2 comments about Who Killed JFK? (The Real Story Series).

1. Carl Oglesby was very skilled at picking out the details that were most startling for this FACTion packed book. It is very short, yet Oglesby gives you concise lists to follow throughout so that you do not get bogged down with information. His opinion is stated, but he leaves room for interpretation either way for the reader.



2. Of the several hundred books out there on the events surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy, this brief but thorough account is the most satisfying. Carl Oglesby's "Who Killed JFK?" competently explores the main threads of the investigation without bogging the reader down with "research" or going off on too many tangents. And as the previous reviewer mentioned, Oglesby may wear his heart on his sleeve, but he doesn't bully the reader into accepting his premise. This book is a great introduction to anyone new to the investigation of the events of 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza

No comments about Valhalla's Wake: The Ira, M16, and the Assassination of a Young American.

5 comments about The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin: A Novel.

1. The tyrant Stalin is seriously brooding about what his arch-enemy Trotsky may write about him in a biography. Stalin contemplates what section of his past may be available for Trotsky to discover and tell the world. So we hear the Soviet Leader on his early life in seminary school, and the beginnings of revolution, and Stalin's participation or non- participation in these events. Will Trotsky suggest Stalin's early contributions were less than satisfactory? Will Trotsky mention Lenin's serious misgivings about the character of the future dictator? And we are given a grand tour through the 1937 Trials of former comrades. Therefore, Stalin must do away with Trotsky, and arranges a massive spying operation in Trotsky's Mexico City Compound. Told with verve, nastiness,and even some very dark humor, this short and incisive work will be hard to put down for anyone. My only complaint is that many aspects of the 1930's USSR are not mentioned, especially the man-made famines in Ukraine, but still a fine piece of work!



2. That's the first line of this strange little book, and almost the theme of it. The author attempts to get us into the mind of Stalin, and gives us a biography of sorts, up until about 1939 or so, but the main thrust of the work appears to be Stalin's obsession with Trotsky, and the fact that he is writing a biography of him from his exile in Mexico. Stalin is extremely afraid that Trotsky is going to find out the big secret Stalin is trying to hide, but anyone with half a brain can figure out the secret the first time it is mentioned! The book was interesting, however, for it's heroic attempt to give us some inkling of what goes on in the mind of a mass murderer.



3. Of course he never wrote an autobiography, but if he told it to cronies, it would sound like this, then he'd have them shot. So imagine Stalin telling his life story, a crude thug boasting of his power, telling little anecdotes about exterminating millions, and sharing his innermost "thoughts". It's black humor at its best. Lourie is a sovietologist and literary translator from Russian, he's done the research, spent time in Russia, he knows his stuff. It's hard to imagine a more accurate portrait of the monster, and once you start reading, you can't put it down. Should be required reading, lest we forget. Highly recommended.



4. 
   A very unusual way to write a book about a person who had such an impact on the 20th Century.One could argue endlessly whether Stalin or Hitler was the most evil and who had the most evil impact on the world during the century. However;don't expect this book to settle that question.What the author does, is try to explain what it was that made Stalin so important,how he thought,what his goals were and how he went about attaining them.
   Normally ,this would be done via a Biography;but this author does it via an Autobiography. He has "created" the autobiography that Stalin would written ;if he had written one himself. By doing this the author tries to get deep into the personal thinking and feelings of Stalin. At the same time, he gives great insight into Lenin ,Trotsky,Beria and many others who surrounded Stalin;particularly as to what he thought of them.This book is considered fiction or a novel;but that hardly does it justice. If you go along with the author's knowledge and intent of purpose ;while technically speaking,it is fiction,it is more important than that.
   This book answers many questions as to what motivated Stalin.We see that he was total believer in diabolitical,dialectic materialism. The only thing that interested him was his own pursuit of power.He had no feelings whatsoever of any concept of right or wrong.He didn't have any concern for Russia,the People,or even Political Systems.He used everyone and everything ,in any way he rationalized, in his pursuit of personal power.
   The author follows Stanlin from his early days in Georgia up to the time where he has used everyone or eliminated them to become the undisputed ruler of Russia at the age of 50 ,in 1929. History has shown that in the end he accomplished nothing more than absolute power for himself and hence when he died that power dissipated,leaving nothing but strife and misery. It is little wonder this was the result when you see he had no other interest than that of self power.
   The book does an excellent job of showing haw one person can get control of so many people and cause such evil. It has happend many times in history and there is no reason it can't happen again.All it takes is someone driven by evil and in search of power.
   It is worthwhile srudying how historical figures came on the scene in their day,how they got control and compare these people with what is taking place today on the world stage. It's scary!



5. This is a great piece of fiction that really grabbed me by the collar and held on to me in a way that most novels don't. Although some background on Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union helps the reader catch all of the allusions, the storyline stands on its own as a psychological thriller. This isn't intended as a work of history, but author Lourie does have some things to say about Stalin's rise to power and what might have stood in its way. It is quite an accomplishment to humanize a monster without sentimentalizing or excusing his crimes. History buffs, radicals and thriller aficionados will all enjoy this book.

2 comments about The Man on the Grassy Knoll.

1. I have read quite a lot of books about the Kennedy assassination but this one is the best by far. It is well written and reads like a thriller.

   At the end of the book a groundsheet of the Rogers' house is shown. This helps to understand the description of the crime and the search through the house by the two police officers. What I miss is a groundsheet of the parsonage. From the description it is not possible for me to imagine how it looked like. It plays an important role so I think it would better the book if it was printed too. A thing that makes me curious is: what did the authors put on their trail? Where they one of those informed by Marietta Gerhart?




2. I have read a lot of books on the JFK assissination.

   This book caught my eye for that reason. However, once I began reading it, this book kept my attention. It read like a novel. I liked that, it was a switch from the usual fact presented like facts JFK conspiracy books. I liked that about this book. It certainly had me convinced that this guy had something to do with the JFK murder. It made me wonder why we didn't do more then in regards to this guy.

   The book was gory when talking about the dismemberment of his mother and father. I really didn't like that. I'm not sure that it added much to the book except some length. However, it did make me realize that this was the type of man who would do what he thought needed to be done and might certainly shoot at a president.

   This book is very interesting and those interested in reading about the JFK assassination would do well to consider reading this book. It is an easy one to skip over with the massive amounts of books available to read. However, the novel like feel of this does not detract from the research completed and conclusions drawn in this book.

5 comments about The Darkest Dawn: Lincoln, Booth, And the Great American Tragedy.

1. He was merely a player in this tragedy. Trained as an actor, he did his biggest role which changed the face of this country forever and ended his short life. John Wilkes Booth would never have killed Lincoln on his own. For some reason, by indoctrination or brain-washing by the conspirators who wanted Lincoln dead, he was used by the group and was in his own mind playing the theatrical role of his life. He was A Deluded Southern Sympathizer. He sprang from a great family of actors; his brother Edwin was an accomplished stage actor. Edwin did his deed so as to be famous in his own right. Many books have been written about John Wilkes Booth's participation in the Lincoln death.
   
   It is sad that so much blame was put on his shoulders. I have been interested in Lincoln's assassination for over twenty years, mainly because they hanged Mary Surrat, the first woman to be officially killed in this manner. It was at her boardinghouse where the conspirators met to discuss and plan killing Lincoln and others in his Cabinet. John Wilkes Booth, from a prominent acting family, was a Confederacy sympathizer. But that in itself does not make him guilty. He was denied his right to a trial.
   
   Most of the South were more than a little upset when Lincoln was inaugurated for the second time. They refused to accept him as "our" President. We had Jefferson Davis who married Zachary Taylor's daughter. I have read so much about Lincoln and also sympathized with Booth's reasoning. Lincoln, as it so happens, was a Shakespeare fan and enjoyed going to Ford's Theatre. John Wilkes Booth (Brutus) was one of the most promising young Shakespearean actors of his day. Booth considered Lincoln an "American Caesar." John Wilkes Booth is sometimes called the "American Brutus." There is a book out with that title, also one called The Myth of John Wilkes Booth.
   
   He was a very handsome man and, even though he broke his leg in the leap to the stage (instead of running down the back stairs), he eluded capture with the help of a Dr. Mudd for twelve days. He was not given a chance to tell his side and the complex, misleading reasons he did what he did. That took fortitude! He did not act alone! That's a major issue. He was cornered in that barn like an animal and burned (at the stake) by the vigilante cowards. He was merely a misinformed player who ended up "on his own" after the dasdardly deed. He deserves better than to be called a devil. To some, he was an avenging angel. Terry Weber played the dual role in the Knoxville production of "Killing Lincoln," and had both Lincoln and Booth down pat. I have read many books about Abraham Lincoln and several about John Wilkes Booth which I have reviewed for Amazon.com



2. I thought I knew a lot about the assassination of Lincoln. I was wrong. This easy to read book holds your attention as well as a novel, but is completely documented to please an academic. It provided intriguing information on the era, the people, and most notably to me, Mrs. Lincoln. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in American history.



3. I've read all I've found on Lincoln and yet I found new details about his death here that I had not read elsewhere. It doesn't rehearse the ins and outs of the conspiracy which is good if you've read "Blood on the Moon" and, even more so, "American Brutus". My cavil with 'Darkest Dawn" is that it portrays Booth all but sympathetically and Mrs. Lincoln as the devil herself. Mary Todd Lincoln was, without doubt, a manic-depressive who was dogged by bad health and hellish luck. She was a difficult lady who nevertheless withstood considerable slander and ridicule from both North and South. However, she was a staunch abolitionist who loved her husband dearly and was a kind and devoted mother. The author has the irritating habit of referring to her consistently as the "woman" and even finds her breakdown immediately after the assassination as reason for criticism. I guess if she hadn't, he'd be accusing her being part of the murder plot.



4. I enjoyed this book a great deal. The author is obviously not as much an admirer of Lincoln as I am. Other books I've read are more biased in Lincoln's favor. This author went much deeper into the history of the conspirators and others surrounding the assassination than other have done. A refreshingly unbiased account of the months before and after America's greatest tragedy.



5. He is one of the most recognisable figures in history: The tall, angular frame, the sad half smile, eyes dark, tired and sunken. The last picture of Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States, and reproduced here, is that of a man whose race is almost run.
   
   Taken four days before the prominent actor and Southern sympathiser John Wilkes Booth ended his life with a shot to the head, Lincoln seemed ill at ease, the slight blurring around the hands indicating he was unable to keep them still for the time required for the exposure to take effect.
   
   Could he be wondering about the next four years of his presidency, the monumental task of healing the wounds of a civil war he had insisted should be fought? The conflict, in which he had thrown the overwhelming might of the United States at the rebel Confederacy to bring about a difficult and costly victory, was all but over, but as shrewd a man as he would have guessed that the peace was going to be an even more formidable adversary. Did he have the answers?
   
   We shall never know as Booth's dramatic act at Ford's Theatre in Washington relieved Lincoln of that responsibility, leaving him simply as the leader who saved the union. Dying with Southern armies still in the field and the final acts of the war yet to take place, his administration was linked wholly with the conflict. The emotions his assassination unleashed ensured not just his place as a great American president, but his conversion into a secular saint.
   
   As Goodrich points out in his epilogue: "In the stampede to elevate the slain president, his virtues were magnified and his vices diminished until the one became a caricature and the other all but forgotten." The cynic might add: "good career move, Abe."
   
   The author, an historian and storyteller, who has specialised in this brief, dark period in American history, has taken the events of a few weeks of the spring and summer of 1865 and made them live again.
   
   An act of outstanding scholarship, he has amassed hundreds of contemporary sources - biographies, eye-witness accounts, newspaper articles - to the point where he blends his own narrative with the quotations from which he draws, producing compelling descriptions that immerse the reader in the zeitgeist. His passage on the chaos that resulted from a `lying in state' in Philadelphia during Lincoln's cross-country funeral procession is typical.
   
   "Mingled with the normal dull roar of so many thousands were the shrieks of crushed women, the shrill cries of trampled children, and the cursing and shouting of men. Silk hats, bonnets and parasols were smashed flat, dresses were ripped, hoop skirts were broken and mangled, the neatly pinned hair of ladies now fell to their waists in a disheveled mass. Ragged and tattered debris, including destroyed mourning badges and black crepe, littered the ground below."
   
   The book is full of such rich description, including the wild and random acts of vengeance wreaked on anyone who did not show proper respect for the slain president. Any words said against Lincoln in public risked a beating or worse. Lynch law took hold. Even those whose mourning was not considered sincere enough faced the anger of the mob.
   
   In the occupied Confederacy, civilians were forced to decorate their houses in black to honour the man they hated and reviled. Most swallowed their pride and complied, some like Mrs Stuart, hung herself rather than yield to the humiliation.
   
   From the fall of Richmond, which signaled the end of organised resistance in the Confederacy, and Lee's surrender at Appomattox, through the assassination, its aftermath, the funeral procession, the death of Booth and the trial and execution of his associates, Goodrich opens a series of windows on those troubled, turbulent times.
   
   For a while the victorious north, plunged from the pinnacle of joy to the depths of despair, became unhinged. As one witness recalled: "The sorrow and sadness caused...cannot be written; no pen can tell it. Only those who lived in these dreadful days can appreciate the pain we suffered."
   
   Thanks to this book, we can appreciate a little of the anguish experienced by the bloody, war-ravaged nation as, united once more, it wearily resumed the journey towards its ultimate destiny.

2 comments about Assassination of Jesse James.

1. Okay, the story has been told better, but having studied this, I can assure that Hansen has captured the dialog perfectly. I am reviewing this obscure work because few books have captured period dialog better. Enjoy.



2. An old university friend who taught creative writing told me about this book several years ago. I'd never heard of Hansen, but once I started this I couldn't put it down, and I've made a point of finding and reading every new thing he writes. Every one of Hansen's books is different, he doesn't stick with a particular "type" when it comes to his fiction.

   I told friends about this book, and those who read it were blown away with the way this story is told. I was never so glad that a book was reprinted as when this one came out. I bought several copies and sent them to friends.

No comments about Assassination of New York.

No comments about The Assassination of President Kennedy: Opposing Viewpoints (Great Mysteries).

5 comments about A. Lincoln: His Last 24 Hours.

1. I, too, purchased this book at Ford's Theatre. At first, I thought it would be one of those whodunnit books, but I was wrong. The author obviously put alot of effort, time & research into the book. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I finished the entire book during the plane ride back to Los Angeles. I lent it to my family members and they, too, enjoyed it!



2. This book captures the readers attention and takes him on a step by step discourse of the hours before Lincoln's assassination. A very sad image is presented in the book because it's obvious Lincoln's last day of life may have been his happiest day of life. Lincoln was overcoming the anxieties of war, but was cut down when he had a handle on life. In this book the reader learns of the threats to the president's life and what could have been done to prevent Lincoln's death. Infortunately in 1865 all Booth needed to end the president's life was a passion against Lincoln. Great book!



3. A. Lincoln: His Last 24 Hours is one of the best books I've read about the fateful day in April 1865 when the 16th President was shot and killed at Ford's Theater. It paints a fascinating picture of a very tragic man on the last day of his too-short life. The relief and joy that Lincoln must have felt with the end of the Civil War finally at hand, his concern for how to achieve the nearly impossible task of reconstruction, and the never-ending personal challenges he faced in dealing with his wife are all captured in the words of Mr. Lincoln himself as well as through comments from observers who had contact with him on that day.

   The book reads very much like a novel but is obviously very well researched with plenty of reference material documented via footnotes throughout. The author knows the subject well and is careful to note when conclusions not fully supported by documented research are drawn. The result is wonderfully readable and highly informative unlike many other accounts of that day.




4. This little gem combines the readability of journalism (the author's teaching profession) with in-depth historical research, an unusual combination. It is a well-known subject, but here are some new perspectives:
   
   --the photo often described as Lincoln's last portrait was
   actually taken in February, 1865. This book shows you the
   real last one.
   --Booth didn't bore the peephole in the door to Lincoln's
   box or make the bar obstructing the door leading to the
   corridor of the boxes - that had been done some time before
   by or for Lincoln's guards.
   --Booth's illegitimacy preyed on his mind as a youth - perhaps shaping his character in a perverse way. One must
   wonder about the same effect in some other, modern day
   individuals with the same origin (Fidel Castro, Ted Bundy
   and a recent US President).
   -- Most telling are the widely varied descriptions of events by eyewitnesses. The author evaluates these and tells you the most likely version. Here is proof that circumstantial evidence
   (including letters, bloodstains, etc.) is often more reliable than such eyewitnesses.
   A minor issue - it is mentioned that the entry in Booth's diary for the day of the assassination states he cried "Sic
   semper" - omitting "tyrannis" - and that he may have done so
   because he didn't know how to spell tyrannis. It is, however, pointed out that he had asked about this spelling beforehand
   (so he knew it). Also, Booth was undoubtedly familiar with the
   6th verse of the Confederate song, "Maryland, My Maryland," which runs "Sic semper! 'tis the proud refrain" and he might have used the shortened phrase in his diary just as an abbreviation. Incidentally, as the book states, Lincoln's wallet contained several newspaper clippings. Not mentioned is that among these were laudatory articles. Lincoln had been the
   subject of many cruel newspaper attacks and it is pathetic that even a great man apparently needed to know that someone approved of him.



5. If you are willing to take the time to read this somewhat short book, I guarentte you will love the contents. It opens your mind to every possible scenario of every possible minute of Lincoln's Last hours. I reccomend this to anyone/everyone!

5 comments about On the Trail of the Assassins: My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy.

1. Garrison believed the CIA, with the help of the mafia, Cuban exiles formerly involved with Operation Mongoose & the Bay of Pigs, and extreme right wingers in DoD killed Kennedy. He also believed Clay Shaw had a hand in it. Generally I think he was on the right track, but it is unlikely that CIA and DoD would have cooperated to such an extent. We know from ARRB releases that, unlike the later Iran-Contra and Tipped Kettle Ops, CIA and DoD were severely at odds with each other. CIA's emergence as an outlet for covert ops was seen as encroaching on DoD holy ground. Defense has perfected the art of the black op and black program with so many Sensitive Compartments, Special Access Programs, and Unacknowledged Units, that one has to admit they had a valid argument. The great black op success stories during the Cold War (success in terms of tactical goals, not whether I agree with their motives or means) were primarily carried out by either DoD (sometimes through the NSA, which is heavily connected to the military) or British MI6, acting on behalf of CIA. The agency rarely succeeded by itself on these matters.

   We also know that DCI Richard Helms held high-level staff meetings on the topic of Garrison's investigation. CIA certainly did sabotage it, but according to Victor Marchetti (whose opinion I've learned to trust) it was clear Shaw had not been involved with the assassination. However, it also appeared from the discussions (and hush-hush nature of certain topics when brought up even in these meetings) that Shaw was more than just a domestic intell contact and that he & CIA were probably covering for someone after the fact. This was the same motive behind the agency suppressing their surveillance of an Oswald-imposter who had been trailing the real Oswald in Mexico City. Someone else had an operator there, not CIA.

   The clincher was when Helms was called before Congress & the Justice Department and threatened during Watergate & the Family Jewels (intell ethics and black ops scandals like MK/ULTRA and BLUEBIRD). He walked out to reporters and said if Justice wanted to keeping playing hardball he'd be happy to open the biggest can of worms of them all. He implied this would not implicate himself or his agency, but other portions of the government. At that point Justice freaked and halted their strong-arming. Considering the pervasive spread of right-wing extremism in DoD at the time of the assassination (stretching all the way to the Joint Chiefs) the meaning of all this is fairly clear.

   Some individuals with former CIA ties were likely involved, but the agency was simply forced to suppress this (and by default aid the conspiracy) in order to avoid their own false implication in the assassination itself. Certainly if Garrison couldn't keep this separate then the public couldn't be expected to not blame CIA when they found out a few of its former employees or contacts were involved. So Garrison was close, but he was a little too obsessed with Shaw and CIA to see the real picture.




2. The definitive JFK conspiracy book. Sober, well documented, rarely sensational. The focus is on fact, not speculation. Why has so much evergy been used to discrediting his investigation? Even if some of the conjecture is hard to swallow, it seems like you gotta work pretty hard to explain away most of this stuff. I'm convinced.



3. Jim Garrison's powerful book, "On the Trail of the Assassins," is important reading. In it, Garrison recounts his investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and a possible cover-up of the real facts of the case. It questions the validity of the Warren Commission Report, and provides startling evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency may have been involved, and that Kennedy's assassination was a coup d'etat. The evidence Garrison presents leaves little room for doubt.
   If there wasn't a conspiracy involved to assassinate Kennedy, then why does the U.S. government, OUR government, withold information in connection to the assassination? I think that we have a right to know who killed Kennedy, why he was killed, and who benefitted.
   "On the Trail of the Assassins" is a superb book. A great resource for those new to the conspiracy theories, and a great companion piece to Oliver Stone's "JFK." Grade: A+



4. New evidence has now surfaced that Oswald was hired by Cuba to kill JFK in Dallas all those years ago. Now, character assassination is continuing from that area. John Seigenthaler was a close friend and supporter of the Kennedys: "I was a close friend of Robert Kennedy, and I worked closely iwith the president...helped to edit [Robert's] first book. We were close friends until his death and the most painful thing was to have them {Brian Chase] to suggest I was suspected of their assassination."
   
   Chase, after being traced by Daniel Brandt of San Antonio, confessed that he created a fake online biography of Seigenthaler in May, 2005, as a gag "to shock a co-worker who was familiar with the Seigenthaler family." This was allowed to go global on Wikipedia. This is going on now on other web sites including these reviews, from Dallas. John Seigenthaler, father of the NBC journalist, was falsely accused of being involved in both assassinations of JFK and his brother, Robert. Character assassination is prevalent these days and must be stopped. Anybody can write anything about an unsuspecting person and put on their web page as indignities, as racial and ethnic slurs and worse.
   
   The online cncyclopedia to which anyone can contribute used a false article which implicated him in the Kennedy assassination. The jokester, Brian Chase, claims he didn't know the free internet encyclopedia was used as a serious reference tool. Others, such as Daniel Brandt of San Antonio, has been "hurt" by an unflattering biography of himself. How many other Brians are out there doing their moral and unethical damage to the lives and psyches of others -- and allowed to continue.



5. I've read several books relating to the conspiracy surrounding the murder of JFK. This is one of the best. It's detailed and to the point, there is no sidetracking, like in many of the other highly recommended books (Jim Marrs: Crossfire & Ultimate Sacrifice).
   
   The book is hard to get your hands on, since its no longer in print, but well worth the money. Everything in the book is fact driven, and when it's speculation, it clearly states so.
   
   Alot in the book, that was interesting, and did not make Oliver Stones movie, as well, as lots of subjects in this book not covered in other books.
   
   This is the best overall book Ive read relating to the JFK murder, however, its mainly focused around Garrisons investigation, so it's only 1 point of view, and it does not have ALL the facts.