More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.
As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.
Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.
With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?
It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.
.Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.
Not the best........2006-09-24
Up front, I will say I have not read this book - however I would like to suggest reading Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy by Michael Collins Piper. Piper makes a powerful case that the Israeli Mossad orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy because of his effective blocking of Ben Gurion and his fellow Zionist's Samson complex fear of preserving their Zionist state with nuclear weapons of mass destruction with the aid of France. Once LBJ took over, all obstruction of Israel's nuclear ambitions ceased. If you think that is far-fetched, look up the USS Liberty and see how that was covered up by LBJ.
The Assassin "Trail" Stops At The Feet Of One Murderer -- Lee Harvey Oswald.......2006-02-22
The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.
Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".
Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
Mr. BREWER -- "No."
Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:
"Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.
I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.
And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
"Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.
Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
---------------
"Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.
An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
---------------
"The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".
Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.
---------------
"We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.
---------------
"President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.
---------------
"In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.
Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".
Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.
A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.
There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
"Uncontrollable" items such as:
1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.
3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....
Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.
4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.
When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
---------------------
As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.
a good "read" and an above-average book.......2006-01-16
Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
Vince Palamara
Book Description
On November 22, 1963, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C.S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. All three believed, in different ways, that death is not the end of human life. Suppose they were right, and suppose they met after death. How might the conversation go?Peter Kreeft imagines their discourse as a modern Socratic dialog--a part of The Great Conversation that has been going on for centuries. Does human life have meaning? Is it possible to know about life after death? What if one could prove that Jesus was God?Combining logical argument and literary imagination, Kreeft portrays Lewis as a Christian theist, Kennedy as a modern humanist and Huxley as an Eastern pantheist. Their interaction involves not only good thinking but good drama.
Customer Reviews:
A Great Read.......2006-05-02
November 22, 1963 was a day that all who were alive that day will remember. It was the day J.F. Kennedy was killed. But in the shadow of that famous death two other great men died that day, Aldous Huxley and John F. Kennedy. This book deals with those three famous men and a fictional dialog they would have sometime after life, but before a final judgment.
These three great men each believed in an afterlife but differently. Lewis in ancient western theism, Kennedy was a humanist, and Huxley believed in ancient eastern pantheism. Each also believed or practiced different forms of Christianity. Lewis was more mainline orthodox Christianity, Kennedy was a modernist or humanistic Christianity and Huxley an Orientalized or mystical Christianity.
The three men meet in a white mist or fog, they debate where they are, what they believe and where they think they will end up. Like many of Kreeft's books it is written as a dialogue, a conversation in three parts. They each present their world views, their view of the afterlife and their understanding of what their life meant. Yet each is open to the `truth' what truth really is and if it has eternal impact.
This is one of those fun light reads, written in a unique and engaging manner that will presenting the three most common views currently accepted in Christianity, and three of the common interpretations of Christianity in today's world. If you want to understand other streams of Christianity or the Christians around you this book will give you a clear, concise and humorous presentation of the three main approaches today.
BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL.......2006-04-11
BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL IS AN EXCELLENT BOOK IN ITS CATEGORY.
Pros and cons list for book:.......2005-05-01
Three men died on the same day in November, 1963: JFK, Aldous Huxley, and CS Lewis. The book is a fictional recreation of how their meeting might take place.
I would like to write my review in the form of a pros/cons list with the following premise: I really liked this book.
Cons: I think there are fewer than the pros by far, but my own view includes-
1.) Though I actually agree with Kreeft's portrayal of Kennedy overall as a philosophical dilletante compared to Lewis and Huxley, Kreeft could have been a little more generous to JFK.
2.) Kreeft is a little more philosophically specific than Lewis who wrote to more of a "lay" crowd.
Pros:
1.) I disagree with previous reviews that say that the book misrepresented Lewis. Few people know the ins and outs of Lewis better than Kreeft. Consider these parallels as proof: A.) the aut deus aut homo malus argument is a direct recapitulation of the lunatic, liar, or Lord argument present in Mere Christianity and some of Lewis' other works.
B.) Those who say that Lewis believed that all cultures and religions were equal is not exactly correct. Lewis believed that pieces of truth were lodged in other religions, but did not believe that all religions were created equal. Again a close reading of the opening in Mere Christianity makes it clear that Lewis is an adamant Christian.
C.) The way in which Lewis believed that all people were equal was in their imperfection when confronting the holy reality of God. Huxley, on the other hand, adhered to a more pantheistic view of human nature that lumped the good and the bad in one ubiquitous whole. The glaring metaphysical differences between pantheism and theism disclose the deduction that Huxley and Lewis were proponents of two profoundly different worldviews and thus had fewer mental/philosophical "overlaps" than might appear prima facie. Reading the Lewis book, "Miracles," makes that demarcation even clearer.
Pro #2: There are times when Huxley really comes on strong. If you read some of Kreeft's other works, you'll see he has a healthy respect of Aldous;in BHAH Lewis has read "Brave New World," and in other nonfictional works Kreeft actually praises the insights in the aforementioned book. I think the critique that Huxley is misrepresented is a bit unwarranted.
Pro #3: It is a cool re-enactment of what is much like a Socratic dialogue.
Pro #4: Kreeft isn't psychic, but seems to articulate the biggest differences between the three ideological camps of Christianity, modernism, and perennial philosophy/pantheism pretty well.
I highly recommend this book.
Between..........2005-03-02
*** November 22, 1963 is one of those days that is unforgettable in the minds of many; so much so that at least one man chose November 22 on which to marry so that he could never forget his annerversary. On that day, pretty much everyone will recall that John F Kennedy was shot, but two other men also died, Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, and CS Lewis, one of the most brilliant and influential Christian thinkers of this age. Somewhere between their last breath and eternal destiny, the author has imagined a conversation between the three in which they compare philosophies, JFK representing humanism, Huxley the spokeman for pantheism, and Lewis, naturally being the Christian. In short order, it becomes a two against one debate, but Lewis handles the other two quite well, making a compelling argument that tends to make the other two look foolish to dogmatically oppose him. Though the style is completely different from a similiar book, the Question of God which compares and contrasts Freud and Lewis, those who read that would do well to complement their reading with Between Heaven and Hell. ***
Good introduction to an important debate........2005-01-01
In "Between Heaven and Hell," Peter Kreeft sets up a fictional debate between C.S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley, and John F. Kennedy, shortly after their deaths which, amazingly, all came on November 22nd, 1963. Kreeft uses Lewis, Kennedy, and Huxley as representatives of 3 common worldviews and their interpretation on Christianity: orthodox Christianity, modernist Christianity, and "Orientalist" Christianity, respectively.
Kreeft, an orthodox Catholic, naturally sides with the general worldview of the Anglican Lewis over the modernist Catholic Kennedy and the Buddhist Huxley, but Kreeft is fair and respectful towards Kennedy and Huxley. While the book is very short at only a little over 100 pages, in informal, conversational format, it provides a good synopsis of how the three men interpreted the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as told in the New Testament.
The first half of the book is Lewis debating Kennedy on the subject of Christianity. (Huxley agrees to listen and argue his philosophy later on, mainly against Lewis of course, which he does in the 2nd half of the book.) Kennedy's worldview is definitely the most prevalent in the present-day, Western world, and therefore, the debate between Lewis and Kennedy will be the more interesting of the two for most readers raised in a Western culture. The Lewis-Kennedy debate is basically a summation of several Lewis books, most of which were themselves an argument for orthodox Christianity versus the modernist Christian and post-Christian worldview. Lewis handles Kennedy fairly easily, and Kennedy fans or readers sharing Kennedy's worldview will probably find themselves wanting to propose several objections to Kreeft in support of their side of the debate. But this is a quick summary after all, and Kreeft is obviously aware of that.
Moving on to the pantheist Huxley, the debate becomes slightly more foreign and rare to the average Westerner used to debates between monotheists and atheists. Huxley was a brilliant man (as all three were, of course), and his philosophy was deep, well-argued, and at times, abstruse. Kreeft uses this debate to answer the question often put to Christians, phrased in one form or another, "How is Jesus different than other major religious gurus?" This debate, again being a quick summary, leaves a few pantheist arguments on the table and isn't ended as easily as the Lewis dispatching of Kennedy's case is, but it suffices.
I recommend this book as a good introduction to the believing Christian's argument against modernist Christianity and Eastern philosophy. The book is entertaining and can be read in a couple hours, if not less.
Customer Reviews:
His Best By Far.......2007-03-27
Harry has always been a true believer. His chapter updating the latest on the autopsy is reason enough to get this book. The newest information will
spin the heads around of the Posnerites. This work is not for the novice, but it will more than sustain the experienced JFK reader.
Too Disjointed At Times.......2007-01-11
While some good facts are in the book, I think it could have been better organized. The author goes on and on about wounds whose locations were changed so the "official version" of the assassination made sense to the American people. After awhile, there is too much repeating of the same thing. He covers the wounds in so many different sections, that after awhile he is really not stating anything new. Plus he throws in so many names of people at times that it is hard to figure out who is who and how they fit in. I've read better books regarding the assassination.
Not Up to Livingstone's Previous High Standards.......2006-11-24
Although I waited anxiously for this book, I must admit that as one who read Livingstone's other JFK assassination books, overall I was a bit disappointed in this production. Much of it is a rehash of his other books and borrows the new big picture framework from others, like Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Assassination of JFK. [Still, along with Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment, is one of the best books on the JFK assassination.]
On the positive side, I was pleasantly surprised and happy to see that the author finally got religion and joined the ranks of those JFK researchers who see the importance and value of focusing more on the big picture, than groveling continuously in the dirty details without ever coming up for air. In this regard, Livingstone's previous work on the medical evidence is first-rate and seeing most of it repeated here did the book no harm.
Also, his investigative reporting on the pre-assassination party held at Texas oil magnate Clint Murchinson's home on the eve of the assassination is also first rate -- as was the way he connected the dots between the players in attendance there. Previously, the idea that such a party actually took place, remained in the realm of hear-say.
Unfortunately for me this was the high point of the book. It was all downhill from there.
The rest, including the much-touted "new revelations on the J.D. Tippit murder," left me cold. Facts, fiction, hearsay, rumors, "factions" and "factoids," seemed to have been all been given equal weight. The author provided no context, guidance, or analysis to wade through and out of this quagmire of "new information." As a result, one would be insane to try to draw any conclusions based on what amounts to random facts and "near facts" tossed at the reader, with the hope that something would stick. So far, for me none has.
This is especially unfortunate for a researcher of Livingstone's caliber, as now he will surely be cast down into purgatory with another run-of-the-mill researchers as just another "assassination conspiracy kook." This is especially unfortunate for this author, since his previous work has been of such high standards and generally held in high regard.
Despite this, I gave the book three stars.
Turning the Media-Mirror around and showing the real side........2006-09-10
He's on the right track here.He didn't write about Nixon pardoning Jack Ruebenstein ,from testifying to the HUAC ,in 1947.These men were socially and ideologically ,polar opposites.Yet,they both had a common link,the freemasons.Nixon was more than likey a big-wig in the masonic Scottish Rites and Jack Ruby a big price in the masonic jewish B'nai B'rth. How could a strip-tease nightclub owner escape the Cold War inquisition ,if he provided politicians with escourt girls? Well,very easily. Nixon may have cut a deal with Jack Ruby.If Ruby shot Oswald,Nixon would pardon him ,once he reclaimed the White-House throne,in 1964.Nixon knew if Ruby tried to explain publically the conspiracy-plot,the butterfly nets would swoop him up.So,Ruby followed along. In 1959,Nixon was the heir-apparent.Yet,America wanted something fresh and glamorous,not clammy and shifty.Nixon's quest to break the law ,in order to maintain his control over American politics,is well-known with the Watergate scandal. So, anyone who thinks that L.B.Johnson was the main-schemer in the asssassination plot,take a look at the far-right wing side. Good book !
A little crude in style but ..........2006-08-31
As Mr. Livingstone has stated elsewhere, the entire establishment is a conspiracy. Well put!
This whole JFK case has been subverted (or "faked" if you will) to cover up the involvement of those reaching into the very top of the US government.
It's very important to remember nearly 50 years later that ANYTHING less would have been "Old News" by now, pronto.
As Jim Garrison once said, it's not a question of whether Oswald's (US intelligence and/or military) handlers were or were not responsible for the assassination -- they WERE responsible.
But you won't hear about any of this from the Executive Branch, the Congress or the Mainstream Media because this story still has the potential to undermine the whole US political system, one that serves these folks quite nicely just like it is.
Books:
- Writers Market 2007 (Writer's Market)
- A Blessing of Bread: The Many Rich Traditions of Jewish Bread Baking Around the World
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- Atlas Major
- Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West
- Bob Dylan: Intimate Insights from Friends and Fellow Musicians
- Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West
- Cabinet of Natural Curiosities: The Complete Plates in Colour, 1734-1765
- Case Studies Of Process Plant Disasters
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Prince
- Kindred Spirits: Asher B. Durand and the American Landscape
- Chemical Principles Student's Study Guide & Solutions Manual
- Deal Breaker
- History: Fiction or Science
- Introduction to Animal Science: Global, Biological, Social and Industry Perspectives
- It's Springtime in My Backyard
- Basic Visual Concepts And Principles For Artists, Architects And Designers
- Colored Pencil for the Serious Beginner: Basic Lessons in Becoming a Good Artist
- Soldier of Tennessee: General Alexander P. Stewart and the Civil War in the West
1945 - Present
| 20th Century
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
JFK: Breaking the News
That Day in Dallas: 3 Photographers Capture on Film the Day President Kennedy Died
President Kennedy Has Been Shot: Experience The Moment-to-Moment Account Of The Four Days That Changed America
Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy
National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film: Mr. Zapruder's Home Movie And the Murder of President Kennedy
