I grew tired of the book rather quickly. It seems that highly educated researchers are looked upon as elitists and scorned, and that those that can "entertain" with shouts and outrage are more believable because they're more like the common man. I thought the book contained a series of allegations, many unsubstantiated, but nonetheless were entertaining. I believe that there were truths in the book, but many of those offered as "new" have previously been published by well respected researchers. For example, the fellow conspirators of John Wilkes Booth isn't such a secret, but discussed in Swanson' book "Manhunt". And Ventura's nagging question about how and why James Earl Ray left incriminating evidence behind after assassinating Martin Luther King is discussed quite clearly in Hampton Sides book "Hellhound on His Trail". So I never got the impression Ventura was really trying to educate, but more attempting to tease us with interesting questions and to have us buy into his conspiracy theories. Real research is difficult and time consuming, offering conspiracy theories based on loose facts is a lot easier. I think Ventura is something akin to Glen Beck and capitalizing on the popularity of that style, e.g., two high school educated media stars offering conspiracy theories in what they see, just from the opposite political spectrum.