http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Mat...
James Douglass doesn't address the issue of disinformation (unreliable evidence pointing toward conspiracy) in his book, but I understand that wasn't his intent. His main goal seems to have been to establish the motive for JFK's assassination at the hands of the US national security state and military industrial complex. That motive is described in convincing detail as being Kennedy's transformation from a Cold War president to a true believer in peace who was acting on his ideals. JFK was making a principled stand against his hardline military advisors and many others in the government who didn't believe in diplomacy or peace when it came to "the threat Communism." He was conducting secret back-channel discussions with Khrushchev and Castro, trying to negotiate peace. Some in the government may have seen his actions as dangerous and even treasonous.
Along with the motive and means, Douglass outlines a clear picture of how the conspiracy was pulled off. By not getting caught up in the details or controversies over evidence, he is able to bring us back to the clarity of the case for a conspiracy executed and covered up by the CIA and other forces within the government.
I'm not an expert about all the evidence or what facts or witnesses are considered reliable, but I assume Douglass was fairly responsible with his selection. Oswald's intelligence connections are well established and the case for him being a double agent / fake defector to Russia is very convincing. The meddling of the CIA and FBI in the cover up and the setup of Oswald is clear. I am under the impression that a lot of the solid evidence isn't even disputed by anti-conspiracy crowd; they just tend to ignore it, conduct ad-hominem attacks, and pick and choose what to "debunk."
I read John McAdams dismissive review, "Unspeakably Awful," as an exercise in critical thinking:
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unsp...
I'm not that well versed in who is trustworthy in the JFK research community, but my sense is that McAdams runs a very prominent pro-Official Story website that tries to give the impression of being "definitive." The book has received glowing reviews from Gaeton Fonzi, Daniel Ellsberg, Oliver Stone, Vincent Salandria, and many others. It has a nearly 5-star rating on Amazon with 262 written reviews. So, what are McAdams' issues with the book?
Firstly, he seems to aggressively attack the idea that JFK was turning toward peace. He seems almost nasty in his refutation of the idea that Kennedy had a transformation and was actively working to get out of Vietnam and end the Cold War. He also attacks Douglass' integrity:
Self-styled activists like Douglass have a long history of being opposed to the use of military power by the United States, although they don’t seem to mind as much when military power is used by America’s adversaries. And while they employ religious rhetoric to justify and rationalize their unilateral pacifism, their worldview, ultimately, is indistinguishable from that of secular leftists like Oliver Stone (who, not surprisingly, is a big fan of Douglass’s book).
Secondly, McAdam's picks out a several pieces of evidence and dismisses them, including
Oswald's "crypto clearance" (a nitpicking point, he doesn't argue that Oswald didn't work the Atsugi base involved with flying U2 spy planes for the CIA)
The possibility of multiple "Oswald's" setting up the patsy legend
Guy Banister's CIA connections (very marginal to Douglass' case)
Ruth Paine's role in getting Oswald a job at the book depository, as well as her possible CIA connections
The idea that an Oswald impostor was likely in Mexico City to set him up as a communist traitor/conspirator
The claim that Oswald was obviously shot from the front and the evidence backing this up. McAdam's claims
Douglass endorses Gary Aguilar’s tendentious treatment of eyewitness testimony in an effort to impeach basic forensic findings, such as conclusion that the third and final shot that struck President Kennedy’s head entered from the rear. Conspiracists have long tried to use eyewitness testimony to impeach the authenticity of the medical photographs and x-rays, but a painstaking scientific analysis by the House Select Committee on Assassinations showed them to be authentic.[30]
This gives the impression that it's only Gary Aguilar's personal theorizing that throws doubt on the magic bullet theory.
- McAdams continues to attack the author and witnesses cited:
One of the telltale signs of an especially pathetic conspiracy book is the acceptance of testimony from eyewitnesses whose unreliability is proven. True to form, Douglass presents many such witnesses as wholly credible:
- He questions the reliability of witnesses James Wilcott, Roger Craig, Abraham Bolden, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw.
McAdams' conclusion:
Douglass’s America, ultimately, is not unlike Douglass’s Washington. The latter is riddled with treasonous Cold Warriors, intent on making war, and the former is awash with conspiratorial goings-on: multiple Oswalds, CIA spooks manipulating housewives who meet for coffee, and dozens of average Americans who get wind of the plot but do nothing. For some minds, this may constitute an aesthetically compelling vision. The forces of evil are many and powerful, and the forces of righteousness few and beleaguered. But history should not be about an aesthetically compelling vision. It should be about what happened.
Douglass, fundamentally, doesn’t care about what really occurred.
Hypocrisy in action, as usual.
Mark or christs4sale--is McAdams considered a conscious disinfo asset or unwitting misinfo perpetrator?
McAdams' credibility is not helped by the fact that this review appears on Max Holland's website. Max Holland is the recipient of a 2001 "Studies in Intelligence Award" awarded by the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence.