On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 1:46:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I was checking on the status of an Amazon order I made few days ago and I came across a book titles The JFK Assassination Evidence Handbook written
by Mike Davis and published in 2018.
Here is the synopsis:
The JFK Assassination Evidence Handbook brings to light a wealth of evidence that the Warren Commission swept under the rug when it produced the Warren Report in 1964. Drawn from the Commission's own collection of hearings and exhibits, plus thousands
of pages of unindexed documents, this evidence decisively refutes the Warren Commission's theory of Oswald as lone assassin. By applying the Commission's own evidence to the key issues of the case, supplemented by the evidence collected by subsequent
government panels, The JFK Assassination Evidence Handbook shows beyond a reasonable doubt that at least three assassins targeted President Kennedy in Dallas, that Lee Oswald was not one of the shooters, that Oswald had associations not only with U. S.
intelligence, but also with organized crime, that the Dallas police department provided false police radio transcripts to the Commission, that Officer J. D. Tippit's movements following the assassination raise the suspicion he was hunting for Oswald in
order to silence him, and that the police department's handling of the forensic evidence was so sloppy that massive falsification and substitution of evidence against Oswald cannot be ruled out. These and many other new revelations are concisely
presented and meticulously documented with numerous references to the source documents. This major addition to the assassination literature is an essential reference work and an indispensable guide for defenders of the conspiracist position. No serious
student of the Kennedy assassination can afford to be without The JFK Assassination Evidence Handbook.
Here is what one astute reviewer had to say:
3.0 out of 5 stars All questions no answers
Reviewed in the United States on January 8, 2023
Verified Purchase
I recently read this as well as several others regarding the Kennedy assignation when I heard that the CIA was still withholding documents 60 years after the event. This one is like all the others, all conjecture and no alternative theories or proof as
to who did it.
Damn that sounds familiar. Pretty much my reaction every time Gil starts a new thread.
I posted a three star review. Here's a one star review:
1.0 out of 5 stars Another work of fiction
Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2018
The author claims the evidence shows that the fatal shot came from the front.
It categorically does nothing of the sort. This kind of delusional misrepresentation of the evidence is disgraceful.
I shake my head in frustration when I read about the so called Grassy Knoll Gunman. There is zero evidence for any shots other than from the TSBD on that November day.
The notion that Oswald was not guilty is ridiculous, the evidence against him is Himalayan in proportions.
Three gunmen in Dealey Plaza...? Nonesense, approx 99% of witnesses who expressed a view on the shots stated there were either 2 or 3 shots and that they sounded like they came from the same place. Not two locations.
The rifle was seen being fired as the shots were heard, not one single person of the 600+ plus who were there claimed to see a gunman on the Knoll that day in Nov 1963. Not one.
I have over 400 books on the JFK case and probably 80% of them are pro conspiracy and most are dreadful, poorly researched and deceptive.
Ref Zapruder,
Just the usual game of truncating witness testimony, I'm afraid.
An example straight off the bat:
he 'Spectators In Dealey Plaza' segment shown in the sample quotes Zapruder's testimony up to the words, "Well, yes." It omits the subsequent words below:
Q: All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr Z: Well, yes.
Q: From the direction behind you?
Mr Z: Yes actually - I couldn't say what I thought at that moment, where they came from - after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said - yelling, "They've killed him" I assumed that they came from there because the
police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me. Q: But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr Z: No.
Zapruder 'assumed' that the shots might have come from behind him because he saw the police run in that direction - not because he heard shots being fired from there.
Mark Lane led the way with this sort of dishonesty and similar people such as this author are just keeping the lie alive.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)