My evening with Geraldo

I’m glad I appeared in Geraldo Rivera’s JFK program, “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald and Why Did He Shoot President Kennedy,”¬†last Saturday night.

Geraldo Rivera

Even though I disagree with the show’s uncritical promotion of Vince Bugliosi’s flabby doorstop tome, “Reclaiming History,” I thought it was worth it to travel to Fox News’s New York studios to talk to correspondent Craig Rivera.

The show had four virtues.

Bugliosi’s rhetorical bluster was on full display, a reminder of why the majority of Americans find his theory of the case to be unconvincing: because he is so close-minded and defensive about his conclusions.

Mark Zaid did a public service in dismantling the egregious revival of the “Secret Service Man Did It” fantasy. (It doesn’t deserve to be called a “theory.”)

I was able to call attention to CIA secrecy around JFK records. Although correspondent Craig Rivera did not seem to keen to explore the implications of such secrecy, I appreciated his openness on the subject.

And the show drove a lot of traffic to JFK Facts, where I think viewers can get a less selective reading of the evidence.

14 comments

  1. J. Goffenheim says:

    Perhaps the CIA that we’re watching Oswald or using Oswald were communists themselves.

  2. Great job yourself Jeff, and thanks for the comments. Sorry I couldn’t be in the NYC studio with you but they wouldn’t allow the MC rifle to be brought in the building! At least they pronounced your name correctly too!!!

  3. Hans Trayne says:

    Jeff, it was wonderful to see you finally getting your much deserved, much overdue spotlight from TV media & I sincerely hope those following the unprecedented effort to obtain full disclosure support you & your team’s efforts every step of the journey you take. Each victory you win brings the truth a little more in focus.

    Geraldo closed his show with the challenge to the global public that believes there was a conspiracy to murder JFK to ‘prove it’. I think he has it backwards, the responsibility to ‘prove it’ resides in a combination of out government representatives & authority officials, Federal & State investigative agencies & the media to collectively give the public the complete truth of JFK’s ambush & the young man accused of murdering him. By doing so, they will ‘prove it’. The public can assist by supplying information not reported or acted on before. The public, by large, does not have the financial means, legal authority, clout or experience to conduct private investigations.

    The global public does have the right to ask questions & express its dissatisfaction with the answers given in the past; something no one (including Geraldo)should chastise any of them for doing.

    Just the opposite approach is much needed imo; dig deeper and analyze harder. That’s why TV investigative journalists make the big bucks, they are supposedly representatives of the epitome of the best of best.

  4. Photon says:

    The most striking thing about the program is the fact that one of the biggest conspiracy advocates of the 1970s and 1980s has accepted reality and now believes that Oswald was the lone gunman. Good Night America!

    • Chris Roberts says:

      More likely since he works for fox now he is going along with MSM.Someone who once defended Bill Clinton with witchhunt now works for same people who went after clinton and did far worse with it’s 24/7 bashing of Obama.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Without that “conclusion” would the show have aired at all? Especially in the main stream media in pretty much prime time.
      I like the fact he allowed researcher’s to air their research.
      Including Mr. Morley, Mr. Lane (though his age was showing),
      Mr. Marrs (all 20-30 seconds), and, seeing Dr. Wecht get so wound up was inspiring.

    • William R. Foster says:

      As you may know, Dep Atty Nicholas Katzenbach drafted a memo which said,in part,” The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin,that he did not have confederates who are still at large;and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial”. His memo does NOT say that Oswald was,ONLY that we, the American people,had to be convinced that he was.They,at the outset,worked to do just that regardless of the evidence to the contrary. The memo was drafted, I think, on 11/25/63.

  5. Tim Gratz says:

    I too congratulate both Jeff and MArk.
    To me the two easiest proofs of conspiracy are the false secret service agent on the mall and the Jack Ruby early morning call to Dallas PD Officer Billy Grammer. (Search for Grammer on “You Tube”)
    In addition there are the numerous confessions, e.g. Rosselli, Trafficante, Marcello, Morales, Martino.
    If even ONE of those congessions was true and truly reported, there was a conspiracy.
    And the Martiono confession can hardly be doubted because he exhibited foreknowledge to both his wife and son.
    Any comments?
    Tim Gratz

    • photon says:

      Then why did Martino claim for a decade that Oswald went to Cuba when it is clear that he never did? If Oswald was going to meet a contact at the Texas Theater why did he sneak in and call attention to himself instead of just buying a ticket?
      As Martino had been caught in lies for ten years why believe him at all?

      • mball says:

        It seems that Martino was part of the crowd that was directing attention to Oswald and a false connection to Cuba, and therefore Castro. A better question is, why would Martino claim involvement in a conspiracy to kill JFK in what was essentially a death bed confession? What purpose? As to Oswald calling attention to himself in the Texas Theater, he appeared to be trying to locate someone, not call attention to himself. Not intentionally anyway.

  6. GregO says:

    It really just goes to show you that Geraldo is in their pockets too.

  7. leslie sharp says:

    The editing process can distort, but if I were a new student of the assassination I think that I would have come away from the segment thinking that: 1) Oswald should have been charged with attempting to kill Walker; 2) the CIA knew nothing about Oswald until his defection; 3) the CIA seems to have been only curious about Oswald even then; 4) later, the CIA was relieved that Oswald seemed to be maturing (suggesting that he was not a threat to anyone in the U.S.); 5) that the intelligence files being withheld will most likely reflect a failure on the part of the CIA at interrupting Oswald’s assassination of John Kennedy. I hope that I have misinterpreted. Otherwise, it seems that a level of common ground is being established between the hypothesis that the CIA failed to protect the president, and the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John Kennedy from the Texas School Book Depository.

  8. Phil Gurholt says:

    Jeff,

    When asked how Oswald made his return to the United States, why did you neglect to mention that the state department helped pay for his trip back and also pressured immigration to allow his Russian wife to come with him? Even Dan Rather reported this on his show 48 hours in the early 1990s.

  9. David Regan says:

    Interesting bit of information that came pertaining to Bugliosi and ‘Reclaiming Nothing’.

    Evidently, Bugliosi had received a letter from none other than David Atlee Phillips on July 1, 1986. Vince was preparing for his role as the prosecuting attorney in the ficticious trial of Lee Harvey Oswald that was shown on Showtime that year and was filmed in London.

    On page 2 of this letter, Phillips makes reference to Jean Davison’s ‘Oswald’s Game’ as being one of only two publications at the time to promote Oswald as the lone assassin.

    Phillips letter to Bugliosi –
    Page 1 of 2: http://i.imgur.com/rh56BEQ.jpg?3
    Page 2 of 2: http://i.imgur.com/819L6yB.jpg?1

    The letter was discovered in the Library of Congress by a DAP researcher.

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