The author notes that what you believe happened in Dallas on 11-22-63 depends on what evidence you believe. (Or what evidence you've been told to believe.) In courtrooms, juries are presented with conflicting evidence; they decide which evidence is credible. This is called the "best evidence"; the jury decides the facts.

One question on the assassination is the discrepancy between the wounds recorded in Dallas (shots from the front), and the wounds recorded in Washington DC (shots from the rear). Lifton's book says "surgery to the head" occurred to change the evidence. But this would have to be quickly and expertly done. A simpler solution would be the use of a "body double", a replacement for the body of JFK that could be quickly switched. This would explain why the body in Washington was in a body bag while the body in Dallas was in a casket.

There is another way to test this theory. Some books contain the Washington DC autopsy photos. The pictures of the President show a thick faced JFK who looks like other 45-year olds. The face of the body in the autopsy appears about 30 years old, in my opinion. Look and see for yourself. If you agree, this proves a conspiracy in killing JFK. As others have pointed out, while one "lone gunman" can kill anyone, it takes a group of conspirators to cover it up for decades.

Not sure if Lifton has done other (or newer) books on the subject but this one is a winner. Seemingly very well researched and documented, this book simply must be read by anyone seeking all angles on the Kennedy assasination [saga].

I read this book over 45 years ago while completing my undergraduate studies in Engineering. I have never forgotten it!! The significant substories within the book describe the development of wire rope; the construction of the first successful suspension bridge across the Niagara Gorge; the details of construction of the Brooklyn Bridge; and the comparison of the sway bracing of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and its ultimate fate. These could all have been the subject of separate books and each was facinating in itself.

This fascinating book descibes the the story of the brooklyn bridge in New York, and the story of their builders, the roebling brothers. Roebling had the great idea of building a bridge not with stiff beams, but with two big soft ropes made of fibers of strong and elastic steel. An idea, which now is used with nearly all Bridges of wide span. I love this book, because it is not an engineering report, but the touching story of the life of mainly the elder Roebling brother, who dedicated his health and his life to this bridge.

I could read this book nearly 40 years ago, and still it is one of my favorites. I do not posess it, and I deeply regret that it is not available any more. Hopefully AMAZON can find some and put them on their stock...

Wohoo! Great book! Read it cover to cover in 2 days! Makes law easy! I love it! My kids love it! Kids everywhere will love it! Read it to your children at bedtime!

A first year law school case book. Covers all relevant Tort Law in historical and modern contexts.

The Eichers, et al, have done Civil War buffs a great service with this fabulous piece of research. If you are looking for info on military and/or civilian leaders, this is the best single source yet published. Thanks guys!

A major work of awesome proportions! The research, attention to detail and the scholarship that combined to produce this work are beyond measure.

For any serious Civil War buff this book is a "must". There is no area relating to the High Command of either North or South that is not covered in exquisite detail. It contains not only the biographical notes for virtually every major and minor character on both sides, it lists the ranks, date of rank and assignments. Reads like an Officer's Personnel Record, complete with photographs of individuals where available. It is particularly useful in bringing into clear focus the organizational structure, badges of rank and the different departments making up the respective armies.

This is an absolutely invaluable tool for anyone interested in an in-depth source for reference to go hand-in-hand with careful study of the major works on Civil War battles and campaigns.

It should certainly be found on the shelves of any college or university library.

"Compelled To Appear In Print, The Vicksburg Manuscript of General John C. Pemberton" was a work-in-progress for the past 137 years. David M. Smith brings it to the light of day with the justice it deserves. His views and those of Edwin C. Bearss, Historian Emeritus, National Park Service will secure this work among the finest written on the Confederacy for years to come. Let's hear more from him!

This book is built on a newly-discovered, never published manuscript by Confederate General John Pemberton, commander at Vicksburg when it surrendered to Grant. The manuscript itself is substantial...85 pages in this book's format. To position the manuscript, Dave Smith has written an excellent summary of the Vicksburg Campaign. Further, he adds a chapter on the conflicts and issues in the relationships among Pemberton, General Joseph Johnston (Pemberton's superior), and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. After the manuscript, he adds a chapter on his conclusions from his study of the Pemberton manuscript.

Pemberton wrote the document in the late 1870's before his death in 1881, to respond to Johnston's autobiographical NARRATIVE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS. Even after 120 years, the anger and hurt comes through. Johnston had essentially placed the blame for the loss of Vicksburg on Pemberton, citing his incompetence and disobedience of orders. Pemberton takes each of Johnston's eight charges, and argues his side of the case. Smith has made this more understandable for the reader by inserting (in easily distinguishable font and italics) the specific exerpts from the Johnston book to which Pemberton was referring; many of Pemberton's points would have been lost to me without those insertions.

Another specific contribution which Smith made to the manuscript itself was his description of a visit by Davis and Johnston to Pemberton and Vicksburg in December, 1862 (before the Vicksburg Campaign would escalate in the spring and culminate on July 4th). Given the fact that Davis, Johnston, and Pemberton seemed only a few weeks later to have no agreement or common thinking on their strategy, one wonders what they talked about during their several days together. Certainly, they MUST have talked about whether Vicksburg must be held at all costs....but in the spring, Johnston seemed to think not while Davis and Pemberton certainly thought it must. Perhaps they never considered what to do in a siege....but, if not, what were they really expecting Grant to do? He certainly had given no indication of giving up easily! This lost opportunity for strategic alignment echoes through the Pemberton manuscript, as I read it.

For me, Pemberton presents his case in a compelling, convincing, and interesting manner. To my (amateur) reading, he does not often imply that he knew in 1863 everything that he would know when writing in the late 1870's. However, on one occasion, he did allow himself to refer to Johnston as "the great master of retreat", taking advantage of the reputation Johnston would get during his portion of the Atlanta Campaign in 1864.

Johnston does not come out of this book in very good shape. In fact, the picture of Johnston is very reminiscent of that in Jeffrey Lash's DESTROYER OF THE IRON HORSE. In fact, one of Lash's primary examples of Johnston's misuse of the railroads occurred during the Vicksburg Campaign, when he lost of large quantity of Confederate rolling stock and engines by waiting too long to order their movement to safer locations. Smith summarizes Johnston's failure to take any action to relieve Pemberton in Vicksburg by saying that he "either had no intention of acting or was incapable of mustering the courage and energy to face the situation". Personally, it seems to me to have been the latter. The puzzling, frustrating impact of Johnston's inertia comes through clearly in the Pemberton manuscript.

This is an excellent book, very readable and quite interesting. Smith's background chapter will assist the reader who is not familiar with the Vicksburg Campaign to understand it well enough to follow Pemberton's discussion. That understanding is aided by several simple, clear, excellent maps. One does not need to be a military history scholar to appreciate this book. However, as Ed Bearss' introduction makes clear, even the elite class of military history scholars will likely also find this book worth their while.

I'm seasrching for this bbok in out of print sources because I've given away every copy I've owned, wanting to share it with otheres. Absolutely one of the all time best books on relationships. There's nothing obscure or difficult to follow for making significant improvements in relating to others. This book should be a text book for all high schools!

This book's been out for over 23 years. Earlier it was published by Prentice-Hall under the title "Declare Yourself". Prof. Narcicso lays out in very clear language the essence of emotional manipulation and the ways it can be replaced by a style of language which emphasizes adult maturity and personal responsibility. I have used this book as a theoretical underpinning in all of my clinical work for the past 21 years. I most strongly recommmend you buy it, read it, and spend time applying its principles and techniques in your daily life. This is one self help book that really works. It is unpretentious (no psychobabble!), straightforward and effective.

This book was so informative. It detail what the effects of diabetes are and how to adapt your life so that this very treatable disease will not overtake you. The writer of this book are the leading expert for Harvard Medical school and a hsuband of a diabetic.

They discuss diet, what to expect from doctor,monitors, medication, diet, complications and what to expect if you do and don't take care of yourself.

I suggest this book for anyone who deals with diabetes on a regular basis or wants to find out more. This book si great for both type I and Type II diabetics.

Ignorance of diabetes is not bliss, this book can scare you at first if you are just dignosed, but the information in this book will help you find the courage to find a good doctor ! and control this disease.

This is the first book on diabetes I have read since I was diginosed with diabetes. It is a great reference book with a philosphy that diabetes is to be controled by you and not you by it. It covers all types of diabetes, treatment, insulin, diet, exercise, complication, pregnecy, and how to deal with your new cronic disease so that one can live a full life.

I recomend this book for all diabetics because of the source, the ease of understanding, and the professionalism of its approach as well as it has tons of useful information. E. J. Boehm

The _Dictionary of Classical Hebrew_ (DCH) is a book to die for. But prospective users should realize that it is fundamentally different both in conception and in execution from lexicons like Koehler-Baumgartner's _Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament_ (HALOT) and the antiquated Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (BDB). In fact, DCH does not stand in the grand tradition of BDB and HALOT at all. It descends from the equally grand line of concordances authored by scholars like Solomon Mandelkern, Gerhard Lisowsky, and Abraham Even-Shoshan. DCH is a glorified concordance--and shows just how glorious a concordance can be.

_Major Differences between DCH and Traditional Lexicons of the Old Testament (OT)_

(1)HALOT, BDB, and other traditional lexicons are philological works: they attempt to define the vocabulary of a specified literary corpus. They are not dictionaries of a _language_. They do not even restrict themselves to a single language: since a tiny portion of the OT is written in Imperial Aramaic, tiny portions of these lexicons define the tiny sample of Imperial Aramaic words found in the OT--fewer than 800 terms. DCH, on the other hand, is linguistically oriented. It aims to describe the entire Hebrew language, up to and including the era of the Dead Sea scrolls, insofar as we know it from the extant literature and inscriptions. It has no interest in describing a tiny subset of the Imperial Aramaic vocabulary.

Again, since traditional lexicons are corpus-specific, they naturally include entries only for those terms that are found in the OT. DCH, on the other hand, includes all terms found in Classical Hebrew, whether or not they are found in the OT.

(2)In keeping with their philological orientation, the traditional lexicons hew to a strongly diachronic and comparative-linguistic line--they rely heavily on the history of words as a guide to their meaning in the OT. To discover this history, they look not just at Hebrew or Aramaic but at various languages in which the terms in question appear. One of the most entertaining features of an entry in a traditional lexicon is the listing of cognate terms from languages like Arabic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, accompanied by wooden and necessarily misleading English glosses that encourage non-specialists in the bizarre belief that they can handle this material intelligently. (People who know the languages in question well enough to make competent use of the evidence provided by these cognates do not need the wooden English glosses.)

DCH, on the other hand, omits references to languages other than Hebrew, just as many English dictionaries omit etymological discussions--and for the same reason: DCH assumes that the best guide to the meaning of a Hebrew term is the way it is used in Hebrew, not the way it is used in some other language.

HALOT and DCH are broadly contemporaneous--HALOT's first volume is actually more recent (1994) than the first volume of DCH (1993). Both works effectively use the Dead Sea scrolls and other extra-biblical material, and both works' later volumes benefit from the recent revolution in Dead Sea scrolls scholarship. But they use extra-biblical materials in completely different ways, of course: in HALOT, these materials appear only when they can illuminate the meaning of a biblical term, and Hebrew words that are not found in the Bible are not given entries in the lexicon. In DCH, biblical and extra-biblical sources and terms are granted equal weight.

(3)Many users, especially users influenced by modern linguistic theory, expect a lexicon to offer genuine definitions, rather than simply glosses--English terms that are roughly synonymous with the original-language term. In lexicons of New Testament Greek, for example, it has become popular to augment glosses with true definitions. One of the definitions of the Greek word _orphanos_ in the latest edition of _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_ (BDAG) is "pert.[aining] to being deprived of parents, _without parents_, orphan": the gloss _orphan_ is preceded here by a genuine definition. Similarly, the _Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains_ offers the definition "an offspring whose parents either are no longer alive or no longer function as parents (as the result of having abandoned their offspring) - 'orphan.'" These definitions are not merely long-winded expansions of the gloss 'orphan': they make it clear that (in the view of the lexicographers, at any rate) the Greek word _orphanos_ does _not_ mean the same thing as the English word 'orphan', which refers not only to children who have lost both parents but also to those who have lost only one.

Neither the traditional Hebrew lexicons nor DCH offer genuine translations. In the case of the traditional lexicons, this is because they are remarkably unsullied, even in their most recent incarnations, by modern linguistic theory: they betray very little suspicion that users might want or benefit from more than simple glosses. The authors of DCH, on the other hand, like good concordance-writers, want above all to provide users with a convenient and orderly presentation of the data that they need in order to make their own decisions regarding the sense(s) of an ancient Hebrew word. Like Mandelkern, Lisowsky, and Even-Shoshan, DCH provides glosses--the merest glosses--as a convenience for the user. DCH does not try to palm these off as definitions: those are the responsibility of the user.

Some users who yearn for genuine definitions may find traditional lexicons more satisfying than DCH, because traditional lexicons, assuming that their glosses _are_ definitions, sometimes offer fuller and more detailed glosses than DCH does. For example, HALOT glosses the Hebrew word _kfr_ as 'open village'; DCH offers simply 'village.' On the other hand, enterprising users are likely to prefer DCH, which intelligently organizes and displays the contexts in which a word is used--and this typically means _all_ the contexts in which it is used: every single instance in which the word in question is found in Classical Hebrew.

This is an excellentdictionary, comparable to Brown- Driver-Briggs and Kohler-Baumgartner, the previous standard in dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew. It is the only one--because it is more recent--to incorporate most of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls in its corpus of Classical Hebrew texts.

"Digging Dinosaurs" is far more than the continueing search for traces of these vanished beasts. It is a glimpse into the mind and lives of the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding this fascinating topic. Co-authored by Jack Horner, probably the most influential paleontologist alive today, the book reads at times more like a novel than a scholarly research. Fast paced, often humerous, this is a great read for anyone interested in our world's far ancient past.

Digging Dinosaurs really gave a clear and interesting spin on the work that goes behind finding fossils. I loved it!

I would like very much to review this book. I was promised a delivery date of NLT 25 April 2002; now I have been alerted that the delivery date is postponed a month. Dr. Henry Purcell, April 23rd, 2002

classification of progressive muscular dyatroph