Why are these ridiculous books -- and, sorry, ridiculous reviews -- being written. There was no conspiracy. Can Talbot et al. please get real? I find it amusing that Talbot, while acknowledging in part the silliness of this kind of shell game, feels it is his duty to keep stirring the pot, generating controversy where there is none so that he can justify his own kooky work. It's like watching two aslyum inmates criticizing each other's choice for Department of Defense.

Salon should be embarassed for letting this stuff through. Oh, wait, Talbot founded Salon. So I suppose he gets to use it as a mouthpiece for his foolishness?

It's always reassuring to read a letter stating "There was no conspiracy" and signed "Anonymous."

I'm not big on conspiracy theories due to many of them having very large holes in their logic or consisting of alot of circumstantial evidence. However, to deny that there was a conspiracy against Kennedy at this point is foolish. We've got film of the shooting showing the secret service agent driving the car not even looking back or to the side to see what's going on and driving slowly while Kennedy's holding his throat, Jackie's screaming in his ear, and the governor's clutching his wrist. Not to mention gun shots which everyone heard, you'd think that would be a sign to the driver to, you know, step on the gas and drive like hell, but he didn't.

There's really not a question of "if," it's a question of "who."

Before his death, Dave Powers was quoted as saying that he filmed the motorcade in Super-8 from his position in the follow-up car, and he steadfastly refused to allow anyone else to see the footage, supposedly even the FBI.

Your appraisal of this book is exactly on the money. The mafia certainly was utilized by the CIA as it had been since the Sicilian invasion, but they hardly ran the operation. Kennedy's was viewed as treasonous by the powers that be, and his sexual conduct made his character an easy target to those who were aware of it. His decision to withdraw from Viet Nam and his release of NSAM 263 was seen as a dangerous appeasment to the communists, but the final nail in his coffin was probably his back channel to the Soviets and Castro and possible where possible classified information was leaked. This was the "High Treason" argument his highly placed enemies needed. If the Joint Chiefs could come up with Operation Northwoods, they could certainly go along with a plot involving the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson.

Robert Olin

Nobody ever mentions Norman Mailer's excellent book, "Oswald's Tale," which I guess means that nobody has read it, but it's a brilliant study of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course Oswald said "I'm a patsy." He had been singing one version or another of that tune his entire life. Oswald was a stone-cold psychopathic, narcissistic, mother-hating, lying, thieving, wife-beating, cop-killer.

He never plotted anything in his life. He just acted, or reacted, on impulse. Thus, his assassination of JFK was done strictly on impulse. He found himself in the right place at the right time, and he acted. It's that simple.

No one who really knew Oswald could ever imagine him being able to enter into a conspiracy with any other person or group. He was too self-absorbed, too anti-social.

Oswald was truly a "lone" gunman in every sense of the word.

In "Oswald's Tale," Mailer presents a plausible counter-theory to the Mafia conspiracy theory. His theory is that the Mafia bosses were NOT involved in the assassination, but after it happened, they claimed responsibility in order to get in the good graces of Jimmy Hoffa, who hated the Kennedys, especially Bobby.

Right after OT was published, Mailer (characteristically) boasted that he believed that, if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, there was an 85% chance that he, Mailer (who is not any attorney), could have gotten Oswald acquitted. Perhaps. But Oswald still would have gone to prison, and eventually to the electric chair, for the murder of Officer Tippett.

Moishe, I think you've hit the nail on the head -- the interesting thing is not another Talbot fantasy, but an investigation into why these fantasises continue to dominate the culture.

I've read numerous books about the case, none of which I've found very convincing (including a skim of the Warren report). It occurred to me some time ago that the most important evidence in the case (besides the body, of course) is the car.

We've all heard that some overzealous cop washed down the car soon after the assassination, and many people take that to be proof of a conspiracy, and assume that this washing destroyed the evidence.

But here's the thing: blood doesn't wash very well. In fact, you can use bleach, soap, comet, or whatever else you like and forensic investigators will still be able to find it.

If the car were available for study, it would prove where the bullets came from, plain and simple. The spray of blood from the impact of the bullets, and the pattern it formed left an indelible and incontrovertible mark.

So where is it? Why doesn't it factor more prominently in the case?

Ask yourself, who could have gotten rid of it? Could the Mafia pull off a trick like that?

I think not.

From what I've read, it was dismantled and shipped off somewhere, and nobody knows exactly where it is right now.

Everyone talks about the magic bullet, the extra shot on the police radio, Oswald's CIA connections, etc.

The absence of the key evidence in the case is proof of a coverup. A coverup is proof of a conspiracy. QED. The only way out is to argue that the govt wasn't involved in the killing, but helped cover it up for some other reason. Plenty of authors have attempted this argument. It just doesn't work for me.

I think the issue is so complex, it's fascinating apart from the specific conclusions one reaches. It's amazing how many facts are so difficult to determine, with evidence on each side (for just one example, the acoustic evidence, which some inquiries say pinpoint the multiple gunmen, and othe inquiries say are not gunshots at all, and the 'double taping' overlap.)

A post can hardly cover much of the issue, but there are two comments I'll make.

Perhaps the single most important fact for me is ths history of how Oswald came to work at the depository, such a key part of his role in the assassination. Whether that history is consistent with a conspiracy or not is an important question. As I understand it, that history is known, and is quite innocent - and quite inconsistent with how a conspiracy would plan the assassination for a number of reasons.

That one fact is a great supporter of the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, when it's really considered, IMO.

Second, I'm intrigued by Nixon's statement on tape about the Watergate burglers that "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again" - and Haldeman's claim in his book

that Bay of Pigs, which Nixon referred to repeatedly in regards to the burglars, was a 'code phrase' for the JFK killing.

Nixon is on tape with the quotes, and Haldeman hardly has a motive to raise false speculations about Nixon and JFK's killing.