Misinformation and disinformation are too common in the JFK story, as these Web sites show.
- Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation: In 2009, this ill-advised U.S. State Department Web page sought to discredit intelligent public discussion of JFK’s assassination with a single blog post. It was so lame the State Department shut it down. (NOT CREDIBLE).
- History.com: “This Day in History: Nov. 22, 1963:” Superficial treatment ignores much of the historical record, including eyewitness evidence, crime scene photography, and official investigations in service of a misleading view of the case. (ONE-SIDED)
- Assassination Science: This misnamed site promotes the views of University of Minnesota professor James Fetzer who promotes conspiracy theories on a number of public events. (NOT CREDIBLE)
- Bugliosi on JFK: The former prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi made the case for the official JFK story for the Discovery Channel while dismissing all evidence that complicates the case (ONE-SIDED)
- JFK Murder Solved: James Files, an Illinois prison inmate has confessed to killing JFK. But an uncorroborated story from man serving a life sentence for attempting to kill two policemen is (NOT CREDIBLE).
- Illuminati News: No, the Federal Reserve did not kill President Kennedy. (NOT CREDIBLE)
I just read Mr. Simkin complaining about the treatment his website received here.
I am not sure what his particular complaint might be but the website seems to attract many who have theories of the assassination but little evidence to persuade. Many names are listed or referred to by members on the Spartacus site but little factual information regarding the assassination and how these people were or might be involved.
There is considerable “flaming” on the site and this too might lead one to conclude a cautious approach is best. The site seems to be the exclusive domain of those with conspiracy theories and little tolerance for dissension, discussion, or differences of opinions.
In response to comments from John Simkin and other readers i have edited our comments on the “Best JFK Web sites” and “Worst JFK Web sites” to be more precise.
I appreciate that you call the State Department and James Fetzer as not credible. Neither are accurate, although for different reasons. The fake debate between the Warren Commission (the State Department and nearly all of the media) versus Fetzer and other careless commentators obscures truths.
I recommend shifting the John McAdams site from the “best” list to this one. Anyone still promoting the flat-earth theory of the Warren Commission has never been credible, and especially after nearly a half century. His site is grammatically correct but it’s not factually correct.
My modest effort about the role of disinformation in the Kennedy investigation is at
http://www.oilempire.us/jfktruth.html
I also have a report about the State Department website at
http://www.oilempire.us/state.html
They are also framing 9/11 investigation as either supporting the Official Story or supporting the most outlandish conspiracy claims. Meanwhile, the best evidence that the Bush Cheney administration was given very specific warnings about who, what, where and when the attacks would happen were suppressed in order to ensure the attacks would happen. This is not “theory,” although every detail can never be known. The documentation about allied countries warning the US was known within months of 9/11, mostly sourced to mainstream media articles that failed to “connect the dots.”
I would like more information as to why Jim Fetzer was listed among the websites to avoid on account of his credibility. This raises a red flag as to the nature of this site. I am not sure if this related to some inner conflicts within the research community, but my suspicion is that this discarding of one of the most heroic and generous JFK researchers is most likely the result of some campaign by one or more of his enemies, who may or may not have agendas of their own.
Fetzer’s book are among the only books to feature rigorous scientific method and he is a gateway to many of the finest researchers who will all attest to his character and integrity, from Horne to James Douglas; from Black Op Radio to Peter Janney.
Why is he included among the JFK sites to avoid? And without specific mention of any of his “incredible” theories or speculations?
We include Assassination Science on our “Worst JFK Web sites” primarily because of Jim Fetzer’s claim that the Zapruder film was altered. This claim is not supported the facts or logic. The film is potent evidence of a shot from the front. That’s why it was suppressed for twelve years.
If you have questions about the nature of the site, look at my writing on the JFK story in theatlantic.com, Salon, and the New York Times. Then check out MaryFerrell.org, created by JFK Facts, co-founder Red Bradford, which has the largest online collection of JFK assassination records in the world.
We will address the details of the alterationist theory in a future post. Suffice it to say for now that Fetzer’s theory founders on two elementary facts.
1) If the government altered the Zapruder film to support the official story, why was the film suppressed for more than a decade as the official story came in for withering scrutiny?
2) And if the alleged alteration demonically advances the official story, why did ABC News’ broadcast of the film in 1975 ignite even more skepticism of the official story and renewed calls for Congress to reopen the JFK investigation?
The larger point is that the “alterationist” theory is a distraction to the cause of clarifying the case. It is not crucial for understanding the causes of JFK’s death. It mostly serves as an inadvertent favor to those who are resisting full disclosure in 2013.
Robert Groden, who is the world’s expert on the film and photography of the JFK assassination, says that the Zapruder film was not altered, forged or faked.
I agree.
Some other canards of JFK research are: 1) there were 2 Oswalds a “Harvey” and “Lee” – sorry, totally ridiculous (although Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City) 2) that 3 tramps were significant or involved in the JFK assassination 3) that Billy Lovelady is really Oswald standing in the TSBD.
Robert – Wasn’t Chauncy Marvin Holt one of the “Three Tramps”? As an MIT grad how can he be considered a tramp?
Last time I looked at that site (a few years ago), Assassinated Science claimed the Moon landing never happened. I hope no one really believes that. If sincere, one would have to believe that NASA altered the world’s telescopes so they see the (supposedly non existent) landing sites. It’s luna-cy. The “no Moon landing” hoax gives the media an easy way to ridicule — if you don’t accept the Warren Commission coverup then you must also believe the Moon landing never happened and all sorts of other conspiracy B.S. There are conspiracies to create fake claims of conspiracy to discredit looking at actual conspiracy. The US State Department site was expert as this misdirection, focusing on fake claims such as “no plane hit the Pentagon” while avoiding actual evidence such as the numerous warnings the attacks were coming sent by US allies and the rank and file FBI and DIA agents. Ridicule is more powerful than censorship.
Jeff:
I’m wondering, then, where that leaves Doug Horne (and his books & blog) in your mind.
I would also like to point out that Mr. Fetzer may have since gone somewhat “haywire,” however, his “Murder in Dealey Plaza” was an excellent collection of research, generally.
As it concerns the Zapruder alteration, some have postulated that the C.I.A. did the best job they could possibly do to alter the film such that it eliminated evidence OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT (and that of the Secret Service, I guess), and not to necessarily eliminate evidence of conspiracy (after all, Oswald may have had “friends” of sorts to help him, at least in theory). Still, it’s been proposed that perhaps they still weren’t completely confident in their work, and wished the film to be withheld as long as possible … just for good measure.
In the meantime, LIFE magazine managed to manipulate the individual frames in their portrayal of the events (the film not being available to uncover this deception).
I have no doubt that Jefferson Morley has grossly and wrongly trashed assassinationscience.com not because he has ever studied the work that Bob Livingston, M.D., David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., John Costella, Ph.D., and I have done (which is archived there) but because I nailed him and David Talbot for their slovenly research about the involvement of David Sanchez Morales and other CIA officials in the murder of Robert Kennedy, as I have explained in “RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador”, Veterans Today. If his and Talbot’s actions were unintentional, then they are clearly incompetent; if they were intentional, the situation is worse.
I challenge Jefferson Morley to demonstrate we have anything wrong in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Just quote what we say and why we say it and then explain what we have wrong and how you know. I would extend that to my articles on Veterans Today, such as “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” (with Jim Marrs), “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication” (with Douglas Horne), or “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?” There are certain kinds of scholars who are offended when they are shown to be wrong and bear a grudge. Check out “RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador” for Jefferson Morley.
Seriously….this is where I lose it in minutia. I have been trying to follow this story forever. It has to be followed, the truth has to be found out…I would say, now obviously, it was a big government mess up from the beginning…but now, so many conflicting theories, and many of them seem believable. It has to be laid out so the average person can “get it,” me. It has to make sense, the whole story–and it has to be told in a simple, understandable way…that’s the impossible part isn’t it? As soon as the tiny facts go the direction of obscure, boring argument the Bugliosi people win. On c-span history I just saw Jim Levealle, the detective in the white hat when Oswald was shot, say he looked very carefully but could never find a connection between Ruby and Oswald simply because it was not in Oswald’s nature to drink or go to clubs. This man appears to be a grand authority because he was there and actually speaking about it, but I think this is the kind of thing that messes everything up. It is when people say there are no real facts to support any substantial case other than the Warren Commission theory. Now, I have noticed the big researchers have most of the basics the same on many of the preliminary events but as soon as it goes to Oswald everything becomes very confusing. I really wish someone would explain what is the CIA, what is their purpose and what do they do and particularly people like E. Howard Hunt–what was his role in the CIA and then with Nixon–that is what I do not understand why a CIA person would then go to work for the president. I really do not think I have a very good understanding of what the CIA actually is and what they do. My whole spy knowledge is from John LeCarre and Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I think the facts have to be told in some sort of story form that the average American can understand. Love your website…cl
Hear hear Chloe. We who study this case need to take your comment to heart and respond:
Its a complicated story and there’s a lot we don’t know but we need to tell the story we do know in an simple and concise a way as possible.
Stay tuned.
“As soon as the tiny facts go the direction of obscure boring argument the Bugliosi people win”. In my opinion, if you concede this, then you agree with Bugliosi…the whole of history is made of obscure; tiny, boring facts. It is only because of the magnitude of the case that we know so many of them. We owe a debt to Bugliosi for tracking down and explaining so many of them in a cohesive way. If you take the time to read his whole book, I think you will agree that he does a good job of explaining it to the ‘average’ person. (Actually, your attitude makes me think you are actually of above average intelligence).
Chloe,
I am in agreement with you as far as the endless debating over minutia in the case. I too have been following the research into the assassination of Kennedy since I was a teenager, I’m 42 now. I absolutely refuse to get “down in the weeds” with debates about what Oswald was wearing or well did he actually speak Russian, ect.
I start from the premise that something more than, or perhaps entirely other than, Oswald from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository with a Manlicher Carcano rifle was responsible for killing the president of the United States in 1963.
Although, I certainly have my own suspicions, I have no firm conviction as to who else was involved, or to what extent they were involved, or anything like that. I pretty much take most “theories” with a grain of salt.
Vincent Salandria is someone who, for me anyway, puts the assassination of Kennedy into a context which makes sense.
He essentially posits that whatever happened it was done in such a way as to send a message, ‘yes we did it, we did in broad day light, in the middle of downtown Dallas, we could do it again, and there’s not a darn thing you or anyone else can do about it.’
I would say of that much at least I am sure. As for CIA, I would humbly offer L. Fletcher Prouty’s lecture on it’s history, intended function, and what has been it’s practical function since it’s creation in 1947.
Salandria’s “False Mystery” speech which he delivered at COPA in 1998: (Credit R. Morrow who posted the link previously)
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/vs_text.html
Col. L. Fletcher Prouty discussing the, “Secret Team.” He lays out the history and evolution of The Agency on BlackOpRadio.com:
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black566b.mp3
Chloe, let’s try this.
During the 1950s, two Dulles brothers, Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, controlled the overt and covert foreign policy of the United States. Eisenhower’s advisors warned him that under Allen Dulles, the CIA was out of control, overthrowing leaders around the world. Eisenhower received this info every year but took no action against the agency.
Enter John Kennedy. He wanted to run his own foreign policy. John Foster died and was replaced, but Allen Dulles still ran the CIA. In the CIA’s own files, the CIA explains that they never asked permission to asssassination Castro, and in fact misled JFK and his brother RFK to think the plots had ended when in fact they were still continuing.
After the Bay of Pigs, JFK’s eyes were opened to the CIA’s deceptions. He moved to reduce their power, and he fired Allen Dulles, who was sort of like the CIA’s Godfather. He helped build the agency and agents loved him. So firing Allen Dulles was a crime in the eyes of some agency veterans.
JFK set up the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in an effort to move paramilitary actions (liked the failed Bay of Pigs action) under Pentagon rule where there was a strict and clear military chain of command, so the CIA could not run off-the-books operations without authority as easily as before. This infuriated agency operatives.
The final straw came when JFK pledged, in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, not to invade Cuba. Cuba symbolized to operatives the war on Communism. Pledging not to fight Castro was, to many, the same as saying we’re going to let Communism win. Therefore, Kennedy appeared to be a traitor to some in the CIA.
The problem is, you can’t tell a complicated story quickly and preserve enough facts to make it credible. I have 20 years worth of reading and research which has convinced me that the plotters of the assassination and cover-up included Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, James Angleton, and David Atlee Phillips. But I have no intention of trying to prove that in an online forum – it’s not the place for it. And if I’m right, it also explains why you hear that the Mob did it, that LBJ did it, that Hoover did it, etc. The CIA, if responsible, has every motivation to seed disinformation about the case into the public via books, book reviews, online forums, and other venues where people gather to discuss this case. If the Mob did it, why did the CIA lie about Oswald? Etc.
Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil executive/military contractor supporters had deep CIA/military connections. A major reason for the JFK assassination – if not the largest reason – was that the Kennedys were on the verge of politically executing and personally destroying Lyndon Johnson and LBJ was not the type to sit around while the Kennedys slit his throat.
And having said that, Cuba policy or as Nixon said “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” was a major reason for the JFK assassination.
As a non-expert who has read some, but not all, of the books on the assassination, I strongly agree with Chloe’s concern about the tendency to get lost in the weeds. If nothing else, I hope this site promotes logical, coherent, well-written research into the events in Dallas. I wouldn’t say that I’m strongly pro-conspiracy. If Oswald didn’t fire the shots, who did? But in a sense, that isn’t even the point. The point is that, dedaces later, it’s possible for intelligent people to believe that there has never been a real investigation of the only presidential assassination of the 20th century. But that raises another point, which is that, awful though it is, the assassination of presidents is not unknown in American history. Like some others, I think the single most suspicious event, the tell, if you will, was Oswald’s death, which, to point out the obvious, occurred at the police station as he was surrounded by law enforcement officials. Like the president he allegedly killed, Oswald was surrounded by official protectors at the time of his death, which, conveniently meant that there would be no trial. Now THAT’S suspicious.
Oops. I overlooked the fact that McKinley was assassinated on Sept. 6, 1901, which I’m pretty sure puts it in the 20th century, along with Kennedy. My bad. One additional thought on the overabundance of badly-written books on Dallas. At one point I decided to give a fictional approach a try and read “The Tears of Autumn,” by Charles McCarry. It’s the only book I’ve read which points out that the Kennedy assassination was the only one where the assassin used a rifle. The other three assassinations were accomplished by men with handguns. Which raised a question in my mind: If Oswald really was just a “dangerous little fame junkie,” in Stephen King’s words, then why did Oswald, the alleged assassin, use a weapon that allowed him to fire from a place of (relative) concealment and possibly escape?
The problem with fetzer’s work is not his talk about photo and film alterations — there are anomolies in the zapruder film that anyone with experience working with video can see. But that said, its a red-herring to make discussion of fetzer’s work solely about zapruder.
The bigger problem with fetzer’s work is that he claims that LBJ was the mastermine when there is no way he controlled the CIA that had almost 20 years of covert actions under its belt. LBJ DID NOT control the CIA and the massive network of media assets that the cover-up demanded.
Fetzer ridiculously claimes that the mastermind was LBJ and that the CIA was only a minor player because JFK had an affair with someone’s wife. It can be dismissed on its face that LBJ was able to manipulate the entire power structure of the CIA and was able to do this because one man (Morales) was upset because his wife had an affair with JFK.
This site loses credibility when it refuses to acknowledge basic facts — the Marquette hack (MacAdams) should be on this list — that school has some very disturbing connections anyhow.
And Fetzer SHOULD be on this list, but not for the reasons you state. And as to photo and film alterations — just proclaiming you refuse to accept the scientific work of others on their face means you are no better than anyone else on this list.
Hello,
A big part of my website deals with James Files. This website states that the story of James Files being the shooter on the grassy knoll, is not credible. Can I know the basis for that statement? Is this the opinion of Rex Bradford and Jeff Morley?
I believe Jeff knows all about Luis Posada Carriles?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/luis-posadas-long-history-with-the-cia/237210/
Does Jeff know that Luis has recently confirmed that James Files worked for the company and that he worked with James Files in several CIA operations?
I have seen no corroborating evidence of Files’s story. Without corroboration, I see not basis for saying that his story is true. I am not aware of any Carriles statements about Files.
Jeff,
Please know that you have my sincere respect for the work that you have done.
With that in mind, I say your response is not an answer to my question. I asked:
This website states that the story of James Files being the shooter on the grassy knoll, is not credible. Can I know the basis for that statement?
I further ask: Do you know about Scott Kaiser, son of Edwin Kaiser, and the work he has with Bay of Pigs Veterans, among others Luis Posada Carriles?
If I give you a filmed statement from Luis that James Files worked for “the company”, would that make any difference for your opinion?
I further ask: Have you read the book Files on JFK? If so, what is your opinion on it?
Wim
Wim,
I’m by no means a researcher, just someone who’s interested in the assassination. I watched the James Files video with a friend and we both found it compelling.
But, the one thing that stuck out like a sore thumb is Files’ assertion that Oswald drove him around Dallas. I though Oswald never learned to drive?
Using a difference about the authenticity of the Zapruder and other home movies to trash the leading proponent of scientific research on the death of JFK is not simply childish but actually absurd. Is this man, Jefferson Morley, unaware that more than 60 witnesses, including all four of the motorcycle escort officers, confirmed the limo stop? that Jesse Curry, Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson and Bobby Hargis all confirmed that James Chaney had ridden forward to notify Chief Curry that the president had been shot? that Clint Hill has affirmed for nearly 50 years that he rushed forward, pushed Jackie back into the seat, lay across their bodies, peered down into the gaping, fist-sized hole in the back of his head and gave his colleagues a “thumbs down”–all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass? None of this is found in the extant film.
That someone this ignorant of what we know about the home movies should be posting massively misleading lists of “approved” and of “disapproved” web sites is stunning and insulting. I may disagree with Wim over some points, too, but that JFKmurdersolved should be on a “worst web site” list is absurd. The work of David W. Mantik, John P. Costella, David Healy, Jack White, David S. Lifton, Douglas Horne and many others establishes the fabrication of the film makes it incredible that the purported authenticity of the film should be the “justification” for listing assassinationscience as it is here. We even know when and by whom the film was altered, where an 8mm, already split film, developed in Dallas, was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, while a 16mm, unsplit film, developed in Rochester, was taken to the NPIC on Sunday, where the substitution was made.
In addition to the studies in my three books, especially THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), anyone who wants to review the evidence (as Jefferson Morley obviously does not) should review “More Proof of JFK Film Fakery”, “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film?’”, and “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”, as well as Vol. IV of Douglas Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). Egad! The film is not even internally consistent, since the blow-out at the back of the head has been painted over in black in early frames but can be seen in Frame 374. Something is terribly wrong with what is taking place right here on a site that claims to deal with “facts”!
One thing that the 50 years of this case has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that we indeed have a Shadow Government running this country.
Is that “Shadow Government” simply the Fed? Probably not.
Might that SG include the Fed? Maybe, though it’s hard to know for sure because this SG is, in itself, a covert operation, one that employs the C.I.A. for its dirty work.
But before you decide, I suggest you read “Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency” by Donald Gibson, particularly chapter four which deals with Kennedy’s opponents.
That book is the ultimate expression of the “top down” approach that others have since strived for; as a matter of fact, I learned more about the true nature of this case in just a few pages than I have sifting through hundreds of pages of books that tend to get lost in endless details.
Gee, can we all just take a “chill” pill? I guess I think too that we should not necessarily have lists of “good” or “bad” JFK web sites. That is a very subjective choice and I think potentially limits one from hearing all sides of the case. Indeed it is complicated and until the real facts are brought to the surface (if they ever are)we are all speculating anyway as to the exact chain of events that led to us losing our great president. Let’s instead stick together and support one another. Even though I may not necessarily agree with everything at Mr Fetzer’s site it was the first one I found and got the path and I thank him for that. Keep up the good work, Jeff, James, Lifton, Horne, Groden, Stone and all the rest of us that want to know the real story and not some fabricated unbelievable fairy tale like the Warren Report.
Hey, did anyone notice that Bugliosi’s site is gone?