Martin Hay assesses The JFK Assassination Dissected by Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dawna Kaufmann and considers it a mostly worthwhile first or second book for anyone developing an interest in the subject, but has little new or revelatory to offer those of us who have been around for a while.

Martin Hay surveys Josiah Thompson’s history as a JFK assassination researcher and then reviews his new book Last Second in Dallas, which he believes lives up to the promise of its title and establishes to a high degree of probability exactly how that final second went down.

Martin Hay scrutinizes the responses to his critical review of The Awful Grace of God which the authors have incorporated into their second book, written to bolster their original thesis concerning Ray and the King assassination.

There is a long list of books about which it can be rightly said they have added nothing to our understanding of JFK’s murder because their authors placed their conclusions first and then twisted, warped, and distorted the details to fit. Wagner’s book undoubtedly belongs on that list, concludes Martin Hay.

Aside from Shane O'Sullivan's mostly worthwhile Killing Oswald, there has been very little of note that has even attempted to counter the MSM's seemingly endless deluge of propaganda with reliable evidence and solid reasoning. A Coup in Camelot clearly aims to fill that void. Unfortunately, however, it falls considerably short of the mark, writes Martin Hay.

Martin Hay reviews «Klandestine» by Pate McMichael on the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination.

Martin Hay reviews the merits and shortcomings of William Pepper's most recent book on the Martin Luther King Jr. case in light of his long career and previous contributions.

Martin Hay reviews an article published by Haag in AFTE, about which he concludes: "It is little wonder ... that Lucien Haag limited his defense of the 'Magic' Bullet Theory to a (misleading) discussion of Governor Connally's wounds. After all, no matter how impressive his credentials and extensive his experience, there are some problems that no man can make disappear."

I expected that authors Mel Ayton and David Von Pein would add nothing to our understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy, and that is precisely what they did. I expected they would regurgitate the same tired old arguments and trot out the usual roster of long-discredited witnesses, and they did just that. And I expected that they would pontificate on the evils of "conspiracy theorists" at every available opportunity and, lo and behold!, they did, writes Martin Hay.

Despite telling us that “consistency with other evidence is very important to scientists”, he appears to have studied each point in isolation and then cherry-picked the details that fit his own thesis. The one point it can really be said that Dr. G. Paul Chambers Ph. D. both makes and proves in his book is that credentials and a good reputation are no proof against being wrong, concludes Martin Hay.