History's Greatest Conspiracies: One Hundred Plots, Real and Suspected, Which Have Shocked, Fascinated, and Sometimes Changed the World

by H. Paul Jeffers

Collecting great conspiracy stories from throughout history, this fascinating compendium of historical events shadowed by suspicious circumstances includes the arrest of Jesus, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the "alien landings" at Roswell, among other incidents.

Genres: History, Conspiracy Theories, Crime, Nonfiction

323 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 2004

About the author

H. Paul Jeffers was an established military historian and author of seventy books. He worked as an editor and producer at ABC, CBS and NBC, and is the only person to have been news director of both of New York City's all-news radio stations. He taught journalism at New York University, Syracuse University, and Boston University.

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not great. Some of these aren't really conspiracies in my opinion- two kids deciding to kill their parents, the Beltway snipers, etc. More importantly, I don't understand the way the book is structured and that makes it a lot less useful. It's not chronological, not thematic, and there is no indication between real or alleged conspiracies. And what the Hell is up with the errors in this book?

-Saying the Tsar abdicated in 1915 instead of 1917
-Meyer "Lanksy" instead of Lansky
-saying the Easter Rising happened in 1926 instead of 1916
-Alvin "Carpis" instead of Karpis

These are only the ones I caught- I'd be certain to doublecheck any date you're unfamiliar with if you're using this book as a reference.

[Claudia · Rating 2 out of 5]

THe top 100 conspiracies as per the writer starts with the story of Adam and Eve's eviction from Eden - Satan conspires against them - followed by the Sanhedrin conspiracy against Jesus of Nazareth.

From then on it's basically on how you interpret the word "conspiracy". According to an on-line dictionary, a conspiracy is {quote}"a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring"

Okay, so someone - or a group - can plan a robbery and it can be classified as a conspiracy. Plan an assault or murder, and it's a conspiracy. Plan to overthrow the legitimate government, it's a conspiracy. I think it's all in the 'plan' part of the criminal action. So this book is mostly a collection of criminal actions with some government intervention - the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, quite the number of murders. The Roswell incident. Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder. Leopold and Loeb. Manson family and the Menendez brothers.

According to the definition which clarifies what a conspiracy is, there are obviously many more possible conspiracies that could be included and likely more relevant for shocking, shaping and changing the world.

2022-201

[Pastor Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a great book on conspiracies. It is a very basic introduction. And it is a bit loose with what is called a "conspiracy". So, I would only recommend this to anyone that is completely unfamiliar with the subject. It's just not 5 star material.

I also couldn't give the book a fourth star because some of the viewpoints were not just different than mine, they are plain wrong on a factual, historical basis. For example, I really had no idea that anyone familiar with the history of Iran would side with the CIA's illegal overthrow of the government of Prime Minister Mosaddegh to establish "the Shah" Mohammad Reza Pahlavi with his corrupt government leading to the "Islamic Revolution" (and U.S. hostage crisis) in 1979. In addition, the author seems convinced that the Iraq War really had something to do with "weapons of mass destruction" that he thinks really did exist.

But even with those cringe-worthy moments, the books will certainly stoke the history lovers desire to learn more about many of the "conspiracies" (whether real or pretended by the author) found in the book. I picked up a copy at Barnes and Noble really cheap and would recommend you find a cheap copy and not spend a lot of money on it if you decide to give it a read.

[Michael Smith · Rating 1 out of 5]

Because I have an academic background in history, and because I worked in a library in Dallas during all the years following the Kennedy assassination when authors came to us to research their books about it, I have a longstanding interest in “conspiracy history.” I’m not necessarily a “believer” in any sense, but I’m fascinated by the ins and outs of conspiracy theory and people’s attitudes toward it. I picked up this survey volume (a hundred conspiracies in 314 pages, beginning with Adam and Eve) out of curiosity, but was considerably disappointed at what the author has done with his material. First, he includes a great many events and incidents which are “conspiracies” only by the narrowest legal definition (and a modern U.S. definition at that). This includes famous murders (Leopold and Loeb, the Manson family, the Menendez brothers) and broad political movements (including, believe it or not, the entire history of communism). Second, though claiming to give equal coverage to all those involved, like the good journalist he purports to be, he makes it clear that, for instance, anyone who has ever spied on the U.S. on behalf of another country (beginning with Major Andre) is evil, while the entire OSS and CIA are heroic. The overthrow and murder by the CIA of Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran -- which led directly to the Shah’s repressive policies and the formation of the Islamic state -- was completely justified. The Watergate conspiracy was overblown. Oliver North was justified in breaking the law and lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra affair because he was anti-communist. Cuba was better off under Bastista. And on and on, including the clear presumption that Christians are superior to adherents of any other religion. The author also indulges in ludicrous statements, such as assuring the reader that Saddam really did have weapons of mass destruction. Finally, he omits a number of real conspiracies that obviously should have been included, such as the great water scam in L.A. during the 1930s, secret U.S. government experimentation on members of the military, Hoover’s attempts to smear Martin Luther King, CIA efforts to assassinate Castro (mentioned offhandedly and with approval in a single sentence), and the entire unconstitutional COINTELPRO operation. This book is so slanted, you’ll have trouble getting it to stand upright on the shelf.

[Audrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think I got confused when I picked this book up. I wasn't expecting a summary of the Top 100 Conspiracies of all time, which is what this is (and what the title obviously tells me that it is); or I was, but I was also expecting more information on the conspiracies that still surround these events -- events like JFK's assassination, Area 51, that kind of stuff. I wanted this to be a book that dealt more with those "unanswered" crimes that conspiracies have grown up around, rather than a listing of the most famous conspiracies to have been carried out in history. (Does any of that EVEN make sense???)

All that aside, these are quick 2-3 page summaries of these historical events, which is interesting, but the author's writing style is aggravating -- dude can write some seriously long, comma-laden sentences.

[Bethany · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was mostly filled with information I already knew. Each conspiracy is explained within approximately 2-3 pages. It is "just the basics" with no real additional information. That being said, interesting... yet underwhelming.

[Zach Kotner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, the author's purpose in writing the book was to give people an idea of why there are conspiracies and why they are important to history. The overall subject of the book was to show that there are lots of conspiracies in the world that are sometimes false, but actually might of happened in that particular time in history. The author's point of view of the book was in the third person omniscient because the author used very specific information that pertained to this book like he sort of retold some of these conspiracies from what or who he heard it from when he was young or at school. His writing style was that he uses specific informational writings that any historian would use because to give the reader a background setting of when these conspiracies happened. The author's audience was to be for anyone who likes history and who loves conspiracies but its for mainly people in their 50's and 60's because they were around some of these conspiracies before we (people in high school) were born.

The theme of the book was to show you that some politicans were corrupt or that people despise one another because of what they did in office or what they did as an individual living in the world. The author was trying to give the reader/audience a feel on how conspiracies worked in the world and why they give us a unique feature/outlook on history. The idea/theme of the book is primarily about conspiracies but it also gives insight on why history is important to learn and to think about as an individual. From what this author expressed, he just wanted to give people or the world an idea on why conspiracies are a huge influence on our society.

Now, when its comes down to nonfiction books and their styles of writing, its clear that mostly all nonfiction books have a descriptive, narrative, expositive, and argumentative style to them because they explain why this subject is important to us in society. For the descriptive style, the author explains how some of these conspiracies worked and how some of them did not work to give the reader a better understanding on why this is consider a conspiracy. For the narrative style, the author uses this as a informational style to give the reader an idea on how this conspiracy went down and went into very good detail on why this is in the top 100 History's Greatest Conspiracies in the world. For the expositive style, he explains why this conspiracy could be real, suspected, shocking to most people, and even fascinating to people who love conspiracies because it interprets that the world is based on lies and that we cannot get a definite answer on why this event was special or why they do not know who really killed who, in some cases. Finally, in the argumentative style, this is so easy to describe because when the reader reads the conspiracy and says,"Whom, I do not think that this is probably true, but from what it says, you make have to believe in what one conspiracy says about another."

My opinion about the book is that if you love conspiracies and are huge history fans, then this book is for you. I personally loved it because of what my dad has said about some conspiracies and from what other people have said about conspiracies (from historians). Some of the conspiracies that were in this book blew me out of the water because I have not heard of this conspiracy in my life or my dad's life (My dad tells me stories about some conspiracies he's heard from his knowledge from history and from the media/world). I love everything about this book and there is no dislikes that I have about it because the book was well written by the author. I would not change anything about the book because conspiracies are based on history and I can not change history. If I could change history, I would be there on the dot. It is not similar to another book that I've read in my life.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

The BIG problem I had was the chapter (few pages) on Al Qaeda: author Jeffers used a proven false piece of text regarding Colonel North's testimony on "Bin Laden." Since the author didn't check the correct information on page 15...I can't justify reading the rest of the book. I get the feeling Mr. Jeffers wanted to make a "quick buck" - which there is nothing wrong with that, however, he could have attempted to put a little more effort. Unfortunately, I don't think I could read any of his books because this one book has cast a dubious spell on his material. I give two stars because the brief pages were interesting.

[Kenneth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jeffers covers 100 plots, but at 3 to 4 pages per plot, he obviously does not go into great detail. Where I found this book useful is as a quick refresher course/resource in being able to recall for example, How did Nikita Khruschev get deposed?”, “The Falcon and the Snowman”, “Richard the III’s Murder of Two Princes”. He clears up some controversies, but does not take time to dig too deeply. Still, this is a nice walk through history and a nice refresher course in case we need to explain briefly what the incident involved. I enjoyed the part on the Investigation into the shooting of Dr. King.

[Lynette · Rating 2 out of 5]

While this book had a lot of interesting facts, it bounced the reader all over the place. For example, you'd be reading about the attack on Pearl Harbor and then the next one would be about Al Queda. Or you would be reading about the mafia then about Israel, then about the mafia again. Very confusing.

[Jenny · Rating 2 out of 5]

meh. some of these would hardly qualify as sensational enough to put in a book. Seriously, Adam and Eve?