Reader’s Digest has twelve JFK questions, and they’re pretty good

Once upon a time, Reader’s Digest was the best-read publication in America. You could not go to a doctor’s or dentist’s office and not find a copy. It still exists, at least in digital. And it still has some nerve:

12 Still-Unanswered Questions About the Assassination of JFK | Reader’s Digest


  1. Ger Ven says:

    # 13 :

    Does the presence of Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission forever taint its credibility ?

  2. Bogman says:

    As the article says, the fact of conspiracies around the JFK assassination are indisputable. But the probable ones are after the event – the FBI’s entire investigation was a conspiracy headed by Hoover to prove the lone gunman theory. The WC was nothing more than a conspiracy to further legitimize that theory.

    But the conspiracy that intrigues and disturbs me the most is the conspiracy of silence and obstruction of justice by high-ranking CIA officers Helms, Phillips, Kent and Joannides to deny both the WC and HSCA the knowledge that the agency funded and guided the DRE during the time of Oswald’s well-publicized interactions with the New Orleans chapter and Joannides was the case officer.

    Add to that fact that CIA has never tried to offer an explanation and continues to withhold relevant files to this very day.

    That’s a conspiracy.

  3. C_P says:

    Apparently, there seems to be a probable relationship between Epstein, Reader’s Digest and the Mexico City tapes? I believe I heard on BlackOp Radio an episode where DiEugenio had learned of a very important footnote*?) in Epstein’s “Legend” book where it was mentioned that he was offered a listen (by Reader’s Digest) to the Mexico City tapes but I could be wrong on the exact wording. If even remotely true, an “Unanswered Question” from me to Reader’s Digest would be: Does anyone from Reader’s Digest today have access to said Mexico City audio recordings?

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Your email address will not be published.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.