Question

Is that Rafael Cruz next to Oswald?


There’s no evidence that it is, but judge for yourself.  Read more

What’s the most important piece of new JFK assassination evidence?

I nominate a forgotten tape recording that surfaced a couple of years ago. Read more

Who was the ‘babushka’ lady?

She was  an unknown woman present during the 1963 assassination of President John F Kennedy. Read more

Do you know where the original Orville Nix JFK assassination film can be found?


Gayle Nix Jackson is looking for it. They call it the Nix film. It was taken by her grandfather Orville Nix on November 22, 1963 in Dallas.

What Jackson says is indisputably true.

Read more

When did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot Jesus?

Americans offer expert commentary on a key historical question

Read more

What did Dealey Plaza witnesses say about the origins of the gunfire that killed JFK?

Here’s the most comprehensive compilation of eyewitness testimony from the Dealey Plaza crime scene, courtesy of Stewart Galanor and the Mary Farrell Foundation.

Read more

What did Oswald do in Monterrey?

I need some research help for my upcoming book on James Angleton: Read more

Where did the gunfire that killed JFK originate?

Skip the theories and focus on what 216 witnesses said.

Gladwell’s folly: Did a Secret Service man shoot JFK?

What me worry about JFK?

No, he did not.

The “Secret Service Man Did It” theory is comic in its macabre ludicrousness. It would not be worthy of discussion, except that Bill James and Malcolm Gladwell, and now the Huffington Post, have taken it seriously.

JFK Second Shooter? New Documentary Makes Radical Claim,” the liberal site reported. The article quotes a couple of cable TV documentarians from the Reelz Channel insinuating, without evidence, that a Secret Service agent killed Kennedy. There is no comment from any historian or journalist who actually knows the record of JFK’s assassination. To date, more than 3,000 people have “liked” the HP story. I have submitted a correction without hope that it will ever be acknowledged.

I could blame Gladwell for this sorry display of public ignorance, but let’s stick to the facts: Read more

Want to be marginalized? Talk about your ‘conspiracy theory’

My approach to the JFK assassination is that it was “an operation”.   When I’m feeling down to earth, I refer to myself as an “operations researcher.” When I’m making progress, I might upgrade to “investigator.”If I was looking for employment, I would go with “analyst.”
 David Talbot refers to people like us as “people’s historians”.  That’s good too.
When discussing the events of November 22, 1963, I ted to use terms like “Joint action”, “concerted action”, or “acted in concert.”  Don’t forget the simple word “plan.”
I don’t often use the word “conspiracy.” I think that when talking about the JFK case or similar events, the c-word is counterproductive and marginalizing.  Why describe those of us that challenge the lone gunman story as “conspiracy theorists”?  Or, in reductive bumper sticker terms: CTs?

Those who study the case are “historians”, “researchers” or “students”.  All perfectly good words, unlike “CT,” “LN,” or  “theorist,”  Theory of what?

‘JFK buff’ is an insult

The term “buff” is — how do i say this politely? –repellent.  A buff is a hobbyist.   What we’re doing has great value, but it would be a pretty sick hobby.    Remember how John Kerry did some good work on the contra-cocaine story?  Newsweek labeled him a “randy conspiracy buff”, invoking the trifecta of nudity, sex, and high adventure.  No thanks.

I refer to myself as an “operations researcher.” When I’m making progress, I might upgrade to “investigator.”I

“Lone nut” is also in poor taste, often used in the context of the “LN crowd”.  The terms “Lone wolf” or “single gunman” are respectful ways to refer to one’s adversaries in a case like this.

The people fighting AIDS had to deal with “victim”, “sick”, and similar metaphors.  Those in danger of infection were not “shooters” or “junkies” but “injection drug users”, or IDUs.  The challengers of the anti-immigrant forces have spent many years using the phrase “undocumented worker” rather than “illegal alien”.  Words matter.
The romance of conspiracy

I believe that many of us use the phrase “conspiracy theorist” because it seems practical, romantic, or titillating.

The last two reasons are bad ones.   Real bad.  Two of the many reasons the word has been marginalized.

Those who study the case are “historians”, “researchers” or “students”.  All perfectly good words, unlike “theorist”.  Theory of what?

If we want to not be seen by anyone as “on the margins”, there is a simple fix.  Admit that the phrase has been abused by our adversaries and the mass media.  It is now used as a red flag.  The design is to put the target in a box.  It can no longer be used by us in a practical sense.

I think the romantic and titillating aspects of the word “conspiracy” are enticing.  “They killed the President!  We have to call it what it is – conspiracy!”  It’s fun to be wrapped up in a world of high adventure, fighting the forces of Mordor with the energies of truth and light.

I understand it — I like romantic stuff and have a rebel nature.  But, I have to admit, it makes me blue.  We’re in the midst of an important conflict about how history will be written.  We need to share good stories, not needless drama.  I’d rather win.

Thomas Mallon asks, did ‘the climate of hate’ kill JFK?

‘Communism killed Kennedy’ remains one of the few defensible statements that the John Birch Society ever issued.

Source: The John Birch Society’s Lasting Influence – The New Yorker

The theory that one man alone killed President Kennedy has a tenacious hold on a respectable minority of JFK writers, including novelist Thomas Mallon, writing in the current New Yorker. Read more

What’s up at JFK Facts?

Dealey Plaza/Dave Weigman Dea

I

My faint apologies for the slow rate of posting. There is too much to talk about in the world of JFK (the Stephen King movie, David Talbot on Allen Dulles, and the October 2017 JFK data dump to name but three) and too little time.  Read more

Jacob Carter: why does it matter in 2016 what happened to JFK?

Jacob Carter, the author of “Before History DIes” talks about the loss of conviction in an America  made cynical by the assassination of JFK and its confused aftermath. But rather than succumb, Jacob finds hope–in the JFK research community and in social media,

Why did the CIA’s Richard Helms lie about Lee Harvey Oswald? (continued)

Professor Scott addresses a key question about the JFK assassination story.

 

 

[CIA Director Richard] Helms faced the same legal dilemma after he swore to the Warren Commission to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (5 AH 121). Helms was then asked “Can you tell the Commission as to whether or not you have supplied us all the information the Agency has, at least in substance, in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald?” Helms’s answer was, “We have, all” (5 AH 122).[2] This was, I submit, both perjury, and obstruction of justice.[3] In 1964 the CIA secrets he protected concerned an operation involving the name of the man reported to have been the president’s assassin.[4]

Source: Why CIA’s Richard Helms Lied About Oswald: Part 2 – WhoWhatWhy

For Part I of Peter Scott’s essay, go here.

Why so many books supporting the official theory of JFK’s assassination? 

Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor ask a good question in WhoWhatWhy but the implication of their headline that all books supporting the official theory of JFK’s death are “disinformation” does no service to the truth.

More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.

Read more