Do you know where the original Orville Nix JFK assassination film can be found?

Gayle Nix Jackson is looking for it. They call it the Nix film. It was taken by her grandfather Orville Nix on November 22, 1963 in Dallas.

What Jackson says is indisputably true.

“His film was the only film that shows the grassy knoll; that shows the assassination sequence; and then shows the afterword of the assassination sequence. It’s a very important film.”

The FBI took possession of the original version of the 8 millimeter home movie sequence  shortly after JFK’s assassination. The Bureau’s agents  also asked Nix for e camera that had taken the film.  Five months later, the FBI returned Nix’s camera in pieces, along with a copy of the film, not the original

The original Nix film has never been found.

If you know something about the Nix film contact JFK Facts or Gayle Nix Jackson.


  1. Tim says:

    One thing I notice with the clip in this video is when the bullet hits there is a flash of white material in the air which instantly disappears. It reminds me of Mr. Brugioni’s video recorded remarks concerning his recall of what he saw in the original Z film the night of the assassination, in DC. He said white material hung in the air for some number of frames and further, that the white material he saw can not be seen whatsoever in the extant Z film, which stuns him in the video recording of his remarks. So, is Nix corroborating Brugioni?

    (Tom S. notes: During 2015, this commenter (same email address & IP#) used the name, “Jake”, but in 2016 submitted two comments as “Louis”, one of which was approved.)

    • Mr. Brugioni makes no mention of the color of the material that exploded from Kennedy’s head in the Z-film. He simply claims that it flew up over the head some four feet above JFK’s head. Which is EXACTLY what is seen in the extant Zapruder film on exhibit in countless YouTube videos.

      No one has ever claimed to have been involved in making a moving picture at Hawkeyeworks or National Photographic Reconnaissance Center.

      All they were involved in was making presentation boards of stills from the Z-film.

      Douglas Horne made up the whole story of “Alteration” out of wholecloth.

      • Greg says:

        Wrong Willy. Dino Brugioni said it was White. You use Doug Horne as a reference one day then diss him the next. This is getting old. Dino is a very credible witness and Doug Horne is not a liar PERIOD. May I have leave?

      • Tim says:

        It was in the 2011 Peter Janney interview:

        “Mr. Brugioni also stated that the head explosion he viewed was a large “white cloud” that surrounded President Kennedy’s head, and was not pink or red, as shown in the extant Zapruder film.”

        So you are wrong about that. The above is a quote from a paper written by Doug Horne that quotes the 2011 Janney interview, and as I watched the Janney interview myself, I also remember it. I can’t find the Janney interview on the internet today, but there was a time in the past when I did watch it.

        (Tom S. notes: During 2015, this commenter (same email address & IP#) used the name, “Jake”, but in 2016 submitted two comments as “Louis”, one of which was approved.)

        • The head shot; Nix, Muchmore, Zapruder synced.

          Notice the Z-film mist is read near Jackie’s face (backspatter) and a pink mist just above JFKs head, and has the appearance of white as it gets higher.
          The Z-Film is the only one with a shot of Kennedy’s profile. The others see him from the rear.
          The sequence of all movements of everyone in all three films is the same.

      • NOTE:
        Some readers may wonder how it is I accept Douglas Horne’s analysis in this instance and reject his analysis of the Zapruder Film. This is easy to explain. Horne has adequate evidence and sound reasoning applied in this medical report.

        Whereas Horne has zero evidence and pure speculation in his so-called analysis of the Z-film; based on his utter ignorance of film, movie making machinery and special effects cinematography.

        • Jordan says:


          Without getting too far into specifics, Mr. Horne has certainly found that two separate and distinctly different films appeared at NPIC, one day apart.


          “Most significantly, the format of the Zapruder film delivered at Brugioni’s NPIC event was distinctly different from the format of the Zapruder film delivered at McMahon’s NPIC event. Yet each man believed, without any doubt, that he was working with the original film. And the two events occurred only one day apart.”

          Further, from the same source:

          [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC by the two Secret Service officials was not copied as a motion picture that night; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]

          I agree with the premise that a visible ‘cloud of matter’ would persist longer than what appears in the extant film, and if Mr. Brugioni claims to have seen something, or anything different in the film he saw,I will take his word for it.

          Progressive copies of a film would produce films of less and less detail, to the point where details are lost.

          While I’m not in accord with Mr. Horne’s entire line of thinking,the separate NPIC events matter is a rather relevent discovery.

          • “I agree with the premise that a visible ‘cloud of matter’ would persist longer than what appears in the extant film”~Jordan

            It depends on what is considered “cloud” and “matter”. If one considers the “cloud” the dispersing droplets of blood, that would happen quickly. If you consider matter as larger pieces of brain and skull that would be seen for a longer moment. And you DO see larger pieces of particulates flying up and off of Kennedy’s head in the Z-film.

            I am NOT saying Brugioni lied. I am saying that he subconsciously embellished his 30 plus year old memories.

            It is accepted that there were two events at NPIC, both to make storyboards of the stills taken from the Z-film, likely for two different clients, the FBI and the Secret Service.

            The original Z-film was developed in Dallas and shown to prospective buyers (LIFE magazing being one) on an 8mm projector at Zapruder’s office.

            It is most likely that both teams at NPIC worked with first day copies, made for the SS.

            When McMahon was interviewed by Horne and Gunn, he let them know that he did not have a trustworthy memory as he had Senile dementia.
            His testimony is practically worthless.

            I am sure that Brugioni spoke in good faith, but 30 plus years is a long time to recall details such as you are accepting and perhaps interpreting more into them that what he actually says.

            There is no direct evidence of anyone making a movie picture at either NPIC nor Hawkeyworks, that night or any other time.

            As Zavada said, “there are insurmountable barriers to creating an undetectable forgery on the Z-film” (paraphrased). Zavada was chosen to inspect the camera and film that was shot by Zapruder for the ARRB. His findings concluded that the extant film was the authentic film shot by Zapruder on 11/22/1963.

            If you are willing to call both Zavada and Raymond Fielding* liars, that is your choice.

            *Fielding is the author of ‘Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography’ the veritable ‘bible’ of film special effects.
            He disputed Horne’s opinions on the Z-film as well.
            I realize I am not going to change the minds of any of the ‘True Believers’ in alteration here, but I do want to reach out to open and rational minds here.

  2. GM says:

    Best wishes to Gayle Nix Jackson and JFK Facts on the successful return of this potentially very important historical film in its entirety. It would certainly make for very interesting viewing indeed.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      As it was last seen by the HSCA someone should ask Robert Blakey where he thinks it’s at.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Is it why they concluded in a Conspiracy as opposed to or in conjunction with the sounds on the Dicatbelt? We can not know without it.

  3. MDG says:

    Brugioni says in the D. Horne interview that the explosion of Kennedy’s head happened over more frames than is shown in the Zapruder Film.

    This led D. Horne to make a reasonable assumption that frames were cut at the time of the terrible shot to the right front of Kennedy’s head from the Original Z Film.

    Brugioni says he saw more frames in the Original Z Film the weekend after 11/22/63.

    D. Horne again makes a reasonable assumption that we have been looking at an Altered Zapruder Film all these years.

    There is a stop in the Film before the presidential limousine makes the awkward turn onto Elm Street.

    Something always looked not right to me at that turn, and stop in the Film.

    It can be seen with the naked eye that something also does not look right at the time of the terrible shot to the front of Kennedy’s head.

    I am not a film expert but Brugioni was.

    We also have the Original Orville Nix Film missing.

    It is missing for good reason as it showed the Grassy Knoll at the time of the right front shot to President Kennedy’s head!

    It would really be a game changer if the Original Nix or Z Film coiuld be found.

    I dont find it impossible to believe the Z Film was altered when you look at the enormity of the Crime that occured on 11/22/63, and the widespread Coverup that happened after the Assassination.

    Brugioni was there the weekend after the Assassination. He says he saw the Original Z Film!

    • “Brugioni was there the weekend after the Assassination. He says he saw the Original Z Film!”~MDG

      That is what we see today, the original Z-film.

      Zapruder stopped filming after the first motorcycle patrolmen passed, and began filming again – a tad late missing the limo’s turn onto Elm.
      There is a lighter frame caused by the camera that shows he began filming after stopping – it is not dramatic but if one studies it close one can see it if one knows what to look for.

      Brugioni is relying on impressions he had 33 years prior to the interview with Janny and Horne. As it is a shocking image, I am sure he was stunned, but may have added to it in his subconscious through the intervening years.

      MDG admits he has no expertise in film or special effects. Well I do, and I can tell when someone is blowing smoke – and that is exactly what Horne is doing on his Z-film commentary. He doesn’t know any more about film or special effects than MDG does.

      Again, see:


      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        Willy – you state that Zapruder “stopped filming”. Zapruder’s Dec. 4, 1963 statement to the FBI proves otherwise:
        “The control buttons for the zoom lens were not touched once he he started taking photographs of the motorcade. Zapruder stated that he first picked up the motorcade as it made the turn on to Elm Street from Houston Street. The motorcade then passed behind a street directional sign and from that point on until it disappeared from sight to his right.”

        He clearly never said that he “stopped filming”. The current extant film also does not show what Roy Truly & Patrolman JW Foster & numerous (40-50) eyewitnesses saw:

        Truly stated – “I saw the President’s car swerve to the left & stop” – Truly was in front of the Book Depository.
        Foster stated – “the car in which he (JFK) was riding pulled to the curb {to the left} – Foster was on the overpass.
        They were on opposite ends of Dealy Plaza & corroborate each other.

        The current film also does not show motorcycle Officer James Chaney pass JFK’s limo & Chaney’s brief conference with the occupants of the lead car as documented by the statements of SS Agent Winston Lawson, Chief Jesse Curry, & SS Agent Forrest Sorrels.

        It is now indisputable that the film that was returned to Mr. Nix was not the original. Nix stated very clearly to Mark Lane that his film had “frames missing here & there”.

        We also know that there was a lady filming across from Zapruder – whether it was Beverly Oliver or not – SOMEONE was filming the assassination from that location & that film has never been made public.

        Of the three films(there might be more)that actually show the assassination – we know that one has frames missing (Nix), one has disappeared (Oliver?), & the
        third (Zapruder) does not support Zapruder’s own statement nor does it depict what numerous eyewitness saw.

        Robert Groden (has done great research)& I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions over the years & we disagree. It is certainly possible – the Zapruder film has some frames missing – at the very least.

        To dismiss Dino Brugioni’s account about the briefing boards & the extant film as well as Doug Horne’s excellent research on film work at Hawkeye because you believe the film has to be authentic could end you up on the wrong side of history – probably some day soon.

      • Greg says:

        And did Zapruder push the lever on camera in order to film at approximately 48 frames per second?? How do you know what ANYONE else knows about film or special effects? Are you a mind reader in regards to Doug Horne’s knowledge? Are you an expert in how one’s subconscious changes your impression over a period of years? You keep harping that DH just “made this all up”. But just the Z film part right Willy? The rest of his work is ok. Please please give us all leave.

        • Tom S. says:

          The rest of his work is ok. Please please give us all leave.

          Doug Horne wrote possibly the first and still one of the most prominent positive reviews of his friend, Peter Janney’s book, Mary’s Mosaic. (see- ) Four months later new, more accurate research related to Janney’s choice of CIA assassin of Mary Meyer was presented in a negative review of Janney’s book. Mr. Horne’s reaction to this new information, verifiable details that Janney and his researchers somehow missed, can be read here.:

          “…..Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same “outfit” that would have maintained Mitchell’s operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?

          If the William L. Mitchell you cite did not kill Mary Meyer in 1964, then perhaps his identity was highjacked—stolen—circa 1964, by the covert operations (“wet”) arm of the Agency—and used by the hitman…..”

          Greg, the excerpt of Horne’s reaction to accurate, verifiable details is akin to a faith based
          reaction. This is not what I would expect of a researcher interested in exposure to new, accurate
          research. It is a defensive, reflexive, “shoot the messenger,” reaction, the opposite of deliberative, thoughtful plodding, which is what JFK Assassination research seems to need much more
          of. You predicted that Willy could be humbled, and sooner than he expects. You risk that your confidence is overextended, if my personal experience related to the research methods of Mr. Horne and his friend, Mr. Janney is any indication.

          • Greg says:

            Point taken Tom S, but for Willy to continue to say DH ‘made the whole thing up’ is preposterous. How does he have any clue what MGD or DH know about film or special effects? ……..I re-read the DH response in its entirety and I do not see the ‘kill the messenger’ in it. I do see DH defending Janney’s book from the standpoint of what Mitchell told Damore. Horne has seen multiple spin/disinformation campaigns over the years and seems to smell one here. I have read all 5 volumes of Horne’s Inside the AARB and have not found any problems with his ‘research methods’. Please enlighten me on your personal experience specifically as it relates to DH research methods.

        • “How do you know what ANYONE else knows about film or special effects? Are you a mind reader in regards to Doug Horne’s knowledge?”~Greg

          I know what Doug Horne knows about film and special effects by what Doug Horne has SAID about film and special effects.

          “But just the Z film part right Willy? The rest of his work is ok.”~Ibid

          I haven’t read all the rest of Doug Horne’s work Greg, so I cannot speak to that.

          “He (Zapruder) clearly never said that he “stopped filming”.~R. Andrew Kiel

          Zapruder never said he stopped beating his wife either. He never said what he had for breakfast on 11/22/1963. Whether he touched the zoom lens button after he started filming is irrelevant.

          “Zapruder stated that he first picked up the motorcade as it made the turn on to Elm Street from Houston Street. The motorcade then passed behind a street directional sign and from that point on until it disappeared from sight to his right.”~Dec. 4, 1963 statement to the FBI

          Just what is shown in the Z-film. It is a matter of semantics whether he caught the entire turn or not. He started refilming as soon as he realized the motorcade was finally coming.

          You are splitting hairs to make something very simple more complex than it really is.

          What would you do if you had a limited amount of film time, went to film a parade, and began filming at the first sign of police escorts, but they went past and disappeared through the underpass, and the parade still hadn’t showed up? Wouldn’t you pause the camera and wait for the actual parade to show up?

          I’m sorry but for me, the arguments we get from “alterationists” have the same flavor as the “moon hoax” theories.

  4. Antonio D'Antonio says:

    I was reading a piece by Doug Horne where he said that he asked Mr. Zavada at a JFK Lancer conference to explain why the back of Kennedy’s head looks like it was blacked out in the Zapruder film.
    According to Mr. Horne, Mr. Zavada answered that there is a possibility that the back of Kennedy’s head could have been blacked out.
    Does anybody know whether Mr. Zavada actually said this?

  5. “Does anybody know whether Mr. Zavada actually said this?”~Antonio D’Antonio

    If you have read any of Mr Zavada’s critiques of Doug Horne’s work on the Z-film you would certainly agree with me that the likelihood of Zavada saying that are as good as you throwing an elephant to the moon with your bare hands.

    Unless Horne has a reliable witness to this asserted interaction with Mr Zavada, I can’t buy it. The whole point of Zavada’s exposition in critique of Horne is that one cannot make an undetected mark on the original film. nor can one make an undetectable splice.

    If you want to know what Zavada really thought, read what he himself wrote.

    Is there anyone here who actually used film cameras? Or are you all digital age youngsters?

  6. Eddy says:

    Willie Whitten’s view on the Zapruder film can be summarised thus : It is technically impossible that the Zapruder film was altered , therefore it cannot have been altered.

    His is a pretty strong argument, but the above is rather an odd way to approach the mystery. If one asks a broader question ; does the evidence, taken as a whole support the suggestion that the extant Zapruder film is unaltered, then the answer is no. So, we then have to ascertain HOW the film was altered. The original Nix film would help. That we do not have the Original Nix film is one of a myriad pieces of evidence indicating alteration of the Z film.

    • “Willie Whitten’s view on the Zapruder film can be summarised thus : It is technically impossible that the Zapruder film was altered , therefore it cannot have been altered.”~Eddie

      Wrong. My view is that it would be impossible to alter the Zapruder film in such a way as would be undetectable on inspection. The evidence on the whole indicates that it was not altered, and neither Eddie, Horne, MDG, Greg, or Mr Kiel, have offered any evidence that it was altered. They have only made remarks revealing their lack of knowledge of film in general, the Z-film in particular, and special effects.

      Eddie’s assertion,”That we do not have the Original Nix film is one of a myriad pieces of evidence indicating alteration of the Z film.”
      Is pure supposition, based on the assumption that the Z-film was altered. That is circular reasoning.

      Every question made here is addressed at this page:

      Unless someone can offer some substantial proof of alteration, I am through with this endless carousel fruitless commentary.

      Willy (with a “y”) Whitten, retired special effects artist \\][//

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        Willy – you continue to ignore questions that you can’t argue away.
        1. You have stated that Zapruder stopped filming & that is not supported by Zapruder’s Dec. 3 1963 statement – wouldn’t he know & state that he stopped filming?
        2. Motorcycle Officer James Chaney is not seen in the extant film riding up to the lead car & past JFK’s limo as was documented to have happened by Sorrels, Lawson, & Curry, & Chaney – why is this not seen in the extant Z-film?
        3. The limo stop & pulling to the left is seen & documented by numerous eyewitnesses (ex.’s above – Foster & Truly) – why are they all wrong?
        4. If the Nix film has frames missing, the Oliver? (or someone’s) film has disappeared – could it not be possible for the Zapruder film to have frames missing?

        We don’t have to be the film expert you claim to be. You – however – need to explain why points 1-4 are not explained away by viewing the extant Z-film – if the film is authentic it should be easy. Ignoring those legitimate questions does not make them go away.

  7. Jordan says:

    One thing is certain….Dan Rather lied, and obviously so…

    He claimed he saw the left turn onto Elm Street, and JFK’s head moved violently forward.

    At least one, if not both of these claims are bogus….

  8. Bob says:

    If the conspirators knew they could alter the film within 24 hours
    why would they show the unaltered film to anyone who was not
    involved in the alteration?
    They would just alter it and take it to NPIC the next day to get the briefing boards made since boards made from the unaltered film would reveal the alteration in the first place.
    Of course the NIX film was not developed until days later so whoever
    altered Zapruder would have to know how to make it match a film they hadn’t even seen yet.
    Nix would have been much more difficult to alter because of the smaller images and the multiple moving objects that would have to
    matted into the foreground including whip antennas on the motorcycles.
    I wish someone would actually try to do it on 8mm film and see how
    obvious it would look.
    I did optical effects from 1970 to 1995 using these methods and
    even working with 35mm original film this kind of work was never fully convincing or undetectable to anyone with optical effects experience and I worked with Oscar winning animators and matte artists.

    • Good points Bob,

      I would add to this that Zapruder had the film processed on 11/22/1963
      and showed it on an 8mm projector to prospective buyers (LIFE magazine among them) that same evening.
      The original was therefore ‘split’. Putting a split 8mm back together as a 16mm would be impossible due to registration problems and the difference between the sprocket hole sizes between the two sizes of film.

      This is of course the least of an alterationists problem, as any doctored, altered, spliced film would have to be projected onto Kodachrome II film. That would of physical necessity require ARTIFICIAL LIGHT from a projector. The contrast and color curves would be impossible to overcome in any convincing way.

      “The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
      response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
      In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
      daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
      5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
      1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
      spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
      response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination.”

      What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.

      As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.”

  9. Chuck Schwartz says:

    After I watched the Zapruder film many times, I have concluded the fatal head shot came from the grassy knoll. The entry came in the right side of JFK’s temple and left or exited in the left side of the back of JFK’s head. To me , this is obvious. His wife chased the brains of her husband as they went on the trunk of their limo, further confirming the entry wound being in the front right temple and the exit wound in the left side of the back of JFK’s head. I just call ’em as I see ’em.

    • Jim says:

      I think you’re right. My sense is that frames needed to be excised at the time of the head shot(s) (on Nix and on Z) because probably it could be seen that two shots did hit. Perhaps the first came from the rear and of course fractured the cranium, then immediately a frontal shot that produced an extra large cloud of white brain matter than would not have happened without the first shot to open up the skull and provide a relatively unrestricted explosion of the gray matter.

      This could be what Brugioni saw and was astounded by. Then when he saw the extant Z, it made no sense to him since the secondary explosion was missing and all that was there was pink mist. Nix on the other hand may have had the first shot frames excised and all we see is the very tail end of the secondary, white matter explosion.

      In either film the net effect would be one shot, not two.

      (Tom S. notes: Yesterday, this commenter used the name, “Tim”.
      (see- )
      During 2015, this commenter (same email address & IP#) used the name, “Jake”, but in 2016 submitted two comments as “Louis”, one of which was approved.)

      • “I think you’re right. My sense is that frames needed to be excised at the time of the head shot(s)”~Jim

        So how do you account for the fact that there are not any jumps of people in the limo from one position to another? How do you account for no leaps of the car compared to the background?

  10. There are informed opinions.
    There are empty, uninformed opinions.
    There are misinformed opinions.
    And then there are lies masquerading as opinions.

  11. bob says:

    I just watched the Dino Brugioni interview again and I
    notice that he makes no mention of material flying backwards
    over the trunk, a hole in the back of JFKs head
    or of the car coming to a stop. He just says the explosion upward was bigger and a few frames longer. Supposedly the alteration was to get rid of the car stop and blasting out of the back of the head, so how come Dino never saw this in the original film?
    I also find it interesting that it took NPIC eight hours to make
    12 to 15 photo prints which makes it hard to believe that the
    film itself could be altered in the same amount of time.
    The “Hollywood Experts” of Doug Horne have been
    studying the Zapruder Film since 2010 but I have not yet seen any evidence of how such an overnight alteration could have been done.
    I have read statements that the film was “crudely” altered
    but if that were true why has it taken more than six years to
    duplicate such a crude and simple job and show us an 8mm film
    that will pass muster as a camera original?

    • Tom S. says:

      Yer witness….
      The NPIC Revelations of Dino Brugioni in 2009

      Peter Janney was in the right place at the right time, for his father, Frederick Wistar Morris Janney, had worked for the CIA for many years, and had known Dino Brugioni. Therefore, when Peter contacted Brugioni and introduced himself as “Fred Janney’s son,” he was able to immediately establish a rapport with Dino based on this history, and it really paid off. Peter and I consider ourselves extremely fortunate that Dino Brugioni was not only still alive in 2009, but that his memory was still so good at the age of about 88, and that he was so patient and accommodating with Peter’s many questions about his involvement with the Zapruder film….

      88 years old, precise recall of details of 46 years before, as told to Peter Janney. How carefully
      have those embracing this elderly witness’s account weighed the details Janney was able to record coming out of the man’s mouth after 46 years, also considering the power and influence of suggestion and enthusiasm of interviewer Janney?

  12. Bob says:

    In the interview Dino makes it clear that any non-original film would be obvious due to
    color, grain and focus changes. This again raises the issue of how could Kodak make a perfect
    8mm composite that would fool the top CIA photo experts?
    Also the removal of frames from Zapruder only compounds the shot timing problem
    that made the single bullet theory necessary.
    In the existing Z film it does appear that fragments fly up at least several feet
    and the cloud of white mist is visible for at least four frames.
    I would like to hear some kind of analysis of the skull fragment that flies out of the front
    of JFKs head and bounces against the inside of the left back door. That clearly indicates a shot
    from behind and to the right and the timing does not allow for excised frames between
    314 and 323.

  13. “I would like to hear some kind of analysis of the skull fragment that flies out of the front of JFKs head and bounces against the inside of the left back door. That clearly indicates a shot”~Bob

    I would like to know how Bob can see such a thing as he describes above.
    I have watched the film a frame at a time, blown up to full screen, and I see no such thing as Bob is describing here.

    Horne claims that the bogus film was created at Hawkeyworks which is under the control of CIA, not by Kodak.

Leave a Reply

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

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

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