New Book!

[Paul Brancato]

Go on - tell us again how Hoover then decided for the good of the country to let Walker and company slide for the murder of the president in order to avoid civil conflict.

[James DiEugenio]

He said that?

I wasn't aware of that one.

Edited February 8, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is a new article on Politico about JFK Records Scheduled To Be Released in October 2017

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/kennedy-assassination-jfk-national-archives-documents-218775

Ernie:

Do you have your own inventory of what is left for declassification from the ARRB?

If not, what do you consider the best list out there?

[Ernie Lazar]

Here is a new article on Politico about JFK Records Scheduled To Be Released in October 2017

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/kennedy-assassination-jfk-national-archives-documents-218775

Ernie:

Do you have your own inventory of what is left for declassification from the ARRB?

If not, what do you consider the best list out there?

The NARA database supersedes the individual ARRB listings. I think the NARA database which my friend recently obtained through an FOIA request is now available online.

P.S.

The NARA list is here: http://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/JFK-List-of-Denied-Docs-redacted.pdf

Edited February 8, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much Ernie.

[Paul Trejo]

Go on - tell us again how Hoover then decided for the good of the country to let Walker and company slide for the murder of the president in order to avoid civil conflict.

OK, I'll tell you my theory once again, Paul B., since you so kindly asked.

Since we have FBI documents proving that J. Edgar Hoover knew that LHO wasn't a Communist, and wasn't an FPCC Secretary by 3pm on 11/22/1963, even though he was swamped by phone calls and telegrams from Dallas and New Orleans insisting that LHO was both, we can surmise from this that J. Edgar Hoover knew EXACTLY what happened.

Namely -- the Radical Right in the South had murdered JFK, and had framed LHO to look like a Communist and an FPCC Secretary. Hoover recognized this by 3pm on 11/22/1963.

That should be intuitively obvious to the unbiased observer.

Now -- in light of this, we must ask in all sincerity, why didn't Hoover immediately go after the Radical Right?

Certainly there was no reason for the US Government to fear the Radical Right. Yet look at the likely consequences:

(1) Riots in the streets of the USA in protest against the Radical Right -- and possible direct violence.

(1.1.) As history Professor David Wrone said, men in his neighborhood went out with axes on 11/22/1964 "immediately" to chop down all John Birch Society billboards on their highways.

(2) Since this was during the Cold War, the US Government going after its Right Wing would have been a SCANDAL within International media, and the USSR would have had a propaganda coup.

(3) If things got really out of control, the CPUSA would have hyped up the riots, and the USSR would have been tempted to interfere, and then the Radical Right would have received new backing -- and it could have all spun out of control.

So -- rather than risk riots in the streets of the USA and a propaganda victory (at least) for the USSR, Hoover, along with LBJ, Dulles and Warren, chose to blame LHO as the "Lone Nut" and deal with the Radical Right in other ways.

(For example, General Walker had, by 1966, won $3 million in lawsuits against US newspapers for what they published about his role in the Ole Miss riots of 1962. In 1966, however, this case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Earl Warren himself took this case -- and reversed all of General Walker's "winnings." Walker was now reduced to begging for his Army Pension at this point -- for which Walker had to wait another fifteen years, since Walker had "resigned" from the Army in 1961.)

Some say that the swiftness with which Hoover acted to blame LHO on 11/22/1963 is some sort of "proof" that Hoover was involved in the JFK murder. I say no -- rather -- Hoover chose to blame LHO for exactly the reasons he said -- NATIONAL SECURITY.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

PT: Yet we also know that the FBI also accused Silvia Odio of being a "mental case," too. Because she said (like Harry Dean said) that LHO had accomplices (namely, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in the service of General Walker).

What does this mean?

​Loran Hall and Howard were never at Odio's door. That was something dreamed up by Hoover at the request of the WC, in late August to dispose of what Odio said.

Actually, James, you have no proof that Hoover made up any such thing.

Sylvia Odio's descriptions of the two men who came to her house with LHO on or about 23 September 1963 match Loran Hall and Larry Howard in multiple ways, including:

(1) They only gave their "war names" -- one of which started with "L" and the other started with "A". That was the modus operandi of Loran and Larry.

(2) They didn't look Cuban, and the heavier one looked "Mexican" she said. Larry Howard was a Mexican-American from Los Angeles. Loran Hall was a Cuban-American from Kansas.

(3) The one who spoke Spanish most fluently was the driver, and was flirty as well as pushy, she said; matching Loran's personality.

What Hoover did make up was the WC testimony, twisted to claim that LHO entered and exited Mexico City by bus.

Mexican Immigration records show that LHO entered and existed Mexico City as a passenger in a car. Bus records have no data on any Lee Oswald. The four witnesses Hoover provided who claimed to see LHO on a bus to Mexico City contradicted themselves seriously.

The motive of Hoover to portray LHO as a "Lone Nut" would have at least these two mandates: (i) that LHO must have no accomplices on his journey to Mexico City; and (ii) that LHO could never have been with anybody at Silvia Odio's apartment (which was on his way to Mexico City)..

That Loran Hall involved himself in his initial confession was only convenient to Hoover on the basis that LHO was denied by Loran Hall -- but why would Larry Howard and William Seymour then condemn Loran Hall for naming names, denying Loran's statement bluntly to the FBI, thus obliging Loran Hall to retract his first confession?

The further misdemeanor of J. Edgar Hoover was that he chose to use Loran Hall's first confession as a true report, knowing Loran Hall had already retracted it!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 16, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

From NEW YORK TIMES:

Mark Lane, the defense lawyer, social activist and author who concluded in a blockbuster book in the mid-1960s that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy, a thesis supported in part by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, died on Tuesday at his home in Charlottesville, Va. He was 89.

The cause was a heart attack, his friend and paralegal Sue Herndon said.

The Kennedy assassination, one of the manifest turning points of the 20th century, was the pivotal moment in Mr. Lane’s life and career. He would go on to raise the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. five years later, but it was his Kennedy inquiry that made his name.

Before the president’s murder on Nov. 22, 1963, Mr. Lane was a minor figure in New York’s legal and political circles. He had organized rent strikes, opposed bomb shelter programs, joined the Freedom Riders, took on civil rights cases and was active in the New York City Democratic Party. He was elected a State Assemblyman in 1960 and served one term.

After the Kennedy murder, Mr. Lane devoted much of the next three decades to its investigation. Almost immediately he began the Citizens’ Committee of Inquiry, interviewed witnesses, collected evidence and delivered speeches on the assassination in the United States and in Europe, where he befriended Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, who became an early supporter of Mr. Lane’s efforts.

With a strong personality and a yen for visibility and risk, Mr. Lane also began cultivating and attracting high-profile clients. In the 1960s he worked with Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney who was investigating the Kennedy assassination in a case that Oliver Stone featured in the 1991 movie “JFK.” He represented leaders of the Wounded Knee uprising by American Indians as well as the cult leader Jim Jones, narrowly surviving the mass suicide of Jones and his followers in Guyana.

Mr. Lane emerged as one of the most important experts on the Kennedy assassination after President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the Warren Commission to investigate it. Mr. Lane testified before the commission in 1964 and was a legal counsel to Marguerite Oswald, the suspect’s mother.

He published the results of his inquiry in August 1966 in “Rush to Judgment,” his first book, which dominated best-seller lists for two years. With a trial lawyer’s capacity to amass facts and a storyteller’s skill in distilling them into a coherent narrative, he asserted that the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman was incomplete, reckless at times and implausible.

Mr. Lane coined the term “grassy knoll” to describe a green expanse of Dealey Plaza in Dallas that he argued was the source of several shots fired at the president.

The book raised doubts about Oswald’s marksmanship and the expertise of police agencies, and it sought to ridicule the Warren Commission’s conclusion that one “magic bullet” could have struck and grievously injure President Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas and still emerge essentially intact.

Mr. Lane’s findings were disputed aggressively by the government. Still, the financial success of “Rush to Judgment” and its conclusions prompted the development of a new assassination genre in nonfiction — by both those who believed in a conspiracy and those who did not — that eventually counted more than 2,000 titles.

Mr. Lane was among the genre’s most active contributors. In 1967, the same year Mr. Lane produced a documentary film version of the book, with the same title, Calvin Trillin of The New Yorker called him one of the foremost Kennedy “assassination buffs.” The next year, Mr. Lane published “A Citizen’s Dissent,’’ his response to the Warren report’s defenders.

His book “Rush to Judgment” was adapted into the 1973 feature film “Executive Action,” starring Burt Lancaster and written by Mr. Lane with help from the formerly blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo. Mr. Lane produced a second documentary on the Kennedy assassination, “Two Men in Dallas,” and published “Plausible Denial,” another book arguing that the C.I.A. was involved in the Kennedy murder. Both the film and the book came out in 1991.

Mr. Lane relished his heightened national attention. The comedian Dick Gregory chose Mr. Lane to be his running mate in several states in a write-in presidential candidacy in 1968 under the banner of the Freedom and Peace Party. The campaign collected nearly 50,000 votes.

While working with Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1970, Mr. Lane befriended Jane Fonda and appeared with her on “The Dick Cavett Show” on ABC. He represented the American Indian Movement in 1974, joining the lawyer William M. Kunstler in successfully defending Russell C. Means and Dennis J. Banks against federal charges of conspiracy, assault and larceny in leading the uprising at Wounded Knee, S.D., in 1973, when the town was occupied in a 71-day standoff with federal marshals and F.B.I. agents.

During this period Mr. Lane joined Mr. Gregory and other civil rights leaders in investigating Dr. King’s assassination in 1968. He and Mr. Gregory published their findings as co-authors of the book “Murder in Memphis” (first released in 1977 as “Code Name Zero”), which suggested that the F.B.I. may have been involved in a conspiracy behind the killing.

Mr. Lane also worked with Representative Thomas N. Downey, a New York Democrat, to draft legislation that in 1976 established the House Select Committee on Assassinations to investigate the murders of Kennedy and King. Mr. Downey was its first chairman. Mr. Lane represented King’s assassin, James Earl Ray, during that period and in testimony before the committee unsuccessfully sought his release.

In its final report, in 1979, the committee went further than any branch of government to support the central points of Mr. Lane’s thesis about Kennedy’s murder. It concluded that the F.B.I. and Warren Commission investigations of the assassination were flawed.

Mr. Lane, left, at a news conference with Donald Duncan, an ex-Green Beret who became an opponent of the Vietnam War, and Jane Fonda, in 1970. Credit Associated Press

The committee also found that while Oswald fired three shots, one of which killed President Kennedy, a “high probability” existed that a second gunman was present and that the president “was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” The committee, though, was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.”

But in its investigation of the King assassination, the committee criticized Mr. Lane for providing evidence that it regarded as unsubstantiated. “In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them,” the authors of the final committee report wrote. “In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned.”

Mr. Lane was undeterred. “It seems clear,” he wrote in 1992, “that the people of this nation have a different agenda from the politics of suppression, disinformation, perjury and subornation of perjury readily embraced by their leaders.”

Mark Lane was born in Brooklyn on Feb. 24, 1927. He was the middle of three children of Harry Lane, an accountant, and Betty Lane, a secretary. He served in the Army after World War II in Vienna and returned to Brooklyn to earn an undergraduate degree and a law degree at Brooklyn College.

His first two marriages ended in divorce. He is survived by his wife, the former Patricia Erdner; three daughters, Anne Marie Lane, Christina Bel and Vita O’Shea; and four grandchildren.

Mr. Lane moved to Charlottesville in the 1970s and practiced law there. In the late ’70s he represented Jim Jones, leader of the California-based People’s Temple cult. Mr. Lane was in Jonestown, Guyana, where Jones and his followers had moved, on Nov. 18, 1978, the day that Representative Leo Ryan was killed and more than 900 other people died of cyanide poisoning. Mr. Lane survived by fleeing into the jungle. He wrote about Jones and the deaths in “The Strongest Poison” (1979).

In the mid-1980s Mr. Lane successfully defended the far-right Liberty Lobby and its publication, The Spotlight, in a defamation case brought by E. Howard Hunt, the C.I.A. agent and Watergate co-conspirator.

Mr. Lane’s passion about the Kennedy assassination never seemed to wane, His final book on the subject, “Last Word: My Indictment of the C.I.A. in the Murder of JFK” was published in 2011.

His autobiography, “Citizen Lane,” was published in 2012, with an introduction by the actor Martin Sheen. A documentary of the same name, written and directed by the actress Pauley Perrette, came out in 2013.

“I’ve earned all of the friends I have in the world — Bertrand Russell, Eleanor Roosevelt, Dick Gregory, just as an example of them,’’ Mr. Lane says in the film. “But more than that, I’ve earned every one of my enemies, every one of them, and I’m proud of that.”

[Ernie Lazar]

I can now definitively address one of the assertions made in the past which claims that Harry Dean was in contact with FBI Special Agent in Charge, Wesley G. Grapp.

Dr. Caufield discusses the general details of Dean’s story on pages 590-606 of his book.

First, let’s summarize what Dean has previously claimed with respect to his alleged contacts with Wesley Grapp. The following quotations appear in Paul Trejo’s e-Book about Harry.

According to Harry, his first contact with Wesley Grapp allegedly occurred in July 1961 with respect to the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. His subsequent contacts with Grapp were allegedly with respect to “the JBS plot” against JFK but you will notice some dating discrepancies in Harry’s story.

After the quotations – I will present some factual information which is based upon Wesley Grapp’s personnel file.

Page Harry’s Comment

22………”Not long after we arrived in Los Angeles, Wesley Grapp of the local FBI contacted me out of the blue.” [Note: Harry moved from Chicago and arrived in Los Angeles in early July 1961.]

65……….”In the first days of October [1963], Los Angeles Special Agent in Charge Wesley Grapp drove out to my place in Rowland Heights [California] where I told him all about the Rousselot-Walker plan. I outlined the roles of the Birchers, Robert Welch, and Guy Galbadon and everyone.”

81………..”…before November [1963] ended, Wesley Grapp called me on the phone. ‘Harry’ he murmured, ‘I think we should review what you told me last month.’ ”

82………….”In January 1964, the FBI finally called me to recount what I’d seen in Southern California in 1963. FBI Agent Wesley Grapp drove out to my place and invited me into his car. He had reviewed his notes from last September and he recounted my story as well as he could. He was basically correct one hundred percent and I added nothing significant.”

117………….In discussing the Warren Commission Report, Harry refers to one of their statements which he described as “a lucky guess” which he attributed to “they used my testimony to Wesley Grapp back in September of 1963.”

150………….”I’ve been telling people my recollections since the days I first told FBI Agent Wesley Grapp about it in the autumn of 1963.”

In addition, Harry answered an inquiry from John Simkin which asked Harry when he first began giving information to the FBI about the JBS plot – and Harry answered “September 1963” – which in the context of his other answers presumably means he told Wesley Grapp starting in September 1963. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269&&page=5

I will now address Harry’s statements – using the page number as the identifier:

22 = Notice that Harry describes Grapp as being a “local” FBI Agent (i.e. assigned to the Los Angeles FBI field office circa July 1961).

In reality, Wesley Grapp had just been assigned as Special Agent in Charge of the Miami field office on April 7, 1961. Grapp previously was SAC of Oklahoma City from September 21, 1958 to April 1961.

Prior to taking over the Miami field office, Grapp met with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in Washington DC. Aside from the customary review by Hoover of weaknesses in the Miami field office which Hoover wanted Grapp to immediately address, there was an even more significant matter that dominated their attention.

Starting in January 1961, an FBI Agent assigned to the Oklahoma City field office (William W. Turner) made some extremely serious and career-ending derogatory allegations against SAC Grapp.

Among the charges which Turner made:

(1) Grapp was a very heavy drinker, (2) Grapp had demanded discounts for repairs to his personal automobile from a local Miami repair shop as well as demanding discounts from a local electronics company for sound equipment for his daughter, (3) during his service as SAC in Oklahoma City, Grapp had been stopped by an Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer and given a ticket for speeding at 80mph which Grapp covered up, and (4) Grapp had exhibited an arrogant, overbearing attitude when dealing with the public as well as with various law enforcement agencies and (5) Grapp had engaged in a biased personal vendetta against former FBI Agent William Turner whose performance in OKC Grapp rated “unsatisfactory” –and that rating resulted in Turner’s suspension and eventual dismissal from the FBI.

During the first half of 1961 (and particularly during June-July 1961), Turner’s allegations were the subject of an exhaustive multiple-office investigation which required Grapp to prepare sworn affidavits and be interviewed several times to answer every charge. Meanwhile, Grapp was busy settling into his new responsibilities as SAC in Miami, FL.

The FBI’s Inspection Division then spent countless hours interviewing numerous people (inside and outside the FBI) who had any kind of awareness of, or specific knowledge about, Turner’s charges. The investigation also looked into Grapp’s attitude and personal behavior when dealing with non-employees.

Sections 3 and 4 of Grapp’s personnel file consists of 408 pages. About 75% of those pages are devoted entirely to Turner’s charges, along with the interviews conducted and the affidavits prepared, and the resulting reports about each specific charge.

It strains credulity to think that somebody facing this massive assault upon his integrity, character, and professionalism (which could be career-ending) would somehow have interest in (or time) to call Harry Dean – particularly when there is absolutely NOTHING in Grapp’s file to indicate that he even knew Harry Dean existed.

Furthermore, on Wednesday, July 5, 1961, an official of the American Collectors Association wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover commending Grapp for the speech he gave in Miami “last week” at their annual Convention.

63 = In a section captioned “September 1963 with Gabby, Hall and Howard”, Dean claims that “One day, FBI Agent Wesley Grapp came by for a visit.”

65 = According to Harry Dean, Grapp “drove” to Harry’s home in “the first days of October” (1963).

This is entirely a fabrication by Harry. First of all, Grapp was SAC of Miami field office in both September and October 1963.

In addition: from September 23^rd through October 4^th, 1963, Grapp was in Washington DC for a “Criminal Intelligence” training class. During this time, he also completed his required annual firearms test.

Notice that Harry also changes the date of his alleged encounters with Grapp. In all other instances, he says that he first began “meeting” with Grapp in September 1963 but on pages 65 and 81 of Paul Trejo’s e-Book, the date changes to “the first days of October”.

As might be expected, there is absolutely nothing in Grapp’s file to indicate that he had any kind of contact with Harry Dean nor any contact with any informant matching Dean’s description nor is there any report of any kind which mentions the Birch Society or anybody connected to the Birch Society.

As retired Special Agent Wesley Swearingen has pointed out, FBI Special Agents in Charge DO NOT perform field work (i.e. they don’t conduct phone or in-person interviews, investigations, casework, nor do they contact or monitor informants etc). SAC’s are Administrators and public relations officials. Significantly, Grapp’s file contains numerous letters from J. Edgar Hoover commending Grapp for the work done by his Agents in Miami field (including development and use of informants inside Miami’s territory).

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1963

In order to evaluate the credibility of Harry Dean’s recollections regarding his alleged “meetings” or “contacts” with Grapp, it would be useful to summarize Grapp’s history during the months of August-September 1963.

8/5/63 = Grapp completed and submitted his death beneficiary form which listed his wife as beneficiary. Grapp input his address at this time as North Miami Beach, FL.

8/28/63 = Grapp went to the U.S. Naval Hospital in Key West FL for his annual medical exam.

9/6/63 – 9/11/63 = Grapp attended the American Legion National Convention in Miami

9/23/63 – October 4, 1963 = Grapp attended Criminal Intelligence training class in Washington DC

9/24/63 = Grapp attended a meeting with J. Edgar Hoover in Washington D.C. at which they discussed issues which a recent inspection of the Miami office indicated should receive prompt attention

Does this sound like someone whose responsibilities and schedule gave him time to travel from Miami to Los Angeles to “meet” and “drive” Harry Dean around Los Angeles County for hours?

82 = In January 1964, Dean again claims that Grapp “called” him and "drove out to my place". However, Grapp was still SAC in Miami. Furthermore, Harry's Los Angeles file shows NO FBI contact with him in January 1964.

Also noteworthy is that personnel documents pertaining to Grapp during the period when Harry Dean claims they were in contact and meeting with each other show that Grapp was routinely collecting overtime IN MIAMI for his work there.

Grapp reported to work as SAC Los Angeles on March 2, 1964 at 8:14am. On March 3, 1964, Grapp informed FBI HQ that he had found a new residence in southern California at 2919 W. 129^th Place in Gardena.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for this Ernie.

I wish I had it for my review. But I did link to your site on Harry. Is that where this will go?

[Ernie Lazar]

Thanks for this Ernie.

I wish I had it for my review. But I did link to your site on Harry. Is that where this will go?

Yes--I already added it. Where is your review?

[James DiEugenio]

Here you go

http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart1.html

[Paul Trejo]

Recent criticisms of Jeff Caufield's book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Raidcal Right Conspiracy (2015) have been superficial.

Also, Caufield's theory is really quite different than the parody that recent criticisms had tried to portray.

IMHO, Caufield's first 17 chapters are history-making -- and they deserve their own review.

Chapter 18 to the end of the book are speculative -- as Caufield admits -- because empirical evidence is still lacking about the precise shooters and so on.

The recent criticisms of Jeff Caufield's book claim that Caufield makes a dogma of Willie Somerset's opinion -- but that's not the case. Caufield has shared with the public more data about Willie Somerset than we ever saw before.

It's up to the reader to decide for herself if Willie Somerset had all the facts. IMHO, Willie Somerset -- like Jim Garrison -- fell afoul of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and their Lone Nut theory founded on real National Security. The truth would never come out for 75 years, LBJ decided -- so Garrison and Somerset would also be fed misinformation and discredited.

Jim Garrison made many errors as well as many breakthroughs. The same can be said of Willie Somerset.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paul, please take a look at this video, because it reminds me of you after my review and what Ernie dug up on Harry Dean:

As Cedric the Entertainer aid about Zeb Judah here, "He was so knocked out, he didn't know he was knocked out."

Caufield's book is a pretentious pile of sludge. And you should be ashamed of promoting it with no critical distance at all.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, please take a look at this video, because it reminds me of you after my review and what Ernie dug up on Harry Dean:

As Cedric the Entertainer aid about Zeb Judah here, "He was so knocked out, he didn't know he was knocked out."

Caufield's book is a pretentious pile of sludge. And you should be ashamed of promoting it with no critical distance at all.

I guess this is just more evidence for what I have previously stated.

Everybody comes into a discussion with different levels of knowledge AND often with different criteria for separating fact from fiction.

For Jim, Caufield's book is "a pretentious pile of sludge".

For Paul, Caufield's book is a "history-making" new gold standard for the "JBS plot" paradigm.

For me, Caufield's book is an impressive (albeit very repetitive and seriously flawed) compilation of arcane data pertaining to the history of the radical right in the U.S. during the 1950's-1960's which only a very limited number of individuals could possibly have the time, resources, or inclination to investigate and verify.

So where does that leave us?

Obviously, there is no way to reconcile the mutually exclusive positions of Jim and Paul because apparently they employ entirely different standards for what constitutes credible evidence and/or proper use of compelling logic and argument.

Paul has always maintained that some earth-shattering new revelations will astound us 16 months from now when the final JFK documents are released.

By contrast, many of us believe that while (yes) there will certainly be some significant new insights in those documents, it is, nonetheless, very doubtful that any materially significant new data will be revealed -- and certainly nothing which confirms the delusions of people like Harry Dean.

So where does that leave us?

Probably pretty much where we started. Not very satisfactory perhaps -- but (in my judgment) the very internal nature of political conspiracy theories is that they can never be falsified or verified to the satisfaction of their creator or adherents or their skeptics/critics.