A website, called WikiSpooks, created by the Deep Politics Forum, is seeking to collectively write the story of the assassination of President Kennedy with a Wikipedia-style collaboration.
I proposed a similar approach in my remarks to the JFK Lancer conference last November. (Watch the speech here.)
I think WikiSpooks has a great idea that is undermined by this comment from Charles Drago:
“Anyone, with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators, is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.”
Come again, sir?
That is very peculiar way to start a conversation about historical truth. I have never read an entry in a good encyclopedia or credible reference book that states anyone who disagrees with the material presented is stupid and/or guilty of crime. If someone in the U.S. government wrote this I would say they were drunk or named Cass Sunstein.
I’ve never seen any such statement on Wikipedia, or Encarta or in the works of the best JFK authors like Anthony Summers, James Douglass, and Phil Shenon.
If I did read such words in an encyclopedia entry about a great historical crime (say, the Holocaust or the genocide of the American Indians or the U.S. invasion of Iraq or the Trayvon Martin case), I would immediately question the source’s credibility.
Such language undermines the very notion of a common history represented by an encyclopedia or scholarship.
WikiSpooks is right that we should seek to use social media to write credible account of JFK’s assassination in time for the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Warren Report in September 2014. This report needs to be delivered with a message of inclusion and transparency, not division and denunciation, if it is to reach a wide audience.