Comment Policy

Our site credo is: Listen up. Learn. Contribute. Link Early. Link Often. Be civil.

As May 6, 2014, JFK Facts has a new comment policy:

  1. Comments must pertain to the subject of the original post.
  2. All comments are reviewed before publication by the moderator or someone designated by him.
  3. Only comments that the moderators think  will advance the conversation and enhance the reader experience will be approved.
  4. Consecutive comments from the same reader will not be posted
  5. The Front Page Sidebar Rule: No comment will be published  that results in the commenter’s name appearing three times in the “What Readers Are Saying” sidebar on the front page,
  6. Commenters who use language deemed uncivil by the Comment editor or the site editor will have their comments put on 48 hour delay until such time as the offender acknowledges  the offense or the Comments Editor sees fit to remove the delay.
  7. The best comments are elevated to the site blog.
  8. Preference is given to comments that include links to, or citations of, credible sources.
  9. Commenters are welcome to submit their thoughts as posts for publication in the site blog
  10. Comments that are more than 500 words long will not be considered.
  11. Comments expressed IN ALL CAPS will not be considered.

The new comment policy will be reviewed for practicality and effectiveness and is subject to further change. Comments, questions and suggestions are welcome.

We are always looking for contributors who can write factually, knowledgeably and fairly on the subject of JFK’s assassination. Original research is especially welcome. Our only litmus test is factuality, with an ability to be civil and reasoned.

See the Contributors page for more information about how to become one.

15 comments

  1. Joe w. Heyer says:

    I have followed the case since the beginning. There is one piece of
    evidence that I believe has been mostly overlooked by most of the
    material. That is the ammunition clip. Can anyone give me an
    account of where it was found, where purchased, why no
    fingerprints. This is part of the question of why I can find
    no employee who saw Oswald bring anything into the building
    that day.

    • You can bet that any finger prints on the clip would be good ones but i doubt the Dallas lawmen wanted to check. All the cartridges–fired or unfired–should also have a prints on them.

      If anyone has a M-C rifle they could load it normally and shoot it like LHO was supposed to have done. Then dust the rifle–including clips and cartridges–and see how good the prints show up in a dusting. –d phillips

  2. Mitch says:

    Just discovered your site, looks fantastic and I can’t wait to spend some time going through it.

    I have one question/comment on the JFK shooting that has puzzled me since I first began studying it years ago. It never made sense to me that the Kennedy family did not seem to aggressively pursue answers in JFK’s assassination. RFK, although obviously devastated by his brother’s death, was still the Attorney General and the Kennedy family was still the most powerful family in the country. Is it possible that the book Ultimate Sacrifice answers that question in that RFK instinctively knew what had happened immediately and that there was no reason to investigate what he already knew?

    I would be curious what other people on your site think of the accuracy of this particular conclusion from the book. Thank you.

    • Mitch says:

      There is some conflicting data on what the family tried to find out, but it is obvious that nothing was done publicly.
      RFK may have known on the weekend of the assassination that there were others involved that could be connected back to the war against Castro that he himself was involved in.
      With LBJ as his boss, and Hoover as the man who ran the investigation, RFK had much less power than we sometimes think. Add to that the paralyzing effect of the grief.

  3. Curt Jester says:

    As a researcher I find the JFK Conspiracy Community, full of vigor and still in disarray. People like Fetzer have proven the Z Film revamped, and still worry about who they think they might see in a doorway. There can be no solidarity with people going in so many different directions. I believe the JFK conspiracy along with others involves this Secret Team that loves to control money, power, agendas; and will stop at nothing for murder or cover up to get in their way. That doesn’t preclude a Mafia, a Dallas Oligarchy, CIA recruits, FBI brass, to any right-wing soldier that could be recruited and adapted for a single purpose; in this case the offing of JFK, who plainly in another thread’s worth got in their way. I love a Beverly Oliver to a Lisa Pease to a Madeleine Brown. They all spoke truth. I love a Jim Fetzer, a Penn Jones, John Armstrong, Jefferson Morley. They all spoke truth. Can I say James Files didn’t kill JFK? No. Is it really important? No. What’s important is that a segement of society, a powerful segment got away with the murder of JFK, and after proving the bare necessaries of Dealey Plaza evidence, the solidarity should go or have gone to the real machinery and purpose of the crime. It’s probably too late for convictions, but I do think all the trudging’s have made the clarity of understanding much better. Where that goes, I don’t know. I do know there is growing mistrust and awareness of The Secret Team, and a lot of that started with JFK and made other subsequent conspiracies easier to take a look at.

  4. Paul Ellenbogen says:

    After reading ultimate sacrifice, I think that is the most plausible explanation. Although there have been many theories, the mafia revenge scenario for Robert Kennedy as ag very vigorously pursued the prosecution of top mafia figures. Oswald to this day remains an enigma. How he spent his time in Russia, was he a double agent? These questions will probably remained unanswered. When he was brought into the Dallas police station he said he expected someone from the government to stepforward on his behalf, of course no one did. The scenario discussed in the book is that I believe 2 hit men were brought in from Europe through Canada the grassy knoll scenario. They stayed in a safe house for a week paid in nontraceable drugs not cash and spirited out the same way they came in. Jack Ruby is totally discredited because of his mafia connections going way back to Chicago. I believe the Warren Commission findings were superficial. Again according to the book the CIA was in bed with the mafia in relation to try and oust Castro from Cuba and was responsible for the overthrow of other governments in the Caribbean in the 1950′s and 1960′s and in watergate. There is a long history of secret government covert spying now with NSA phone bugging. Like with the now long ago disappearance if Judge Crater one of the hit men’s widow’s just before she died told what really happened. All the people involved with the JFK assassination r probably all gone also. My take away is and I hate to say it can we trust the government?

  5. Lefty says:

    I met a man who knew Ruby and told me he thought Ruby killed Kennedy. In his WC testimony amid a lot of incoherent statements Ruby admitted it. There also was an affadavit from Julie
    Ann Mercer who said she saw Ruby unloading a rifle near the overpass .

  6. Perry says:

    All files have been sealed till the year 2017, done by George Bush during his presidency. Citing for the purpose of national security. What could be more important to national security today, to thoroughly investigate the JFK murder and reinforce to the American public the goodness and integrity of their government. By not opening this investigation only reinforces the corrupt CIA, the mistruths of the Warren commission, while the real murderers go free or die first living a full life. That is something JFK was denied!

  7. Anthony Martin says:

    First, I want to thank all the researchers all their hard work. Something happened 50 years ago, and I’m just beginning to get enlightened. What does the CIA have to hide except complicity or legitimacy? The reasons the public should have access to the historical record:

    It is my opinion, that in order to put the JFK assassination in perspective, the current state of governance in the USA should be considered. E.G. It is my opinion that the USA has four branches, an executive, a legislative, a judicial, and an independent security bureaucracy. Perhaps my assessment is incorrect. However though, one might choose to describe the USA in 2014, it is fair to ask: How did this country arrive to the place where it has arrived? Is is the result of a ‘natural’ evolutionary occurrence or was this condition precipitated from a deliberate effort. And it is fair to ask: Did the JFK assassination have any influence in this trajectory? And it’s imperative to inquire about the nature of that possible influence. In a representative government, in theory, the people governed have a right and a responsibility to manage their governance. And the people have a right to know the manner in which they are governed in order to assure themselves that they are governed well. The corollary is that any government that refuses transparency does so because the exposure of the true nature of things would bring the legitimacy of a government that calls itself representative into question. At that point, the people would know that they are governed fraudulently, not representatively.

    Along this line of reasoning and by using an analogy, it is fair to ask: 1) Is a coup d’etat possible in 2014 in the USA? 2) Who would be able to effect a coup d’etat? 3) What would be their motives? 4) How would they accomplish this? 5) Who is responsible for protecting the USA from such a situation and how do they achieve this? And even thought the circumstances and answers would be different, it is just as fair, even if from a theoretical standpoint and simply to achieve better understanding of the way things work, to ask the same questions regarding 1963. The question to ask: Can the USA government be changed or has it been changed by a method which is not a constitutional process? E.G. An unfortunate political assassination can cause a ‘vacuum’ which allows unintended consequences to happen or a political assassination can be deliberately manufactured to cause intended consequences. In both cases there are : 1) An objective: 2) A plan; 3) An action, 4) an actor or actors involved. In the the case of a coup d’etat: 4) the cooperation and coordination of individuals and actions, 5) the aftermath and 6) the outcomes of the event , all of which might be carefully considered in advance. In one case, only the removal of a political leader, an individual, might be considered, in the other, not only the removal of a leader and the replacement thereof is taken into account , but also the potential changes to the system of government that might result. All this to ask: What is the nature of the government of the USA in 2014 and how does it differ from 1963? Is the government representative and Constitutional or is it something else?

    Open the files!

  8. vasilis says:

    I would add a nineth point. To avoid misunderstandings and prevent misbehaviour everyone should use their real name, instead of hiding behind pseudonyms that allows them to smear others.

  9. Joel Rackley says:

    Hello,
    Just been looking into this for about a year.
    my question is this?
    I have not yet evaluated this one, but what are the best sites that contain proven facts? Not conjecture and opinion.

    Thank You,

    Joel

  10. William R. Foster says:

    Look at the interview of Mrs. Aquilla Clemmons by Mark Lane, which was conducted in 1966. She describes TWO MEN at the scene of the Tippet killing one, of which, was reloading a gun. This man, according to her, was ” chunky ” and ” kind of heavy “, etc. The other was ” tall and thin “. People who would describe the same individual would probably use different, some the same, descriptive words. I don’t believe that anyone would ever describe Oswald as ” chunky ” or ” heavy “. Killer of Tippet, one man???? She was, shall we say, ” cautioned ” about what she’d seen. I’m convinced,though speculating, that the WC knew of her existence, which is why she was never called, because of what she would reveal! J Lee Rankin once remarked,in effect:” At this stage,we’re trying to close doors, not open them “.

  11. Mark de Valk says:

    Hi Jeff, how long is the ‘Marquette Pontificator’ going to be allowed to skewer, ad nauseum, serious research dialogue and analysis? It was lovely to see him enjoying the Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh quietly and respectfully in the back corner of the auditorium; perhaps the same courtesy can be demonstrated on this forum. Thank you.

  12. Alex S says:

    Is it just me or is this policy being implemented more rigidly and restrictively lately?

    Are criticisms of stylistic/discursive elements of the way JFKfacts stories are presented out of the bounds of civil discussion, as defined by the moderators?

    Are words like “crap” or “vapid” strictly off-limits as uncivil?

    Is the 500 word limit applied with any consistency?

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