Archive for December 2012
In this balanced, if breathless, 1998 History Channel video entitled “Missing Files,” we learn what the government sought to hide from public view. The approach is skeptical without crazy conspiracy mongering.
Since I last checked three weeks ago, more than 50 more people have signed the petition calling on the Obama administration to do its job and enforce the JFK Records Act by ordering the review and release of 1,100 CIA documents related to JFK’s assassination.
“This has been important to me since the summer of 1964,” wrote Theresa Mauro of Culver City, California, “when the Warren Commission Lie tried to pass off those stick figure drawings of the bullet’s trajectory, and I got this chilling feeling that I was being lied to by the Government of the United States, which was supposed to be guiding and protecting me.”
Thanks to the National Archives, we know specific details about
“I’m as certain as one can be that there was no other gun shot…..But it’s not silliness to speculate that somebody was behind Oswald…..I’d almost bet on the [anti-Castro] Cubans.” Read more
The commemoration of a catastrophe is a tricky business, we learn from today’s Wall Street Journal.
With the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination approaching in November 2013, Dallas mayor Mike Rawlings has boldly come out in favor of observing the event without talking about its causes.
“For 40 minutes, we need to be focusing on the man, not the moment 50 years ago,” he said.
Welcome to JFK at 50. The moment has come not to talk about the moment. This is a dilemma in Dallas.
In her story today on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, WSJ reporter Ana Campoy makes a common mistake that deprives readers of needed context and detail. Read more
I remember how Mr. Hayek’s voice broke when he told my 5th grade class that President Kennedy had been killed.
Two days later I cheered when Ruby shot Oswald.
In reporting on Zac Efron’s upcoming role in Tom Hank’s upcoming JFK movie Politico says, “No word on whom Efron will play.”
Not true. According to multiple Hollywood sources, Efron is slated to play Dr. Charles Carrico, a 28-year old resident surgeon who was the first doctor to examine JFK when he was brought to the hospital.
The movie, called Parkland, promises a dramatic and controversial role for the rising young star because Carrico’s cameo in history landed him in the heart of the debate about the nature of JFK’s wounds.
Since the Parkland screenplay is based on Vince Bugliosi’s book “Reclaiming History,” which makes mistakes about the evidence on some key points, it is worth asking, What are the facts?
In this C-SPAN video, historian David Wrone, emeritus professor at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, describes the theory that Oswald acted alone as ”the fairy tale of Dallas.” He argues that evidence from the crime scene points to a conspiracy by perpetrators who have yet to be identified.
The strength of his presentation is its focus on the rapidity with which Oswald emerged as a suspect and the modesty of his conclusions. Wrone does not theorize. He describes evidence, allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions.
I was 11 years old, and sitting in Mr. Lobdell’s 6th grade classroom when the teacher came walking into the room and said we were being sent home because the President had been shot and killed. He looked so grim and worried.
The thing I remember about JFK was he was the first President I was really aware of and looked up to. And he could be funny. Read more
With its all-star cast and reassuring agenda, Parkland is shaping up as the feel-good event of 2013 for those who don’t want you to worry about the legacy of the American national security state. Pre-production publicity makes clear that Parkland (the hospital where JFK was declared dead) aims to breath new life into the government’s old theory that the violent removal of the liberal president from office in 1963 was a meaningless deed committed for no reason by a lunatic. Matinee message: eat your popcorn and swallow the “tragic absurdity of life.”
Is this a movie anyone really wants to see?
“An investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House [in 1969]. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.”
- H.R Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon, from his book, The Ends of Power (p. 39).
The first newspaper accounts of JFK’s autopsy, published on December 18, 1963, gave a consistent account of the gunfire that was widely believed at the time (and became the basis for the postcard from Dallas reproduced here). But these accounts, published in the Washington Post and New York Times, vary dramatically from what pathologists later said. This version of the gunfire that struck JFK would be abandoned and forgotten by the two newspapers and defenders of the official story, all of whom later settled on a very different ballistic theory.
One possibility for this major discrepancy is that the Post and the Times stories were based on the original autopsy report that was later rewritten surreptitiously.
The Times story came from the Associated Press and was attributed to “a reliable source familiar with the autopsy findings.” The Post story was based on “the unofficial report of pathologists,” The stories were consistent with each other, both asserting that: Read more