Help find the JFK Most Wanted

The JFK Most Wanted series identifies key CIA documents related to JFK’s assassination that remain secret. These records won’t be released until October 2017 — at the earliest.

This week we highlighted Bill Kelly’s call for 84 NSA records related to JFK’s assassination.

JFK Facts is leading the fight to make all of these records public, as soon as possible.

The series started with the the still-censored files of Bill Harvey, a CIA man mistrusted even by his colleagues. Then we looked at controversial operations officer David Phillips and the interrogation of Soviet defector Yuri Nosenko.

We’ll be calling on Congress, news organizations, and presidential candidates to insist on their public release in October 2017. Its a common sense proposition. But that doesn’t mean it will happen.

Here’s more about how we can achieve “the decisive clarification” of the JFK story.

We can do this — if you help

There’s always a question about who is credible on the long-running JFK controversy.

Major news organizations like the New York TimesAssociated PressFox News, and the Detroit Free Press have learned that JFK Facts is a reliable source of JFK news. That’s because there’s no other news site or JFK site that does investigative journalism on a national tragedy still shrouded in official secrecy a half-century later. Other people shy from this story. We don’t.

We depend on financial support from readers like you.

Contributions made via the Mary Ferrell Foundation are tax-deductible.

Send a message to JFK Facts readers about why you are contributing. (You will not be identified by name unless you want to be.)

21 thoughts on “Help find the JFK Most Wanted”

  1. “It’s a common sense proposition. But that doesn’t mean it will happen”.
    How can we make it happen”? UPS has a quote in their policy book: “Determined Men (and now Women), working together, can do anything.”
    Can the People come together to FREETHEFILES?

  2. JFK Facts ironically does a disservice to its noble mission to actively investigate the truth of the assassination when it allows the suffocating “Warren Orthodoxy” (McAdams, et. al.) to stake out so much real estate on this high-profile site, and thereby boost their own stale website content & traffic.
    For the Warren Orthodoxy, it’s still 1964 – nothing new has been uncovered in the past fifty years to contradict the perfectly-divined conclusions of the unimpeachable Warren Commission: Oswald was the Lone Nut, witness accounts are unreliable (unless they support the Orthodoxy), there were no covert CIA or other intelligence connections to Oswald… so everyone should just go back to sleep and TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.
    Now, some may feel that everyone’s views should be welcomed in the investigatory debates on JFK Facts, but these “debates”, for the Orthodoxy, must inevitably lead to the same tired conclusion every time. McAdams has his own website dedicated to parroting and defending the tattered WCR, so I say let it sink or swim on its own merits, without him squatting all over JFK Facts. Based on the sheer number and frequency of his posts here, including many links to his own site, should we conclude that McAdams must be one of JFK Facts’ most generous financial supporters? Either that, or he is getting one heck of a free ride on the web, at JFK Facts’ expense.

    1. Dave, I don’t disagree with the points you make, but I do believe it’s an advantage to have John McAdams, Jean Davison, and Photon here, even though as you say they take up a lot of real estate.

      The pro-conspiracy community I’ve come to see is infected with a lot of group-think that is flawed. Photon called it out on Cheryl McKinnon. Jean Davison called it out on the postal form needed for the shipment of handguns but not rifles.

      The good thing is that the anti-Warren crowd can afford to be wrong on a lot of details. Like Cheryl Mckinnon or a postal shipment form. The pro-Warren crowd has to be right all the time; otherwise their theory that Oswald did it all alone crumbles.

      John McAdams has been interesting to observe. He has a ready grasp of the details of the case but appears loath to stitch together a coherent theory of the case and submit it to critical examination. I bet Jeff would give him the chance to do that if he petitioned Jeff.

      1. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

        The anti-WC crow should prepare a list of conspiracy facts that neither McAdams nor any other pro-WC researcher could dismissed them as factoids. A solid list of facts meeting at least two criteria: well established with legal quantum of proof and leading to infer conspiracy as the best explanation.

        1. I’d like to work on that list, but I certainly hope my list wouldn’t be “dismissed” with statements like “it couldn’t have happened that way”, as the WC said, rather cynically I believe, to some of the witnesses.

    2. I agree wholeheartedly, Dave … and I wonder what’s really up with all of this.

      Jeff has insisted that he has not deleted any posts by these people (even though some of them should), why does he delete posts from people like me?

      Something is fishy here …

      1. Hi Photon. This is now, I believe, the third name you’ve chosen to post under? Why even bother? Anyway, have a nice holiday weekend. 😉

    3. For the Warren Orthodoxy, it’s still 1964 – nothing new has been uncovered in the past fifty years to contradict the perfectly-divined conclusions of the unimpeachable Warren Commission: Oswald was the Lone Nut, witness accounts are unreliable (unless they support the Orthodoxy), there were no covert CIA or other intelligence connections to Oswald… so everyone should just go back to sleep and TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.

      Simply heaping scorn on the Warren Commission and on people who believe Oswald was the lone assassin really doesn’t get you very far.

      You’ve got to beat us lone assassin people down in the weeds. You need to prove (for example) that the Single Bullet trajectory doesn’t work, or that Connally was not hit until the Z-235 range.

      Proving that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, for example, would do the job.

      As I read the evidence, you can’t prove any of those things.

      But you probably disagree.

      If so, see if you can make your case.

      1. If the likes of Bugliosi, Reitzes et al belittle, ridicule or continue with their vitriolic attacks on WC critics (aka pro-conspiracy proponents), then I say heaping scorn on the WC is fair game.

        The WCR is NOT the Bible.

        (We already know that the SBT or trajectory doesn’t work. Just watch Beyond The Magic bullet – it exits JFK’s chest, or Dale Myers’ NBC animation – he doesn’t even extend it to completion even if you believe the starting point is sound).

      2. John,

        You misrepresent the burden of proof. Oswald died an innocent man. Anyone wanting to pin the murder of JFK on him has the burden of proof.

        That said, there’s lots of doubt amounting to reasonable doubt Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:20 p.m. on 11-22-63. Witnesses saw two men on the 6th floor shortly before the shooting. Arnold Rowland saw what he described as a slim elderly black guy on the 6th floor shortly before the shooting. Bonnie Ray Williams said he was on the 6th floor until about 12:25 p.m. and didn’t see anyone (although I think he lied). Oswald would have need at least 10 minutes to assemble his disassembled Carcano with a dime (he didn’t have a screwdriver).

        The timing is off, which creates a big doubt. Other witness statements, including Vickie Adams’s and Marion Baker’s, create additional doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor during the assassination.

        I can’t prove where he was. Nor can you. Which means you fail you burden of proof.

      3. Shifting the burden of proof, eh? Just another wearisome tactic from the tiresome minority. You have to prove that the medical and ballistic experts weren’t browbeaten into admitting to the grudging possibility that the single bullet (it doesn’t deserve capitalization) trajectory might work. You have to prove that Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hands and that he fired all of the shots. You have to prove, with evidence, that beyond a reasonable doubt Oswald fired all of the shots. You can’t. So you resort to innuendo, character assasination, tortuous logic, and best of all the Wikipedia crutch of reliable sources. By the way, the defense doesn’t have to prove squat.

        You see Oswald as the atavistic Texan, the bad seed that went awry. In my experience, Texans are generous, open-minded, kind, and friendly. That is in apposition to where I live, where a polite frostiness is the order of the day. Yet one alernative to Oswald as the lone assassin is red-necked, gun-wielding Texans. Is that what bothers you so much? Are you worried about the opprobrium that would be heaped on Texas if the assassins turned out to be a bunch of (probably ex-military in the thrall of Edwin Walker, which would explain a lot of things) good ole boys?

        It’s really too bad you don’t keep an open mind.

      4. “Proving O was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting…”
        Prove he was.
        DPD Chief Jesse Curry: “we never could put him in that window with a gun in his hand”.
        You of all people don’t believe the testimony of Officer Baker? O was in the 2nd floor lunch room 1 1/2 minutes after the last shot. After the 3rd shot he hid the gun, ran down 4 flights of stairs (not passing or being heard by Vicki Adams) and, not out of breath was calmly drinking a coke, with a gun pointed at him.
        One cool customer after killing the POTUS.
        Then again Brennan ID’d him. From a spot people with good vision can’t do so of other people.

        1. Oh, yeah. Forget the other people who saw two people on the sixth floor prior to the shots.
          Then there’s O at lunch eating his sandwich in the domino room on the 1’st floor.
          And who was standing by the front door during the shooting, O or Lovelady, or both?
          The it get’s deep does it not Professor?

      5. I believe that there’s reasonable doubt that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time based on the following but not limited to:

        1. The deposition of Lylian Mooneyham;
        2. The work of Barry Krusch;
        3. The HSCA’s own analysis of movement of the boxes;
        4. Extant films showing movement in two windows;
        5. Seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor (& nobody seeing him come down);
        6. Dubious nature of Howard Brennan’s account & failed I.D. at the line up (mind you, that line up was a joke).

        1. Another one to add:

          7.Clothing descriptions of the alleged 6th floor sniper did not match what Oswald was seen wearing later.

      6. John, when I read Posner’s book CASE CLOSED, I came away not convinced that Posner helped those who believed it was just Oswald. Oh sure, he criticized the conspiracy buffs, but frankly I believe that’s ALL he did.

      7. The body of testimony indicates that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. Witnesses saw multiple people on the 6th floor between noon and 12:30pm, some saw one of them with a long gun. One person identified Oswald long after the fact, not on the day of the assassination. His reasoning for the delay isn’t convincing. Chief Curry said that no one could put Oswald on the 6th floor at the relevant time with a gun in his hands. You accuse Oswald of the muder. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he was up there, that he fired the shot. Innocent until proven guilty.

        1. Also the nitrate tests on the cheek casts were negative, and there were no Oswald prints on the gun before his death. Even the print they found afterward was a palm print, not a fingerprint. The chain of custody for the physical evidence is egregiously broken in several areas, especially the gun and bullets. There is a lot of compelling evidence now that the purchase of the gun itself by Oswald is bogus.

      8. Mr. McAdams,

        What is your degree of certainty that Oswald acted alone?

        What existing information, if any, leads you to doubt your position on this matter to the slightest degree?

        I have posted similar questions to you a few times before without response. I would appreciate it if you would respond. Thank you.

    4. Dave,

      I doubt McAdams’ would financially support this site.

      There are probably many of us who quietly share your sentiments but we can’t be afraid of dissent which can actually temper our resolve.

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