No comments about Ito Hirobumi to An Jukon.

No comments about Bismarck und sein Attentater: Der Revolveranschlag Unter den Linden am 7. Mai 1866.

1 comments about The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (American Moments).

1. The subject of this short, 48-page "American Moments" volume is the shocking murder of President John F. Kennedy. The assassination of America's 35th President in November of 1963 has been (probably) the most-studied and most-debated murder case in U.S. history....and will likely remain so for many more years.
   
   Many conspiracy theorists (CTers) seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings he committed on 11/22/63 (President Kennedy's and policeman J.D. Tippit's). Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events of that day -- meaning: many CTers will take the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials "LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned by Lee Harvey Oswald).
   
   Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
   
   In my view, that crazy "CT-Kook" approach (as I refer to it) is just downright silly. (Not to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
   
   Many conspiracists believe that several shots fired in Dealey Plaza at President Kennedy totally missed not only all vehicle occupants, but also missed everything and everybody else in the entire Plaza.
   
   But, IMO, instead of focusing forever and a day on the things that will forever fall into the "Unknown" basket re. JFK's murder, why not focus more attention on the things that are fairly ironclad in nature?
   
   Things such as:
   
   1.) Three shots exactly were fired....
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
   
   This is almost as ironclad a certainty as you can have, given the hugely-one-sided chart linked above. And even if some people think that that chart has been skewed toward "3 Shots" somehow, the 3-Shots figure is still overwhelming, especially given the initial reports from multiple on-air reporters who said they heard precisely three shots fired (plus other wire-service reporters who relayed their "3 Shots" beliefs to the world within minutes of the event as well).
   
   2.) Three spent bullet shells (from Oswald's rifle) were found in the Sniper's Nest in the Texas School Book Depository. This doesn't mean much to the CT-Kooks of the world, but it should. Because it doesn't take an Einstein to line up #1 and #2 here.
   
   3.) Lee Harvey Oswald's own rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (the same floor where those 3 shells were also discovered). This item doesn't seem to mean a whole lot to many CTers of the world either. But it most certainly should. Because the mere odds of somebody else (besides the known owner of that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) having used that rifle to kill the President are very low.
   
   It's not impossible, quite obviously, for somebody else to have used LHO's gun that day. But doesn't just ordinary Occam's Razor-style logic tell us that it was PROBABLY the owner of that weapon who used it on any given occasion (including November 22, 1963)?
   
   4.) Lee Harvey Oswald murdered a policeman less than one hour after JFK was killed right on the doorstep of Tippit's murderer's workplace. And Tippit's murderer was positively inside that workplace (the TSBD) at 12:30 PM when JFK was being shot.
   
   5.) A witness puts Lee Oswald in the sniper's window with a gun, firing that gun toward JFK's car. This doesn't mean much to the kooks either, but it should.
   
   6.) Lee H. Oswald had no alibi at all that holds up under any kind of cross-checking scrutiny. This doesn't mean much to kooks of the CT persuasion either; but it, too, should. Because it's obvious that Oswald told some "alibi" lies after he was arrested for Tippit's murder. And does a completely-innocent man need to lie as much as Lee Oswald did? Doesn't any CTer wonder why Oswald lied so darn much during the two days he was in police custody? They had-oughta wonder (that is, if this guy named Oswald was nothing but a proverbial "patsy", as many CTers firmly believe was the case).
   
   7.) Every last piece of ballistics evidence (guns, bullets, bullet shells, and bullet fragments) leads straight to one killer in both the JFK and JDT killings. Guess who?
   
   Don't CT-Kooks ever wonder HOW the amazing plotters pulled off this "All Oswald Bullets/Shells" feat if, in reality, additional guns were truly involved in injuring not just one, but TWO, separate victims on 11/22/63 (including Governor John Connally)? They had-oughta wonder that. (How often can kooks fool themselves with the "Everything Was Planted And/Or Manipulated" whitewash?)
   
   8.) Lee Oswald had a history of wanting to kill political figures, starting with General Edwin Walker in April of 1963 (which just happened to coincide perfectly with the timeline of Oswald receiving his Carcano rifle in the mail).
   
   Don't CT-Kooks ever wonder about this "coincidence" either? They should. We KNOW Oswald took a potshot at Walker -- because he told us so (through his wife, Marina Oswald). Was Marina attempting to frame her own husband? Apparently some conspiracists think so.
   
   ---------------------
   
   In the final analysis, any "missed" shot that was fired in Dealey Plaza shall forever remain just a "guess", whether you're an LNer or a CTer. But does that mean the case is unsolvable? Or that a conspiracy MUST exist? No, it doesn't.
   
   Everything of a HARD EVIDENCE nature leads to one conclusion, and only one -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald was performing a solo shooting act on 11/22/63.
   
   The softer evidence, like the forever-debatable "missed shot(s)", shall always be soft, and as such shall always be focused on much more by CTers than the stuff we know for certain (such as Lee Oswald's proof-positive involvement in two different murders that November day in Dallas, Texas).

No comments about Mourning for Lincoln.

5 comments about Shadow over Babylon: 2.

1. Shadow over Babylon was given to me by a friend, he said that the book was impossible to put down. I thought that this might be a bit of an exageration, so i decided to read it. I ended up reading the book in 4 days while during my summer holidays. I can honestly say that this is the best book that i have ever read. My favourite author may be Wilbur Smith but this book eclipses anything that he has ever written. David Mason's second book Little Brother is also worth reading.



2. Mason's work in Shadow is an excellent beginning to an author that possesses such a deep understanding of military manuvers, lingo, etc. The details are what captured me in this book, particularly the story of the team's sniper. I felt a little lost towards the middle of the book, but I suppose most book are that way. Overall, he is NO Clancy, however, his next book is still something I would like to take a look at.

   GOOD JOB!

   -Sunil James




3. Mason was good at making this premise work, even though he was working with the handicap that came with setting this a few years back. We know the history of the Gulf War aftermath, so where's the suspense in reading about this crack team headed to take Mr. Hussein down? It's there all right. Obviously this is the work of a sharp intelligence. If Mr. Mason were to write another novel, I'd be sure to at least take a look at it.



4. "Shadow Over Babylon" is the first book by David Mason and it's a gripping read very much in the style of Frederick Forsythe or Tom Clancy. The story revolves around a group of British ex-Special Forces men who are hired to assassinate Saddam Hussein and the planning and organisation involved to infiltrate Iraq, shoot Hussein and then escape. They draft in a sniper, Danny MacDonald, who is a deer stalker and we are introduced to Danny at the beginning of the book as he explains about shooting to a deer hunter. This aspect of the book - the technical detail of the sniper's craft - is fascinating and not something I've read elsewhere.
   
   As the book progresses we learn more about the characters and the plans that they are making to carry out this difficult task, although we don't know the full plot at any time - as it unfolds we understand why they organised things as they did. There is a parallel story taking place in the American NRO (National Reconnaisance Office) as they find themselves tracking the team and trying to work out who they are and what they are doing. Big brother was definitely watching them!
   
   The book has some technical detail but perhaps less than a Tom Clancy book - which isn't a bad thing. There is also more characterisation of the men involved in the mission - why they are doing it, how they handle the stress and violence - and even a couple of little romantic storylines for three of the main people involved.
   
   And do they succeed in killing Saddam Hussein? Well, you'll have to read it to find out, but it's a really great read and there's a little twist in the tail which I wasn't expecting and was fun. Enjoy the story and the plot and the characters - this is an excellent debut novel by someone who clearly knows an awful lot about what he's describing and it's great fun to read a book with British special forces, rather than American ones, with the humour and amusing conversation of the Brits.



5. "Shadow Over Babylon" is the first book by David Mason and it's a gripping read very much in the style of Frederick Forsythe or Tom Clancy. The story revolves around a group of British ex-Special Forces men who are hired to assassinate Saddam Hussein and the planning and organisation involved to infiltrate Iraq, shoot Hussein and then escape. They draft in a sniper, Danny MacDonald, who is a deer stalker and we are introduced to Danny at the beginning of the book as he explains about shooting to a deer hunter. This aspect of the book - the technical detail of the sniper's craft - is fascinating and not something I've read elsewhere.
   
   As the book progresses we learn more about the characters and the plans that they are making to carry out this difficult task, although we don't know the full plot at any time - as it unfolds we understand why they organised things as they did. There is a parallel story taking place in the American NRO (National Reconnaisance Office) as they find themselves tracking the team and trying to work out who they are and what they are doing. Big brother was definitely watching them!
   
   The book has some technical detail but perhaps less than a Tom Clancy book - which isn't a bad thing. There is also more characterisation of the men involved in the mission - why they are doing it, how they handle the stress and violence - and even a couple of little romantic storylines for three of the main people involved.
   
   And do they succeed in killing Saddam Hussein? Well, you'll have to read it to find out, but it's a really great read and there's a little twist in the tail which I wasn't expecting and was fun. Enjoy the story and the plot and the characters - this is an excellent debut novel by someone who clearly knows an awful lot about what he's describing and it's great fun to read a book with British special forces, rather than American ones, with the humour and amusing conversation of the Brits.

No comments about Rush to Judgment.

No comments about Lorenzo: Murder in the Cathedral.

No comments about Assassination!: Kennedy, King, Kennedy.

No comments about Matter of Assassination, A.

No comments about TSarstvovanie i muchenicheskaia konchina Imperatora Nikolaia II.