Rating: 
Summary: Pleasantly surprised
Review: I picked this book up not knowing what to expect. I was slightly familiar with Belzer's stand-up, but hadn't read anything he had written. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.
I have always been slightly interested in conspiracy theories, but with my interest came a bit of embarrassment. Belzer's humor effectively dissolved my embarrassment. If I started feeling a little ridiculous when I found myself seriously considering an off the wall idea, Belzer's wit would put me at ease. The humor made it easy to tell yourself, "I'm not crazy, Belzer is."
I can't say that Belzer was able to convince me of anything, but he certainly managed to pique my curiosity. Should I decide to learn more about the theories Belzer presents, I can simply turn to the helpful bibliography of conspiracy books and resources that Belzer recommends.
The bottom line - this book is a great blend of conspiracy and humor and I think it could be enjoyed by someone looking for either.
Rating: 
Summary: Captivating
Review: Not only is this book hilarious, it's informative, and educational as well. I didn't even know what FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was until I read this book, and that's just ONE of the things I learned. It's a good template for any aspiring conspiracy researcher. A thorough bibliography is included which lists all of the Belze's sources respectively.
I won't claim that I believed everything I read in this book, but I will say this: Anyone out there who is stupid enough to accept the "Single Bullet Theory" deserves to get shot in the head himself. That is all!
Rating: 
Summary: For the Moon is Hollow and I Have Torched This Guy
Review: The first problem with UFOs, JFK, and Elvis: Conspiracies You Don't Have to be Crazy to Believer is the cover blurbs. They all state how funny he is, except for the CNN blurb. Bill Maher says it's "a treat to have his insanity in book form." This is a book about conspiracies and Belzer himself says in his introduction that he's trying to get the reader to ask questions and not accept the government's word on everything. If he's trying to do that, is it a good thing that he's called "insane" in a recommendation blurb? I don't think so.When I first picked this book up at the library (I'm a big fan of Belzer from his television roles), the subject matter intrigued me just enough that I wanted to see what Belzer had to say on it. I saw the three things mentioned in the title, but I thought the book would move beyond those three items and delve into other conspiracy theories as well. No luck, though. The entire first half of the book talks about the JFK assassination, and all of the theories behind it. The second half is about aliens and other space-based "cover-ups." He only mentions Elvis in passing. I was very disappointed. That was actually my reaction to the entire book: disappointment. I had so many problems with this book, but they boil down to two. First, the way the book is formatted and written, I had doubts on Belzer's credibility. This doesn't even involve cover blurbs. The JFK section of the book seems like nothing more than a rehash of the many theories that are already out there. Granted, it's nice to have them all in one place, but it would have been nice to get something new in there as well. Belzer talks about all of the different theories, but never really comes down on any one side. Was it the mafia? The CIA? Lyndon Johnson? The Communists? All of them combined? He probably thought that saying so many theories are possible is a good way to get people to question. It doesn't have that effect on me, however. Instead, I felt like I had been hit with a shotgun, with all of these pellets of theory hitting me in the head and none of them actually registering as a shot. Starting with JFK is the easy part. Even many people who think conspiracy-minded people are nuts think that something's fishy about the whole JFK thing. It's like throwing a rock at the ocean: you can't miss. Belzer spends over half the book on it, and I kept saying "yeah, fine, this is definitely a conspiracy...do you have anything interesting?" When Belzer finally does move on, he moves to the various UFO stories: alien abductions, sightings, close encounters, that sort of thing. He further damages his credibility, though, by bringing up the moon landing "hoax." Ok, he says in the introduction that this may be "a little over the top" but then he goes on to say that he wouldn't put it past the government to try and do something like that. Later, when he actually addresses it, he gives all the standard reasons for it being a hoax (no stars in pictures, moon dust, shadows, etc) which have been thoroughly debunked (check the web by putting "moon hoax" in the search engine). This does not help his credibility any. He quickly backs away from it and talks about people who believe that the beings inhabiting the moon and using it as a base kicked us off of it. Which is it Richard? The fact that he seems to believe a theory that's been completely discredited (though some people still cling to it) just takes away from the credibility of the rest of the text. The second problem is Belzer's writing style. I love Belzer's trademark wit, and he definitely applies it in this book. The trouble was, as I ground through the text, I found his asides and witticisms increasingly grating. That could be because I wasn't liking what I was reading, so maybe it's tied to my first problem. Whatever the case, I found his style cringe-worthy and it's only the fact that it's a short book that let me get through it without throwing it against the wall. Tied into the style is the format of the book. Theories are tossed in and then ignored with alarming regularity. Belzer brings up the supposed connection between Kennedy and Lincoln, even going so far as to imply that the John Wilkes Booth who was killed after Lincoln was shot wasn't the real assassin, but a patsy. What's the scoop behind that? I couldn't tell you, because Belzer drops it and goes back to JFK. The book is also filled with sidebars, which also makes it a bit annoying. You constantly have to leave the ongoing text to read the little side note or factoid that's also on the page. Other times, the sidebar has more space on the page then the regular text. I think this did add to the quickness of the reading, because there isn't as much as text to read as you would have thought. Overall, I couldn't find much to like about this book. It would be a good introduction to the various theories that are out there having to do with certain conspiracies. The UFO conspiracies are actually kind of interesting, though again the credibility gap is there. Since this is Belzer's stated goal, I guess the best question is: does it make you ask questions? My personal answer is no. To me, you would have to already be leaning that way before this book would push you over the edge. Does the government lie to us? Inevitably. But I don't necessarily buy the specific lies that Belzer is selling. Most importantly for a book review, I also didn't enjoy the sell-job. David Roy
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good All Around
Review: Belz did a great job on this book. He's certainly come a long way from his last one (How to Be A Standup Comedian). I agree, he did do his homework on this book. I've been a long time admirer of JFK, and I learned more about the conspiracy surrounding his death. Although the part of the book dealing w/ JFK was rather one sided, it was well written and very persuasive. I'd always thought that the government had something to to w/ JFK's death, but I never really had any info to back it up when asked. After I had read Ufo's, JFK, and Elvis, I could answer pretty much any question my friends asked me. I know that not everyone wants to read this book so they can be the resident JFK expert, that just happens to be my reason. It's good for whatever reason you're reading it for. I've loved pretty much everything Belz has done so far (We'll leave Groove Tube out of that group...) and I was pretty disappointed w/ his first book. I took a chance on this one, but it turned out to be a winner.
Rating:
Summary: Bite sized factoids to stir thought
Review: Mr. Belzer breaks down a few of the most talked about controversies in recent history into small, bite sized facts and viewpoints. This man is not a fanatic, just someone who is clearly well read and thoughtfull. I truely enjoyed this book. You can sit down and read one of the small chapters in three minutes, or read the whole book in three hours. The simple, but suprisingly thought provoking points he makes are great food for thought.
Rating:
Summary: I hope he writes more books
Review: This is really two books in one. The first is on the Kennedy conspiracy and the second is on UFO cover-ups. They both are fantastic. The material is presented in a way that is approach to most any reader and is unique in that Belzer uses humor and sarcasm to understate the possible realities that he uncovers. I would recommend this book to people who do not read a lot, to people who like to read humorous books, to people who like to read informative books, and to people who just read books.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, but lacks credibility
Review: UFO's, JFK, and Elvis seems like a book with an identity crisis. Is it humor, or a serious conspiracy book? Belzer makes some funny jokes and observations while presenting a strong (and one-sided) case for the existence of a conspiracy in the death of John F. Kennedy. This extended rant makes up the first part of the book, and I found it to be pretty enjoyable, but not all that convincing. The second half of the book is dedicated to UFO's, the possible fakery of the Apollo program, and extraterrestrial life. I found this half to be less compelling than the JFK portion of the book, and it rehashed a lot of the same material I'd read elsewhere about UFO's. Some of the theories were contradictory, and it seemed to be pretty much an amalgamation of everything you've seen on the X-Files. That said, the book was still enjoyable to read. Belzer is certainly funny, but the humor undermined the credibility of his book. He does have an extensive bibliography in the back of the volume, but citations and footnotes would have gone a long ways in improving his credibility, as would even a cursory mention of any of the counter-points to his views.
|
