What ‘A Coup in Camelot’ gets wrong–and right

In a closely-argued essay, Martin Hay criticizes the recent documentary, A Coup in Camelot, but also gives credit where credit is due.

A Coup in Camelot demonstrates, through the pioneering research of former investigative reporter Barry Ernest, that in all likelihood Oswald was where he claimed to be when the shots were fired; on the first floor of the building eating lunch.

Source: Kennedys And King – A Coup in Camelot

By the way, Kennedys And King is the re-launched Web site formerly known Citizens for Truth About the Kennedy Assassination.

4 thoughts on “What ‘A Coup in Camelot’ gets wrong–and right”

  1. In his review, Martin Hay is particularly dismissive of Sherry Feister’s analysis of bullet trajectory and also raises serious doubts the film’s conclusions regarding the Bethesda autopsy. He calls the alleged casket-swapping and pre-autopsy surgery “largely specious claims.”
    on the other hand, Hay praises the documentary’s synopsis of Barry Ernest’s work with TSBD witness Victoria Adams. Hay accurately describe’s Ernest’s book, “The Girl on the Stairs” as “indispensable.”
    personally, I was pleased that although former ARRB staffer Doug Horne is the film’s primary source regarding the autopsy issues, the producers declined to provide him a forum for his controversial claim that the Zapruder film was altered somehow…
    So this “Coup” is a mixed bag. Hay may be right that it generally represents a “wasted opportunity,” but it’s still an impressive overview of several important aspects of the crime’s commission and coverup.

  2. Eliezer Ephraim Cohen

    I was disappointed that a Coup in Camelot failed to adequately demonstrate the Zapruder film alterations blacking out the back of the President’s head along with some of the taillights. Doug Horne, John Costella, Dr. David Mantik and David Lifton have convincingly demonstrated. Whether or not Oswald was amongst the assassins is a side issue given what we now know about the assassination. We now have unassailable evidence that the Zapruder film was altered, that a car stop occurred permitting Clint Hill to catch up to the President’s vehicle on foot, That the Driver of the President’s car was turned around and was looking backwards from Z frame 304 and well beyond. We now also have forensic evidence of autopsy film alteration. We also have evidence of tampering with the Presidents body reported by FBI Agents Siebert and O’Neill. Who could have done this? The Mafia? A Foreign Government? — only the CIA (Where the Z film was altered in its lab in Rochester, NY) or some other Governmental agency had the ability to pull this off. E Howard Hunts confession would seem to support a CIA hypothesis leading all the way up to LBJ himself.

  3. I started attentively reading this review and fully agree with its critisism of Feister. She makes an assumption the extant Zapruder film can be used to analyse shots, and thus far that doesn’t look a solid assumption. I gave up reading the review as it started making the same mistakes that a ‘Coup in Camelot’ makes. It heads for the theories without backing them up. The worst assertion is perhaps that the throat wound is demonstrably not one of entrance. The assessment of Horne’s work is probably too damning. Humes is quoted from his ARRB testimony. That’s a long time after the event and is not consistent with his earlier Testimony. There is far more evidence of wound alteration than the reviewer gives the Record credit for.

    1. Firstly, Eddy, thanks for reading my review. I spend a lot of time writing my essays, making sure I triple-check everything so I’m glad people are actually bothering to read my stuff.

      But can I ask you what you mean when you say that my review “heads for the theories without backing them up”? What theories does my review present?

      Also, you say that Humes’ ARRB deposition is “not consistent with his earlier testimony” which, in places, is absolutely true. After all, his deposition was taken 30+ years after he gave his Warren Commission testimony. Had he remembered every detail exactly the same way I would have been extremely surprised. Human memory doesn’t usually work that way.

      However, I suspect that what you’re referring to is Humes’ statement about cutting bone? If so, then there is no inconsistency that I can see. In his Commission testimony, Humes stated that he and Boswell “had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily…” (2H354) Now, “virtually” is not the same as “none” as some authors have falsely suggested. Virtually means nearly; almost. If I was to say to you “that man over there has virtually no hair on his head”, it would not mean he had no hair at all, it would mean he had very little.

      So what Humes was saying to the Commission was that they had to do do very little work with the saw because the skull was shattered and falling apart under their fingers, and it seems to me that this is exactly what he was saying in the quote from his ARRB deposition that I provided in my review:

      GUNN: Where did you cut the bone?
      HUMES: I find that–it’s hard to recall. Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose. So other than that, we probably made it like we normally do, in a circumferential fashion from books, like right above the ear around. But it was a real problem because it was all falling apart, the skull. And I can’t recall the details of exactly how we managed to maneuver that, because it was a problem. (ARRB Deposition of James J. Humes, pgs. 101-102)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top