Here’s the most comprehensive compilation of eyewitness testimony from the Dealey Plaza crime scene, courtesy of Stewart Galanor and the Mary Farrell Foundation.
…
What did Dealey Plaza witnesses say about the origins of the gunfire that killed JFK?Read More »
I need some research help for my upcoming book on James Angleton: …
Skip the theories and focus on what 216 witnesses said.
No, he did not.
The “Secret Service Man Did It” theory is comic in its macabre ludicrousness. It would not be worthy of discussion, except that Bill James and Malcolm Gladwell, and now the Huffington Post, have taken it seriously.
“JFK Second Shooter? New Documentary Makes Radical Claim,” the liberal site reported. The article quotes a couple of cable TV documentarians from the Reelz Channel insinuating, without evidence, that a Secret Service agent killed Kennedy. There is no comment from any historian or journalist who actually knows the record of JFK’s assassination. To date, more than 3,000 people have “liked” the HP story. I have submitted a correction without hope that it will ever be acknowledged.
I could blame Gladwell for this sorry display of public ignorance, but let’s stick to the facts: …
Gladwell’s folly: Did a Secret Service man shoot JFK?Read More »
Those who study the case are “historians”, “researchers” or “students”. All perfectly good words, unlike “CT,” “LN,” or “theorist,” Theory of what?
‘JFK buff’ is an insult
The term “buff” is — how do i say this politely? –repellent. A buff is a hobbyist. What we’re doing has great value, but it would be a pretty sick hobby. Remember how John Kerry did some good work on the contra-cocaine story? Newsweek labeled him a “randy conspiracy buff”, invoking the trifecta of nudity, sex, and high adventure. No thanks.
I refer to myself as an “operations researcher.” When I’m making progress, I might upgrade to “investigator.”I
“Lone nut” is also in poor taste, often used in the context of the “LN crowd”. The terms “Lone wolf” or “single gunman” are respectful ways to refer to one’s adversaries in a case like this.
I believe that many of us use the phrase “conspiracy theorist” because it seems practical, romantic, or titillating.
The last two reasons are bad ones. Real bad. Two of the many reasons the word has been marginalized.
Those who study the case are “historians”, “researchers” or “students”. All perfectly good words, unlike “theorist”. Theory of what?
If we want to not be seen by anyone as “on the margins”, there is a simple fix. Admit that the phrase has been abused by our adversaries and the mass media. It is now used as a red flag. The design is to put the target in a box. It can no longer be used by us in a practical sense.
I think the romantic and titillating aspects of the word “conspiracy” are enticing. “They killed the President! We have to call it what it is – conspiracy!” It’s fun to be wrapped up in a world of high adventure, fighting the forces of Mordor with the energies of truth and light.
I understand it — I like romantic stuff and have a rebel nature. But, I have to admit, it makes me blue. We’re in the midst of an important conflict about how history will be written. We need to share good stories, not needless drama. I’d rather win.
‘Communism killed Kennedy’ remains one of the few defensible statements that the John Birch Society ever issued.
Source: The John Birch Society’s Lasting Influence – The New Yorker
The theory that one man alone killed President Kennedy has a tenacious hold on a respectable minority of JFK writers, including novelist Thomas Mallon, writing in the current New Yorker. …
Thomas Mallon asks, did ‘the climate of hate’ kill JFK?Read More »
My faint apologies for the slow rate of posting. There is too much to talk about in the world of JFK (the Stephen King movie, David Talbot on Allen Dulles, and the October 2017 JFK data dump to name but three) and too little time. …
Jacob Carter, the author of “Before History DIes” talks about the loss of conviction in an America made cynical by the assassination of JFK and its confused aftermath. But rather than succumb, Jacob finds hope–in the JFK research community and in social media,
Professor Scott addresses a key question about the JFK assassination story.
[CIA Director Richard] Helms faced the same legal dilemma after he swore to the Warren Commission to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (5 AH 121). Helms was then asked “Can you tell the Commission as to whether or not you have supplied us all the information the Agency has, at least in substance, in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald?” Helms’s answer was, “We have, all” (5 AH 122).[2] This was, I submit, both perjury, and obstruction of justice.[3] In 1964 the CIA secrets he protected concerned an operation involving the name of the man reported to have been the president’s assassin.[4]
Source: Why CIA’s Richard Helms Lied About Oswald: Part 2 – WhoWhatWhy
For Part I of Peter Scott’s essay, go here.
Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor ask a good question in WhoWhatWhy but the implication of their headline that all books supporting the official theory of JFK’s death are “disinformation” does no service to the truth.
More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.
…
Why so many books supporting the official theory of JFK’s assassination? Read More »
In Salon, David Talbot writes that JFK was assassinated, 52 years ago today, at the behest of a clique of CIA officers led by a highly-praised operator named Bill Harvey.
Is Talbot right?
…
As I said in at the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas two years ago, the challenge is to: describe the latest evidence accurately; use the internet to mobilize online civil society; press for full disclosure; and insist on accountability. It can be done by 2017.
Phil Shenon writes: “I noticed the recent post on John McCone and wonder if it isn’t worth pointing out — given the recent fierce debate on the site and the criticism of my Politico piece — that Arthur Schlesinger’s quotation is strong evidence to support the idea that Bobby Kennedy DID have suspicions about Castro and Cuba, at least early on?”
A middle-schooler in Birmingham, Alabama, writing a paper for English class, recently asked me for my thoughts on the famous Single Bullet Theory, the keystone of the official theory of the Lone Gunman.
I referred him to the most balanced and concise appraisal on the Web, which is found on the 22 November 1963 site: The JFK Assassination Single-Bullet Theory Explained.
By Don B. Thomas
In a telling passage in his recent piece in Politico Magazine, “Warren Commission staffers remain convinced today that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas, a view shared by ballistics experts who have studied the evidence,” reporter Phil Shenon traffics in half-truths. Whatever the Warren Commission staffers think, Shenon’s claim is inaccurate and untrue. …
Do ballistics experts agree Oswald was the lone gunman?Read More »
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
