Assassinations Books

I am the author of this book. There is not a single conspiracy theory in it. It is meticulously researched and heavily footnoted.

It is actually the case that after a serious of botched assassinations, the KGB were well out of the business by 1980. Don't just take my word for it. It is a matter of historical record. This is also the view of Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University, England, who has written extensively on the subject and is the world authority in this area.

Your anonymous reviewer cites the case of the attempted assassination of the Pope. The facts are these: after a lengthy trial, the accused (who were Bulgarians not Russians) were all acquited as there was no evidence against them. I produced a TV show when we asked Clare Sterling what evidence she had against them. She admitted - on camera - that it was just a "hypothesis", which sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. There is a ton of evidence that she was a CIA propagandist. She is obviously a bit of a heroine to your reviewer but she is a genuine conspiracy theorist. When asked what had happened after they were acquitted, she replied that the very absence of evidence proved that the Russians had done it!

I then detail how the KGB got back in to the business, assassinating Dudayev, the Chechyn leader. So much for political bias!

As a matter of record, I do not implicate the CIA in the assassination of JFK. I make the point that he was a serious advocate of the use of assassination in foreign policy, that this is highly contagious and that the Agency was just one of a long line of people accused. I also make the point that though they plotted to kill him, it does not mean they actually did it.

As for Kennedy/Lumumba, the context here is the use of the word "removal" for assassination. The point is that the Kennedy brothers used it and that it was in widespread use in Washington in the two years before Kennedy became President. I might add that it is also clear from the Church Committee Report, which investigated this, that Kennedy was speaking to the CIA telling them to set up an assassination capability long before he formally took office. A meeting took place at Agency headquarters a week after his Inauguration Speech to establish an "executive action" capability. It was the third meeting of this informal committee.

As for his point about the use of the phrase Soviet Union. Well I could have used the correct title of Commonwealth of Independent States, but quite frankly I don't think many people would know what I was talking about. Calling them Russians is not accurate either. Similarly, I use the title MI6 for the British Intelligence Service even though their correct name is SIS. There are times when understanding is more important.

This author, Richard Belfield, stepped on a few toes with this book, and as is always the case, an ostrich will cry out when someone tries to pull his/her head out of the sand.

Official documents from the U.S. government, formerly classified as Top Secret and Eyes Only for the President, were recently declassified, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (http://foia.fbi.gov/). These documents indicate that between October 1960 and April 1961, in Cuba alone, the CIA introduced 75 tons of explosives in 30 secret aerial missions, and 45 tons of weapons and explosives in 31 Marine infiltrations. These materials were used to perpetrate 310 attacks with bombs, derail 6 trains, and set fire to 150 factories and 800 plantations. Between 1959 and 2003, more than 800 terrorist attacks were performed, including 78 bombings against civil populations and 61 airplanes hijacked. (Now you know why the U.S. government was not too keen on putting air marshals on planes. They would have been killing our own CIA agents.) These documents also linked CIA agent and Cuban exile, Luis Posada Carriles, with many terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed 73 people. As for biological aggressions, the African Swine Fever Virus was introduced, forcing the sacrifice of half a million pigs. During the "Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations", the dengue hemorrhagic fever was introduced, affecting about 344,203 persons, with the record case of 11,400 who fell ill in a single day-July 6, 1981.

I don't know why I expected more from this book, but it's really not much more than a rehash of existing conspiracy theories. I had hoped he might try to pull together the common threads of all 20th century political murders, and perhaps develop a theoretical approach to the issue of assassination, but he doesn't really do this. He is much more interested in making sensational claims for which there is little evidence.

I was quite amused by the author's one-sided view of the assassination business. In his view, the Soviets tried to pull some incompetent assassinations in the 1950s, but then they pretty much got out of the assassination business after that. He ridicules Claire Sterling's theory that the Soviets were behind international terrorism and assassinations in the 1970s and 1980s (according to him, she was a "CIA propagandist" who fed the world "a steady diet of Cold War nonsense of plots and conspiracies"). But when it comes to American, British, and Israeli assassination plots, his standard of evidence is very different indeed. No dismissive talk of nonsense conspiracy theories there, no sir. In fact, he bends over backwards to connect the CIA or MI5 to every possible political murder and assassination attempt, including Sadat, Princess Diana, Pope John Paul II, the bombing of the La Belle disco, police constable Yvonne Fletcher, Mountbatten, plus of course the usual "biggies" (JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr). So, the author has never met a CIA conspiracy theory he doesn't like, but the Soviets, Cubans, and other left-wing regimes are more or less completely blameless. Get the picture?

It's very difficult to share the author's outrage that the Special Air Service killed some IRA terrorists in Gibraltar in 1988. He spins a theory that MI5 somehow set up the SAS to do the deed... but who cares? The IRA guys might not have been holding guns at the time they were shot, but they were dirty and they deserved what they got. Similarly, I can't share the author's indignation that the US is in the "public assassination business" because it targets al Qaeda leaders with Hellfire missiles. Nor can I agree with the author that this makes the US morally equivalent to the people it is trying to kill.

The book is readable enough, but contains a number of egregious errors that an editor with some historical knowledge should have caught. For example, he talks about the Kennedy brothers "continually kicking" the intelligence community to kill Patrice Lumumba - but Lumumba was killed before JFK took office. He repeatedly refers to Russia in the 1990s as "the Soviet Union". Problems of this sort raise questions about the author's real understanding of his subject.

I thought that the sections on RFK and JFK would be a good read for the novice reader. There is little new evidence, but Smith covers the main issues in a readable way, without the difficulty of proving each assertion (as they have been proven by previous authors).

However, the chapters covering Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick were disjointed at best. Smith offers no theory of what happened to Mary Jo, and it is difficult to understand the movements of all the players.

The section on Tippit's murder was interesting, but it is difficult to understand that "they" would send someone unreliable to drive Oswald to the airport, but at the same time have a gunman ready to kill Tippit if he didnt follow the script. Why not find a reliable driver instead?

Those two portions of the book make me suspect of the Marilyn Monroe information. I am not as familiar with the circumstances of her death, and Smith's telling is not convincing.

My conclusion is that there is too much speculation.

A sample of Smith's errors:

*He names Robert McNamara's successor as Secretary of Defense as `Clark Gifford' (twice) - (this is not a misprint as the name is placed in the index).McNamara's successor was, of course, Clark CLIFFORD.

*Kathleen Kennedy did not marry in Chelsea, Massachusetts, as Smith claims, but in Chelsea Registery Office in LONDON.

*Smith claims Ethel Kennedy's sister-in-law, Pat Skakel, choked to death at a celebration for RFK's California victory in June 1968 - in fact she died on May 19, 1967.

*Smith states that Sirhan bought his De Soto car a few days before the assassination - incorrect! Sirhan was in possession of the vehicle when he worked at a Corona ranch in 1966.

*Smith implies that the $400 found on Sirhan when he was arrested was `suspicious'. But he fails to inform his readers that Sirhan came into quite a lot of money through an insurance settlement for an injury he received whilst training as a jockey.

Hopefully, Smith will now see his accusations of incompetence against the LAPD and Government investigators in a different light now that his own mistakes have been exposed.
His publisher presents Smith as one of the world's `leading experts on the JFK and RFK assassinations' - heady claims considering the above errors and the fact that Smith said (In `The Men Who Killed Marilyn') that RFK won the 1968 Democratic nomination for the presidency! Heaven save us from books written by authors with only a `smattering' of knowledge about the assassinations!
It is quite evident that Citadel Press no longer employs `fact-checkers', otherwise this book would never have seen the light of day.

President Kennedy murdered. Ted Kennedy in serious plane crash that killed others an almost killed him. Robert Kennedy murdered. Ted Kennedy's presidential ambitions destroyed when a dead woman is found in his car. President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy almost destroyed when carefully planned events make it look like they were involved. Coincidence? Uh, no. Kennedy curse? Uh, no. Ruthless CIA who hate the Kennedy's peace-mongering ways? Yeah. Peace doesn't make Brown and Root rich. So the peace loving Kennedy men have been systematically slaughtered. And at least two women have been murdered in attempts to frame them.

This book describes how the CIA has hunted and destroyed the Kennedy men for years, how they took over the US gov't in the bloody 1963 coup and we never got it back.

One of the few books to show patterns and context and draw the obvious logical conclusions.

Oh, and look at the review history of some people who slam this book, and an agenda becomes obvious. This book is highly recommended to anyone who is partial to the truth.

I found out upon receiving this book that it was 100 conspiracies summarized in around 314 pages. How can one explain 100 conspiracies in 314 pages? Poorly.

There are several glaring problems with this book. First, the conspiracies are ranked in order of magnitude and boldness. Jeffers opens the book with the conspiracy to drive man out of the Garden of Eden and the second chapter is the conspiracy to kill Christ. In the second chapter I was uncertain if he was arguing about those who conspired against Christ or the allegations that the crucifixion was staged by somebody claiming to be the Son of God. The rest of the book looked like he just threw a bunch of conspiracies in a jar and picked them at random.

Second, I would hardly classify many of the conspiracies as true conspiracies. It is true that Lenin did not operate alone in making the Bolshevic Revolution happen but I would hardly call that event a conspiracy even if it did do harm to many people. If that was a conspiracy then would not the Nazi rise to power also be a conspiracy? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the result of very sound military planning -- not a bunch of Japanese war lords conspiring to attach the US. If that was a conspiracy then would not Allied plans for D-Day have been a conspiracy as well? Or the dropping of the Atomic Bomb?

Third, these short summaries read like short book reports. Looking at the references Jeffers used one source per conspiracy. Somehow I would think there may be many more sources than one to detail these conspiracies.

Finally, as a amateur history buff I know enough about some of these "conspiracies" to know that his info was not only incomplete but also incorrect. For example, the Nazis were guilty of many crimes. However, he treated the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 as a definite Nazi act. To my knowledge, this was never proven and most historians believe it was the act of a Communist. The Nazis certainly took advantage of this act of arson to tighten their grip on Germany but it is speculative to treat his position as fact. This and other instances in the book that I know were incorrect makes me doubt the correctness of many of the "conspiracies" of which I know little or nothing.

I feel like a victim of a conspiracy. Jeffers, the editors, publishers, vendors, and whoever else was responsible for putting this book out conspired to make a quick buck.

Mr. Jeffers has written a fascinating book that captures 100 conspiracies stretching from the beginning of time (Adam & Eve) all the way up to more recent ones (Enron, the snipers in DC, etc.) Each encapsulated vignette is highly readable and gives details of the background of each conspiracy, not too much, but enough to whet your appetite to investigate the story further.

Although Jeffers political viewpoint edges his way into the mix (he's obviously a conservative, given his preclusion to disparage Communists, but to either tone down or even dismiss anything that might reflect badly on conservatives and Repubicans), but this does not generally detract from the overall stories much.

It doesn't cover every thing, of course, or the volume would most likely be unmanageable to even pick up, much less read. The author doesn't spend much time with the more esoteric theories that abound among the counterculture (only one piece deals with aliens ["Aliens Among Us"]). given this, its probably not the ideal book for the conspiracy theorists, but for just general knowledge it is worth the price.

Because I have an academic background in history, and because I worked in a library in Dallas during all the years following the Kennedy assassination when authors came to us to research their books about it, I have a longstanding interest in "conspiracy history." I'm not necessarily a "believer" in any sense, but I'm fascinated by the ins and outs of conspiracy theory and people's attitudes toward it. I picked up this survey volume (a hundred conspiracies in 314 pages, beginning with Adam and Eve) out of curiosity, but was considerably disappointed at what the author has done with his material. First, he includes a great many events and incidents which are "conspiracies" only by the narrowest legal definition (and a modern U.S. definition at that). This includes famous murders (Leopold and Loeb, the Manson family, the Menendez brothers) and broad political movements (including, believe it or not, the entire history of communism). Second, though claiming to give equal coverage to all those involved, like the good journalist he purports to be, he makes it clear that, for instance, anyone who has ever spied on the U.S. on behalf of another country (beginning with Major Andre) is evil, while the entire OSS and CIA are heroic. The overthrow and murder by the CIA of Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran -- which led directly to the Shah's repressive policies and the formation of the Islamic state -- was completely justified. The Watergate conspiracy was overblown. Oliver North was justified in breaking the law and lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra affair because he was anti-communist. Cuba was better off under Bastista. And on and on, including the clear presumption that Christians are superior to adherents of any other religion. The author also indulges in ludicrous statements, such as assuring the reader that Saddam really did have weapons of mass destruction. Finally, he omits a number of real conspiracies that obviously should have been included, such as the great water scam in L.A. during the 1930s, secret U.S. government experimentation on members of the military, Hoover's attempts to smear Martin Luther King, CIA efforts to assassinate Castro (mentioned offhandedly and with approval in a single sentence), and the entire unconstitutional COINTELPRO operation. This book is so slanted, you'll have trouble getting it to stand upright on the shelf.

WHAT?!!!

I have read the reviews on this book and, frankly, I don't get it. If you go to other sites, you will read glowing reports about this book. This is a wonderful book and should be read, in my opinion.

Whenever I read reviews like the two (as of this writing) that are on this site, I have to ask myself ... "are these people part of the disinformation group?". (And, by the way, just because you don't like a book does not mean that you should give away the plot.)

You see, in spite of the reviews, there is a very good chance that Pope John Paul I WAS murdered. Some investigation outside of this novel would have helped the other reviewers understand this.

A novel can be great in several ways. One is that the words flow so well together that reading is effortless. Another is that it provides the reader with knowledge that the reader did not have in the past. For me, I could not put the book down, and I gained a great deal of knowledge.

I am not Roman Catholic, but I find the Church and its history very interesting. What the book actually got me to do was to get on the Internet and figure out the difference between Pope John Paul I and Pope Paul VI. In my mind, I thought Pope Paul VI was Pope John Paul I. For some reason, I always considered Pope Paul VI to be a frail man, and so when he died, I simply figured it was his health. But, when I did my Internet study and realized who Pope John Paul I was, I then realized my mistake and also understood that this man should not have died one month into his service as Pope. THIS book caused me to make the effort to learn about Pope John Paul I.

Do yourself a favor and ignore me, ignore the other reviewers, and read the book to make your own decision. But, so you'll know, I have just put in an order at Amazon to buy The Last Pope for each member of my book club as a gift. Perhaps that will say something to you as well.

For me, there needs to be an investigation into the death of Pope John Paul I, who appears to have tried to emphasize love instead of doctrine and was murdered for his efforts. Many thanks to the author for bringing this knowledge to me in the form of a fast-paced novel.

In 1978 with the death of the Pope, the College of Cardinals meets in the Vatican to elect his successor. The Cardinals are divided into two extreme camps between traditionalist Cardinal Agosto Mancini and change agent Cardinal Ignatius Heriot. Thus an unacceptable comprise Cardinal Don Albino Luciani is chosen to sit as John Paul I on the papal throne. He makes clear his intention is to clean up and out the House of God everywhere; a little over a month later, he dies with rumors he was murdered for his ethical cleansing campaign especially to end church-mob ties. A second College of Cardinals session elects Karol Józef Wojtya of Poland as Pope John Paul II.

Three decades later London journalist Sarah Monteiro receives a letter that insists Pope John Paul I was murdered and the attempts to kill his successor were from the same conspiratorial group who also killed Sweden's Prime Minister Olof Palme. However, Sarah assumes this is a hoax worth checking into, but soon believes the accusations are true when several attempts to assassinate her occur. Due to the grace of God she lives, but fears her days are numbered in single digits.

Conspiracy fans will relish the constant power struggle within the highest levels of the Catholic Church. Luis Miguel Rocha builds his exciting story line upon the underlying premise that Pope John Paul I was murdered. The look back to behind the scenes shenanigans by the competing Cardinals in 1978 is fascinating whether one accepts Mr. Rocha's assertion or not. The present scenario with Sarah on the run is more action-packed, but not quite as interesting as three decades ago is. Still thriller fans will enjoy THE LAST POPE wondering how acrimonious poisoning politics even enter the selection of who will wear The Shoes of the Fisherman (by Morris West).

Harriet Klausner

I am not certain how much the translation from Portuguese to English effected this book, but I hope that that is the reason for it's near unreadability. The telling of the story in both it's prose and plot structure is herky jerky, and difficult to follow. The authors voice is really weak in the telling of an interesting story. A lot of the plot devices are recycled from other much better fiction novels based on psuedo-facts. Seriously the first 80 pages where the inconsistent lead character, sometimes incredibly brave-sometimes pathetically panicky, could be removed and you'd only miss out on tired attempts at tension and suspense for their own sake. This book feels like a short story about the Pope's murder (which is it's only interesting mark as a novel) wrapped around a really bad attempt at action, intrigue, and suspense.

I'm gonna save you 300 pages of reading. The uninteresting bad guy, kills the idealistic pope. The rest is just bad story development and twists and turns without reason.

The Last Pope is a Da Vinci Code wannabe. It begins with a lie: the title. Albino Luciani, known as John Paul I, was not the last pope. He died in 1978, the year of three popes, on his thirty-third day as His Holiness. Luis Miguel Rocha contends that John Paul I was murdered because he planned to radically change the Catholic Church by allowing birth control and women priests as well as condoning married clergy and homosexuality. More important to certain corrupt cardinals and bishops, the pope planned to rid the Vatican of those who made private fortunes working with criminals and funding political upheavals with the CIA and MI6. Such a good man had to go. Thirty years later a young female journalist receives documents and a key that will expose the murder and coverup. Chased by the CIA, the Vatican and Italian crime lords, she manages to outwit them all by simplistic methods that confirms that this is work of fiction hoping to be made into a film starring Salma Hayek. But if you thought The Da Vinci Code was wonderful, and obviously many did, you will enjoy this novel, which at least is better written. And shorter.

This 1965 book has no table of contents or an index. It is like a magazine article. Jean Stafford visited Mrs. Marguerite Oswald to talk about the arrest and murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. Can anyone figure out the influences on a person from one parent (p.5)? Mrs. Oswald spends her time investigating the crime. She wants the truth about her son but doubts he was the assassin (p.6). Stafford has some strange quotes from her conversations (p.12). Mrs. Oswald must mean "Addison's Disease" (p.13). She seems to have an optimistic outlook (p.15). [Is this the result of much pressure?] Stafford seems to mock Mrs. Oswald, who seems like an ordinary person whose speech is often inadequate to what they want to say (p.22). They mean well. She did the best she could as a mother even when money was tight (as it often was).

Stafford seems puzzled by the frequent changes of address. For those who did not own a car a change in a job usually meant moving to a new address (p.27). Or for new neighbors. [More research needed here?] Was Lee being trained as an agent since age 16 (pp.32-33)? Stafford did not see the tree that was there on 11/22/63 (p.42). Marguerite appears to be very lonely (p.73). She also comments on the Warren Report (pp.87-89). Was Mrs. Oswald suffering from traumatic stress?

Appendix I discusses the altered picture of Lee Oswald with his guns. Stafford seems naive in asking why any person could contradict the Warren Report! Peoples' knowledge and common sense causes this. Did Stafford truly believe the NY subway was then "the least agreeable means of transportation in the world" (p.119)? Stafford's question is absurd (Appendix III). Appendix IV tells how the rarity of an object creates value and wealth for its owner. There were plenty of other examples if Stafford cared to search for them. This book is only useful for its interview. I wonder what was left out from the three days of interviews?

After four decades the question of Oswald as the lone assassin has been answered in the court of public opinion. Oswald was never convicted or even indicted. He was arrested as a suspect and then released. We all know this.

Tragic, chilling and funny, Jean Stafford's book about her 3 day visit with Lee Harvey Oswald is a must read. The appalling and scary Mrs. Oswald is proof of her son's insanity. While some moral relativists have accused Mrs. Stafford of having a point of view in her approach to Mrs. Oswald, I might suggest that there is no point of view necessary. Mrs. Oswald was demented, and so was her son. What contrary point of view is needed? That Mrs. Oswald was a good mother? Please. Her son killed a president. End of story.

I was very disappointed with this book. It could have been a very interesting story - Lee Harvey Oswald's mother's point of view. However, it was written not too long after President Kennedy was assassinated (1965), and Ms. Stafford obviously still had those events fresh in her mind when she interviewed Mrs. Oswald. Ms. Stafford's opinions of Mrs. Oswald were biased and she failed to allow Mrs. Oswald's point of view to come through. She refused to let the reader have his or her opinion of Mrs. Oswald. This was a total failure, since we may have been able to possibly understand (even a fraction) another side of Lee Harvey Oswald. As far as history is concerned, everyone has a right to his or her side of the story.

376 pages of convolution, an endless parade of characters, plot twists galore - and not very satisfying.

An obnoxious young American woman comes to London to peddle the alleged memoirs of a former British spy. The publisher she is to meet with is murdered by a pair of nasties. Soon enough we are involved with the inner workings of several British police and intelligence agencies, a bunch of terrorists, a turncoat Brit nursing a grudge and the CIA. There is the grizzled old pro, Peter Ashton; the beleaguered director; the wannabes and perky analyst working her way up the ladder.

Not an awful read, but definitely pedestrian. The characters despite the earnest efforts of the author never take on any depth. The plot twists and turns, but not in a way that excites. No sitting on the edge of your seat here. The final scenes are hideously contrived and unbelievable.

In all, an un-thrilling thriller.

Jerry

As is en vogue these days this book is built around a fictional terrorist attack. Mr. Egleton while adroit at building layers of characters and keeping the reader alert was not as accomplished at coming up with a believable story line.

While everyone understands that terrorism is deplorable Mr. Egleton says nothing about motive or rationale for the act of terrorism that the story is built around. He seems to leave it to the reader to understand that terrorist are insane and lack the ability to come up with rational interesting enough for us to want to investigate. And while this may be true it left the villains faceless. In a book like the one Mr. Egleton set out to write the description between the good team and the bad team needs to be balanced so that affinity can be developed for the heroes and hatred or dread can be developed for the enemy. Without this balance the story lacks momentum. We all hate terrorism and terrorists in general but Mr. Egleton gives us no basis for hating these specific terrorist aside from superficial references to their nationality.

One objective, if indeed it was his objective, that Mr. Egleton succeeds at is bringing in a truck load of characters and there by illustrating to the reader that it takes a legion of committed individuals to combat terrorism in the modern world. While this is something positive I will take away from the book the onslaught of characters added to the plodding of the plot and in the end detracted from the reading experience.

Good, but ULTIMATE SACRIFICE the best book ever
While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination.Still, worth your time.

Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
Pittsburgh, PA

Vincent J. Salandria's "False Mystery" attempts to shed light on a supposed conspiracy in connection with the 1963 assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy.

But right from the very first few pages, mistakes in facts and questionable interpretation of evidence begin to pop out at the reader.

For example, on pages 2 and 3, the wounding of bystander James Tague is briefly discussed, and it is noted that the mark that was left by a bullet on the curb on Main Street near Tague's location lacked any copper substance. Which leads the author to infer that the bullet causing that mark could not have come from the copper-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition used by Lee Harvey Oswald.

But the author fails to consider the very real possibility that the bullet's jacket might have become separated from its lead core before striking the curbstone (as a result of possibly hitting the oak tree in front of the Depository, or as a result of the bullet first having gone through the head of John Kennedy prior to reaching Tague's position near Main Street).

Then there's the usual pro-conspiracy nonsense about how the Single-Bullet Theory is all wrong and how it couldn't have happened that way -- which is an anti-SBT position that couldn't be more incorrect. The SBT is most certainly the most logical and sound explanation for the simultaneous wounding of victims JFK and Governor John Connally.

A huge error re. the SBT presents itself on page 5 of "False Mystery":

"The Governor's body did not react immediately after the President's body reacted. Therefore, he was not hit by the same bullet that hit the President."

The above passage is completely inaccurate, and provably so just by simply examining the very same Zapruder Film that Mr. Salandria claims proves just the opposite.

Connally's body is "reacting" (involuntarily) to the bullet strike at the EXACT same time as Kennedy (at approximately Z224-Z230 on the famous Abraham Zapruder home movie).

In fact, since JFK isn't fully visible after emerging from behind the road sign in the Zapruder Film until Z225, Connally can actually be said to be reacting BEFORE Kennedy, at Z224.

At Z224, a very important involuntary reaction is visible in Connally -- his right shoulder drops and pitches forward slightly, indicating the transfer of momentum from the impacting 6.5mm bullet that has just travelled through his back and chest. Watch for that shoulder movement here.....

216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6640.gif

Also at exactly Z224, the right lapel on Connally's suit jacket "bulges" out (or "flips" up) toward the middle of his chest. This jacket movement, too, is something that's probably indicating the passage of the bullet through his right chest at precisely that point in time.

At Z225, Connally's facial expression changes, as a startled look appears on his face and his mouth opens suddenly (it had been closed at Z224, which is more-than-likely the precise Z-Frame when the "SBT" bullet struck both JFK and JBC).

Then, starting at Z226, another important (and obviously involuntary) physical movement on the part of Governor Connally occurs -- his right hand, gripping his Stetson cowboy hat, rises and drops again extremely quickly (in just the span of a mere eight or nine Zapruder frames). This "hat/arm flip" is telling us that his right wrist has just been smacked by the speeding bullet from Lee Oswald's Carcano rifle.

These "involuntary" signs of Connally being hit at just precisely the same time when Kennedy is also initially showing signs of distress are solid indications that the Single-Bullet Theory should more appropriately reside in the category reserved for "facts", rather than mere "theories".

The newer, better-quality, digitally-enhanced versions of the Zapruder Film have given us a chance to "tighten" the SBT timeline, and to hone in with more accuracy on exactly when the SBT bullet struck the victims. However, most of these "signs" re. Connally's movements have pretty much been visible for years (even prior to the MPI Home Video digital enhancements in 1998); but for some reason nobody seemed to want to interpret these things as indications of a bullet strike with respect to Governor Connally.

Below are a couple more examples of the SBT in action (via looped Z-Film clips). The top clip, in super slow-motion, gives an excellent view of Connally having just been struck by the bullet. Note the obvious "strained" grimace that comes over his face at what equates to Z225 of the Zapruder Film. This "grimace", along with the shoulder movement and the hat flip, IMO, are absolute proof that Mr. Connally has been pierced by a bullet just a few milliseconds prior to those occurrences.

The bottom clip shows another snippet of the Z-Film at the important "SBT" point of the movie. In my view, any person who watches that clip a few times consecutively will have no choice but to come to the realization that the two men in the car were reacting to a bullet striking them at just about exactly the same moment in time. Please take note of JFK's hands/arms at the time he becomes visible from behind the sign. He hasn't even STARTED to move those arms upward toward his neck when we first see him after the road-sign interference has been removed from view.

And yet many conspiracy theorists want to believe that JFK was actually hit many Z-Frames prior to Z224. But if that was so, why on Earth are Kennedy's arms near his lap at Z225? Doesn't add up. But it DOES add up if he had just been hit at Z224, and then started lifting his arms within two Z-Frames of 224......

216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/7731.gif

users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

-----------------

Here's one more top-notch video extract from the Zapruder Film at the time of the SBT bullet strike:

216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3086.jpg

-----------------

An additional interpretive "SBT" error resides on page 5 of this volume:

"The Governor's body did not register any lurch when the first bullet struck the President."

This is definitely an inaccurate statement of the facts (unless Mr. Salandria is contending here that JFK was first hit much earlier, around Z210; but in such a case, neither JFK nor John Connally is visible on the Z-Film; therefore no visual evaluation of Connally's physical movements can be ascertained at the exact moment that JFK is first struck anyway).

As stated above (and visually demonstrated via that excellent slo-mo Z-Film video clip), Connally is most certainly exhibiting what could be described as a "lurch" immediately after Z-Frame 223, with his shoulder being visibly driven downward and forward. And if the impact of a bullet didn't cause this bodily movement at that time, then the question to ask would be -- what did?

Another error -- On page 6, this false statement is made: "A separate shot removed the back of the President's head".

That quoted passage was written to represent what the Warren Commission had stated in its Final Report in 1964. But that quoted passage is wrong. The WC never said any such thing. The last shot from Oswald's rifle entered the back of JFK's head....it didn't "remove" the back of his head. The exit wound on the President's head was to the front-right side. The official autopsy report, signed by three doctors, definitively stated that fact; and the Warren Report says the same thing. Why this publication says otherwise is yet another "False Mystery" it would seem.

Mr. Salandria's earwitness selectivity, used to attempt to buttress the idea that shots came from the Grassy Knoll area of Dealey Plaza during the JFK shooting, is rather interesting, somewhat strange, and not very convincing. By utilizing, on page 2 of this publication, the selective testimony of only the witnesses who were located on the bridge atop the Triple Underpass (plus Lee Bowers in the railroad tower to the north of the bridge, who said the shots could have come from "either the Depository or the Underpass", which certainly doesn't FAVOR a Knoll shooter any more than a Depository sniper), Mr. Salandria has (IMO) actually bolstered the "Lone Assassin" position.

The reason I say that is -- Because the cited witnesses (Austin Miller, S.M. Holland, Thomas Murphy, and Frank Reilly) seemed to hear shots from ONLY the Knoll general area, although Reilly is actually closer to a "TSBD" witness than he is a "Knoll" one. And since there is no doubt at all that at least SOME shots did come from the Book Depository, it would tend to undercut and weaken these witness' claims of hearing the gunshots all coming from the front of JFK's car. Which would indicate, logically, that all of these "Triple Underpass witnesses" were located in an area of Dealey Plaza where the Depository shots sounded as if they had come from further west than they actually originated.

Witness Austin Miller, by the way, said he thought the shots had actually come from INSIDE the President's limousine itself! And yet he is still used to try and improve Mr. Salandria's theory of shots from the Knoll area, when he actually heard none from that specific location. Curious. (Although it's possible that the author was using Miller as a "pro-conspiracy" witness based only on another portion of his account of the shooting, when Miller also claimed to see "smoke or steam" on the Knoll following the shots that he thought came "from right there in the car". But this book's author doesn't mention that portion of Miller's account at all on page 2.)

Another way in which most of those Underpass witnesses do no harm at all to the Lone-Shooter scenario is due to the fact that most of them heard three shots precisely -- the exact number Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have fired from the Book Depository (with one witness in this batch hearing only two shots). Only Holland, among these examples, heard more than three shots (he said he heard four).

So, within just the first few pages alone, this book is replete with questioned items of concern that can easily be interpreted in non-conspiratorial ways. And the hard, verifiable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE associated with JFK's murder (and policeman J.D. Tippit's as well) on November 22, 1963, shall never be able to be turned into "conspiracy" -- because all of it is screaming "Oswald's Guilty!". Every gun, every bullet, every bullet fragment, every bullet shell, and every fingerprint. It's all Oswald's.

I, however, agree with one thing (sort of) in this book -- the title. The "Mystery" surrounding this murder case is, indeed, a "False" one. For, there is no "Mystery" at all, IMO. One killer named Lee H. Oswald fired three shots from his place of employment and killed the President. No mystery there. And the physical evidence fully bears out that one-killer conclusion. "False Mystery" seems to me to be an odd title for a pro-conspiracy volume.

-----------------

For those interested in studying the Zapruder Film further, below are two additional outstanding video clips from the Z-Film. The first one is an amazingly-clear and "stabilized" version of the whole assassination sequence. The "motion blur" from Mr. Zapruder's panning of the camera has been completely removed here, providing a rare and outstanding "non-jittery" view of the event. Watch, once again, for JFK's and Connally's simultaneous reactions to being first hit by the gunfire, just after they come out from behind the freeway sign:

jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov


The following Z-Film clip is a super-slo-mo clip of just the Z-Frames surrounding the JFK head shot. The creator of this excellent film snippet has seamlessly merged frame 312 into frame 313, showing the obvious FORWARD movement of JFK's head between those two critical Z-Frames. Also note the spatter of blood, which all goes FORWARD, indicating (without doubt IMO) that the projectile which caused that spatter came from BEHIND the President, and not from in front of him:

jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif

-----------------

"The Single-Bullet Theory -- An LNer's Common-Sense Approach To It":

jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318

This is short enough for those who don't feel like reading a 200+ page novel. From the reviews I've gotten from people in person, everyone has enjoyed it so far. Please give this a chance, read it, and then please post a review, good or bad, because I appreciate the feedback.

I applaud the author for this piece, but unfortunately this fails to meet the grade. He combines themes and ideas from Star Trek and Back to the Future along with some originality. The writing ranges from interesting to downright boring. I felt as though I was reading something written by 2 people combined into one. Too little time is spent on what would be interesting parts. The ending completely falls apart. I skimmed the ending in shear frustration.
Need to expand the idea,more time in the past with the events. Get rid of the "Star Trek" terminology.The idea of slingshot around the sun is trite. The ending needs to be far more interesting.It completely falls apart- obviously rushed to complete the tale. A more subtle finish with a better twist. I'd rather a longer book than this. And while you spent a lot of time on this (wordplay here) I am not happy I spent 7.20. That is a price of a real book....

Ten-Thirty-Three is an interesting story. However, without a detailed indication of the author's sources and how he checked and verified the information, it remains just a story, rather then the fact it purports to be. Written in the novel style apparent in Dead Men Walking (the similarities with which suggest it was ghosted by Nicholas Davies), Ten-Thirty-Three puts, often facile, words in the mouths of the characters without any way of knowing whether they are recollections, supposition or merely fantasy. The brief author's introductory note states that the sources were former members of the security services. No details are, however, of the High Court injunction brought against its publication, nor of any other sources used. The lack of an index compounds the feeling that there is little verifiable in the material.

Apparent discrepancies are common. For example, we are not given any explanation why a UVF man was involved in a UDA attack. Similarly although the murder of Ian Catney was claimed by the UVF, the author goes on to say other murders were planned by the UDA and Brian Nelson, as if the two were the same. Unsubstantiated comments abound such as "there could only have been one reason why McKee was murdered and that was because he was a Catholic", when presumably there could be many reasons, although none are discussed or discounted. The key most controversial assertion that Margaret Thatcher was completely aware of and sanctioned organised, regular State murders is based on the "fact" that there was a reporting line of committees to one she chaired. This is unconvincing and insufficient for such an important and crucial claim. In the end, this book, while interesting, and showing some flashes of insight, can only be viewed a good story without much more detail and evidence. As such it compares very badly with the meticulous work of authors such as Martin Dillon and Peter Taylor.

While it is still possible that any or all of the assertions in the book could be true, what is certain is that it offers little or nothing in the way of proof, or even convincing argument that this is the case. Conclusion: case not proven, file under fiction.

Again, this is like Sean McPhilemy's "The Committee". It is interesting as it reveals collusion between the Loyalist paramilitaries of Northern Ireland and the British security forces only this time though, its the Military Intelligence unit Force Research Unit (FRU)and not the RUC. It doesn't reveal too much, relying on a narrative account conversations between Brian Nelson and his handlers. It does, though, reveal facts which are convincing. More books should be published like this. It details how the FRU gave Nelson, the UDAs chief intelligence officer, information on targets he and his organisation sought, usually resulting in the death of the intended victim. There is also an interesting chapter of how the British saved Gerry Adam's life twice in 1987. Its worth the cash.

This novel is like "Cardinal of the Kremlin" a character based novel, and this one is based off an actual event. John Ryan and the Foley's have to stop an assassination by the Russians.

The Foley's move to Russia and Jack is starting his career in the CIA. Clancy is introducing his main characters all over again and showing how they got started and how the Foley's got to Russia, when we meet them again in Cardina, as main characters.

Even though this is a Ryan Novel, this as well as Cardinal, should be Foley's novel. They are the real main characters and the events surround them more than they do Jack Ryan. I think Clancy tried to hard to insert Ryan into both novels. That aside, the two novels are Clancy's best character driven novels.

This is one of the earlier books in the Jack Ryan enterprise. It starts off pretty slow and does not really take off like many of the others. Jack and Cathy Ryan have just moved to London with Sally and Jack Jr. The Foleys, Ed, Pat and Little Ed, have just started in Moscow. The Russians are crazy as ever and want to kill the Pope. A Russian communications expert gets a case of morals and wants to try and save the Pope. I should not say much more, or I will ruin the best part. I have read many Clancy's and this would not be in my top 5 but it does put a few things together so I am glad that I read it. I guess I would give it a C+.

It is a shame no stars is not an option for rating. It would appear Clancy was attempting to write the screenplay of another Jack Ryan movie with this work.

With the high tension that was rampant between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during this time period, there was plenty of background to place many of the characters from his other books. And I had to laugh at Clancy's buildup of Ed Foley and the New York Times reporter, yet there was no further mention of this later in Foley's career. The NYT would have never lived down a sleeper CIA agent on their reporter staff.

Instead, we get a plodding story that is lacking virtually everything Clancy had become well known for.

...and it only gets worse with the TEETH OF THE TIGER.

The Ryan saga goes back in time. Clancy as usual gets long winded and seems to gt tired of the story by delivering a sub par ending. Overall a bit disappointing.

Jack Ryan's evolution has followed that of the author. In the earlier books Jack Ryan was a well intentioned, if reluctant, hero who had a simple rubric for determining right from wrong. As Tom Clancy has "evolved" from a fiction writer to a "personality" we have seen Jack Ryan go from a simple CIA analyst to President of the free world. Along the way he became a foul mouthed, boorish individual who bases his decisions on Catholic doctrine and conservative dogma. I guess this is what happens when the author thinks people actually care what he thinks. This reader doesn't.

The saddest thing about this book is the depiction of Cathy Ryan. She once was depicted as a classy lady. Now she is a nasty individual who would easy (and fairly) characterized by the use of the "b" or "c" word. The only good thing about the book is her character disappeared half way through. It was one half too many.

My days of feeding Clancy's ego are over. He can get rich off other people who think what he says is important. He should take some lessons from John Grisham and build baseball fields in needy communities. And most importantly, keep his opinions to himself.