- Use promo code PRIMEBOOKS18 to save $5.00 when you spend $20.00 or more on Books offered by Amazon.com. Enter code PRIMEBOOKS18 at checkout. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Assassination Science : Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK Paperback – December 30, 1998
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Special offers and product promotions
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
It is hard to believe that some people still naively think that Oswald acted alone in committing this crime. The supporter's of the Warren Commission's final decision are often stubbornly loyal to the lone gunman theory. But one has to wonder about the motives of these individuals. For example, are the members of the American Medical Association who agree with the Warren Commission really that naive and ignorant, or are they involved in a cover up? Many WC loyalists are well - educated, intelligent people. So, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that some of these people (those in government, the AMA, etc) must surely be involved in a cover up. Fetzer's decision to resign from the AMA, given all of the dishonesty and secrecy attributed to this group of so- called professionals, was admirable.
One omission from this book that surprised me is the role of Jack Ruby, Oswald's assassin. Fetzer focuses his efforts on the conspiracy theory and the possibility of the involvement of more than one assassin. I agree that this is the most important part of the case, but what about Jack Ruby? I think his involvement in the conspiracy deserves some mention.
This book provides conclusive evidence that there was a conspiracy. There are simply too many unanswered questions, too many odd occurances, and too much suspicious behavior to think otherwise. I am convinced!
(Okay, here I go again, sabotaging my reviewer rating by stating an opinion that many people will object to.)
It makes a case, and a very good one, that the evidence in the Kennedy assassination has been hopelessly bungled. And I'll admit that it's difficult to swallow the concept that that much evidence has been handled that poorly by accident; it's tempting to assume that if the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is consistently so flawed, he must not have, and the botched evidence trail must be the work of a massive conspiracy and coverup.
But that conclusion doesn't NECCESARILY follow; none of the botched evidence actually PROVES anything other than that there were incompetents thick on the ground in 1963, and that is certainly true (as is the fact that there are still incompetents thick on the ground in 2005; it's a fact of life: people are stupid) regardless of how Kennedy was killed, or by who. Whether one chooses to believe that it's more likely that there was massive stupidity in all aspects of the case, or that there has been a massively successful conspiracy, is largely a matter of personal taste; as Ronald S. White points out in this book's Postscript, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively answer that question either way.
But consider: if you were the head of a conspiracy to asassinate the president back in 1963, would you choose to do so in a crowded, massively public setting with hundreds of witnesses? Unlikely; there'd be many more attractive opportunities, especially if you had government connections. But if you were a single nutcase with a gun, and this was likely to be your only opportunity to get within shooting range of the president, obviously, that question doesn't apply. Of course, it's POSSIBLE that the plan was to use Oswald as an assassin, and/or frame him for the killing, and so one had to accept the setting in which he could plausibly have had opportunity. But then, the conspiracy theories almost all posit additional gunmen scattered around the area, presumably there to finish the kill if Oswald missed. But if you're going to have to use other gunmen anyway, why bother with an agent as undependable as Oswald at all? Clearly, if this was a conspiracy to kill the president, it was a stupid and incompetent one; itself not an unreasonable hypothesis (as I said, people are stupid, and that certainly potentially includes conspirators) but if the conspiracy is stupid and unsubtle enough to have chosen to kill the president in public with an agent as incompetent as Oswald, thus requiring backup firepower and the requisite amount of coverup to hide that backup firepower from discovery, AND far-reaching and powerful enough to have done so, with sufficient pull in the media and law-enforcement to squash any discovery and/or revelation of these facts, WHY are the people writing for this book still alive? Wouldn't it have been trivially easy to kill them and/or suppress their work without ever letting it see print? Yet that hasn't happened, and while it's possible to posit a sufficiently subtle conspiracy that would realize that allowing some inconclusive claims on the subject would tend to cause people to make the very argument I'm making, thus discrediting the whistle-blowers without the need for killing them, it is impossible (at least in my mind) to imagine that a conspiracy clever enough to do that would have been stupid enough to kill the president in public in the first place.
Further, we're supposed to believe that a conspiracy smart enough and widespread enough to get its hands on the Zapruder film almost immediately and to be able to edit it before re-releasing it, could and would edit it so badly that amateur photography buffs would be able to spot the fabrication; if they were good enough to lay hands on the film, and capable of editing it, doesn't it seem likely that they'd have been aware of the limitations of their editing, and if so, wouldn't they have simply destroyed the film and "lost" it, without ever letting it be seen again? Probably, although it's possible that this is again simply a case of "people are stupid", but it simply seems to me that I'm being expected to accept the hypothesis of a conspiracy that is at once supremely clever and subtle (so that only the authors are clever enough to uncover hints of it) while at the same time stupid enough to leave evidence behind that (as in the case of the autopsy x-rays, as described by David W. Mantik, Ph.D., who established that his young daughter could do so) a five-year old could spot it.
I admit it; it's possible. But I find it easier to believe that the trail of evidence was corrupted by incompetent handling at all points than to believe in a massive, incredibly clever, incredibly stupid, un-subtle and bungling conspiracy which has nonetheless managed to keep at least an official lid on the truth for 40+ years.