JFK Facts podcast: How to think (and not think) about the JFK story

Jefferson Morley and Alan Dale discuss the unique challenge of sifting misinformation, disinformation, and government secrecy while trying to established a rational and factual foundation of thinking about the assassination of President Kennedy.

  • Why do we believe things that are not true?
  • How can we develop a method of differentiating between good and bad information?
  • What can we do to avoid a cul-de-sac of confusion?
  • Why do otherwise intelligent people embrace the connotation of going “full grassy knoll?”

Some readers have said they can’t listen to the podcast for more than five minutes. That is probably because they did not download the podcast first.

To download the podcast as an MP3: Click HERE; Place cursor on file; RIGHT click and select “Save Audio As.”

Got a JFK question or a comment? Contact us at editor@jfkfacts.org and we’ll talk about it on the show.


My new ebook, CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files, available on Amazon, provides the fullest account yet of the JFK records that the CIA is still concealing.


18 thoughts on “JFK Facts podcast: How to think (and not think) about the JFK story”

  1. It is painfully obvious that whether or not the theories are correct or not will probably never be revealed. I find it very disappointing that 56 years after the terrible event occurred, no one is coming forward with the truth. I am 61 years old. Am I EVER going to know what REALLY happened in Dallas 56 years ago? I guess that I have to draw my own conclusions. How sad, that our government is so controlled, that they cannot , or will not, reveal to us what happened on November 22,1963. So much for transparency!

  2. I am suggesting that a problem with thinking on the case is that consensus is actually avoided by researchers. The JFK lancer statement of beliefs is sadly short but tremendously brave. I think a consensus is not achieved due in part to disinformation and in part for fear of being wrong.

  3. “the CIA had a strong interest in Oswald from 1959. That fact establishes that part of the Warren Report and the official story is incorrect. That fact establishes that part of the Warren Report and the official story is incorrect”.
    Eddy. Sept 7

    The SBT was difficult to believe for many people from the time of the Murder over 50 years ago.

    Governor Connally didnt believe it. I dont believe it could be proven in a court of law today.

    We now know there was a strong interest in LHO since 59. A fact.

    Yes Eddy this information was not pursued, or contained in the Warren Omission.

    This omission however doesnt mean Oswald did it.

    Mexico City is for many reasons an important part of the story whether Oswald went there or not. A fact.

    Yes he fled from the TSBD. A fact. But we know know there is a strong possibility he realized he was a Patsy. He fled but we dont know why he fled for sure.

    We need Facts but can it ever be definitively proven that LHO shot or did not shoot at JFK on 11/22/63?

    We have alot more information about the case in 2016.

    But how much of this information is fact.

    It is a fact that the JFK Case was never investigated to the extent it should have been.

    Shockingly, the CIA hid what it knew about LHO.

    This doesnt mean the CIA as an institution planned the Assassination.

    Or a rogue element of the CIA did it.

    It is a fascinating story as to what the CIA witheld.

    Facts in this case are harder to come by.

    Perhaps one day this case will be cracked but it hasnt been up to this point however much we want to denounce the Warren Omission.

    1. That a positively unidentified man was standing on the top landing of the exterior steps of the TSBD while shots were fired is a fact.

      A clear scan of the Darnell film would help identify this man. If it does, then we would posses one new fact.

      Where’s the Prayerman scan? We need that fact.

  4. Jefferson Morley states we must establish facts on the preponderance of evidence. I’m fine with that. So which facts are established? On the podcast Jeff states that the CIA had a strong interest in Oswald from 1959. That fact establishes that part of the Warren Report and the official story is incorrect. What other established facts do this? What other established facts move the search for truth onwards?
    There are facts that are established to my satisfaction (e.g. Kennedy’s wounds included a large hole in the back of his head)) but do not pass the ‘incontrovertibly established fact’ test.

    Can we have a podcast where Jeff gives us the established facts.

  5. I listened to the entire podcast. You did not mention the FACT that Jack Ruby killed Oswald 2 days after the President was assassinated. If you want to know the truth of what happened in this case, you have to start with Jack Ruby, not Lee Oswald.

    1. Mike, Ruby, or the Fact he did Oswald in the Dallas jail basement on national TV is a great place to ‘start’. Seth Kantor’s book “The Ruby Cover-Up” is what spurred my interest in the subject close to 40 years ago. Many years later I read the Associated Press short version of the Warren Omission and threw it against the wall when I read the unfathomable stupid part about Ruby having no mafia connections. It layed there on the floor a couple of days.

  6. In the Mary Moorman video posted above, scroll to 22 minutes in the video. That is where Mary describes the sequence of shots as she heard them.

  7. First and foremost, YOU HAVE TO GET THE FACTS correct.

    Here is an example.

    A correct interpretation of the acoustic evidence reveals that there were 3 shots in about 1 second when the Presidents limo came abreast of the pedestal on which Zapruder and Sitzman were standing. Yes, I said THREE shots.

    This should not come as a shock because Mary Moorman and Lee Bowers have told us this for 50 years.

    Here is a link to the Mary Moorman interview in which she tells us the heard THREE shots in a very short time and , most important, the FIRST shot of those 3 shots was the shot at frame 313!


    Lee Bowers told us the same thing when he talked with Mark Lane. Lee Bowers said he heard THREE shots in very close order and he tapped out the shots with is knuckles on the desk to give us an idea of the time it took for those three shots.

    Here is a link to Lee Bowers describing those three shots

    TO SOLVE THIS CASE WE HAVE TO GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT. There were 3 shots, in less than one second when the Presidents limo came abreast of pedestal on which Zapruder and Sitman were standing.

    If you accept the 3 shot scenario, then a simple, and obvious deduction, is those three shots were fired in response to signal. And, if there was a signal, then there must have been someone who issued that signal.

    But the point of this response is we have to get the facts right!

    1. Hi Mike. The three shots heard by many witnesses, a boom then boom-boom, took about six seconds (an impossible time to fire the rifle supposedly used accurately). If you can afford it see Six Seconds in Dallas by Tink (Josiah) Thompson. I can’t at the moment, I wish they would re-issue it. But I think your on the right track, don’t let the subject discourage you in pursuit of the Truth.

      1. BTW, from the reading I’ve done I think Morales might have been coordinating the shots by walkie talkie through the shooters spotters.

      2. You are not talking about the same thing that I am bringing up.

        The first shot in the three shot sequence that I am referring to is the shot that we see on Zapruder frame 313. There were two more shots immediately following the 313 shot. That is what the acoustic evidence is telling us and that is what both Mary Moorman and Lee Bowers have told us.

  8. A fake “assassination attempt” operation designed to drum up antipathy towards Castro gets “hijacked” via an actual assassin shooting for real behind the buiding Oswald was firing his blanks from.

    Just another operation.

  9. Personally, I think Morley, Hardway and all the other serious researchers/investigators have the CIA completely boxed in.

    Considering all the circumstantial evidence surrounding their interest in Oswald and the unyielding CIA subterfuge and obstruction at the highest levels surrounding its DRE activities in NO, there is no doubt in my mind the agency has one and only one thing left to hide: willing participants if not masterminds of the assassination.

    All that’s really left is institutional confession. That won’t come easy, especially during the lifetime of anyone with a living memory of the event.

    When no one in the govt or citizenry cares anymore, and it’s politically expedient to do so, they’ll tell the truth.

    1. I share your pessimism. With the 1% owning 95% or more of the msm it is hopeless to think this will become a matter of National interest in the next year unless say (ahh) Hillary or Caroline suddenly develop an interest. But Hillary appreciates the move of the cfr hq and Caroline most likely gave up on Democracy many years ago.
      Yet I still feel obligated to try and find the truth for my children, history and my own conscience. And, yes because of curiosity. Someone once said Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

  10. Letting the term “Full Grassy Knoll” get repeated does more than Jeff implied. It’s like “Tin Foil Hats”, etc. Or in the political world, where “Liberal” becomes a negative word, and it will paint ANY and ALL issues regarding the Grassy Knoll as kooky, crazy, etc.

    Better to let it die, quickly, and/or come up with a very convincing reply that we ALL could use if confronted by someone claiming we, too, are going FGK.

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