No comments about An American death; the true story of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the greatest manhunt of our time.

3 comments about RUBY COVER-UP.

1. I have to say that I almost knew what to expect when I ordered this book.

   Kantor can always hold to his credit the fact that he knew Ruby before 1963 being a Dallas-ite himself.

   But, I feel that he scratches the surface of what could have been a really credible and cohesive piece of work, and goes no further than pointing out the failings of a handful of Dallas Police Officers.

   It should be called the Dallas PD's Misfeasance not the Ruby Coverup, because he just does not show any real evidence of a coverup other than as I said previously the failings or complacency of a few officers.

   I'd still buy the book because it is reasonably priced and Kantor does give a some thought to Ruby's movements into that Dallas PD basement which he sets out very well in the book.




2. Very informative, but this title is a reprint under another name of Seth Kantor's earlier version, "Who was Jack Ruby?", published in 1978. One vital piece of information missing from both editions is Nixon's associations with Ruby, Organized Crime, Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters. In 1947, for example, Jack Rubenstein (aka Jack Ruby) was called to appear before the House Unamerican Activities Committee. A letter from Congressman Richard Nixon's office was sent to the HUAC asking that he be excused from testifying because he was working for his office on "gevernment business". This information was found in the FBI files after Nixon was dead and buried, I believe. There's so much more we know about Tricky Dick that was not available to author Seth Kantor at the time of his original publication. It's a disappointment that he did not seem to update this 1992 edition, but rather repackaged it under a new name. It's still a very powerful book, however.



3. Today is the 44th anniversay since that fateful day when former nightclub owner and Mobster shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald in cold blood as the nation watched on television. I saw it, and it was unbelievable that the Dallas police would let him get that close. Oswald was shackled with his hands behind him and had no way to know that something like this could happen. Only in Texas, where they killed President John F. Kennedy two days earlier! In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty, or supposedly that is the law of the land. In Dallas, it seems that Oswald had been set up to die to shut him and keep him from talking about his co-conspirators in the assassination on November 22, 1962.
   
   He was a dead duck and a sacrifice. Ruby did not kill him because he was insane or "loved" the president. He killed him so that we would never know the truth. They had chosen him to be appointed the trigger man, although the person in the grassy mall was the real assassin. He had libed in Russia and married a Russian girl, so he was expendable and his past would make it appear as if he was the actual trigger man. I have never believed that he was, and an innocent man was shot down in the presence of the police and media with no defense. He was the person less worthy of living, according to the Mob and Ruby's bosses in the sleazy, sordid underworld in which he was a minor player. He, too, was expendable and the cancer of his prostate came in handy to set him free to die in peace and from natural causes, not gunned down as he did Oswald. The world will never forget that American justice allowed this to happen and treated it as a happenstance.
   
   This author is giving us a first-person account of those days in Dallas from the historic and on-the-scene perspective. He knew Ruby from the days he had been a reporter on a Dallas newspaper. He saw Ruby in Parkland Hospital an hour after Kennedy was shot. That is not a happenstance. He was in on the conspiracy to kill the president and to get rid of the person who had been chosen to take the blame. Just as the person who was judged guilty of the Martin Luther King murder, James Earl Ray, who spent the rest of his life and died in prison for something he did not do. He was paid and sent off to England. How was he caught there? Some snitched on him, and he was the fall guy, the one to take the blame for something another conspiracy which succeeded.
   
   Seth Kantor was a member of the White House correspondents whose article, HOUSTON, Nov. 21 -- "The story of President and Mrs. Kennedy's 'non-political' trip to Texas is chock full of bad timing and highly political backfires." This ran on the front pages of 'The New Yokr World-Telegram & Sun,'The Denver Rocky Mountain News,' and other Scripps-Howard newspapaer all across the country. Our local daily paper is owned by Scripps. He exposes the sinister world of Jack Ruby and his conspirators, was not believed at first, but when he made an automobile trip to locate witnesses, one was too afraid to testify because he had received three phone calls threatening him "if he came forward to tertify against Ruby." Jack Ruby got away with murder because he was dying from the cancer. His surgeons in Dallas had framed pictures on the wall of Ruby, one of his cancerous prostrate gland (how gross) and the other "a massive photograph of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald."
   
   That imprint will always be in my sub-conscious as I was so appalled as I watched it happen on television. How on earth was that possible in the free land of which we live where we have a justice system. Texas is and has always had their own justice system, shoot first (like in the cowboy days) and ask questions later. They don't hang murderers any more with a lynch mob, but that was the practice in Texas back then to keep that victim's mouth shut as well. A chief-of-police in a small town in Tennessee once told me, "Don't you know there is no justice?" He was right; there wasn't then (1962) and there still isn't in today's society.
   
   This book is thoroughly researched and all of the facts substantiated. The only thing lacking were more complete photo section to remind us just how horrid the happenings in November in Dallas, Texas, were and that there indeed was a conspiracy not only to kill Oswald but to kill Kennedy as well in the state of Texas. His successor was from that state, and that tells a whole lot about the coverup all these years.

5 comments about Let Me Take You Down: Inside the Mind of Mark David Chapman, the Man Who Killed John Lennon.

1. It hurts me a bit to read that Chapman was a nice guy, appreciated for some of the things he did. A picture even shows him playing a "guitar during a meeting of his prayer group from the Chapel Woods Presbyterian Church in Decatur, Georgia." Someone who was six years old when Chapman shot John Lennon in 1980 would have been 18 in 1992, when this book was published, and decided to remain a nobody in American society, could have been 25 in 1999 and taken part in the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. A real nobody wouldn't have known that the bombs were falling on an embassy, and nobody would really be held responsible, either, because everybody wants to maintain their rights to be nobody. The frightening thing about this book is its consideration of options for anyone to be somebody in a global society which encompasses millions of people in the United States and billions in the world. There are pages in this book about drug use. Is this book the reason that so many more people in our prisons are serving time for drugs than back in 1980, when some people were surprised that John Lennon was shot?



2. This book was nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on John Lennon's death. The man who killed John Lennon wanted this book to try and further his spotlight.

   I started to read this book and realized this after I realized it was telling me nothing. I suggest turning you back on this kind of gross attempt at fame and fortune.




3. never got this book



4. By his own admission, Chapman was a self-professed nobody, upset with his lot in life, and was looking to lash out at somebody famous. By killing Lennon, Chapman attained status as somebody (namely, "the guy who killed John Lennon"). In an odd way, reading this book only feeds into the attention Chapman craves. I wouldn't say this book is necessarily "pro-Chapman". Using Chapmans own words via interviews and in print form, the material within the book portrays Chapman (to me) to be every inch of the nobody he felt himself to be. There's really no deeper explanation to be found behind the assassination of John Lennon and the reasons why it happened are made abundantly clear; Chapman was exactly what he thought of himself as. A loser. The in-depth probings of the voices inside his head that drove him to do it just illustrate that point in detail, and after reading the book I felt that I was (in an odd way) just giving Chapman a degree of satisfaction, as he was and is little more than a child in a man's body content with receiving negative attention rather than none at all.



5. ". . . . this book will appeal to . . . true crime fans."
   
   Does it ever stop!?
   
   Imagine: if it weren't for crimes, "true crime" "fans" -- fans of crimes and criminals -- would have to find something constructive -- healthy --to do with their lives.
   
   But they won't, so long as there's profit to be made by exploiting crimes committed by others against others. So long as the lives, and deaths, of others can be treated so cavalierly -- as entertainment:
   
   "Hi! I'm a fan of John Lennon's death! Did you see the photos of him in the morgue!? And the photos of him being cremated!? Isn't it exciting!"
   
   Chapman is far from alone in being sick, spiritually and otherwise.

4 comments about The Romanov Conspiracies : The Romanovs and the House of Windsor.

1. With no mention of earlier well-researched writings, this book seems tainted and incomplete, lacking depth and insight. Perhaps prejudiced by an intention to mislead readers to a pre-designed theory. Better reference is the excellent author Robert K.Massie!



2. I bought this book because of my fascination with the Romanovs, but I wish I hadn't wasted my money on this one!The book is riddled with errors; one example occurs on the first page that contains the Romanov Family tree.The author claims that Grand Duchess Xenia was married to Alexander Alexandrovich...she was actually married to Alexander Mikhailovich ("Sandro")Then in the first few pages he maintains that the Russians celebrated 300 years of Romanov rule in 1912..it was actually 1913! If the author can't get his basic facts straight, I am not inclined to believe his far fetched theory that Grand Duchess Tatiana was airlifted to England! He bases this outlandish claim on an interview with 2 women, ages 87 and 91,who reportedly witnessed the execution of the Romanovs. His story gets even more bizarre when he tells us that Tatiana worked in Turkey as a belly dancer! I would have given this book no stars if I had that option. For people who want an accurate account of Romanov history, I would start with Robert Massie's excellent "Nicholas and Alexandra" plus "A Fatal Passion" by Michael John Sullivan and Mironenko's "A Lifelong Passion" However, if you enjoy spotting inaccuracies or are in need of a good laugh, this is your book!!



3. I certainly don't agree with the other reviews here. This book is one of the best written about the disappearance and unsolved questions of the last tsar and his family and I have read many! Michael Occleshaw is a brittish historian and he apparently has researched a lot for this book. He speculates a great deal about which of the missing daughters who might have survived and believes this to be Tatiana who possibly was saved by the English eccentric and adventurer Richard Meinertzhagen. I found a lot of information in this book that I haven't seen anywhere else including the best known like Massie's books. It was first published in 1993 so a lot of the events of the recent years in this field are not included but still it's one of the most fascinating and informative I`ve read. I recommend it to anyone who has a geat interest in the Romanov mystery.



4. I don't totally buy the theory,but the book was well researched and made me think so I will give it three stars.
   As for previous reviewers, he does base some of his theory on the accounts of an 87 year old and a 91 year old, their brother-in-law/husband was the British Consul,in Ekaterinburg at the time of the murders, and this information was combined with other sources the book is not based entirely on their story.And he never claims she was a belly-dancer, in fact he debunks this (on several occasions) as a fabrication made up by someone around her to cover her real past.
   As I said I am not totally convinced in his theory but if you want to be critical you could at least get the story straight.

2 comments about Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination.

1. The corrupt period during the reign of King James in 17th century England saw many villainous characters get into power or plot to get into power. Sir Francis Bacon, visionary philosopher, philanthropist, statesman, scientist, poet, politician and judge had to contend with many of them during his lifetime. Perhaps this is why he intuited at the end, "For my name and memory I leave it to men's charitable speech's in foreign nations and the next ages; and to my own countrymen after some time be past." He seemed to realize that his reputation would grow like that of many other visionaries who were best appreciated well after their death. Sadly, to this day Bacon's rich legacy contends with villains in the form of unjust literary critics, commentators and biographers who have left a deeper stain on his name than any of his contemporaries.

   Nevertheless, Bacon's star appears to be rising with the publication in 1996 by Yale University Press of Nieves Mathews' book Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination. In one long fell swoop she offers the interested reader a reevaluation of the poignant politically-charged events during Bacon's life by allowing all of the prejudiced detractors and spiteful critics that ever had an ax to grind on Bacon to air their views again and then dismissing them one by one for their lack of objectivity and personal animosity.

   Ten years in the making this tremendous labour of love provides more than adequate scope for the interested reader with over one hundred pages just in annotated notes alone, rounded out with an extensive twenty-page bibliography. Mathews starts out with an epigram quoted from one of Bacon's chief antagonists, Edward Coke, "The slander of a dead man is a living fault." The humorous irony here is that the insensitive Coke was a menace to anyone living who stood in the way of his political aspirations and Francis Bacon experienced this first hand. Coke had orchestrated Bacon's downfall from the Chancellorship from behind the scenes and he also slandered Bacon with false bribery charges. After Bacon's death, many uninformed commentators on Bacon's life failed to see that he was actually an honest man who was unfairly framed by Coke's influence and so the charges stuck through succeeding generations. The above quote from Coke now serves sentence on all those misguided by Coke who refuse to recognize historical truth from fiction.

   Much of the later widespread misrepresentation of Bacon as a dishonest, self-serving person originated in 1837 with Thomas Macauley's, "Essay on Bacon." In her book, Mathews points out that Macauley admitted to being motivated by his overzealous need to become famous at the expense of his subject. The book also goes into detail over the agonizing position that Bacon found himself in during the Essex insurrection period. Bacon was forced to prosecute his friend Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex or face charges himself. The Earl was the victim of his own hot temperament and also suffered from the shrewd traps hatched by Robert Cecil. Essex was eventually found guilty of treason, and was executed. Mathew illustrates how the unfortunate outcome of the trial for Bacon was being unfairly tagged with being opportunistic and disloyal to his friend by later day critics who were ignorant of the facts in the case while dismissing Bacon's own summary report of the trial. Supporters of Bacon who recognize that both he and Essex shared a common bloodline as children of Elizabeth I, will be disappointed that Mathews' book does not go in that direction. She overlooks such clues as the signature carved by Essex over the entrance to his cell at the Tower of London where he used the Welsh spelling Robart Tidir (Robert Tudor) as a message to posterity that he was Elizabeth's son. This bit of history can still be seen in the Beaumont section of the Tower in London and its implications are still deliberately kept secret by the Tower guards since it contradicts the " official" story of Elizabeth's reputation as the Virgin Queen.

   However, this new book is truly a great contribution toward reestablishing Francis Bacon as both an honest man and an amazingly versatile genius whose prose and style influenced later poets such as Byron and Shelley and writers such as Coleridge and Emerson, in addition to making his mark on literary contemporaries like Ben Jonson. Mathews has also done her research on the Manes Verulamiani, the book of eulogies that was written and published by Bacon's own peers at the time of his death and contains pages of lavish praise which salute him as a highly-esteemed poet and dramatist. This often-overlooked book of eulogies is an important testimony to the fact that Bacon was a great poet and dramatist. It also acknowledges him as being associated with Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom who shakes her spear at ignorance. It is her nickname: "The Spearshaker" that is the origin for the word Shakespeare that currently adorns Francis Bacon's most famous literary achievement. Unfortunately, Mathews tiptoes over the Shakespeare Authorship question, perhaps because it is not part of the domain and purpose of her book. However, one cannot help but wonder what she secretly thinks on the matter of Authorship after having spent so many years closely examining Bacon's life.




2. Nieves Hayat de Madariaga Mathews told us in her 1996 book about her subject, Sir Francis Bacon. Of much more interest is what she, the biological mother of Luis and Javier Solana, told us about herself in that very book:

   1. Her spiritual teacher was Osho. This is a name better known to American audiences, particularly Antelope, Oregon ones as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.

   2. Her own fascination with the 'invisible college.'

   As Javier Solana now holds extraordinary powers over Europe and is about to receive more, his antecedents deserve a more careful review. Nieves Mathews work is perhaps a good launching place.

No comments about CIA Family Jewels Secret Documents - Previously Classified Papers on Attempted Castro Assassination, Mafia, Watergate, Domestic Spying, Wiretapping, Project Mockingbird (Ringbound plus CD-ROM).

2 comments about JFK Vs. CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency's Assassination of the President.

1. this is one of my favorite books on the JFK assassination. it's very easy to read and it's just easy to follow. the book is smooth and brings up very interesting points. it has no pictures, but Mr. Calder's words alone start to create pictures in your head. i recommened that you read this book. you won't be dissapointed.



2. Mr. Calder has written a powerful but deeply flawed book. He offers a seemingly coherent integration of the entire official assassination corpus (Warren Commission, Schweiker Commission, House Select Committee on Assassinations), which he has not merely read, but apparently inhabited. Calder offers a wealth of characters and factual details that informs who did what when and where. But just as importantly, Calder has delved into both popular and obscure contemporaneous journals that illuminate precisely why the financial elite, the military establishment, and the CIA hegemony considered JFK nearly treasonous, a closet socialist, and a national security threat. The US media establishment, strongly allied with the CIA and military intelligence units that effected the murder, has worked concertedly to obscure these motives, but Calder brings them into bold relief.

   Unfortunately, Calder lacks scholarly competence and basic judgment, so casts into doubt the other allegations and inference that make his findings so rich. For example, Calder dismisses the possibility that Oswald might have been a shooter because, he proclaims, the famous photo by James Altgens taken just when JFK clutched his throat, shows Oswald standing in front of the Texas State Book Depository, not in its sixth floor "sniper's nest." That Oswald is the man in Altgens' photo is a major point to which Calder devotes four pages of detailed argument (pp.23-26). The Warren Commission concluded that the man in the photo was Oswald look-alike co-worker Billy Lovelady. Calder cites the testimony of four co-workers of Lovelady and Oswald who were standing outside the Depository in the shadows behind the disputed "Oswald" figure to the effect that Lovelady was with them, hence in the shadows, hence not the man in the photo. Calder ignores that one eyewitness has Lovelady standing, another sitting, and Calder completely ignores the fact that eyewitness testimony is inexact and often is in error. Calder ignores that this testimony collectively locates Lovelady in the general area of the "Oswald" figure, so that a reasonable question is whether or not Lovelady was a little in front of them in the light while they remained unseen in the shadows. But Calder argues that such points need not even be considered since Lovelady was wearing a red striped shirt that day, whereas the man in the photo has on a plaid shirt over a white t-shirt.

   Calder's book was published in 1998. Robert J. Groden, to whose efforts the public owes its first access to the Zapruder film in the 1970s - CIA asset Henry Luce had Life purchase and sequester the film - has spent his life exposing the JFK conspiracy. In 1993 Groden wrote The Killing of a President, and addressed the issue of Billy Lovelady on pp. 186-187 with material straight from Groden's contribution to the HSCA conclusions. Groden advises that Lovelady's resemblance to Oswald was so strong that Lovelady's wife had mistaken Oswald for him across a room; when the FBI asked Lovelady to come in to be photographed they told him that there was no need to wear the same shirt, so Lovelady wore one with vertical red stripes; Lovelady still had the plaid shirt he wore in the Altgens' photo packed away and posed in it for Groden.

   Groden's book is a coffee-table classic, yet Calder never addresses its points, despite publishing five years later and twenty years after the HSCA report. Worse, had Groden never done his research, Calder's identification of the man in the photo with Oswald lacks prima facie plausibility. In all his close scrutiny of the records, in all his deep inhabiting of the characters and players of this drama, it never occurs to Calder that had the man in the photo been Lee Harvey Oswald, one or more of the four co-workers over whose sworn testimony he labors who make the identification, would have said, in effect, "And there right in front of us was ol' Lee Oswald watching the President go by." The absence of any such remarks never registers on Calder as evidence of Oswald's absence. Calder is not the man in whom we can place implicit trust to pick the right characters and the right connections amongst them to unravel the JFK conspiracy, though he may have taken us much closer to the goal.

   Calder makes many such errors, but this is a brief review, so three final examples. First, Calder declares pp.67-68 that Lt. Day must have taken a palm print from Oswald's corpse because two experts testified that the print was "fresh," that it came from porous cardboard on which it could not last more than 24 hours, and yet the FBI received it from Day five days after the assassination. Calder has leapt to this bizarre conclusion because he fails to understand that the experts are merely stating that the print had to be fresh when it was dusted. Second, Calder is so much the diviner by the book's end that he feels he has only to mention a death to reveal it as CIA handiwork. On p.351 he advises that six FBI agents involved in the original investigation who were scheduled to testify at the HSCA died within six months of each other and declares, "The CIA was back." We'd like to know their names, how they died, and which of their deaths can be reasonably construed as CIA hits. One must be William Sullivan, whose 11/9/77 death by hunting accident I long believed was a CIA murder until I read the police reports. Unless these were brilliant forgeries, Sullivan's death was a tragic hunting accident in which the shooter was a teenaged son of a local peace officer, both of whom knew and were on good terms with Sullivan. The youth was overwrought by what he had done. Third, Calder takes the suicide of William Bruce Pitzer, whom Calder mis-describes as the JFK Bethesda autopsy photographer, as a CIA murder, but the meticulous research by Allan Eaglesham over the course of a decade has shown it to be a genuine suicide.

5 comments about The file on the Tsar.

1. File on the Tsar is interesting as a compilation of escape theories popular in the 1970's, most of which have since been proven to be false, particularly in Radzinsky's The Last Tsar (which would be a good book to read after this one). Still, the writing style is engaging and the photos are well chosen. Take it's theories with a grain of salt and it is a fun read.



2. Sadly, with the advent of DNA and the fall of the iron curtain there is less and less mystery in history.

   This book is a fine example of the fog and questions which surronunded the death (or disappereance) of the russian imperial family. However, as time has moved along, we now know that most of the ideas the authors suggest never occured.

   That said I liked the book and felt that it gave a good treatmeant of the context within which the last Tsar and his family met their tragic end. The reader must always exercise caution about the conclusions even as you enjoy the text.




3. Many people have criticized this book because it can be labled as a "conspiracy theory." However, it is remarkably well-researched and has some valuble info, such as the fact that Anastasia and Alexey couldn't possibly have been burned to ashes within one night out in the open. The authors can be forgiven, as it is an attempt to explain the fate of the Romanovs before the definitive DNA analysis concluded that at least 9 of the inhabitants of the Ipatiev house were brutally murdered. Also, it was written before Yurovsky's testimony came to light. I don't think it merits Henry Kissinger's "crap" statement about it. It is outdated, but its authors nevertheless command respect from historians. It was right about one thing - that the Sokolov investigation was fixed and Medvedev's testimony is unreliable, as Yurovsky's "confession" demonstrates. If one wants a definitive book about the fate of Nicky and Alix, I suggest Robert K. Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter."



4. Anthony Summers and Tom Mangfold did something extrordinary when they discovered Sokolov's original file on the Tsar. They discovered he had withheld evidence to what he found on the Tsar's murder. The book pretty much dispells of the Sokolov investigation and its faults and is way ahead of its time in that sense. But of course the second half of the book has lost most of its validity since the bodies have been located. But it is interesting how many people claimed to have seen the Empress and her daughters alive and being used by Lenin as pawns. It's a perfect story for those in Russia who still believe that the Romanov bones are not authentic. I think they are though. The part of the book which discusses Anna Anderson is very interesting as well, and makes you wonder how this woman could have truly been a Polish factory girl.



5. Many people have dismissed "File on the Tsar" as another Conspiracy theory, however it is far from that. File on the Tsar, is an extremelly well researched investiagtion into an alternative theory about the fate of the Romanovs.
   
   Many people dismiss this book because it does not hold that the family was massacred at Ekaterinburg. The fact is that contrary to popular belief the massacre is still a theory, it has not been proven as fact, and the File on the Tsar provides informative generally unknown information on how some of the evidence for a massacre was fabricated.
   
   WARNING SPOILER
   
   Spoiler; For instance when the massacre theory was first being investigated shortly after the Romanovs disapeared, it was claimed that they were shot in the dinning room, not the basement.
   
   Secondly three seperate investigations were conducted, the last investigation is the only one that ever saw light, primarily because it was the most shocking. Early investigators did not find nearly as many bullet holes, bayonet holes, ect . . . as later ones.
   
   SPOILERS END HERE
   
   Even the discovery of bodies does not prove that the alternative theory in File on the Tsar is untrue. The Imperial grave was opened more then once after the family was believed to have been shot and buried, and the remains could have been disturbed.
   
   In short File on the Tsar simply provides comprehensive information, and an alternative theory as to the familys fate, whats more it also could explain the absence of two bodies from the Imperial grve site. The massacre theory does not.
   
   Is it somewhat dated? Yes. Unproven by modern science and DNA? No.
   
   All scientific and fernsic evidence can equally be used to support the File on the Tsar's theory, as it can the massacre.
   
   I recomend if nothing else, that even if you disagree, that you read it.

1 comments about Say Goodbye to America: The Sensational and Untold Story Behind the Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

1. Matthew Smith clearly has a good heart and a thankfully straightforward prose style, accentuated by his mercifully short chapters which get right to the point without bogging down in unnecessary detail.
   Unfortunately, his book will disappoint all but those few readers who don't already know the basics of JFK assassination conspiracy theory.
   Smith posits a none-too-original theory about Lee Harvey Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico two months before the president's killing and he expresses ideas about Jack Ruby that could only come from a non-American unfamiliar with the 1960s' dominance of the Mafia in major U.S. cities. The author lists Mary and Ray LaFontaine's excellent "Oswald Talked" in his bibliography, but makes no mention of its major revelations including the fact that Ruby AND Oswald were involved in a major arms heist from nearby Fort Terrell earlier in November 1963.
   Smith presents rehashed and hackneyed analyses of oft-surveyed assassination details such as the botched autopsy, the shooting of Officer Tippit, the suspicious deaths of many witnesses, the "pot shot" at Gen. Edwin Walker and the Garrison probe.
   With the help of a European computer graphic wizard, Smith prints several pages of Dealey Plaza "3-dimensional" drawings purportedly proving that shots originated from the Grassy Knoll. There's no doubt they did -- all we have to do is watch Zapruder's film and read the testimony of more than four dozen witnesses who were there that day, including Jackie Kennedy who had to crawl on the BACK of the Lincoln to retrieve part of her husband's head -- but Smith's computer graphics and accompanying text are simply dizzying.
   Perhaps Smith's most eye-opening, most harrowing story is told by airplane mechanic Hank Gordon, who recalls working at Red Bird airfield in Dallas that awful Friday afternoon, and how Kennedy's murder had been brazenly predicted by a Cuban military pilot there.
   The best thing in Smith's book by far is the Foreward by Jim Marrs (author of Crossfire and Rule by Secrecy, both highly recommended). The longtime JFK researcher aptly scolds U.S. citizens, and especially its corporate-controlled media, for letting the murder of our president go uninvestigated, unsolved and unpunished. George H. W. Bush was in Houston on Nov. 22, 1963 (See Bruce Adamson's "1,000 Points of Light") and he alerted the FBI to some suspicious character there...Bush Sr., the oil magnate, may have employed Oswald's "friend" George deMohrenschildt...and Bush Sr. headed the CIA in the 1970s, just in time to shred plenty of paper that might otherwise have fallen into the hands of the Church or Rockefeller committees or, worse yet, the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
   As Marrs points out, any country that just rolls over and lets its president die like a dog in the street deserves all the Bushes it gets.

No comments about The Priest & The Oracle.