The state of the JFK case in 2014

James Fetzer, a retired professor of philosophy from the University of Minnesota-Duluth, is the very picture of a conspiracy theorist, from his dubious haircut to his hectoring tone to his assured command of facts. Professsor Fetzer recently offered his most detailed JFK conspiracy theory yet in Veterans Today, He purports to identify, by name, the six men who allegedly fired gunshots at President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

The lavish detail of Fetzer’s allegations evokes one of the finest pieces of JFK journalism ever published — in the Onion. Fetzer’s is an American tale: a posse of six-shooters joins the army of Dealey Plaza gunmen.

Fetzer on Fox

Needless to say (and all joking aside), most JFK assassination scholars, pro or anti-conspiracy, whom I know and trust, do not agree with Fetzer. Some might call him laughable but I’m not one them. I will say Fetzer’s imaginative digressions about the Zapruder film and the Sept. 11 attacks do not enhance his credibility. But his documentation deserves at least to be crowdsourced. (Commenters?)

What do we know now?

Professor Fetzer is right about one thing: He says JFK’s assassination was a “national security event.” In the age of NSA mass surveillance in the service of the war on terrorism, the term should become more familiar. A “national security event” is an incident that is enshrouded in official secrecy because it involves the interests of U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

The apparent involvement of Lee Harvey Oswald, an itinerant ex-Marine who was tracked closely and constantly by senior CIA counterintelligence officers between 1959 and 1963, in Kennedy’s assassination assured that the case of the murdered president would be swathed in layers of official secrecy that have yet to be fully unwrapped.

The continuing secrecy around the CIA’s 1,100 assassination records indicates that JFK’s murder will continue to be treated as a national security matter in 2014, more than 50 years after the fact.

Media coverage

The major media coverage of the 50th anniversary of the JFK’s death had some interesting features. The 50th anniversary ceremony in Dealey Plaza was a dry-eyed dud. The movie “Parkland” puzzled critics and tanked at the box office.

Parkland, the movie

The best JFK book of the year, “A Cruel and Shocking Act,” by former New York Times reporter Phil Shenon, offered a conventional lone gunman explanation of the causes of JFK’s death and a rather more intriguing narrative of what he called “the secret history of the Kennedy assassination,” in which Kennedy’s murder was followed by destruction of evidence, thwarting of legitimate investigation, and stonewalling on relevant questions.

Bob Woodward usefully linked the NSA mass surveillance scandal to the JFK assassination coverup. Both are manifestations of “the power of the secret world” at the heart of the American government, said the veteran Washington scribe who would know.

The best JFK documentary, in my opinion, was Shane O’Sullivan’s “Killing Oswald,” which I will write about in the new year.

The strongest dissenting voice from the Kennedy family was heard when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in Dallas that his father thought the Warren Commission report was “a shoddy piece of craftsmanship“ and that his father didn’t believe JFK’s death was the work of one man. RFK Jr.’s comments were covered by news sites across the political spectrum.

What happened on November 22, 1963?

The notion that President Kennedy was attacked by multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza cannot be dismissed just because Professor Fetzer’s theory is unfounded. If Fetzer is wrong, is RFK Jr. right?

Decide for yourself.

Witness Testimony: The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald fired three shots at the president from the Texas School Depository building. A PBS Nova documentary in November confirmed this finding via science.

The show didn’t delve into the fact that  a lot of people at the crime scene had the impression of a crossfire with gunshots coming from both Depository and from in front of the motorcade. The litany of evidence on both sides is familiar. There is no doubt some gunfire came from the Texas School Book Depository. The quality of the witnesses who heard a grassy knoll shot is generally high (21 cops, for example). A variety of corroborating evidence creates a fairly consistent picture of a moment in time

Grassy knoll aftermath

A cop runs to the grassy knoll

Professor John McAdams assures us no less than 33 people thought a shot came from the direction of the grassy knoll area. Bill Newman thought the shot came “right over his head.” Abraham Zapruder’s associate Marilyn Sitzman thought she heard the sound of a shot to her right. In the lead car of the motorcade Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry ordered his his men to secure the parking lot behind the grassy knoll. Curry later concluded the fatal shot must have come from the front.

As for the two young black people who were sitting right on a park bench on the knoll, they ran away and were never heard from again.

A second shooter?

The investigation of what happened in the west end of Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22,1963, was incomplete at best. The FBI and the Dallas Police Department did not try to investigate the possibility of a shot from the front. They didn’t look for evidence of a second gunman. It was hardly surprising they didn’t find any.

No proof of a second gunman has ever been produced but that has not prevented serious investigation into the question. The most credible candidate for a second JFK gunman is, in my personal opinion, a Cuban man named Herminio Diaz. I’m not stating this as historical truth but the story comes from Anthony Summers, a veteran JFK reporter whose reporting has broken new ground in the case before.

Tony Cuesta

Tony Cuesta, anti-Castro fighter and possible JFK witness

My own research indicates that the original source of the story, a Cuban exile named Tony Cuesta, was also a credible source, trusted by senior CIA officers. Cuesta died in 1992, according to the New York Times.

For more on Diaz, see my Nov. 20 post, “Cuban said his friend was a Dealey Plaza gunman; CIA has files on the source.” Summers tells the Herminio Diaz story here.

Until Cuesta’s 47-page CIA file is declassified, the Herminio Diaz story cannot be dismissed.

What does science tell us?

“Acoustics evidence:” A Dallas Police Department audio recording remained the subject of inconclusive debate in 2013. Audio engineers at Sonalyst, a firm hired by University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, reached the same conclusion as several earlier studies: the gunshots were not recorded on the Dictabelt.

Don Thomas, the leading proponent of the theory the sound of gunfire was recorded, responded with a paper arguing that the Sonalyst study was “sophistry” that failed to explain the sound impulse pattern that he says constitutes evidence of gunfire.

My own view is that the acoustics evidence is not admissible evidence.

Photographic Evidence: The official JFK investigation suppressed Abraham Zapruder’s film for 12 years. The film, shown publicly for the first time by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrsion in 1969, showed Kennedy blasted backwards and to the left, indicative of a shot from the front.

It is not impossible that Kennedy was struck from behind — everybody who has seen war says bodies do strange things when struck by bullets — but the common sense impression left by the film is that President Kennedy was struck by bullets from two directions. That’s what CIA director John McCone told Robert Kennedy after he saw Zapruder’s film.

(See my Jan. 23 post: “CIA chief told RFK about two shooters.”)

Air Force One tape from Nov. 22, 1963 (Joseph Kaczmarek/AP)

Medical Evidence: What about the X-rays, autopsy photographs and the autopsy findings that the president was hit only by bullets from the rear?

The medical evidence presents the strongest case for doubting Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front but our confidence in the autopsy findings is undermined by the poor performance of the autopsy doctors and the admitted influence of unidentified military officers in the autopsy room.

One of the most powerful witnesses to be heard in 2013 was Dr. Robert McClelland who stood over JFK during the last efforts to save his life and looked at his wounds for about ten minutes. “It was not just a single shooter,” he said.

The testimony of medical technicians to the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s calls into question the veracity of the autopsy photographs held at the National Archives in College Park Maryland.

Several technicians testified under oath that the photographs they took of JFK’s body are no longer in evidence. Another testified that the brain specimen in evidence is not the brain that he removed from Kennedy’s body. And if you think such a story couldn’t possibly be true, please read George Lardner[s 1998 piece in the Washington Post.

Bill Kelly and Ed Primeau's reconstruction of the Air Force One tapes, first reported in JFK Facts, points out the fact that there once was a more complete recording of the communications of the presidential jet on Nov. 22, 1963, that has never been made public. This tape, if it still exists, might shed more light on the Pentagon's role in JFK's autopsy.

JFK researcher John Canal offered a thoughtful non-conspiratorial explanation of the contradictory medical evidence in "Washington Decoded."

Bottom line

The Obamas and the Clintons at JFK’s grave, Nov. 18, 2013. (Photo: PBS)

In my opinion the evidence shows that Dealey Plaza was a scene of chaos on November 22, 1963, and a second gunman could have slipped away. The filmed evidence is consistent with crossfire. The contradictory medical evidence is not dispositive.

Who the other shooters were, if they existed, remains a matter of fervent speculation as Professor Fetzer’s far-fetched claims have shown us. It is also a matter that requires further investigation, as the careful work of Anthony Summers reminds us.

On the other hand, if Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing JFK, as some people believe, then the contradictory evidence can be rationalized. The CIA’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald is judged irrelevant, an instance of incompetence, not malfeasance. The Dealey Plaza witnesses were simply mistaken in an oddly consistent way. Abraham Zapruder’s film is misleading. And the medical evidence cannot be impeached.

That’s a snapshot of the JFK case after 50 years. National security secrecy breeds conspiracy mongering and official apologetics, while the public waits for full disclosure, clarity, and perhaps answers.

Let’s hope 2014 prove more illuminating.

Happy New Year.

 

 

 

57 comments

  1. Photon says:

    Jeff, I hope you are not slipping into the habit of posting false information. Dr. Fetzer is not and never has been a professor of physics; there isn’t any evidence that he even took a college-level physics course. He is a science historian, not a scientist.
    Dr. Fetzer was a professor at University of Minnesota-Duluth, an entirely different school from the University of Minnesota, as different as UCLA is from UC Berkley. It is a significant issue.
    I would have thought that the Cheryl McKinnon post was illustrative of the perils of posting false narratives as fact. Your statement of fact concerning the black couple rests on the single claim of a conspiracy author with absolutely no confirmatory evidence from anybody else – in an interview done in 1966, almost 48 years ago. 48 years with absolutely no mention anywhere of an independent confirmatory source?
    JFKfacts is devolving into JFKfiction when these inaccuracies get posted as documented fact.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      “JFKfacts is devolving into JFKfiction when these inaccuracies get posted as documented fact.”

      And yet you keep coming back here, posting your own dubious and/or false assertions (e.g., no one thought shots came from the Grassy Knoll at the time of the assassination), never backing up your claims with links, source cites, etc. when challenged, trying to cast doubt on virtually everything Mr. Morley writes. If what Jeff posts is so farfetched or devoid of reason, why do you feel the need to argue against it, in a tone that at times verges on hysteria? Frankly, I think what really troubles you about what Jeff Morley writes is that it’s so reasonable and credible.

      • John Kirsch says:

        The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him. A troll’s comments are deliberately provocative because he is trying to get a rise out of people, not further the discussion. The more people respond to him, the happier he is. Don’t give him what he wants.

    • jeffmorley says:

      No Photon, you are the one disseminating false information.
      Contrary to your ill-informed claims, there IS confirmatory evidence of Marilyn Sitzman’s story about the black couple on the knoll.

      Sitzman told Tink Thompson that they were sitting on the park bench, eating lunch from from a paper bag and drinking from soda bottles She said after the shooting she heard the sound of a bottle breaking and she saw the two young people run away.

      On page 75 of Richard Trask’s book “Picture of the Pain,” there is a photograph taken on November 22 showing two plainclothes detectives standing over the park bench examining a bag from Tom Thumb, a fast food restaurant. Another photo on p. 76 shows a pool of liquid on the spot.

      I found the story credible because Trask, a meticulous historian who does NOT believe there was a conspiracy, found it credible.

      So the evidence shows there was someone eating lunch on the bench and there was a spilled soda, just as Sitzman said. You have not explained why Sitzman would have described these people as “colored” if they were not, and the truth is you cannot. You’re blowing smoke.

      Your reflexive efforts to discredit corroborated evidence betrays a fearful and defensive mindset that is worried about evidence that contradicts your prejudices. This is revealing.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Jeff’s post says “retired professor of philosophy from the University of Minnesota-Duluth”. The Fetzer article says “former Marine Officer who obtained his Ph.D in the history and philosophy of science”. You have posted before about “showing my ignorance” about the subject (which I freely admit, I’m not a researcher or “expert”). Good job showing yours.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jeff, thanks for the further clarification regarding evidence that there was indeed a couple on the knoll.

        I would also like to add that while this challenge of Photon’s methods is long overdue, it is nonetheless appreciated at least by me. I respect your commitment to providing a vehicle for dissenting theories and aggressive consideration of facts, but applying a double standard is counterproductive. Failure in the past to insist that Photon abide by the same standard imposed on others has prompted concern for your lack of transparency regarding a tolerance of his tactics. This response has gone some way toward dispelling that concern.

      • Thomas says:

        Hear hear.

      • Photon says:

        The picture of the detectives shows a bench perpendicular to the Dallas County Records building including a view of most of the Dal-Tex building’s southern face, but none of its west face. The TSBD is not even visible over the left detective. In reviewing the placement of the trees, the traffic sign posts and the Stemmons Freeway sign, it is obvious that the bench in question is closer to Houston Street, perhaps on the other side of the reflecting pool along Houston, perhaps even as far south as the Moorman position. At any rate, this bench is SOUTH of Elm Street. It is nowhere near the position of Zapruder, certainly not to his west (right) as described in the Sitzman interview. Similar benches are even today seen along the west side of Houston Street- but not seen in any contemporary photos near the grassy knoll nor in the vicinity of Zapruder’s perch. As Zapruder was NORTH of Elm Street it is impossible for the bench that is pictured to have been the site of the black couple as described.
        Tom Thumb was ( and I believe still is) a supermarket chain in Dallas that had its own bakery. The bag marked Tom Thumb was a plastic bag with 8 dinner rolls for 25 cents with the distinctive Tom Thumb bakery label with a cartoon of a baker holding a covered platter.
        The bag next to it is a run of the mill paper grocery bag, not a fast food remnant. This photo shows no evidence of lunch or fast food items.
        Back to you.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Photon, could you provide said photos to support your specific perimeters and trajectories, or have they already been posted on this site? It’s difficult to determine whether or not your challenge to Jeff Morley’s determination about the evidence of a couple on the grassy knoll is accurate without the visuals.

        • Stanley says:

          It’s a wax paper bakery bag. You can see the creases in it. All the angles are perfect for the bench west of Zapruder’s position, near the pergola. South of Elm St? Not possible. Too bad we can’t see the left side of the back of the Stemmons sign. Perhaps a bullet hole would be visible.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          How obscure. The Tom Thumb bakery symbol.
          http://www.tomthumb.com/ShopStores/Our-Story.page
          Lunch by a black couple with a Big Red soda pop bottle. Dropped at the sound of shots. They ran away. ALL pure speculation.

        • Jonathan says:

          Photon,

          You assert the bench in the photo is SOUTH of Elm Street. Your assertion is provably false.

          The camera is aimed at about 30 degrees to the back of the bench. That corresponds perfectly to what we see of the south side of the Dal Tex Building and what we would expect to see of the Dal Tex if the bench were where Marilyn Sitzman said it was. Look at Don Roberdeau’s map of Dealy Plaza.

          If you look at that map, you’ll see you’re wrong. A 30 degree angle to the back of the bench from SOUTH of Elm Street would provide a line of sight to the west end of the Dal Tex, which as you say is not visible.

      • Robert Harper says:

        Jefferson – Perhaps -maybe on just selected topics – you might require a poster to identify him or herself- so that its a dialogue and not a hit ‘n run.
        Mr Fetzer is a former Marine and a retired university professor and a widely read author. Whether you agree or disagree with his theories or his hairstyle, we know who he is, and what he stands for. If anyone wants to come on the site and attempt to mock and demean such a person, why not require the ID info? Who likes sneaking around and throwing tomatoes?
        Also, some of your readers might not be followers of the
        cutthroat world of academia. Let me just say that the generally accepted professional opinion for the past two decades, has been that of the top 20 rated public universities in America, the University of California, has 7 of them. So,for any analogy purposes, there is a miniscule difference between the campuses at Berkeley or Los Angeles, and it is primarily a geographical one.

        • John Kirsch says:

          Robert Harper, I like what you said about requiring people to identify themselves in order to address this “hit ‘n run” problem that I think is all too real, on this website and others. Trolls, unfortunately, are all too numerous.
          The problem posed by a certain person’s habit of trying to disrupt good online discussions is very real. It is a regrettable flaw on this site, which is unfortunate because this site is one of the few I know of that is actually devoted to a factual, rational approach to solving the mystery of 11/22. Anything that detracts from that is a problem and needs to be addressed but I’m not sure how.
          I think the people who run this site are to be commended for trying to have what amounts to an “open door” policy in order to promote a good debate.
          Unfortunately, we have seen (and are continuing to see) that at least one person is trying to take advantage of that openness in order to derail the debate. That has been glaringly obvious to me and others for a long time.
          One possible solution: The opinion page editors at most of the papers I worked for had a policy that limited certain individuals to having only 1 or 2 letters to the editor published in a month. The editors did this because the individuals in question often expressed provocative, even inflammatory, views and would have done so every day if they could have. This would have had a disruptive effect on the letters to the editor section, which is often well read, and the editors arbitrarily decided they had to impose limits on these people.
          The people who were limited fussed and fumed but there was nothing they could do. There is no constitutional right to have your letter to the editor published, or to have your comment posted online. Maybe a similar policy should be considered for at least one person who posts (all too) regularly on this site.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Thank you for reminding us about that black couple’s presence based on Sitzman’s account and the evidence from Trask’s book which I have (but I need to refer to it again).

        My feeling is that they ran because what they heard and/or possibly saw would not benefit them if they were to tell the truth around that era of civil rights.

        If only they would come forward now.

      • derrick wilson says:

        szlitsman lied… she lied lied lied..

    • Fearfaxer says:

      “Dr. Fetzer was a professor at University of Minnesota-Duluth, an entirely different school from the University of Minnesota, as different as UCLA is from UC Berkley. It is a significant issue.”

      No. It’s a trivial mistake, especially in light of the fact that JM is saying Fetzer’s the author of what amounts to unintentional self-parody. Even if Jeff were giving credence to Fetzer’s claims, it doesn’t amount to much. But then you do love to point out a row of anthills and claim it’s a mountain range.

  2. Dan says:

    The following problem is rather key to solving the mystery- J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ on 11/23/63 that Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City weeks earlier. Warren Commission staffer David Slawson recently confirmed at the SMU conference that audio tapes of this episode existed in 1964, and he stated he did not believe CIA claims that the tapes had been written over shortly after they were created in 1963. Nor did he believe CIA explanations about the lack of a photograph of Oswald. Thus a key problem to solving the mystery is whether Oswald was impersonated, and if so, why and by whom?

  3. Matt says:

    Happy New Years fellas. Keep up the good work

  4. Jonathan says:

    Happy New Year as well.

    One group of facts catching my attention this 2013 year concern the arrival of the body at the Bethesda morgue. We know the autopsy officially began at 8:00 p.m. Amazingly, Humes himself testified under oath to the ARRB that the body arrived at the morgue in a non-ceremonial coffin as early as 6:45 p.m. Which indicates a charade was performed, given the official report of the body’s arrival at the Bethesda morgue in the ceremonial coffin shortly before 8:00 p.m.

    Humes denied working on the body before 8:00 p.m. Doug Horne, however, argues persuasively that Humes and Boswell obliterated the true nature of the wounds by doing the “surgery to the hesd” noted by Sibert and O’Neill. This sureptitious surgery was witnessed by one corpsman and took place approximately between 6:45 p.m. and 7:45 p.m.

    The description of events given satisfies Occam’s Razor. It accounts for the Sibert-Oneill comment; the body shuffling that occurred; the wound descriptions given by Boswell on the face sheet (in particular, his depiction of a large wound to the top of the head, which was not observed by the Parkland docs).

    Problem is, the extant photographs and X-rays do not depict the head wound desription given by Boswell. So to this extent, the record is confused.

    As for James Fetzer’s site, Assassination Science, I have found lots of valuable factual information there.

  5. Clarence Carlson says:

    “The investigation of what happened in west end of Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22,1963, was incomplete at best.”

    Indeed. Because of that the official story of what happened at Dealey Plaza will always be incomplete. One can always hope that release of official government documents will shed some light on the events, but the handling of the investigation was so overshadowed by the state security apparatus as to make many things essentially unknowable.

  6. DR says:

    Here is what bugs me about Fetzer; he’s a conspiracy gadfly of the stereotype that lends discredit to legitamate researchers.
    From Fetzer’s Wikipedia page:

    “Alleging treason and oath violations, he called for military overthrow of the Bush administration,[36] a position that hurt his mainstream credibility,[4] as did his apparent fixation on Jews in United States government.[11] Atop backing allegations that the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, and the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 were acts of governments’ covert terrorism,[37][38] he initially suggested for Sandy Hook a role by Israel’s Mossad or in any case, via claimed inconsistencies, a governmental stratagem, perhaps to frighten Americans into further gun restrictions.[39] He later claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre was a sham.[40] Fetzer has claimed evidence that all six lunar landings were faked.[41]”
    ———-

    With that said, it would be worth looking at the names he splattered against the wall.

    • Thomas Potter says:

      Who cares about the opinion of a powerless presumptuous pompous pufnstuf? If Fetzer is the Grand Poobah Lord High Everything Else of the Kennedy assassination, then why hasn’t his “evidence” convicted anyone for this act of treason? The only thing he has accomplished is to keep those who doubt the validity of the government’s explanation to constantly chase their own tail for 50 years.

      1. Fetzering
      Noun:
      1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.
      2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you’re wrong. therefore you are.
      3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

      Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960′s, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it’s use in the 9/11 debate arena.
      1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

      2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fetzering

  7. GM says:

    I have not saw the photo of the man outside the TSBD before (the one that some claim is Oswald). It appears different to the Lovelady one. I am not sure about it though. Happy New Year.

    • Jonathan says:

      Fetzer and his current crew have examined Altgens 6 (the photo in question) in detail. I believe their examination raises serious questions as to whether the photo shows Oswald, rather than Lovelady, in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

      Lovelady told the FBI he was wearing a red-and-white striped shirt that day. There is even an early-1964 photo of Lovelady in the alleged striped shirt. The man in the doorway is wearing a shirt like the shirt Oswald wore when he was arrested. (He didn’t change his shirt, only his trousers, at his rooming house.)

      Most troubling is that Altgens 6 appears to have been fabricated. Looking at the figures in the doorway one sees an impossible and improbable depiction of individuals in and next to the doorway. As if the killers didn’t want the world to see who really was standing in the doorway of the TSBD at 12:30 p.m.

      • Photon says:

        So the Altgens photo was fabricated?

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I always thought that it turned out to be Lovelady from an examination of his face and scalp.

        However, about that shirt, a retired researcher from Toronto first mentioned to me that there was a multi-point comparison of the Lovelady shirt in the picture to that of Oswald’s and the similarity cast doubt that it was Lovelady. I need to re-examine this further.

        Do you have a link for Fetzer’s analysis on this very point?

        Thank you and Happy New Year.

        • Jonathan says:

          HNY 2014 as well. You can find a series of 4 or 5 essays on “Doorway Man” at the Assassination Science website. The essays are well done in my estimation.

          As for Altgens 6, you can find several versions of this photo at:

          http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=2

          If you study what passes today for Altgens 6, in particular if you study the figures in and around the doorway, you’ll see a number of anomalies. For example, the Lovelady/Oswald figure has his left arm across the body of a Black man who appears to be strictly one-dimensional. As another example, the left shoulder of the Lovelady/Oswald figure is obscured by the body of a man standing BEHIND the Lovelady/Oswald figure — an M.C. Escher-like depiction.

          • KenS says:

            Yes, please study this photo carefully, once again. You’ll find no Escherisms here, all is as it should be, and Mr. Lovelady wears his own shirt. Oswald must be having lunch, just as reported. Oswald killed no one this day, and he surely wasn’t on the TSBD’s front steps in this photo. Chicken bones and soda pop, anybody?

      • TLR says:

        Maybe you can explain how the Altgens photo was tampered with in the short amount of time before it was published on the AP wires at 1pm. Altgens had to run back to his office, the film was developed, that image was selected and a caption written for it – all within about 20 minutes. When and how could anyone have tampered with it?

      • derrick wilson says:

        actually the killers are in plain view , just your idea of a gun is not what the assassins used.

  8. craig clark says:

    this is really bogus–there’s plenty of research, testimony, etc. proving it was a major hit by military intel working under the direction of world-banking interests–hence the longevity of the cover-up.

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Happy New Year to all, may it be an enlightening one in regards to transparency in particular.
    Jeff, thanks for all you’ve done over the years along with so many others. I’ve still got my copy of “What Jane Roman Said” that I had to print immediately for my own collection the first time I read it. Your website has expanded the level of knowledge and discourse on the JFK assassination for many of us. It has also demonstrated more than any other source the need by the people of the United States to FREE THE FILES.
    You mentioned RFK Jr.s comments in Dallas. I thought his article in Rolling Stone was excellent also. I posted a link to it on another thread but don’t remember which one.
    One personal observation or opinion I’d like to note is regarding “medical evidence”. I think any conclusion reached using the autopsy pictures or x ray’s from the National Archives is useless. Both have been discredited by the people who took the real ones in testimony as not what they took and by other witnesses who were present. The real ones have never been seen by the public.
    Here’s to Transparency in 14′. Again, FREE THE FILES!!!

  10. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Oh yeah. I just finished Our Man in Mexico a couple of days ago.
    Great job weaving so much relevant information in with Michal’s story. If Winston Scott did not have foreknowledge I think he figured it out pretty quickly. Some of the potential insinuations seem pretty sinister. Taken in conjunction with a few other books read over the years they paint a pretty incriminating picture of the CIA (E.G. Oswald and the CIA, Flawed Patriot – William K Harvey, Destiny Betrayed, Cold Warrior, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, The Man Who Knew Too Much, On the Trail of the Assassins, Plausible Denial, Last Word and The Last Investigation among others). It would be nice to read Scott’s full unredacted manuscript.
    I would have liked to ordered an autographed Christmas copy from here (guess your still doing that after Christmas?) but I ordered it with The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi to get over amazon’s new $35 minimum for free shipping (I shouldn’t have ordered them at all as I’m not sure how I’m paying for all my various taxes this year (I need a house former home to sell!)but I’m glad I did).

  11. Neil says:

    Great wrap up of the last few months Jeff!

    Fetzer is kind of wacky. Researchers like him give serious Assassination researchers a bad name.

  12. Bogman says:

    Great summary, Jeff. And in going through the links I came across the keynote you gave at the JFK Lancer conference this past Nov. 22. Very inspirational. Everyone who comes to this site should make sure they see it: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Aju752l0tP4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAju752l0tP4

  13. James O'Neill says:

    Jeff, I am a little puzzled by your last post. I don’t want to get into a debate about Jim Fetzer whom I have always found to be polite and willing to discuss all viewpoints, regardless of their merits. That is a quality sadly lacking in many.

    I would like to comment on some of the points you made.

    1. You describe Shenon’s book A Cruel and Shocking Act as the “best JFK book of the year”. That is, to put it mildly, a bold claim. Di Eugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland would in my view be a vastly better book and more likely to inform those open to the evidence.

    2. You say that the PBS Nova documentary “confirmed by science that Oswald fired three shots”. With respect, it did no such thing. There is no evidence that meets even basic evidentiary tests to show that Oswald fired any shots at all. There is very strong evidence that several more shots were fired, most probably from the Dal Tex building, the so-called grassy knoll, and the underpass. Sherry Fiester’s book Enemy of the Truth, among others, is helpful on this point.

    3. You say that the acoustic evidence of the HSCA is to be doubted. I agree, but it is irrelevant. Low powered rifles (the probable source of the back and throat wounds) firing at less than the speed of sound, would not be heard above background noise. There is also the issue of the use of silencers for which there is now quite good evidence (see pat speer.com and his online book). there is also evidence of missed shots, including but not limited to James Tague.

    4. You say that the “medical evidence presents the strongest case for doubting Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front.” I suggest that the opposite is true. The medical testimony of the Parkland doctors to the HSCA and the ARRB are conclusive on that point. I would also recommend that articles over several years of David Mantik the 5 volume work of Doug Horne, and the aforementioned Jim di Eugenio.

    I suggest that the medical evidence and the Mexico city alleged visit by Oswald (see the Lopez Report, John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA and Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust for the details) are the Rosetta stones of understanding the JFK assassination.

    You are right that we may probably never know the identity of the shooters, but again that is largely irrelevant, for the reasons Jim Douglass brilliantly explored. It was a coup d’etat on November 22 1963 and the USA (and indeed the world) is poorer for the abject failure of your country to properly investigate the plotters and hold them accountable.

  14. Curtis Fenwick says:

    Please allow me to briefly get Jim Fetzer out of the way 1st. I get a big kick out of him. If the Olympics ever sponsor an event for a JFK researcher getting kicked out of the most online JFK forums then Fetzer will win the gold medal hands down.

    Someone has previously compared Jeff Morley’s JFK transparency efforts to that of David versus Goliath. I find that fitting & appropriate. To the judges he or his legal representatives address I would ask those judicial officials to liken Jeff’s endeavors to attempting to learn about one’s genealogy with a major blockage preventing one from learning their true roots. What the CIA officials & operatives did in their time on earth was paid for by the citizens of the USA; the written records being withheld or ‘sanitized’ belong to those citizens. They paid for the salaries & the missions with their tax dollars. Farming income tax dollars, delivering mail income tax dollars, repairing tire flats tax dollars, etc.

    To those officials deciding on Jeff Morley’s litigation this year (2014) against the CIA, I sincerely hope that the urge to do the right thing for the citizens of the USA overweighs personal agendas or alliances.

    America is a nation of laws. Jeff Morley’s actions are the proper way to bring about relief in the case of this nation’s enslaved, censored history of the past 50 years in regards to the horrific loss of President Kennedy & some operatives serving under his leadership that he also entrusted to ‘do the right thing’ for the American citizens.

  15. Andrew says:

    Mr. Morley, can you elaborate on why you believe the acoustic evidence is not admissible evidence?

  16. Alex S says:

    Is this site really raising the bar on JFK research with not-so-subtle jabs at crappy haircuts?

    I don’t approve of Fetzer (or his hair), but mocking it in discussing his “research” is the same sort of ad hominem nonsense urged on by the 1967 CIA media memo. Personal appearance can be useful for journalistic color, but I don’t see how that applies here, except to enforce this insulting idea of the “kooky conspiracy theorist”.

    And how the hell was Shenon’s book this year’s “best”?

    I would give JFKfacts something in the range of a C+/B- for 2013; the path to a better mark for 2014 just might be to follow Lisa Pease’s advice and stop feeding false mysteries, stop granting unearned equivalency to blatant cover-up artists, and most-of-all, to stop following the CIA’s “bash-the-conspiracy-theorists” playbook. Maybe throwing in random cracks at “stupid conspiracy theories” was a requirement for getting JFK-relevant pieces printed at the Washington Post, but then, there’s a reason no one reads newspapers anymore. Please, stop genuflecting to the official story, break out of the shallow and demeaning framework to which the mainstream media relegates the JFK case, and start talking to us like adults.

  17. Marcus Hanson says:

    To accuse SA William Greer of complicity is disgraceful.To accuse Roscoe White of participation is laughable.Professor Fetzer’s lack of academic caution is both disgraceful and laughable.

  18. Gerry Simone says:

    @ Jeff Morley:

    Happy New Year and thanks for the beginning of year recap and vision for 2014 as to the search and uncovering of the truth in JFK’s assassination.

  19. anonymous says:

    Former diplomat,poet and retired Berkeley English professor,Peter Dale Scott shares insights gained from studying both JFK & 911:
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hBozfOm9ngY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhBozfOm9ngY

    “A PBS Nova documentary in November confirmed this finding via science.”

    Science? Another PBS Nova documentary confirmed the Harley Guys theory via hocus pocus and speculation by Fetzer’s long lost cousins:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

  20. Curt Jester says:

    I have been in blogs and general research for a good while. The Zapruder Film fakery is quite apparent. I prefer to take on the issue instead of attacking or patting the messenger on the back. As I see research and belief in JFKdom, I see many correct on some or many issues or wrong on many or a few. I am my own umpire. If one wants to debate the Z film, here is a few basic things people look for. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I have my own personal I like to throw in there. If there’s interest, I oblige. If not, I don’t waste my time.

  21. Dave says:

    I think Jeff is trying to maintain a credible, intelligent, accessible site that cannot be merely dismissed as wild-eyed by the MSM; nor dismissed by the JFK critical community as just another MSM apologia. As demonstrated by this debate, the lines between fact, informed supposition and fantasy is to some extent going to be dependent on one’s personality, experience, critical filters and personal judgment. In the realm of JFK assassination, there are many facts, half-truths, deceptions and frauds, along with still-relevant facts/answers withheld by the national security state. The problem for all of us is to work with the best, most credible evidence available, the respective weight of which not all will necessarily agree upon.

    Personally, having spoken with Jeff and also Jim DiEugenio at the Pittsburgh JFK conference this year, I feel they both have much to offer. I’m reading Jim’s “Reclaiming Parkland” and it has a lot of material that Bugliosi doesn’t even mention or properly address in “Reclaiming History”, despite promising to deal fully with all conspiracy arguments.

    My 2014 New Year’s wish: a no-holds-barred “DiEugenio vs. Bugliosi” webcast debate, moderated by Jeff Morley. That I would pay for!

  22. TLR says:

    Fetzer is probably my least favorite JFK/911 researcher. He is reckless in his claims and thinks that every bit of photographic evidence in both cases was faked or tampered with. This is fantastic enough with the JFK assassination, but even more impossible with 9/11.

    I do agree with him that elements within the National Security State were responsible for JFK’s death, however.

    Phil Shenon’s book was a weak limited hangout. Probably the best book published this year was DiEugenio’s RECLAIMING PARKLAND.

  23. “The best JFK book of the year, “A Cruel and Shocking Act,” by former New York Times reporter Phil Shenon”

    Morley, why don’t you ask the JFK research community to crowd source Shenon’s utter crock of bullshit that does its best to point its finger at Fidel Castro for the JFK assassination?

    The clowns and the crackpots of JFK research are not the Jim Fetzer’s of the world. Fetzer is actually spectacularly lucid compared to anyone who points the finger at Castro or the Russians for the JFK assassination and those who have not figured out that Lyndon Johnson and the CIA/military and Dallas, TX oil executives were involved in the JFK assassination.

  24. George Simmons says:

    After reading some of the comments here, I thought I would say a few words regarding this site.
    I agree it can be annoying and frustrating when those who are not genuine post on this site. By not genuine, I mean not having a genuine desire to pursue the truth, but just wanting to disrupt and belittle the efforts of others.
    However, I don’t think there should be any form of censorship at JFKfacts. All people of all opinions should be free to post here, whether they identify themselves or not. I think we have seen that if they are not genuine, it soon becomes quite obvious.
    With this open and transparent approach, I hope there can be honest debate between the two sides of the argument. Also, by adopting this approach the site maintains its integrity, which I think is important.

    I would like to thank Mr Morley for all his efforts in running this excellent site.
    Jeff, your constant hard work and your long court battle with the CIA for the withheld records shows that you are the real deal.
    Good luck in 2014. I, for one, will be following and supporting you.

  25. Jeff says:

    As I reflect upon this last posting for 2013 and listen to each of your comments, I am encouraged and impressed by all of you and your efforts. The robust dialogue within that each of you provides is a true awakening for America. Your collective discourses provide the humor, hubris, sarcasm, criticism, support, encouragement, critical thinking, facts, insight and humble approach that are needed to come together as a unified team.

    This team, which includes each of you and other contributors who have posted to this site (such as “Kennedy63” who posted on January 1, 2014), is joined by a guiding light. That light is empowered by the vision of truth, honesty and transparency and represents the common principles that guide us all. The team is coming together and depicting a common voice, which may not be apparent yet, but soon will occur.

    As such, do not waiver in your efforts to pursue what is good in this world, as that good is worth fighting for. The movement toward openness is growing rapidly, and I feel 2014 will be inspiring. Your efforts will soon achieve exactly what John F. Kennedy would expect from “the People”.

  26. UncleChris says:

    Say what you will about Fetzer, but this article is darned interesting….

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/21/jfk-49-years-in-the-offing-the-altgens-reenactment/

  27. derrick wilson says:

    also, in moorman photo president slumps left not back..

  28. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    “No proof of a second gunman has ever been produced”…or is it that the proof has not been recognized and acknowledged? This past year we have made great progress in the examination of the autopsy mysteries and JFK’s wounds. I can say with confidence (evidence will be forthcoming in 2014)…that JFK was struck in the head by two bullets, fired from two separate locations. Further, that the first round was from a high velocity, high powered load. This round was intended to “penetrate” the bony shell of skull…thus “softening” the target for the second bullet. The high velocity round of this type causes minimal “cavitation”. The second bullet was a low velocity round and very likely a specialized round…such as a hollow point or some variation of this. The sole purpose of such a round is purely for “cavitation” and to cause as much damage as possible. The trajectories of each bullet are such that neither could match the angle necessary to have been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. In any case….there will be great advances in the foward progression of uncovering solid evidence of JFK’s and LHO’s murders…stay the course…Truth will rise to the surface…even in muddy waters.

  29. rollo says:

    If Wikipedia is right about his realy impressive credentials, then Fetzer is probaly a disinfo agent in the service of some powerful interests:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer#cite_note-Bugliosi-6

    Having graduated from South Pasadena High School, he studied philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962.[4] His undergraduate thesis on Carl G Hempel won The Dickinson Prize.[1] He then joined the United States Marine Corps, and was second lieutenant in an artillery unit…

    In 1966, soon after promotion to Captain, he resigned to enter graduate school.[4] Having attained a master’s degree from Indiana University, he studied at Columbia University a year, then returned to Indiana University and in 1970 attained PhD in history and philosophy of science.[3][4][21]
    As assistant professor at University of Kentucky since 1970, he received the UK Student Government’s first Distinguished Teaching Award in 1973. Having left Kentucky in 1977, he taught at University of Virginia, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of South Florida.[4] In 1987, he became full professor at University of Minnesota Duluth, was appointed Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996, and remained until retirement in June 2006.[4]
    In the late 1970s, Fetzer received a National Science Foundation fellowship.[22] By then, his assessments and reviews on probability in science were sought by philosophy of science peers.[23] In 1990, Fetzer received the Medal of the University of Helsinki.[1] Meanwhile, his counsel was sought by theorists in computer science.[24][25] He became a central figure—along with computer scientists—in debate over proper types of inference in computing.[18] By the late 1990s, Fetzer was sought to organize a symposium on philosophy of mind,[26] while his textbooks on cognitive science and artificial intelligence were among the most renowned.[16][17] He soon became recognized as a leading expert on Carl G Hempel.[1][27]
    Altogether, Fetzer has published over 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and computer science.[19] He founded the international journal Minds and Machines, which for eleven years he edited, and founded the academic library Studies in Cognitive Systems,[4] of which he was series editor.[1] He founded the Society for Machines & Mentality. Near and after retirement, Fetzer remained a contributor to as well as cited or republished in philosophy of science and cognitive science volumes and encyclopedias.[2][27][28][29][30]

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, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more