The life and death of JFK websites

As JFK Facts reported, one of the earliest and most popular JFK websites, the JFK Education Forum, is scheduled to go out of existence.

At the same time a new site, Assassination of JFK, is launching ambitiously.

The Education Forum was a den of querelous and monochromatic men, while the Assassination of JFK blog has a glossy look with full social media functionality, including a YouTube Channel, a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and Google+ page.

Let’s hope this is a trend.

Here’s the new video from

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>


  1. Alan Dale says:


    Here’s Mr. Burnham’s telephone interview with the late Gerry Patrick Hemming:


  2. Marcus Hanson says:

    I am not a member at the EF. Whilst your criticisms may not be without foundation ,it should also be said that there are some sincere , articulate and intelligent members , from =both= sides of the debate.

    As for this new website:I would not leap to equate the glitzy, glamorous web design and social media functionality with quality.If it helps make the public aware of the issues and offers objective historical perspective,great.If it is “just another forum” dressed in finer cloth,that’s not so great.

    Still,thank you for making us aware of the impending launch.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      John Simkin. It’s his site. He’s tired of a lot of things, wants to focus his work on other aspects of History and has mentioned a lack of financial support.
      It’s not just a den of men. Several ladies have posted there, some quite often of certain subjects. Dawn Meredith, Debra Brown, I’m probably wrong but thought I’d seen an older post or two recycled of Debra Conway of JFK lancer.
      There is no question there are some querulous men who disrupt threads there and put up posts that go On and On and On (I’ve learned to skip over most of these).
      However I’ve learned a lot there from People like Mr. Simpkin, Bill Kelly, Larry Hancock, Vince Palamara and many more without the name recognition of these. Greg Burnham still post’s there. I will miss it because of these. I won’t miss the diatribes.
      It would be nice if it could be archived for the sake of history and I certainly hope this aspect is kept alive .

  3. Jonathan says:

    Greg Burnham’s site is great. I recommend it highly. Very good factual information.

    • Thomas Joseph says:

      After reading Greg Burnham’s analysis of NSAM 273 posted on his new website here:

      and after listening to Greg Burnham’s radio interview with noted Internet researcher Len Osanic on the same subject posted on the same page & also at YouTube here:

      I am convinced Greg Burnham has located the primary Achilles Heel of the JFK assassination. Many feel the NSAM draft signed by McGeorge Bundy the day before JFK was ambushed & murdered in Dallas was more than adequate fuel for formation of a Grand Jury that never was assembled after Dallas. Greg’s analysis begs the question what President the draft was written for? Those with more liberal opinions will also appreciaate Greg’s support of Zapruder film alteration & other topics considered by some websites as ‘too hot to handle’.

      On the matter of the slow death of the Education Forum, my friends & others commenting on the Internet I don’t personally know feel John Simpkin’s trouble began when a highly suspected disinformation agent who has his own flashy website was 1st allowed to post there & then later given moderator powers; violating the advice most fathers give their sons about never letting destructive friends drive their 1st that car dad bought them to go to school in. The car is sure to be wrecked in the process. That particular moderator seethes with anti-David Lifton & anti-Douglas Horne research sentiment that is quite obvious in his Internet stalking postings attacking both researchers’ work (this has happened here at Jeff Morley’s website too). As a result, many noted EF researchers abandoned ship or were kicked overboard, leaving John Simpkin with a mess of a crew & a captain bent on sailing off the earth.

      A good many interested persons feel when the likes of Pat Speer, John McAdams, Dale Meyers, Dave Reitzes, Vince Bugliosi & a handful of others married to the Warren Report start showing up on any given website then that website is doomed to a slow death because of the trail of disinformation, chaos & confusion they allegedly have left behind them. How to balance fire is the challenge all JFK forums face when allowing agenda driven rascals inside.

      • Brad Milch says:


        I agree, Greg Burnham’s essay & subsequent interview by Len Osanic are a must read & listen to for anyone interested in the JFK murder case. It would make a good starting point for a sequel to Oliver Stone’s movie ‘JFK’. I wonder if Stone would have caught less criticism if he had used NSAM 273 as a vehicle to drive his movie instead of Jim Garrison. I wonder whose head would have rolled first had NSAM been given to JFK had he survived Dallas.

      • Pat Speer says:

        Who is Thomas Joseph and where does he get this beyond silly idea I am a LNer? I have been studying the JFK evidence since 2003 and was one of the first researchers to join the Education Forum shortly thereafter. Since that time I have made appearances at 5 national conferences. I have also been interviewed on Black Op radio on a number of occasions. At all times, I have claimed the evidence clearly suggests there was more than one shooter. I have also made no secret of my belief Oswald wasn’t Kennedy’s assassin.

        So what’s going on here? Am I getting “punked”? Anyone informed enough to know I have a website should also know I have entire chapters devoted to Bugliosi and Myers, in which I debunk their nonsense, and a number of sections in which I also debunk McAdams. And then there’s Reitzes… I have been under attack for months now due to my supporting Simkin’s decision to ban Reitzes.

        SO… Mr. Joseph, if that’s your name, you should try and get your facts straight before you accuse someone you clearly don’t know of being something they clearly are not.

  4. John McAdams says:

    others married to the Warren Report start showing up on any given website then that website is doomed to a slow death

    You mean conspiracists will leave any place where their views are challenged?

    Interesting observation.

    • John Kirsch says:

      I’ll let Thomas Joseph provide his own response to your comment.
      Here’s mine.
      My experience with JFK websites, conspiracy oriented or not, is largely limited to this particular site.
      Speaking only for myself, one of the frustrating things about this site has been the way other people, even those who doubt or reject the official story, have, in my view, gotten so far down in the weeds that they have lost sight of the big picture.
      This has happened because Warren Commission fundamentalists prefer to focus the debate (if it is a debate) on the arcana of the Warren Commission report, a 50-year-old document whose integrity is open to question.
      At times, the discussions on this site have had a kind of pseudo-religious quality, like biblical scholars arguing about the meaning of this, that or the other passage of scripture.
      I know that this is the sort of fruitless activity that causes me to leave this site from time to time.
      Now I have a question for you, Prof. McAdams. You appear to be a dogmatic defender of the Warren Commission report. How do you explain the fact that polls show that most Americans reject the “Oswald did it alone” conclusion the commission arrived at?

      • John McAdams says:

        I’ll ignore the “dogmatic defender” insult, and give you an answer.

        Conspiracy talking points are easy to profess. People like you can state a dozen of them in the time it takes me (or Jean Davison) to debunk just one.

        So believing in a conspiracy is easy, if one simply accepts the movie “JFK” as factual, or listens to Alex Jones.

        I’m sure you are aware that lots of people (often majorities) believe lots of silly things. Do you believe that vaccines cause cancer? That Barack Obama was born in Kenya?

        So what a majority believes proves nothing.

        • John Kirsch says:

          Prof. McAdams, my use of the phrase “dogmatic defender” was not meant as an insult and I apologize if it came across that way. It’s just that my reading of the comments you make on this site is that you believe very firmly that the WC got it right and often seem impatient, if not dismissive, of those who raise challenges to the official story. I would say you are certainly a hardline defender of the Warren Commission report. And like anyone who is in a defensive position, you spend a lot of time trying to thwart efforts to undermine your defensive position.
          You wrote, in part, “Conspiracy talking points are easy to profess. People like you can state a dozen of them in the time it takes me (or Jean Davison) to debunk just one.” In using the phrase “People like you” you are trying to lump me in with “conspiracy theorists,” a dismissive term I reject. I never stated in my comment that I believe there was a conspiracy involved in 11/22.
          Nor did I say anything about “JFK” or Alex Jones or Barack Obama. Like another WC fundamentalist who posts comments on this site, you have a habit of trying to cloud the issue when being challenged.
          But let me try and challenge you anyway. Do you believe that the federal government, which is funded by taxpayers and claims to act on their behalf, is obligated to provide a version of 11/22 that a majority of Americans would find believable?
          Or do you believe that the majority of Americans are wrong in rejecting the WC’s “Oswald did it alone” theory. And if you believe they are wrong, why do you believe that?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Hello again Dr. McAdams,

      I prefer the term pro-conspiracy advocates with respect to the JFK assassination (we don’t believe in any conspiracy).

      Some may leave a place where they hear and argue (about) the same old thing as opposed to hearing anything new.

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