Ask an Expert

Use this form to ask a question about JFK’s presidency or his assassination. Jeff Morley or one of our panel of contributors will try to provide an answer.


  1. gaetano vindigni says:

    Non – lethal action to remove JFK from office would have avoided the national trauma that followed the public and brutal murder of the President.

    A casual reading of the literature since that day has recently made me conclude that a “fake” assassination attempt was hijacked by a real and successful assassination.

    My conclusion, as just the outline of the conspiracy, is founded on my belief that committed patriots would not be so traitorous to allow themselves to murder the President.

    However, someone did. Who were they and why.

    I have formed the following questions to help understand the assassination:
    1. Were there non lethal attempt(s) to remove the President from office.

    2. Why was the assassination so public and brutal.

    3. Does the nature of the assassination describe the individuals involved.

    4. Did the intelligence community lose control of some of its operatives and associates.

    5. We’re there attempts to end these illegal relationships after 1963.

    The answers to these questions can fit various groups and people including Oswald.

    What are your thoughts? Can you recommend literature that would answer these questions?

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      to Gaetano (cont.):
      My humble answers to your questions:
      –1. Chicago. It’s strange, a caller to the SS and FBI identified himself as “Lee.” I believe it was LHO. It was fairly easy for the feds to disrupt the mini-Dallas. They caught the patsy, del Vallee, who stuck out even more than Oswald. But of course they didn’t catch the four military snipers, with four military rifles and a trunkful of ammo and ordnance.
      Miami, the Cubans couldn’t get it together; they never could without someone doing it for them, like the Bay of Pigs.
      Vienna. Early in JFK’s term, he was pretty sick right before, during, and right after when he met with Kruschev, mostly about nukes, in Vienna. Then he was fine. That seems suspicious. After then, Jack kept his doctors close to the vest. I think those expert assassins who hated him figured out, with Vienna, that slow or fast poisoning was a no-go.
      –2. Because it snowballed. And they had to make damned sure; they had backups for the backups; in for a penny, in for a pound. They sure did overdo it. And like the old Chinese saying, “Slaughter one in public, terrify a thousand.” Or in our case, 300,000,000.
      —3. Yes, to a tee.
      —4. Yes and no. IC never had control. 1963 intell (military, CIA, FBI–it’s pretty much the same) leadership wasn’t like Mr. Sunday in GK Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Friday, with an almost mechanical chain-of-command and clear, obeyed directives. It was a bloody mess, with a lot of taxpayer’s (labor) money thrown around.
      —5.. Yes. “Things could be worse.” (Stan Ridgway) Prosecution of organized crime went ahead, the Kennedys had the ball rolling unstoppably. Early 1970s the Church Committee looked into CIA abuses, and bore some fruit, especially assassinations abroad. Late ’70s HSCA, same thing. You wouldn’t know it from the community of slack dopes known as the American Media, but HSCA concluded “there was probably a conspiracy involving organized crime,” the next patsy in line after LHO. Sure, the mob was involved but they didn’t destroy, ignore and fudge the evidence. HSCA advised the Justice Dept. to pursue about a million leads. Then the community of federal law enforcement fell down and cried, “Ohhhnooo. It’s too haaaaarrrrrrd. Budgetary restrictions. We could break a nail or get a papercut.” They were fairly unanimous about that. (cont.)

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      To Gaeton (end)
      –Jim Marrs’ Crossfire (new ed.), the one-volume encyclopedia
      –James Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, great recent overview taking advantage of ALL 50 years of research
      –Richard Belzer and Ronnie,oops I mean David Wayne: great reads, stylish, with unusual formats
      –in the “LBJ as the Big Rat” category: Barr McClellan, Blood, Money & Power broke much new ground at the turn of the millennium (but some newbies tell me “It’s too dense”);
      Philip Nelson, LBJ: the Mastermind of …. , packed and great IMO, but hissed at by much of the research community–too long to explain why;
      Craig Zirbel, The Texas Connection, a favorite of mine if only because he was first to lay out Johnson’s part, and great explanations about right-hand man assassins in history. CZ is disdained by much of the community
      —The earliest books are great but not for a first try: Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Weinberg (“dean of researchers”)
      —two very early books free on the web that I suggest from what little I can guess about your compos mentis: Farewell America by Mark Halpern (sp?), a pseudonym for elements of French intelligence. Man, they about nailed it in the late ’60s. A weird one but a good one: The Gemstone Files, anonymous. I can hear howls of derision from the community on that one. Keep a few grains of salt handy.
      —read Debra Conway’s obit of the mighty Jean Hill. There WAS a little white dog (-like thing) between the First Couple on Elm St.
      –Anything by the Bills, Kelly and Simpich.
      –on alteration of the Zapruder film and forging of medical evidence: Fetzer, Mantik, Horne, Hornberger. Read Willy Whitten about anything except Z-film.
      –on this site, it would be easier to tell you who NOT to read, but that wouldn’t be Kennedyesque. R. Morrow, R. Wayne are always spot on. Well, all of em on this site except for the three or four odd muddiers; I’m including myself in that category.
      –the ever-rarer lisa pease, leslie sharpe, pat spear, they’re gold.

      • Roy W Kornbluth says:

        I had the author of Farewell America way off. It’s James Hepburn, a pseudonym concocted by the editor/publisher Lamarr. He loved Audrey Hepburn, the movie star, and the James is thought to be for the closest male name to the French j’aime, cuz he loved her. Easy mnemonic device.

    • gaetano vindigni,

      Regardless of what Mr Kornbluth says about reading anything by me except the Zapruder film; I must tell you that I am a retired special effects artist, with more than 25 years as a professional on more than a dozen major special effects films.
      I refer you to this page on my own blog:

      • Roy W Kornbluth says:

        Willy, I was trying to be funny about what I see as a tiny blind-spot of yours.
        Also I may be a bit frustrated. I’ve asked you a couple times: How do you explain John Connally going from the right side of the limo to the left side, and turning 90* in 1 or 2 18ths of a second. There’s a blur for two frames; then he appears, teleported to the other side of the car. To me that seems ipso facto proof of frames being cut out.
        Or is this just a dumb question?

        • “I’ve asked you a couple times: How do you explain John Connally going from the right side of the limo to the left side, and turning 90* in 1 or 2 18ths of a second.”
          ~Roy W Kornbluth

          And I have answered that question before, but somehow that answer doesn’t make it through moderation.
          So let’s try it again:
          I have watched every posting of the z-film I have been able to find on YouTube. I have studied this film since having it on VHS tape in the early 80’s, and I simply do not see what you are describing there.

          So, to be certain we are watching the same film, I offer this particular posting on video of the first day copy; that has the full film before the damaged frames to the original (just before the limo goes behind the sign) – so the whole film Zapruder shot is here:

          If you still see what you are describing in this…
          I simply do not know what to tell you!

    • lysias says:

      The public and brutal method of removing was meant to intimidate, both politicians of the time who might have wanted to go public with their doubts and any future politicians (especially presidents) who might have wanted to reopen the investigation.

  2. Paul Henry says:

    I have seen many article’s casting suspicion on the Deputy Director of the CIA, General Cabell, the brother of the Mayor of Dallas when JFK was killed there and his boss CIA Director Allen Dulles who would become a Warren Commission member. The suspicion arises from the positions they were in that could easily have helped in a conspiracy/cover-up motivated by retaliation because they were forced to retire by JFK. I don’t see one that includes them and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was facing forced retirement by JFK on January 1st, 1965. If suspicion of Cabell and Dulles is justified than it would be just as justified to suspect Hoover. Hoover knew well in advance before the 1960 election that the next President would have jurisdiction over him and he probably had jurisdiction over Johnson and Nixon the next possible 1960 President’s hoping they would become President but JFK stole it away from them, so they stole it back? Johnson makes Hoover lifetime FBI Director five months after the Presidents assassination while Hoover is still working with the investigation and the rest is history. Is there a book or article that deals with this that actully mentions these facts together?

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Deep questions. Cabell as second in command of the Cia during the BOP was actually in command as Dulles was conveniently out of the country. He was in line to ask JFK for the air support JFK previously said he would not provide. If memory serves right Cabell declined the opportunity. Naturally, his brother was not a JFK supporter.
      Suspicion of the Cabell’s and Dulles is justified.
      Hoover, as always covered his ass and in turn the FBI, as well as his friend LBJ.

  3. Dr. Donnie Briley says:

    Do you ever answer questions on Are you actually interactively involved on this site? I would love to get some answers to my questions.
    Right now it seems that you have just left your site for people to battle about the JFK issue without any guidance.
    If you are the moderator, where are you? How do you respond to email questions regarding your book?

    I have posted to that site a great review of your book but I don’t see where you ever answer your visitors questions. Below is what I posted.
    And by the way. John McAdams always answers questions quickly. (Ha Ha)

    I have been studying the JFK assassination for 20 years. I bought your book about 3 months ago and I have read it 4 times.
    This book consolidates my beliefs that LHO was the lone assassin but did not act alone.
    Your book is factual, without subterfuge, without hyperbole, and empirical with it’s message to the reader. I find it simply fantastic!
    It is the book I have been waiting for that promotes the theories of Jay Epstein, Lopez Report, project AMLASH, etc.
    With that said… Can you please tell me what your opinion is on Oswald in Mexico. Most writers give you a summary of their opinion. You did not.
    Maybe you just want to leave this to the reader, but come on… Give a Doctor of Computer Science a bone!

    Here is my theories based on your book (Our Man in Mexico)
    1. Oswald was really in Mexico and met Sylvia and slept with her and she helped him that Sat. night (but why did he speak broken Russian)
    2. Oswald was really in Mexico and met Sylvia and slept with her, but two imposters made that call on Sat. night. (Jim Angleton was running someone as an Oswald imposter!)
    3. I have 6 other theories I could talk about here but I want your opinion on what you believe after writing this amazing book! I think you owe that to us!

    Before I read your book my opinion was that Oswald was a sleeper agent hired by the Russians to assassinate JFK. He knew Kostin, the photos sent from the Mexico station were not him!
    Why! Because the CYA! Cover your Ass. What would be worse? Proving that the real LHO was at the Cuban and Russian Embassies and meeting with Kostikov thus provoking a world war 3.
    Or, defusing this situation by letting everyone think that the conspiracy was homegrown? The choices are WWIII or a conspiracy that can never be proven.

    After I read your book I feel that my above theory is being reinforced.
    Again, please tell me the summary of what your book is telling me…. (I don’t want to misinterpret such a brilliant book and then look like an idiot)

    Dr. Donnie Briley
    MCP+, A+, Network + CE

  4. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Four times in three months? You, sir are and avid reader, with a suddenly focused interest on Mr. Morley’s book. A Doctor of Computer Science from where? Can you provide the name of Professor’s who guided you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more