One million visitors to JFK Facts can’t be wrong

Late on the night of November 13, 2014, JFK Facts welcomed its one millionth site visitor, fulfilling the goal that Rex Bradford and I had when we launched the site on November 22, 2012: to establish the premier Web destination for quality information and informed debate about the assassination of the liberal president.

None of this would have been possible without Rex. With the help of Comments Editor Peter Voskamp and Copy Editor Bill Hogan, I’m looking forward to growing the site’s audience even more in the next year. Exactly how to do that is a challenge we all face.

JFK Facts site metrics
From Google Analytics


I admit that I have been posting less regularly to the site in recent weeks as I finish my own book about the role of the CIA in the JFK assassination story from 1959 to 1979.

The task of writing a book (focusing obsessively, rewriting endlessly, fact checking constantly) are pretty much the opposite of what is required in running a good JFK website (posting instantly, chatting with readers, and browsing the Internet)

So bear with me, as I try to do both at once.


First of all, let’s have a round of applause for our tireless commenters. They are the Greek chorus of the JFK tragedy. Like any Greek chorus, they wail and scream and sometimes drive you crazy. Some of them are nuts and some of them are saints (but I’m not naming names). As a group, though, there is no community of people more knowledgeable on the JFK assassination story. Can we focus their energy and knowledge to advance common understanding? That’s a good question for which I do not yet have an answer

Second, take a look at the best read JFK Facts pages of all time. They are:

Gail Raven, an exotic dancer, was friends with Jack Ruby, the Dallas nightclub owner who killed Lee Harvey Oswald.

1) “Ex-flame says Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald”

I love this story because it is original reporting on an honest witness and a reminder that people everywhere have something to contribute to the record of JFK’s assassination.

2) The tag archive for George Hickey

George Hickey was a Secret Service officer who has been falsely and shamelessly accused by ill-informed conspiracy theorists of the REELZ channel of having a role in the death of JFK. I’m glad to see that readers are attracted to JFK Facts’ denunciations of this hoax and its media enablers (ahem, Malcolm Gladwell).

3) 7 JFK files the CIA still keeps secret.

Readers are interested in the stories concealed by the extraordinary and unnecessary secrecy that still surrounds the role of certain CIA officers in the JFK story. Fox News‘s James Rosen picked up on this story.

4) 21 JFK cops who heard a grassy knoll shot

This piece addresses the debate about the sources of gunfire in Dealey Plaza by focusing on the testimony of trained witnesses: law enforcement officers who were present at the crime scene.

5) Best JFK websites

The popularity of this page is proof that the Internet is hungry for quality information about the JFK story.  But the page needs updating. What websites do you think should/should not be on this list?

Original reporting

JFK Facts has also published important newsbreaking stories on:

The New JFK audio tape; what forensic science reveals, which highlighted the important work of audio engineer Ed Primeau and researcher Bill Kelly. The Detroit Free Press, USA Today, and CNN picked up this story.

I loved Rick Bauer’s sketch of his fascinating friend in “Up close and personal with David Ferrie,” including a never-before-published photo of the man.

Looking ahead

I have lots of ideas (probably too many) about where to take JFK Facts. I would like to hear from readers about what should the site seek to accomplish in 2015.

(Comment below or send me an email. Any submissions may be published; if you don’t want your last name published along with your thought, please say so.)

I laid out some of my ideas about how to achieve “decisive clarification of the JFK story “ in Dallas on the 50th anniversary. I updated my perspective this year in a piece for Medium,  JFK 3.0. 

As a general rule, I want to focus the JFK discussion more. I remained convinced that we do not have a good explanation of what happened in Dallas but, with the work of the ARRB and online archive at Mary Ferrell, we do have a good idea. So we need to tell that story and test its validity against new (and old) evidence.

We need to use social media to inject the date “JFK October 2017” into the discourse of the 2016 presidential election. Please no whining about how those hacks in the MSM won’t pay attention to us. In the digital age, that is sheer defeatism. We have the media tools to publicly ask every person seeking the office of the presidency if he or she is personally committed to releasing ALL JFK assassination records on October 25, 2017. We don’t need anyone employed in the MSM to accomplish that goal.

I also have to make the site self-sustaining in 2015. More on that in another post.

94 thoughts on “One million visitors to JFK Facts can’t be wrong”

  1. Despite the fact that there are highly intelligent posters who have a tendency to insult others and bring in unnecessary turbulence and noise to this important forum, this is by a long stretch the best site of its type that I have encountered. It is illuminating as well as infuriating at times , yet a valuable resource for those who are interested in the pursuit of truth about 11/22.
    Much evidence has been destroyed; much evidence has been mishandled; much evidence has been compromised; and disappointingly much evidence has been locked away for more than 50 years. Through the efforts of websites such as this, more insightful information might one day be gleaned as to better explain why for so long the world has been denied the plain simple truth.
    Through the efforts of forums such as this we might be able to one day more definitively make our minds up about 11/22.

    1. I agree with you Mariano. But please don’t tell Photon he is highly intelligent….we have enough problems coping with his hubris as it is. 🙂

      1. Not highly intelligent.
        Highly informed and highly skeptical.of theories based not on physical evidence but instead on false assumptions and erroneous information, seasoned with unsubstantiated speculation.
        Much of Conspiracy Thought is driven by an inability to believe in the concept of “good enough”, eg ” Oswald’s rifle was good enough to fire 3 rounds accurately in the allotted time” or “Oswald was a good enough shot” or ” the autopsy was good enough to establish the true etiology of JFK’s death” Oswald was an ordinary man of ordinary means who by circumstances beyond his control got lucky one day.It was an act of randomness that is very common throughout history, where simple and ordinary individuals can and do alter history with actions that are “good enough”. You don’t need a Porsche to drive to the Inn at Little Washington for dinner when a Kia can get you to Five Guys and perform the same alimentary function – not as well, but ” good enough”.

        1. Photon introduces us to, the concept of “good enough”.
          This is an interesting meme, one that appears to me to be quite vague for such a discriminating intellect as our blog mate Photon.

          We might inquire when is “good enough” actually not actually good enough? Such as Oswald’s marksmanship.

          In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy:
          Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
          Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
          Marksman: 190 to 209.
          According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
          In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
          In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.
          Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
          The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)
          . . . .
          It would be my opinion that Oswald’s proficiency with a rifle does not qualify as “good enough”.
          And just to put the horse away wet; it seems to me that when a certain number of “good enough’s” are proposed, we enter the realm of ‘Coincidence Theory’, and it’s attendant mounting improbability as the list expands.

          Might I also mention the phrase “Maggie’s Drawers”?

          1. And what evidence do you have that a US Marine who qualified as a Marksman couldn’t make the same shot?
            Us Marines are among the finest shots in the world. Even a Marine who qualifies at the Marksman level still would be considered a capable shooter by most factors; the Marine qualification standards at a minimum still require rifle proficiency at a level greater than the other services and far in excess of what would be seen in the general community of recreational shooters. There is no such thing as ” a poor shot” in the USMC, only good shooters, very good shooters and excellent shooters. Oswald had the shooting skills to achieve the Sharpshooter badge, which made him a good shot in the USMC, but an excellent shot by general standards. His 191 round was during a period when he didn’t care; even so, he was able to qualify without really trying, which says a lot about his basic marksmanship skills.
            Willy, perhaps if your had been in the Corps you would understand the concept of “every Marine a Rifleman” and how every Marine ( even airmen) have to master firearm proficiency .

        2. But you don’t deny the ‘hubris’ I note. 🙂

          Oh dear, now someone has called you ‘legendary’. We will be having no end of trouble.

          Photon, you have just done exactly what I just asked you not to do, that is, generalise about all WC critics and their views. There does not exist such a thing as “Conspiracy Thought”. There is not some kind of groupthink where we all suspend disbelief at the door. We’ve arrived here by examining the facts of the WCR and finding it wanting and by being somewhat supported in that view by the HSCA findings. Plus of course the reams of books and documentaries and excellent websites like Jeff’s and CTKA.

          Luckily for us all, the justice system doesn’t rely on near enough is good enough to come to its judgements. It relies on established processes and procedures, forensic science, rules of evidence, “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” and most importantly, contestability. The official JFK investigations don’t even begin to meet these basic requirements, as you well know.

          How about a Dodge Omni to City Lights of China? 🙂

        3. “Good enough” as a concept as you describe it is not appropriate if it does not embody the aim of finding the truth of the events leading to JFK’s death.
          The WC’s only aim was to convince the the world that a “lone nutter” LHO assassinated JFK
          It is interesting that you describe LHO as an ordinary man. If as you describe, he was an ordinary man (and he could well have been), why are files about him shrouded in secrecy? Why are we not permitted to see “all” the files, including some very basic details about this ordinary man?
          Also, how do you know LHO so well given that the man’s details have been the subject of obfuscation by the Intelligence agencies for over 50 years?
          Speaking of randomness, there was nothing random about the clear destruction, misinformation, and obfuscation of evidence that has taken place for 50 years, in respect of the JFK’s death.
          Most people on this forum are seeking the truth about JFK’s death, and on a broader scale perhaps to understand why government and Intelligence Agencies have all but destroyed the tools that would allow a proper investigation.
          Photon, given that you appear to be trying to negate further exploration of the history and evidence, (by the style in which you communicate with anyone who questions the official line that we are all expected to swallow), do you have any other roles in this forum that link back to your connections that you haven’t shared with contributors? (I am just curious.)

    1. I think LBJ knew the assassination was going to happen-he just didn’t have the details. His attorney Edward Clark promised him it would happen, but didn’t say how or when or where.

  2. There is a vast epistemological divide, such a deep abyss that those on one side of it live in one mental construct, and those on the other side have an entirely different one.

    The false epistemology is held by those who have been irrevocably enchanted by the Public Relations Regime and it’s massive high-tech machinery capable of instilling a powerful illusion; the delusion of mass psychological manipulation. This powerful construct can be likened metaphorically to “Necromancy”, a spell invoked by the powerful technical mechanisms of electronic media combined with multigenerational, birth to grave systemic psychological manipulation of a captive audience.
    . . . . .
    “There but for the grace of the angels go I…”

    How is it that some percentage of this captive audience remains to various extents immune to the complete effects of this necromancy? This is an existential question, the answers of which are as deep and varied as individual personality itself.

    1. Well willy, I think I understand some of your message but if you could re-state it in common English and speak so in the future I think some night understand better. How does it really relate to the subject matter of the thread?

      1. Ronnie, What are you saying? If you and I were to meet on the street and fall into a discussion of the weekend’s NFL playoffs, do you think that neither of us would employ the phrase “vast epistemological divide” in reference to the Steelers and Ravens? My good fellow – what a strange observation.
        Go get’em Willie. I brought my dictionary out from under the short leg of my kitchen table and we’re getting reacquainted.
        Ronnie, it’s getting late, I’m going to climb into bed and engage in a bit of necromancy with Jack, Bobby, Lyndon, Edgar and Martin before I drift off. Sweet dreams.

  3. Congratulations Jeff, Rex and others. And a heartfelt thanks.
    It’s the best source of informed discussions and comments I’m aware of, not to mention some of the articles you post – yours and others.
    Even with the detractors.

  4. ” The President’s car is traditionally placed behind the Vice President’s car” . Please give one example of this, BrotherBruce. This seems to be another ” fact” that you made up-which leads me to suspect that you aren’t even a citizen of the U.S.
    “… testimony given by workers at the Hilton Hotel.” JFK didn’t stay at any Hilton Hotel during the Texas trip.
    It would appear that you have mixed up Cale and Ralph.

    1. Photon, Because I’m so fond of you’ve I’m going to relent and supply you with the link to the Hilton hotel where JFK spent his last night; The Hilton Fort Worth. It was there in Suite 850 that LBJ cajoled, begged, shrieked and blubbered shamelessly in an attempt to get JFK to transfer John Connolly out of the Presidential “death limo”.
      Once you provide Oswald’s motive for shooting JFK, I’ll send you the Secret Service protocol for Presidential Motorcades. So, click on the link below, read about the Hilton where Jack and Jackie spent their last night and where LBJ tried to get Governor Connolly out of the line of fire; Then provide the motive that you’ve been so hesitant about stating. After that you’ll get your Presidential motorcade info.
      I’m hoping you’ll hold up your end of the bargain. It could turn out to be well worth your while.

    2. Oh Photon,

      Being a US citizen is relevant, how? Is it part of the US citizenship test to know the order of Presidential motorcades? No.

      You just cannot help yourself can you? 🙂

      Or do you really believe that the disposition of the American Presidency (past, present and future) does not vitally affect the interests of every single person on this planet?

    3. Photon, you are technically correct that JFK didn’t stay at any Hilton Hotel during his Texas trip. He did, however, stay at the historic Hotel Texas in downtown Fort Worth the night of November 21, 1963. Since then the hotel has undergone many name changes and has been a Sheraton, a Hyatt Regency, a Radisson, and, since about 2006, a Hilton. The loud argument at the Hotel Texas was heard by Jackie as well as hotel employees as BrotherBruce reported. His reference to the hotel as a Hilton, which it now is, does not negate the fact that the argument occurred, as stated by BrotherBruce.

      1. Let’s see, how can I make my point without coming across as surly and ungrateful; Let me think, okay…
        The Apollo 11 astronauts left from Cape Kennedy – since Cape Kennedy has been re-named – does that mean Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon?
        We certainly need more lone nutters on this site and they should be petted and encouraged at every opportunity. Without them, we’d simply be a nursery full of abandoned new-borns, kicking and crying desperately in the middle of a vast desert of apathy.
        Lyndon’s loud and maniacal efforts to get his friend Connolly out of the Presidential death limo; Which Johnson knew would be driving into a Dealey Plaza ambush (on the scale of the ambush that took out Butch and Sundance) could have happened at a Holiday Inn. As Hillary might say; “Who cares”? It simply had nothing to do with the point.

        1. The argument between JFK and LBJ that you claimed happened at the “Hilton hotel” in Fort Worth never took place there.Period.
          The meeting between LBJ and JFK happened the previous night at the Rice Hotel in Houston. At that time JFK was upset that Yarborough refused to ride with Johnson, creating exactly the political bickering that the Texas trip was supposed to paper over. At no time did Johnson make any effort to have Connolly removed from JFK’s car ; you have no evidence for that claim and common sense to refute it.
          The only fireworks that happened at the Texas Hotel was when JFK confronted Yarbourough in a hallway and told him that if he didn’t sit with Johnson he wouldn’t make the trip.
          It would be nice if you could post anything to support your claims besides other CT sources. The fact that you ( and other CTers on this blog) got the story wrong would suggest that you would rather parrot CT talking points than actually looking at the historical record.

          1. Photon boldly states, “The fact that you ( and other CTers on this blog) got the story wrong would suggest that you would rather parrot CT talking points than actually looking at the historical record.”

            This is a clash of paradigms, wherein Photon trusts the lollipop history of the Public Relations Regime, and uses the standard slur of “CT talking points”. His argument here like most of the rest of his points are in the form of “argumentum ad authoritium” – a well established form of false argumentation.

          2. Actually my arguments are based on historical facts.Willy, it would help your argument if CTers would simply occasionally check out whether what they assume is the Gospel truth has any basis in fact besides an unsubstantiated quote or an outright falsehood. I have posted here over and over errors in the CT narrative that get established as talking points, which get repeated as if they become true the more they circulate.
            If you cannot accept that historic facts do exist, why even participate in this blog, or frankly any blog that deals with any historical episode? Apparently you believe that every bit of information in our society is controlled by a “Public Relations Regime”. The fact that this blog exists is the best refutation of that theory, along with the mere existence of the Internet, which is destroying the print media and has become the nemesis of totalitarians around the world.

          3. “If you cannot accept that historic facts do exist, why even participate in this blog, or frankly any blog that deals with any historical episode?”~Photon

            Of course historic facts do exist. I am not disputing that such facts exist, I am disputing that they are presented in proper context by the mainstream academia and media.
            I have attempted to introduce the concept of “spin” in public relations. “Spin” is not the use of outright falsehoods in propaganda, it is the clever framing of events and the facts they entail, oft times strategically leaving out various important details – that is presenting “half-truths” which in effect jukes the perceptions.
            When I speak to the Public Relations Regime, I am not making up some imaginary beast, I am speaking to the regime put in place by the works of Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays and their affiliation with WWI war propaganda.
            These are “facts of history” that are practically never presented in mainstream history or media.
            You begin your summation with: “The fact that this blog exists is the best refutation of that theory, along with the mere existence of the Internet…”
            Obviously (I would think) I am speaking to the mainstream media which yet to this day still hangs over as the prime news source for most people in this nation. The Internet is now under attack, and it is hoped by the powers that be that they can put a meter on it and charge for it in such a way as to blunt such outlets as this one. The only thing holding up hard core draconian measures is that big business itself profits from the web as it is now manifest. It will therefore be a complex problem to assert the types of censorship we see on TV, Radio, and Newspapers.

          4. Now Photon, I believe you have been taken to task before about your sweeping generalisations regarding critics of the WC.

            Most posters on here provide links and rational arguments to support their points. If I may say so you have been proved wrong on a number of occasions (including in my personal experience on the issue of Oswald in the doorway :) and Oswald being the only man in the TSBD to know that JFK had been shot).

            If you have specific problems with Willy’s somewhat intangible arguments then address those individually.

          5. The problem here Vanessa is that in the last several weeks prominent contributors have NOT posted sources after making outrageous claims and making statements at odds with the historical record. One individual has made repeatedly false statements to the point that I suspect that he is actually a LN supporter Astroturfing in an attempt to discredit the conspiracy viewpoint.
            Willy’s viewpoint after the polysyllabic address appears to be that he cannot accept sources of history that conflict with his personal viewpoint of what history SHOULD be, as opposed to what it has actually been documented to be. Therefore, it is easy to dismiss facts that have been documented over and over during the last 50 years because in his view we can never be sure that those facts are real, nor can we accept that those facts were obtained by valid methods. Thus, it is easy to believe that the Zapruder film was faked, or that the autopsy photos and x-rays were faked, or that the body was surgically altered to support shots from the rear-concepts that are ridiculous from the standpoint of logic, where countless people would have to be involved,with each conspirator remaining silent to a degree incompatible with human nature.
            Of course, if it was physically impossible to alter evidence with the techniques of 1963 these concepts are simply impossible. But again Willy does not seem to think that these concepts can be considered valid.

          6. Dear Photon

            All I am saying is that if you have problems with some posters not sourcing arguments then it should be raised specifically with them and not used to make generalisations about all WC critics.

            I believe I will let Willy defend his worldview. I’m sure he can explain it a lot better than I.

            I have to say that I thought that making (factual) statements that are at odds with the historical record (ie the WC report) is what this whole site is about. Isn’t it?

            Regarding the historical record being fixed, as a student of history you know as well as I that even historical facts can change over time based on new evidence and new interpretations. The British have only just established what happened to Richard III after 500 years, after all.

            And in criminal cases, in particular, the advances in forensics and DNA testing have led to jailed felons being released because they were in fact, innocent. So established historical facts can and do change.

            I wondered that too – about the astroturfer. It’s not you though, surely?

            I am pleased (but somewhat surprised) to see your concern that the conspiracy viewpoint might be discredited. I might note that you spend a good deal of your time on here attempting to discredit every single one of us, our pathologists and our dogs. 🙂

            If you really believe that it is logically ridiculous that the Zapruder film has been altered then please find Officer Chaney and his motorbike for me.


          7. The problem here Vanessa is that Photon misrepresents my views with generalized metaphorical platitudes. He has turned my opinions on the Zapruder film totally upside down and backwards. As you know I have been defending the Z-film as authentic in every thread the issue has been brought up here.
            Photon attempts to portray me as unreasonable when it comes to assessing history, and cannot seem to grasp that much of what is taught as history in the US is public myth. I am hardly alone in making such assessments. I have cited such authors as Carroll Quigley and his masterpiece TRAGEDY & HOPE, which utterly destroys the popular view of the Cold War as portrayed in popular history. Antony Sutton reinforces this view in his “Wall Street” books, and his final coup de grâce, SKULL & BONES.
            Photon challenged me to provide sources for three quotes I posted early in my participation here. He hasn’t seemed to have noticed that I provided them, so I will repeat here:

            >”We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”~ William Casey (CIA Director)
            “I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.
            The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.
            As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting
            as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.” Barbara Honegger
            Barbara Honegger was a member of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign team and Reagan White House policy analyst. Since 1995, she’s been Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School.

            >“Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”~James Jesus Angleton
            Source: ‘Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA’ – By Edward Jay Epstein
            Epstein’s books Legend (1978) and Deception (1989) drew on interviews with retired CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton

            >“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” –William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by David McGowan, “Derailing Democracy” (2000) These words attributed to Colby certainly encapsulate what he said at the Church Committee Hearings. McGowan didn’t cite his source for this ‘quote’, so there is controversy.

          8. The problem here Photon and Willy, is that in the vast epistemological divide between you two I find myself completely mystified.

            I’m still puzzling over Willy’s ‘lollipop history’. Is it the history of the lollipop or history that’s sweet & what does that even mean?

            As for Photon’s “Conspiracy Thought” – well I guess I’ll be seeing you all shortly for our latest dose of soma.

            I think you two fellas ought to sort it out between yourselves (not least because of the vast entertainment it’ll provide the rest of us). 🙂

          9. Vanessa asks about my term, “Lollipop History”.
            Yes I did coin that term as it is descriptive of the ‘candy coated’ feel-good, jingoistic mythology that passes for history in the US.

            It is for born-suckers. Which to an interesting aside. If you are curious put the term “Born Sucker Machine” into your browser. It just so happens that an immigrant (Russian or Czech) invented the first mechanized lollipop making machine. It was called, the Born Sucker Machine.

            I discovered this tidbit when looking for the term, as I had the intent to title one of my essays on social engineering “The Born Sucker Machine” in reference to modern electronic media – television in particular.

            I hope this clears it up for you Vanessa.

          10. Thanks for that explanation of ‘lollipop history’ Willy. I do understand what you are on about. I think most countries view their own history through rose-coloured glasses though, not only the USA. It’s human nature.

  5. So Connolly put himself knowingly in the line of fire? Talk about taking one for the team!
    Even if you assume that Connolly was so devoted to LBJ that he was willing to die for him,why would he agree to put his wife at risk?

    Connolly and Johnson were best friends. Lyndon had been looking out for Connolly since John was 14 years old. LBJ tried to get Connolly out of the President’s limo but failed in his argument with Kennedy. At that point, what would you expect Connolly to do? Refuse to ride in the limo; Admit that there was an assassination plot a-foot and beg for forgiveness. They’d reached the point of no-return. Connolly had to rely on Johnson’s assurances that the sniper team waiting in ambush in Dealey Plaza were all expert shots. The Secret Service driver helped out by including a 120 degree turn in the motorcade and by bringing the limo to a virtual stop in front of the grassy knoll. Those assurances comforted Connolly somewhat. In the final analysis, Connolly had to roll the dice and rely on Johnson’s plan. LBJ would have still become President and that was his ultimate motivation.

    What is your source for your interpretation of the Yarborough -LBJ row?

    Conversations reported by Mrs. Kennedy and testimony given by workers at the Hilton Hotel.

    As the Chief Executive of the State of Texas it would have been ludicrous for Connolly to sit 3 cars behind the President and not get any of the political benefits that were the purpose of the trip.

    What was ludicrous was having the President’s car leading the parade. The President’s car traditionally is placed behind the Vice President’s car. Have you ever seen Santa Claus lead off a Christmas parade? This motorcade was designed by people who were trying to kill the President.

    Now, you tell me why a mobster killed

    The actual problem was that Yarborough did not want to sit with LBJ. Kennedy said in no uncertain terms that if Yarborough didn’t sit with Lyndon he wasn’t making the trip

    What is your source for such a ridiculous statement? Many of Kennedy’s closest friends and advisors begged him not to go to Texas and they cited some very real dangers to try and persuade him not to go; Yet he still insisted on making the trip. Are you saying that Kennedy was ready to cancel the trip to Texas if Lyndon didn’t make the short ride from Love Field to the Trade Mart with Yarborough. You need some evidence to make a statement that outrageous. What is yours

    1. I second Avinash’s proposal.

      I don’t mean to give offence but if we can have an article about Richard Case Nagell then I certainly think that the Prayer Man issue which is more evidence-based deserves an article.

  6. The biggest, loudest and most raucous argument ever documented between a US President and his VP occurred in the Presidential suite of the Hilton Fort Worth Hotel on the morning of November 22, 1963. Room service waiters, secret service men and cleaning maids were pushed out of the way by the large, angry, red face giant who was muttering incoherently as he strode purposefully to the room where President John Kennedy and his wife had just spent the night. Lyndon Johnson was led into the living room of the suite where the President was eating toast and drinking coffee while his wife got dressed just a few feet away in one of the suite’s bedrooms. Jackie remembered the argument well and along with hotel service workers, heard every word. “Lyndon was demanding that Senator Yarborough ride in the Presidential Limo, not John Connolly. LBJ had been feuding with Yarborough and shouted to the President that he wouldn’t ride with him. “I want Governor Connolly with me, Yarborough needs to be up front with you” Johnson screamed. JFK had always been able to control his Vice President and it was no different this morning. What was different, Jackie reported, was the irrational shrieking tone to Lyndon’s demands. It was far more intense than even his usual, very emotional harangues. “I want Connolly with me”, Johnson kept repeating – “Yarborough belongs up front with you”. Kennedy refused and dismissed Johnson after a few minutes of his tirade. Mrs. Kennedy came out of the room immediately to ask Jack why Lyndon was so insistent on pulling Connolly out of the Presidential limo and replacing him with Yarborough. “Oh, it’s just Lyndon being Lyndon” the President replied. Later that afternoon in Dallas the reason behind LBJ’s demands became crystal clear. It was also clear that Connolly had been aware of the trap waiting for the Presidential limo in Dealey Plaza. After being shot the first time, Connolly went into a frenzied panic, yelling loud enough for everyone in the limo as well as observers on the parade route to hear: “My God; “THEY are going to kill us All! Johnson had tried to get his protégé out of the line of fire but Kennedy, after all, had made this long, exhausting trip with the express purpose of uniting the feuding Democratic party. He wasn’t going to compromise his goal just so Lyndon could ride with his friend during the brief trip to the Trade Mart. If Lyndon’s ulterior motive had been known to President Kennedy, perhaps JFK could have saved himself. Moreover, Bobby could have continued his efforts to lock Johnson away before he’d had the chance to steal more millions from the US taxpayer and spill more innocent blood.

    1. So Connolly put himself knowingly in the line of fire? Talk about taking one for the team!
      Even if you assume that Connolly was so devoted to LBJ that he was willing to die for him,why would he agree to put his wife at risk?
      What is your source for your interpretation of the Yarborough -LBJ row? As the Chief Executive of the State of Texas it would have been ludicrous for Connolly to sit 3 cars behind the President and not get any of the political benefits that were the purpose of the trip.
      The actual problem was that Yarborough did not want to sit with LBJ. Kennedy said in no uncertain terms that if Yarborough didn’t sit with Lyndon he wasn’t making the trip.

      1. Re-read the piece – it should answer all of your questions. In the meantime, since you feel so strongly that Oswald shot Kennedy – Can you tell me what his motive was? I’ve been asking for years and never gotten an answer. You give me that information and then I’ll be happy to answer all your silly questions.

    2. In the movie (based on Tom Wolfe’s book), “The Right Stuff” you can see Vice President Lyndon Johnson’s temper tantrum when he doesn’t get his way. In the movie, about the Mercury astronauts, Johnson is shown fuming in his limousine when astronaut John Glenn tells NASA that he does not want his wife Annie (who stutters) to have to go on live television with the Vice President during his launch. When Glenn stands up to NASA and they have to tell Lyndon Johnson “No” he is shown kicking and screaming like a big baby. Johnson was corrupt but had a temper to match his corruption which made for very ugly scenes when he didn’t get his way. President Kennedy had his hands full with Lyndon Johnson, that’s for sure.

      1. Of course that scene was nothing but complete fiction, as documented in Douglas Brinkley’s book “Cronkite”.
        Another example of a falsehood used to advance a narrative. I suppose that you subscribe to the LBJ lie promoted by “Selma”-a lie condemned by historians and contemporary participants.
        LBJ was the greatest civil rights President of the Twentieth Century. Your hatred for the man has clouded your objectivity .

        1. Ramon F Herrera


          “LBJ was the greatest civil rights President of the Twentieth Century.”


          I cannot contain my flabbergast at your words.

          Are you a Liberal now, Mr. Photon? I am sure I am not the only participant that has concluded that you are situated on the Far Right of the ideology spectrum.

          Mind you, I am not referring to volatile partisan allegiances, but to lifelong beliefs.

          There is a point at which that information becomes a very relevant, pertinent reference for our interaction and common endeavor.

          See how in the 2 preeminent Internet forums, (one the senior pioneer, the other the future) their leaders have unequivocally disclosed their principles. I am referring, of course to Prof. McAdams and Mr. Morley.

        2. LBJ simply rode the wave of public sorrow following JFK’s death. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.” The bill was called for on 6/11/63 during JFK’s civil rights speech to the nation.

          Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker:

      1. David,

        But that’s not what Jackie said, according to the article you linked to:

        “The tabloid reports about the content of the tapes are totally erroneous,” an ABC News spokesperson said in a statement to “ABC News isn’t releasing any content from those tapes until mid-September at which point it will be clear how off base these reports are.”

        Here’s ABC’s later account of what Jackie actually said about LBJ (e.g., JFK “didn’t particularly like him,” but he was “never disloyal” to the President):

        1. Jean, thank you for pointing out the superior credibility of ABC News over Fox News – home to Bill O’Reilly and ‘Killing Kennedy’. Mr. McAdams did not quite share our faith in ABC when I shared this segment with him:

          But back to JBKs tapes, she voices far more disparaging tidbits on LBJ than Jack simply not liking him. In fact, she goes so far as saying:

          – he was rather ineffective as VP, contributed little at executive meetings
          – References a ‘distant and disturbing’ relationship with LBJ
          – confirms JFK planned to oust Hoover after 1964 (Johnson’s pal & neighbour)
          – LBJ was not first choice to be on the 1960 ticket
          – JFK believed strongly that LBJ should not become President and wanted to circumvent that from happening in 1968

    3. Fellows:

      I wish we stopped arguing about the seating arrangement, for a very simple reason: There was only one possible arrangement.

      (1) Even for ’63 Texas, it would have been rude to have the husbands separate from their wives.

      (2) JFK and LBJ in the same car? Nonsense. Just imagine the fury of the locals: “Two Goddam Yankees coming from DC trying to tell us Texans that they are better?” (yes, LBJ and Yarborough were Texans, but they were still outsiders, *visitors*, in a State’s Right’s kind of state if there ever was one). “Relegating OUR governor to be a second fiddle!?”

      (3) Yarborough’s wife sitting next to Jackie? Pleeeeze! Read the part where Roger Stone was not allowed to address superiors above his level.

      (4) A car with the *guest* couple and the *host* couple is the only combination that makes sense. The top-most couple in the country and the top-most couple in the state. La creme de la creme.

      (5) Being right-handed, the men had to be on the right sides, closer to the adoring crowds, shaking hands. After all, the ladies were not in the ticket.

      (6) The back seats are more spacey, more *presidential*.

      Let’s give that issue rest, shall we?

    4. I’ve never read your account of this morning conversation. Where does it come from? It does dove tail with arguments I’ve read about who would ride with who at Love Field and the re-numering of cars in the parade. E.G, no press photographer vehicle in front of the Presidential Limousine as usually occurred. LBJ would have loved to see Yarbourgh eliminated and his protegee safe. Connnally probably did not know the full extent of the plot until the shots were fired.

      1. I think Connally likely knew about the plot, but assumed the assassination would take place at the Trade Center. I don’t think he had any specifics as to the mechanics of the operation at all.

      2. He made it up- just like his claims about the standard correct placement of Governors and Vice Presidents in a motorcade, just like his claim to have visited the TSBD in 1975, just like his claim that at the same time he was touring with federal Marshals who had completed a firearms course that hadn’t even graduated a class at the time at a facility that wasn’t even open until the middle of 1975, just like his claim that a steam pipe obscured the view out of the Sixth Floor window when anybody who has actually visited the site knows that the pipe was to the left of the window-a fact. that may not be evident in photos.

  7. Christopher V. Pike

    I applaud Mr. Morley and his staff and attorney Jim Lesar for this milestone achievement with this website; for their relentless persistence and professionalism in the Joanides records case; and for sponsoring symposiums and encouraging others, including myself, to participate. Without doubt more facts will be unearthed concerning the JFK/RFK/MLK cases in the years ahead as other investigators, writers and witnesses continue digging, all of these years later.”

  8. During the last days of November 1963 most Texans and 90% of Dallas residents knew beyond a reasonable doubt who had killed their President-Lee Harvey Oswald. Doubts about the guilt of Oswald were minimal at the time, particularly in Dallas, where people were seen to publically cheer his shooting by Ruby. When you begin a statement with a claim so demonstrably false why should anybody take anything else that you write seriously?
    Why don’t you tell us how a politician reviled in Dallas by right wing elements as much or more so than JFK controlled the Dallas police,State and local district attorneys,etc.? Tell us why he would have allowed his protege and political successor be killed-for that is what almost happened.
    If we have always known the killer’s identity, why not just tell us who it was? Why not just lay out exactly how it was done?
    Unfortunately elements in our society seem driven by assumptions and preconceived notions, often at the point of ignoring confirmed physical and historic facts. We have seen that in the reactions to the events in Ferguson, where the release of Grand Jury evidence has been completely ignored in order to drive a narrative that simply doesn’t exist. We see it among people who simply can’t let go of a false story about a non-existent rape at the University of Virginia despite virtually every aspect of the story having been proven false.

    1. We’ve also seen how former President Harry Truman complained in 1963 about how the agency he oversaw the creation of to gather intelligence got into (in his opinion) too much “cloak and dagger” clandestine activity throughout the 1950’s. Then, as history shows, we had investigations into CIA abuses by Senator Frank Church, in the 1970’s. There seems to be a history of abuse of power by CIA. The Framers, particularly James Madison, warned of too much concentrated power in one branch of the government. I think we can extend his concerns to too much concentrated secret agency (bureaucratic) power held through the years by unelected officials. I think this concentration of power poses a threat to our democracy. I don’t think it’s too far a stretch to extend this to CIA power which had the potential to be used not only internationally (in Iran, in Guatemala, in Chile etc.) but back here at home, on what the Romans would have recognized as “this side of the Rubicon.” Particularly when you have CIA sitting on unreleased, fifty+ year old files. That’s something a reasonable person would want to look at.

    2. And here it goes, more evidence that photon is just another internet troll with a political agenda.

      Whatever 90% of Texans believed is irrelevant in the extreme as to the question of who killed JFK. The question boils down to actual evidence, of which there is none that Oswald actually fired any shots. There is an excellent piece just posted which shows how the magic bullet has no chain of custody that would be accepted in court. That is real information which is worth discussing.

      And bringing up Ferguson and Rolling Stone, man, I can’t believe that kind of stuff gets through review.

      1. Paulf , BrotherBruce posted a false statement in an attempt to creat a false narrative .
        The evidence that Oswald fired shots into Tippit is overwhelming, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, ballistic evidence and his attempt to murder another policeman with the same weapon used to kill Tippit.
        The attempt to claim as fact statements directly contradicted by evidence is the hallmark of what went on in Ferguson and with the UVA -Rolling Stone falsehood. It seems similar to what we see with the “research” community concerning the JFK assasination , where clearly false statements are too often brought out simply to buttress arguments based not on facts but on conclusions and beliefs pre-existing any knowledge of what the facts really are.

        1. It would not be overwhelming to a jury – why?
          Star witness – Helen Markham told the Warren Commission:
          Ball:Did you recognize anyone in the lineup? Markham: No sir
          Ball:Was there a number two man in there?
          Markham:When I saw this man I wasn’t sure but I had cold chills.

          This is at odds with what Markham told FBI agent Odum just after the shooting that the killer was”eighteen, white jacket, red complexion, with black hair” (3 H 319 )

          Furthermore – who were the eyewitness who called
          for the ambulance? Frank Wright & his wife were – Frank stated “I was the first person out ..I’ve seen what came out in the newspaper & tv but I know that’s not what happened. I know a man drove off in a car. Nothing in the world’s going to change my mind”.

          Neither were acknowledged or questioned by the Warren Commission – “the truth is their only client” & you don’t interview the first person who saw the shooting & called for the ambulance?

          Acquiila Clemens was another witness to the shooting & stated that here were two men involved in the slaying of Tippit & the shooter did not resemble Oswald. She was also not interviewed by the Commission.

          Warren Reynolds was a witness to a man running from the scene & initially stated that the man was not Oswald. He was later shot through the head in the basement of his garage & survived. He later changed his mind & stated that the man running was Oswald. He later stated that his change in memory could have been the result of him being shot – imagine that!

          By the way – Darrell Garner was arrested for the shooting of Reynolds – his alibi was Betty McDonald. She was a former stripper for Jack Ruby – she was arrested for fighting with her roomate & found dead in her cell – suicide by hanging – yes sir!

          Domingo Benavides sat in his truck & was the closest witness to the shooting – he also could not identify Oswald as the shooter (6 H 452)

          There is also the problem that the cartridges for the Remington Peters & Western Winchesters & the bullets taken from Tippit’s body don’t match – the initial reports was that the shooter had an automatic weapon (CE 1974 p. 78)

          The Warren Commission’s & J.Edgar Hoover’s theories were never subjected to a jury Photon – this evidence alone would create “reasonable doubt” to an objective jury but maybe not to you.

        2. Photon:

          Wrong on so many levels again. For one thing, this site is not about who killed Tippett. Whether Oswald did that, and the evidence was never subjected to real scrutiny, it is an entirely other question as to who killed JFK. In fact, if Oswald killed Tippett, it raises a host of questions as to what happened with JFK.

          Moreover, this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with those other events. Rolling Stone was a failure of journalism, it has nothing to do with any research community. I was (sometimes still am) a journalist and I’m horrified by idea of running a story like they did. But you seem to have some odd conspiracy angle that ties any liberal issue together.

          Ferguson there is no question of who, what and where. There is an issue of whether what happened rose to the level of criminal activity. But this is not the forum for that and certainly there are no logical parallels to JFK except that you are on one side of the politics in each case.

        3. I also found the evidence overwhelming, the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. More overwhelming than the evidence found concerning the assassination of JFK. The big stumbling block at the scene of Tippit’s murder might be the controversy concerning the wallet found there. Both sides seem to have evidence to support their claims. Makes it difficult to make a 100% decision. But to me evidence still points to Oswald.

    3. Wait a minute. I’ve always considered you a pretty clever fellow. You honestly can’t figure out who I’m accusing of masterminding the assassination? I’d be the happiest man on the planet if I was to learn that a lone nut had committed the murder of Jack Kennedy. I love our Country and am disgusted by what I learned after all my years of research. I’ve always wanted, very badly, to believe that “2 lone nuts were operating in and around Dallas the weekend of 11/22-11/24/1963”. When I learned that Kennedy’s successor had masterminded the murder and coverup, I was devastated. But, I know the Country isn’t perfect. I’m one of those guys who had a “My Country right or wrong” bumper sticker on his car during the Viet Nam War. I beg you to give me some evidence linking Oswald to the crime. I’d give everything I own to learn of a legitimate motive on the part of Lee Oswald. Everything about the crime points to conspiracy and cover-up. I need you more than you need me to open a productive dialogue. I want the facts of this case to surface so they can be discussed openly and honestly – without the shrill nonsense that has prevented the truth from being revealed. I appreciate the opportunity you’ve given me to be a participant on this blog – which I know you’ve been posting to far longer than I have. You’ve been very kind to acknowledge my viewpoint. I admire and respect your own point of view as well as the tenacity you show in expressing it. I hope we can work together in discovering the answers to this terrible episode in our history.

    4. “Unfortunately elements in our society seem driven by assumptions and preconceived notions, often at the point of ignoring confirmed physical and historic facts.”~Photon

      This is a curious statement in many ways. It speaks to “elements in our society,” as if there is no known and verifiable systemic analysis proving that Western society is the most controlled and manipulated society in the history of humankind.

      The assumptions driving the text of the quote above imply a trust in authority that is certainly misplaced. This is the reason issues such as the JFK Assassination must be analyzed in the larger context of “Perception Management”, the history of propaganda and Bernaysian “Public Relations” and “spin”. Also the history of how the “Prussian” concept of indoctrination and training replaced the education system once in place in the US, with ‘warehousing’ of students in ‘compulsive attendance’ laws.

      The pretense that what is taught as ‘History’ in academia is honest and accurate is itself dreadful propaganda.

      1. How would you know what “History” is being taught in academia? You are not an educator. You are not enrolled as a college student presently. Do you have a degree or have you even attended a college?
        What is the ” Prussian” concept that replaced the American education system and exactly when did that happen?
        You seem to prove my point by accepting unsubstantiated claims and false concepts to advance a narrative without any facts to back it up.

        1. Educator John Taylor Gatto’s book, “The Underground History of American Education,” describes how the system came to America:

          “A small number of passionate ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th Century, fell in love with the order, obedience, and efficiency of its educational system and campaigned relentlessly thereafter to bring the Prussian vision to our shores. To do that, children would have to be removed from their parents and inappropriate cultural influences.”

          The next step was to sell the new system to the American public in the name of equality by convincing each respective state to adopt a compulsory government school system to ensure a uniform education for the masses. The primary goals of this system were not intellectual training but rather conditioning the students for obedience, subordination and collective life.”
          Also see: Horace Mann.
          Also see: Antony Sutton; ‘Skull & Bones’
          Also see: Charlotte Iserbyt; The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
          Also see:

        2. “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” ~Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 324.

  9. During the last days of November 1963, most Texans and 90% of Dallas residents knew beyond reasonable doubt who had killed their President. They were well acquainted with the Texas Sr. Senator who’d been stealing elections, selling influence and eliminating his rivals for the last 20 years. Within days, those who valued their lives quickly stopped sharing those opinions. A few key murders and some head-cracking police work created an environment that has historically allowed such crimes against the people to continue and flourish behind the scenes. Only one man was capable of nipping accusatory gossip in the bud; Just one man with the power to order the Dallas Police, State & local District Attorneys, the Department of Justice, Hoover’s FBI, the Secret Service, et al, to bring a Presidential murder investigation to an immediate halt. “You’ve got your man” Johnson told them: “Stand Down”. Our new leader than hand- picked the men who’d investigate the crime; Men who he knew would bow to his will. This is not a difficult crime to solve. Simply transport yourself to the afternoon of 11/22/63 and examine the forces that were at work in our government and around the world; Back to the days before your head was filled with government and media dis-information, rumor and innuendo. Then ask yourself who, exclusively, had the means, motive and opportunity to plan and cover up the murder. We’ve always known the killer’s identity. The sheer horror of the crime and the terrible realization that “we the people” allowed it to go unrecognized and un-prosecuted is what we can’t stomach and refuse to concede. The aftermath was too calamitous for our generation to accept. But, fortunately, the truth is close at hand. To paraphrase Doctor King; We may not get to that mountain top of truth together, but we will get there”.

  10. I Sure would love to hear Mr. McAdams and Mr. Horne debate the forensic evidence in an open forum. Is that something JFK facts could facilitate?

  11. Face reality. CIA is an entity unto itself, accountable only to itself and further, and accountable only within it’s own ‘groups’ or factions.

    It has its own agenda, and its own understanding of the premise of what’s “in the best interest of the U.S.A.”

      1. The Chiefs and the Spooks are pretty tight. I’m guessing that neither entity would make a move without the support of the other. A key man, a leader, an Alpha is required to make these power grabs work. Hitler became Fuhrer by promising impoverished Germans, still suffering from WWI Allied economic restrictions that he would place Deutshland “back on top where it belonged”! In 1963,a physically intimidating sociopath with a burning obsession to become President rose to power by promising the essential economic, military, intelligence and operative powers that he shared their agenda and would put it in place once they’d helped him become Commander in Chief. It was bloody and violent and for the next 5 years the US look like a banana republic. In some ways we still do. That tyrannical, murderous, nasty, deranged monster made it to the top through bullets and intimidation. Shameful. Read up on him; Thoroughly bad news. Blackmailed his way onto the Democratic ticket in LA in 1960 and then worked behind the scenes, always at cross purposes with the President while cooperating and in league with his conspirators – waiting for his chance – like a black widow.

  12. First of all, let’s have a round of applause for our tireless commenters. They are the Greek chorus of the JFK tragedy. Like any Greek chorus, they wail and scream and sometimes drive you crazy. Some of them are nuts and some of them are saints (but I’m not naming names).

    Hey Jeff, saying that is going to make us insecure about who you think is nuts (does me anyway! :D). Good luck with the book.

  13. Phil it’s a good idea but in truth it could never happen. Or I should say we would never, ever get a truthful disclosure of facts from the ‘official’, side or Oswald was alone group. This case is still being covered up today 52 years later! That speaks volumes. The tv companies run by the gvnt would spend 60 mins trying to convince us the secret service accidentally shot JFK which they now continue to push to satisfy those of us who don’t believe for one second LHO was the assassin and a poultry 2 mins discussing LHO, his background, his connections to the FBI, CIA and jack ruby….LBJ too….you will never get what you ask for sadly- look at the backlash you get on here from LHO acted alone theorists who pick holes but can never answer the big questions but simply say “show me evidence”. We’d love to but material evidence was destroyed as part of the cover up or not allowed to be released so we can only rely on what is before us which majority is circumstantial but there are hundreds of items pointing to a US cover up, hundreds all of which are disregarded by the LHO did it believers or brushed under the carpet. Here in the UK, in a civil court which operates on the balance of probabilities the CIA, LBJ and a handful of mobsters would have been found guilty based on all that circumstantial evidence.

    1. James, That would have been a heckuva trial. Being a Capital Case; Maybe it’s not too late. I’d love to put Lying Lyndon on trial for 1st Degree Murder in the JFK assassination. We’ve had some crooked politicians but Johnson is the only President to have engineered a coup d’ etat. I’m not a capital punishment advocate but I have to admit that watching Lyndon Johnson fry for his crimes would be a Just Dessert. Simply the fact that this rat takes credit for the Civil Rights Bill; Which he made sure was blocked when Kennedy was President, should put him at the top of a US Presidential Rogues Gallery. In the history of man, Johnson is up there with the worst tyrants of all time.

  14. After hearing the incredibly unbelievable denials by CIA as Senator Feinstein’s torture report has been released, I’m surprised that anyone still thinks they can trust this agency when it comes to denying any involvement in the JFK assassination, either indirect or direct. Perhaps we are finally entering a new era of more enlightened skepticism by the public, even if the cronies in Washington are able to tamp the lid down for the time being.

    The call to free the remaining CIA files related to the JFK assassination should be made loud and clear today. What is CIA hiding? Let’s force them to cough up their files once and for all!

    1. I think the TV MSM is long gone. I’d just forget about.

      To me the turning point was the way CNN, MSNBC, and the other networks treated the Snowden revelations. Essentially instead of looking into the NSA and doing real investigative journalism they attacked Snowden.

      One morning I was watching CNBC and the anchors called him a “traitor.”

      Now we have the release of the CIA torture report.

      To learn about it I read about it myself in stories with details in the Washington Post and the National Security Archive site.

      Then on CNN I see Wolf Blitzer attack Fienstein for releasing the report – asking her if it is right to release the report when it can put Americans at risk from blowback and saying “how will you feel” if someone dies now.

      That’s “reporting” on TV.

      Go get the Sabato JFK book from last year. He says in there that almost everyone outside the DC beltway believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, but people inside the beltway and MSM media producers fear that talking about it is risks national security.

      Mainstream media is losing its hold though on people. The ratings for TV news shows are actually dropping and the audience is getting older and it doesn’t connect with the so-called under 30 generation, but that’s a different topic.

      The average age of someone watching Bill O’Reilly is over 70 years old.

      CNBC ratings are in collapse. There used to be 100,000 people watching the Jim Cramer show for example 7 years ago and now there are 15,000 a night as one example.

      People are simply getting their news online.

      So I just think to myself about the TV media who cares what they – they are useless.

      I believe what really makes the remain so influential and a “dominating media” in our society is the fact that they are still shared by everyone.

      Everyone has their favorite list of websites they go to from all sorts of political persuasions and angles from the drudgereport, to the NYTimes, and Huffington Post,, Truthdig, to the far-right neocon Newsmax, and the JFK world has this site and a few other important ones, but everyone in society shares in common the MSM TV.

      But things evolve and change. The problem is getting one topic or story out online to various blogs and newsites imho.

      To do that you need an issue. Perhaps 2017 is one.

    2. Without pressure from Senator Feinstein and the Intelligence Committee the “enhanced interrogation” reports would never have been released. Certainly the CIA, if left to their own devices, wouldn’t have made them available. After initially saluting the courage of the Senator, I find myself wondering about the motive and necessity behind the airing of our “dirty laundry”. Could it have been a political ploy intended as a slap at the opposition while getting out in front of criticism aimed at Obama’s child and civilian killing drone program? Feinstein’s motive aside – The CIA, or certainly rogue elements there-in, were, no doubt, up to their necks (if not the point men) in the Kennedy hit. Domestic regime change was a piece of cake for our Intelligence Community after taking out dictators all over the globe, including the Diem brothers 3 weeks before Dallas. My point is simply that we shouldn’t expect Feinstein to continue tilting at the Central Intelligence Community (for us) in an effort to get our hands on their “assassination” records. I’ll concede that the Senator has “Bronze Star” bravery but not probably not “Congressional Medal of Honor” courage.

      1. Feinstein was pissed because the CIA ran an operation against her staff. Claimed they “stole” secret data. I think the CIA was pursuing criminal charges until Feinstein pushed back publicly. Came out later the CIA was setting her staff up and had removed the files themselves.

        Typical. I’ll care for Feinstein when demands CIA accountability on everything — like JFK.

  15. the best thing you can do to not only help and improve the site but also perform a much needed public service is start to offer concise summaries of, and focus on, the most important and credible discoveries in the examination of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Look to those writers – Thompson, Hay, Pease, DiEugenio, Talbot, Scott, Hancock, Hurt, et al – who have done the best and most incisive work, and let us FINALLY focus on what really happened and who did it, without distractions from the disinformation campaigns of those on the other side. And let me know if you need any assistance.

    1. allenlowwe December 12, 2014 at 7:42 am

      “without distractions from the disinformation campaigns of those on the other side”.

      What makes you think all the disinformation is “on the other side”? It isn’t. Your statement suggest a desire to avoid an honest vetting of your theories instead of a desire for the truth.

    2. Allen, I’ve read them all and they’ve all left me with unanswered questions. Initially, my hometown of Dallas was convinced that LBJ was the culprit. That was too astonishing to accept and I moved on to Mafia theories, the mob’s power base hadn’t yet infiltrated Bethesda Naval Hospital so I moved on to J. Edgar Hoover – and he did manipulate the Warren Commission but couldn’t have handled the job alone; so the CIA came under my microscope – Masters of regime change on the world stage for decades – certainly rogue CIA elements including former director Allen Dulles, had a hand in things but couldn’t have pulled it off unassisted; The Secret Service, Chiefs of Staff, Big Oil, Federal Reserve, Big Business, anti-Castro Cubans, even a few cuckolded husbands came under scrutiny. I remained unconvinced.
      Last year Phillip F. Nelson pulled everything together in one magnificent tome that has spectacularly slaked my previously unquenchable thirst for answers. I am 100% confident that Nelson has uncovered the true and unassailable story of how our President was killed and how the facts of the case were hidden from the American public. Europeans have known since the beginning what really happened but American publishers wouldn’t publish their books and articles – until recently. The true nature of our crooked, violent, maniacal, obsessed and sociopathic 36th President really has indeed been with held from Americans.
      Nelson’s new book is ESSENTIAL. It assumes some knowledge of post WWII US history and is written for a literate adult with a historical bent. The assassination was masterminded by the most powerful man in the Free World; Was put into action by the finest regime topplers on the planet and the coverup orchestrated by the most brilliant minds to have ever embarked on such a criminal enterprise. It’s a blood curdling story – especially if you’re over 60 years old and lived through it. After murdering JFK and laying the blame on an unsuspecting patsy, the most powerful man in the Country called an abrupt halt to the investigation into Kennedy’s murder. He called Dallas’s top cop and their local DA to tell them they “had their man – do no more”.
      Johnson halted all law enforcement investigation into the crime and handed the whole ball of wax to his own hand picked panel of politicians, bureaucrats and cronies who rubber stamped the pre-ordained conclusion that “2 lone gunmen were loose in Dallas the weekend of 11/22-11/24/1963”. The job of evidence collection was given exclusively to his neighbor and self labeled “brother” J. Edgar Hoover; As you might imagine, Hoover gave the Warren Commission nothing in the way of evidence but plenty in the way of headaches; As did self-appointed straw boss of the Warren Commish – Allen Dulles.
      Please read Nelson’s new book. It will clarify the entire scandalous mess that Lyndon Johnson loosed upon our unsuspecting and still reeling Nation. Trust me on this.

  16. I think it would be fascinating to develop a JFK Assassination television series. Each week a different aspect of the assassination would be discussed. Experts from both sides would be given equal time to make their presentation. A debate could also be part of this idea.

    1. Name a current network that would ever air such a series.
      It would have to be a web-series and would likely become lost in the ‘noise’ of media and medium.

    2. Mr. Gurholt, Are you aware of the 9 episode JFK assassination documentary that was put together on A+E and aired on the History Channel in 1988. The series was produced in the United Kingdom by Nigel Turner and is entitled “The Guilty Men”. It’s fascinating and explosive. So much so that it motivated LBJ loyalists, family members and a coterie of powerful men who are still alive and were implicated in the assassination to make one last stand in defense of their pet sociopath. The early episodes weren’t fully vetted and contained some actionable errors. Later episodes, especially Episode 9 was is so scandalous, accurate and revealing in it’s indictment of Lyndon Johnson that it will make your blood boil. It brought out the last of the grey bearded, media moguls who are still capable of hassling these Englishmen who were brave enough to air the series. The documentary is strictly banned in the US and in fact A+E had to promise to never broadcast it again on their network. Fortunately, it’s available in it’s entirety on youtube. This 9 episode series will blow your socks off. The moderators are forced to inform you that they are presenting theories – However, the evidence is damning and overwhelming. It scared the snot out of Jerry Ford. All of this evidence was available throughout Europe within weeks of JFK’s murder. However, our government was able to use threats and intimidation against any American Publishers who even dreamed about publishing this incredible evidence until very recently. It’s sad but true that censorship is a fact of life in American publishing. This A+E, History channel series may not be available on youtube forever. Check it out while you still can. Depending on your level of passion and patriotism – it could change your life.

      1. BrotherBruce, it surprised me that there was so much criticism to that series. The criticism by Gerald Ford is revealing, I feel, because clearly he was afraid Turner was getting too close to the truth.

      2. In my opinion the Nigel Turner productions were not balanced. It was obviously produced from the perspective of conspiracy. Just as the PBS presentations of Oswald and the JFK Assassination were not balanced but came from the sole assassination perspective. Outside of some radio debates, there has never been a fair comprehensive presentation of both theories. My only point is if this was done; it would capture the attention of the American public.

        1. The Gubermint produced their version: The Warren Commission. This excellent 9 (or is it 8) part series merely looks at alternatives. I was quite impressed by the episode 5 interview with Tom Wilson who used Photonics to show the path of the bullets, and, that he discovered the FACT that the the kill shot came from the storm drain, not the grassy knoll. There’s so much more, including a good discussion in episode 7 about the bullet hole through the front windshield.
          When Will Lee Oswald get his day in court?

  17. I have never read anything much about the use of silencers on the possible Grassy Knoll Shots. I would like to have more information about this if it exists. This site is contributing so much in the search for truth in the JFK Assasination. I was child of 11 in Ontario, Canada in 1963 and could see with the naked eye that the last fatal shot was a shot from the front. I have never seen or read anything that would change my mind on that. It is very important that the truth be known regarding this horrible tragedy.

    1. Hi Diane:

      The topic of silencers has been covered in Usenet newsgroups. See this thread, titled “Evidence consistent with the use of a silencer”, for instance.!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/silencer/alt.assassination.jfk/9FrY4Smn61w/-hGYkKI8otUJ

      [unfortunately, YouTube remove the video whose URL I posted]

      Logic dictates that the designers chose a rifle as noisy as possible for the TSBD and one as quiet as possible for the frontal shot. They were able to suppress the noise, but not the smoke.

      … and you know the saying: “Where there’s smoke …” 🙂

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top