Jim Marrs

Yes, Dave Perry and Gary Mack heckled several people who only came to tell their stories. Remember the woman from West Texas who told how her soldier father got her out of school under curious circumstances and drove to Dallas arriving on 11-22-63 and went in the TSBD to use the telephone. I found her story most curious and she seemed to be a sincere person with no motivation for telling such a tale. Nothing came of this story because I could not substantiate her story. But we were all courteous and heard her out, except for Perry and Gary who continually interrupted her and accused her of lying. In fact, as I recall, they actually called Jean "a damned xxxx" but I may have that shaded in my failing memory.

Your account of this outburst in my UTA JFK classs is accurate. I distinctly recall this episode as I was very ashamed over this kind of treatment. As you know I always tried to treat each of the guests with due consideration and respect. This includes the former FBI fingerprint expert who fled the class when my students respectfully but persistently tried to pin him down on whether he could tell the difference in fingerprints from a dead person or a live person, a very significant question considering the funeral home director's statement that the FBI put Oswald's dead hand on the rifle. It's too bad that Gary seems to suffer memory losses such as when he failed to correct the people on that Discovery Channel documentary who pointed out an incorrect location for the "Badgeman" figure.

I have always been inquisitive and wanting to know the truth about everything. I received a very good grammar school education and published my first article and a cartoon in a 6th grade school paper. At the university, I was editorial page editor for the school paper and went on to write professionally for several Texas newspapers. I always sought out unusual stories and ones that I felt were important to the readers. I joined the journalism fraternity, Sigma Delta Chi, in 1965 and went through an initiation in which I pledged to seek and report truth. Since then I have always believed that was my calling. I personally have never felt threatened but I have had four books cancelled on me despite signed contracts plus several important projects suddenly dropped for insignificant or no reason. As long as a person is limited in his or her audience, the powers that be will simply ignore you. But if you are about to break into the mainstream, actions are taken. And if you really start to impact on the nation...well, just ask Dr. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy what happens to you. Journalists take a cue from their superiors and today the major media is owned and controlled by one of about four multinational corporations. For example, the NBC TV network is almost half owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor. The people at the top obviuously would not like honest reporting on the latest war as it might affect the profit line. This attitude trickles down to the lowest reporter, who quickly learns to stick to safe topics if they want to keep their job and retirement. Historians mostly work for universities and here too they face loss of job and are attacked by their peers if they veer too far from orthodoxy. These universities are largely subsidized by grants from the major corporations which discourages any deviation from conventional thinking that might upset these donors. I see very little difference between a journalist and a historian other than the journalist probes current events while the historian studies the past. Both should look behind the conventional accounts presented by the victors and spin doctors and seek the truth of both history and current events. I consider myself more of a reporter than a researcher, although often I have been forced to do some original research. First, I study everything I can lay my hands on concerning a topic, no matter what the source. Secondly, I evaluate this information and it soon becomes evident which information is well founded and which is mere speculation or theory. I then write about the topic with more weight given to the best documented evidence. But I also include the fringe evidence, usually with a caveat such as "Some researchers contend that..." I was taught, and I believe, that the reader should make up his or her own mind. It is not my place to tell anyone how to think. But no matter how brilliant a person may be, if they are operating on incomplete or erroneous information, they cannot be expected to make a correct decision on any matter.

I have always been inquisitive and wanting to know the truth about everything. I received a very good grammar school education and published my first article and a cartoon in a 6th grade school paper. At the university, I was editorial page editor for the school paper and went on to write professionally for several Texas newspapers. I always sought out unusual stories and ones that I felt were important to the readers. I joined the journalism fraternity, Sigma Delta Chi, in 1965 and went through an initiation in which I pledged to seek and report truth. Since then I have always believed that was my calling. I see very little difference between a journalist and a historian other than the journalist probes current events while the historian studies the past. Both should look behind the conventional accounts presented by the victors and spin doctors and seek the truth of both history and current events. I write about what interests me with the belief that if I am interested, many other people will be also. So far, this has proved to be true. I was concerned about that early on when I had to take into consideration my wife and daughters. But both girls are now grown and on their own and I don't have that much concern today. Besides, I was always taught that I live in the land of the free and home of the brave. Are you saying that's not true? I personally have never felt threatened but I have had four books cancelled on me despite signed contracts plus several important projects suddenly dropped for insignificant or no reason. As long as a person is limited in his or her audience, the powers that be will simply ignore you. But if you are about to break into the mainstream, actions are taken. And if you really start to impact on the nation...well, just ask Dr. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy what happens to you. The answer to this one is quite simple. Journalists take a cue from their superiors and today the major media is owned and controlled by one of about four multinational corporations. For example, the NBC TV network is almost half owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor. The people at the top obviuously would not like honest reporting on the latest war as it might affect the profit line. This attitude trickles down to the lowest reporter, who quickly learns to stick to safe topics if they want to keep their job and retirement. Historians mostly work for universities and here too they face loss of job and are attacked by their peers if they veer too far from orthodoxy. These universities are largely subsidized by grants from the major corporations which discourages any deviation from conventional thinking that might upset these donors. I consider myself more of a reporter than a researcher, although often I have been forced to do some original research. First, I study everything I can lay my hands on concerning a topic, no matter what the source. Secondly, I evaluate this information and it soon becomes evident which information is well founded and which is mere speculation or theory. I then write about the topic with more weight given to the best documented evidence. But I also include the fringe evidence, usually with a caveat such as "Some researchers contend that..." I was taught, and I believe, that the reader should make up his or her own mind. It is not my place to tell anyone how to think. But no matter how brilliant a person may be, if they are operating on incomplete or erroneous information, they cannot be expected to make a correct decision on any matter.

I have always been inquisitive and wanting to know the truth about everything. I received a very good grammar school education and published my first article and a cartoon in a 6th grade school paper. At the university, I was editorial page editor for the school paper and went on to write professionally for several Texas newspapers. I always sought out unusual stories and ones that I felt were important to the readers. I joined the journalism fraternity, Sigma Delta Chi, in 1965 and went through an initiation in which I pledged to seek and report truth. Since then I have always believed that was my calling. I see very little difference between a journalist and a historian other than the journalist probes current events while the historian studies the past. Both should look behind the conventional accounts presented by the victors and spin doctors and seek the truth of both history and current events. I write about what interests me with the belief that if I am interested, many other people will be also. So far, this has proved to be true. I was concerned about that early on when I had to take into consideration my wife and daughters. But both girls are now grown and on their own and I don't have that much concern today. Besides, I was always taught that I live in the land of the free and home of the brave. Are you saying that's not true? I personally have never felt threatened but I have had four books cancelled on me despite signed contracts plus several important projects suddenly dropped for insignificant or no reason. As long as a person is limited in his or her audience, the powers that be will simply ignore you. But if you are about to break into the mainstream, actions are taken. And if you really start to impact on the nation...well, just ask Dr. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy what happens to you. The answer to this one is quite simple. Journalists take a cue from their superiors and today the major media is owned and controlled by one of about four multinational corporations. For example, the NBC TV network is almost half owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor. The people at the top obviuously would not like honest reporting on the latest war as it might affect the profit line. This attitude trickles down to the lowest reporter, who quickly learns to stick to safe topics if they want to keep their job and retirement. Historians mostly work for universities and here too they face loss of job and are attacked by their peers if they veer too far from orthodoxy. These universities are largely subsidized by grants from the major corporations which discourages any deviation from conventional thinking that might upset these donors. I consider myself more of a reporter than a researcher, although often I have been forced to do some original research. First, I study everything I can lay my hands on concerning a topic, no matter what the source. Secondly, I evaluate this information and it soon becomes evident which information is well founded and which is mere speculation or theory. I then write about the topic with more weight given to the best documented evidence. But I also include the fringe evidence, usually with a caveat such as "Some researchers contend that..." I was taught, and I believe, that the reader should make up his or her own mind. It is not my place to tell anyone how to think. But no matter how brilliant a person may be, if they are operating on incomplete or erroneous information, they cannot be expected to make a correct decision on any matter.

I believe that Singlaub was connected to Nestor D. Sanchez, one of the Bay of Pigs planners and a man intertwined with JMWAVE. To check this out would require some research on my part and, unfortunately, I am not in a position to spend that kind of time at the moment.

I have an interesting story about Korth, who was from Texas. His first wife told me he was a delight until the fall of 1963 when Korth became silent and sullen, troubled by something. He moved out of their house in early Nov. 1963 and would not speak to her again. She was convinced that there was not another woman involved. What did Korth know that made his leave his wife? Was this to protect her?

The name of the Waco lawyer who wrote the Torbitt Document was David Copeland and I recalled speaking with him when I worked for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in the 1970s. Copeland told me he got his information from two government agents - one with the Secret Service and the other with the FBI. He don't think he ever revealed the identities of these agents. He seemed quite sincere at the time and said he wanted to show the public that "right wingers" did not kill JFK. Personally, I think that he truly believed the Torbitt scenario because he trusted his sources. I think his sources may have been on the level but there's always the possibility they were fed misinformation.

What a wonderfully succinct account of the past couple of hundred years. I agree with you wholeheartedly except for one thing - I believe the facts will show that 9/11 WAS orchestrated by your MICC, in the person of Dick Chaney. In 1992, Chaney as sec. of defense in Bush’s government issued a defense policy paper outlining everything that is happening now - invasion of Afghanistan, regime change in Iraq, moving on the Iran and a larger US military presence in the Middle East. His thoughts were echoed in Sept. 2000 by the neo-con think tank, Project for a New American Century, but this time they added that this agenda would not be acceptable to the American People unless there was "a catalyzing and catastrophic event like Pear Harbor"! On 9/11, Chaney, as head of Bush's highest-level counterterrorism committee (he was named to this about the same time he was named to the energy committee, which the Supreme Court recently ruled did not have to make public their energy deliberations). Considering his background in both government and industry, Chaney was in a position to know how to manipulate both the war game exercises which allowed the hijackers to bypass our confused security systems and the sluggish response of those systems. This is admittedly simplistic, but I am pretty sure it happened something like this.

Nancy, I have not spoken with Marina in several years and do not know her current situation. I understand she has separated from Ken Porter but still lives in the Rockwall area East of Dallas. She is now a thoughtful and articulate woman and would probably surprise you with her knowledge of world affairs. However, I have no current contact information on her, so cannot advise you when to get in touch with her.

All new information made public since 1989 has only tended to support the conclusions in Crossfire. The ‘Smoking Gun’ is the Gerald Ford memo to the authors of the Warren Commission report ordering them to change the wording from “Kennedy was shot in the back” to “Kennedy was shot through the neck”. This small but critical change of wording has allowed them to argue that cockamamie single bullet theory which, of course, is the sole basis for the single assassin theory. This memo was only made public in the mid-1990s. Another topic not clearly understood by most people is that Dr. John Newman book “Oswald and the CIA”. Although academically written and somewhat a tough read, this work makes clear from CIA internal message traffic that Oswald was being used operationally by the CIA prior to the assassination. This information should have made national news headlines but, of course, there is no longer a true news media in the USA.

See the above explanation for no updated version of Crossfire. Another factor here is that I could do a totally rewritten Crossfire to include new material but (1) I am engaged in a number of other projects such as the 9/11 conspiracies and really don’t have the time and (2) while there is new evidence, nothing has surfaced to radically alter the conclusions in Crossfire.

Ron, I totally agree with you but there is the problem of the contract. The publishers, Carroll & Graff, are no longer in business. But they sold their property, to include the rights to publish Crossfire, to someone else (Group West). They will not relinquish these rights and claim that the book is still in print although the fact is that it is getting harder and harder to find. Each time I have demanded my rights back, they rush into print another couple of hundred books just to maintain the idea that it is still in print. I am almost to the point of suspecting that someone is keeping my book from a wider audience.

I am gratified that so many people are still following the JFK assassination case. The truth is out there as we speak. But, if anyone is waiting for a formal government pronouncement of the truth, they are in for a long wait. I feel today we need to turn our investigative efforts to the 9/11 conspiracy. This is bigger than the JFK case because more than one man died and the evidence of conspiracy is emerging much faster than in the 1960s. Plus, we all know that 9/11 is the foundation of everything that has occurred since -- Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tighter government control, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even the 2004 elections.

I have known Tosh Plumlee since before the release of Oliver Stone's film "JFK". He has taken me on a guided tour of Dealey Plaza and South Dallas on more than one occasion. While I cannot vouch for 100 percent of his story as I have been unable to substantiate it all, I can state that it has remained remarkably consistent through the years and, over time, has been more and more supported by documents released from the U.S. Government as well as the trstimony of others. From the beginning, he told me that the only person on his Dallas flight of 11-22-63 that he had known previously was Johnny Roselli and that Roselli got off at the first landing at Garland Airport. Tosh also pointed out to me several CIA-backed Cuban "safehouses" in South Dallas as well as the garage apartment behind Oswald's rooming house. Much of what he told me has been verified by outside sources. He also led me to the Oswald apartment on Elsbeth St. and correctly described the odd configuration of the outside door long before we arrived there, indicating to me his prior knowledge of the place. I have been with Tosh on many occasions, including a lengthy driving trip to Florida and Alpha 66 headquarters, and have never seen him in a drunken state. His memory for people, places and dates continues to amaze me. There are now certain individuals who claim that Tosh is unstable, a drunk, a xxxx or a combination of all three. In my book, this is patently untrue. It should be noted that these same individuals have proven not only inconsistent and abusive in their statements, but have totally reversed declarative statements made only a few years ago. It is easy to call names and make accusations. It is not so easy to erase the memories of those who once listened to such self-appointed authorities.

Wouldn’t any criminal be delighted if he could have complete, secret and unsupervised control over all the evidence in his case for two full days? Wouldn’t the verdict in this criminal trial be a swift “not guilty” if he had the opportunity to “doctor” the evidence? This is exactly the situation which occurred in the murder of President John F. Kennedy beginning the very night of the assassination. Although the proof of the disappearance and reappearance of the JFK evidence has been lying right in front of researchers since the fateful weekend, no one seems to have perceived the significance of the matter. However, at least one person with access to official federal government documents apparently recognized this significance and took steps to conceal it from the American public. This issue began the evening of November 22, 1963, when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry began receiving calls from Washington. As he related to Warren Commission member Allen Dulles (WC Vol. IV, p. 195), "We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this (assassination) evidence up in Washington, in the (FBI) laboratory, and there was some discussion…" Curry made it clear that “we felt this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county (sic) of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it… “(Homicide Capt. Will) Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington, how can I do it?’" But someone in Washington was most persistent. “We got several calls insisting we send this (evidence), and nobody would tell me exactly who it was that was insisting, "just say I got a call from Washington, and they wanted this evidence up there,’ insinuated it was someone in high authority that was requesting this, and we finally agreed as a matter of trying to cooperate with them, actually." Consistent rumors in Dallas have long been that the calls were made by Cliff Carter, then President Lyndon B. Johnson’s assistant. On the basis of this pressure from Washington and against their better judgment, the Dallas police reluctantly released all of the assassination evidence to the FBI. "…we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all (emphasis added) the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us,” stated Curry. However, much of the evidence was never returned to Dallas. Curry told the Warren Commission on April 22, 1964, “Subsequently they photographed these things in Washington and sent us copies, some 400, I think 400 copies of different items. So far as I know, we have never received any of that evidence back. It is still in Washington, I guess. Perhaps the Commission has it.” “Yes; the Commission is still working with it,” responded Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin. What the Dallas authorities did receive was “very poor reproduction of some of these items on microfilm”, according to Fritz. One of the items returned to the police was the Oswald rifle which, according to former FBI agent Richard Harrison, was taken to Miller Funeral Home on Monday, Nov. 25, for the purpose of placing Oswald’s dead hand on the weapon for “comparison purposes.” Funeral Director Paul Groody confirmed that FBI agents “fingerprinted” Oswald’s corpse and that he had to rush to get the black ink off the body’s hand before burial. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, Carroll & Graf, 1989, p. 444.) There is no doubt that the FBI received the assassination evidence late on the night of the crime. A document signed by J. Edgar Hoover himself stating that “No latent (finger) prints of value were developed on Oswald’s revolver, the cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle or the inner parts of the rifle,” was dated November 23, 1963. Yet the journey of this vital evidence apparently was unofficial and was never made clear to the public. The first official word on the transfer of assassination evidence came on Tuesday, Nov. 26, when both Dallas newspapers carried stories announcing that the evidence was to be turned over to federal authorities. “The Dallas Police Department Tuesday prepared to turn over all evidence in the assassination case against Lee Harvey Oswald to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” stated the Dallas Times Herald. “FBI agents Tuesday took control of all evidence gathered by Dallas police against accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald on an agreement between Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and Dist. Atty. Henry Wade,” announced The Dallas Morning News. The News went on to explain, “Curry went before reporters at noon Tuesday to make the announcement. The disclosure came after Curry held several morning conferences with top aides. The transfer of evidence from city police to federal control was completed four hours later.” So now the FBI was officially on the case and officially in charge of the evidence. But what could have happened during the two days while the evidence was unofficially in their hands. Fabrication, substitution, elimination, alteration - anything could have been done to the evidence, with no effective “chain” of responsibility. Unlike 1963, today the FBI has come under suspicion of poor management of evidence at best and downright falsification of evidence at worst. Under Hoover’s iron control, it was have been an easy matter for certain ranking Bureau officials to do with the evidence whatever they pleased. And evidence exists for just such speculation. For example, FBI document Dallas 89-43 dated Nov. 29, 1963, and first publicly released in 1968, stated brown wrapping paper in the Texas School Book Depository “was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor…” This was incriminating evidence against Oswald, as he worked in the building and had access to the wrapping paper. However, in 1980, another document labeled Dallas 89-43 and dated Nov. 29, 1963, was found in the National Archives which was identical to the 1968 version except it stated the wrapping paper “was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting.” Other such discrepancies have been brought forward, including the intimidation of witnesses by federal authorities, which prove to any objective researcher that severe questions remain concerning the validity of the government’s evidence in the assassination. The fact that federal authorities had all the assassination evidence under covert control for two days could go far in explaining the contradictions and questionable conclusions of the official investigation. Apparently at least one person understood the gravity of this issue as there was an attempt to obscure it in the Warren Commission materials. In 1992, the “confidential” deposition of FBI fingerprint expert James C. Cadigan was made public by the National Archives. In his April 30, 1964, testimony to Warren Commission attorney Melvin A. Eisenberg, the following exchange took place during routine questioning regarding fingerprint matters: Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know why (Exhibit) 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered? Mr. Cadigan. I could only speculate. Mr. Eisenberg. Yes? Mr. Cadigan. It may be that there was a very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of time. We have (sic) a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time to desilver it. And I think in many instances where latent fingerprints are developed they do not desilver it. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain why the signature, “Lee H. Oswald” or “L.H. Oswald is apparent while the signature “A.J. Hidell” is not? Mr. Cadigan. Different inks. During this otherwise unremarkable questioning, Cadigan had inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. He had declared to one and all that the FBI had a “large volume” of assassination evidence some of which was then returned to the Dallas police. Later in his deposition, Cadigan made it absolutely clear when this evidence was being handled: Mr. Cadigan. Initially the first big batch of evidence was brought into the laboratory on November 23rd of 1963 and this consisted of many, many items. Mr. Eisenberg. `63? Mr. Cadigan. November 23, 1963. It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought in. There were several agent examiners available to evaluate this material. There were supervisory officials, there were representatives from our Internal Security Division, all of whom had an interest in this matter, and it was decided they wanted certain items treated for latent fingerprints. (WC Vol. VII, p. 435.) So a virtual posse of FBI agents and officials swarmed over the assassination evidence all day Saturday and Sunday. Obviously this unpublicized and unmonitored access to all the evidence might caused a suspicious mind to question the validity of the evidence later used to establish Oswald’s guilt. It is doubly suspicious that in Cadigan’s original deposition some unknown person scratched out his statement about being rushed to return the evidence to Dallas and scribbled “delete” in the margin. This same person marked out Cadigan’s statement that “I could only speculate” and wrote in “No, this is a latent fingerprint matter.” Sure enough, in the version published by the Warren Commission, we read: Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know why Exhibit 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered? Mr. Cadigan. No, this is a latent fingerprint matter. Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain why the signature, “Lee H. Oswald” or rather “L.H. Oswald” is apparent, while the signature “A.J. Hidell” is not? Mr. Cadigan. Different inks. (WC Vol. VII, p. 434.) Why did someone commit a crime by illegally altering an official government deposition and why did the Warren Commission print an altered version of Cadigan’s statement. Were they unaware of the alteration? Or did someone recognize the significance of the assassination evidence being in the hands of the FBI with no publicity or accountability for two days? Perhaps a study of the stenographic notes and tapes might reveal other alterations to the testimony of Cadigan and others. But don’t count on it. According to a notice on the cover sheet of Cadigan’s deposition, “Stenotype Tape, Master Sheets, Carbon and Waste turned over to Commission for destruction.” While the assassination evidence is often ambiguous and contradictory and will certainly be in controversy for years to come, the handling of the evidence clearly points to manipulation and obfuscation at the highest levels of federal authority, a clear view of who was responsible for at least the demonstrable cover-up, if not the assassination itself.

What a Difference a Day Makes. The Release of the Assassination Evidence to the FBI.

Jim Marrs was born in Fort Worth, Texas, on 5th December 5, 1943. His father, a strict Baptist, sold structural steel for a company in St. Louis. Marrs began working as a journalist while at junior high school. After graduating from University of North Texas in 1966 he attended Graduate School at Texas Tech in Lubbock. After graduating from University of North Texas he joined the United States Army. On his release in 1968 he joined the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He served as police reporter and general assignments reporter covering stories locally, in Europe and the Middle East. After a leave of absence to serve with a Fourth Army intelligence unit during the Vietnam War, he became military and aerospace writer for the newspaper and an investigative reporter. Marrs began to take an interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. After interviewing several members of the Dallas Police Department he became convinced him that the Warren Commission was a cover-up. Marrs continued to investigate the case and interviewed several important witnesses as well as city and county officials. In 1976 Marrs began teaching a course about the assassination for the University of Texas at Arlington. He left the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1980 and worked as a freelance journalist while continuing to investigate the death of Kennedy. Marrs eventually became convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been set up by the government and in 1989 he published Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. Published to critical acclaim and reached the New York Times Paperback Non-Fiction Best Seller list in mid-February 1992. It also became a basis for the Oliver Stone film JFK and he served as a chief consultant for both the film's screenplay and production. Since 1980, Mr. Marrs has been a freelance writer, author and public relations consultant. He also published a rural weekly newspaper along with a monthly tourism tabloid, a cable television show and several videos. Beginning in 1992, Mr. Marrs spent three years researching and completing a non-fiction book on a top-secret government program involving the psychic phenomenon known as remote viewing only to have it mysteriously canceled as it was going to press in the summer of 1995. Within two months, the story of military-developed remote viewing broke nationally in the Washington Post after the CIA held a press conference revealing the program but putting their own spin on psychic studies. Psi Spies is now available from JimMarrs.com. In May, 1997, Marrs' in-depth investigation of UFOs, Alien Agenda, was published by HarperCollins. Marrs has been a featured speaker at a number of national conferences including the Annual International UFO Congress and the Annual Gulf Breeze UFO Conference. Publisher's Weekly described Alien Agenda as "the most entertaining and complete overview of flying saucers and their crew in years." The paperback edition was released in mid-1998 and has since become the best-selling UFO book ever in the United States. Beginning in 2000, he began teaching a course on UFOs at the University of Texas at Arlington. In early 2000, HarperCollins published Rule by Secrecy, which traced the hidden history that connects modern secret societies to the Ancient Mysteries. In 2003, his book The War on Freedom probed the conspiracies of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath.

Jim Marrs was born in Fort Worth, Texas, on 5th December 5, 1943. His father, a strict Baptist, sold structural steel for a company in St. Louis. Marrs began working as a journalist while at junior high school. After graduating from University of North Texas in 1966 he attended Graduate School at Texas Tech in Lubbock. After graduating from University of North Texas he joined the United States Army. On his release in 1968 he joined the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He served as police reporter and general assignments reporter covering stories locally, in Europe and the Middle East. After a leave of absence to serve with a Fourth Army intelligence unit during the Vietnam War, he became military and aerospace writer for the newspaper and an investigative reporter. Marrs began to take an interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. After interviewing several members of the Dallas Police Department he became convinced him that the Warren Commission was a cover-up. Marrs continued to investigate the case and interviewed several important witnesses as well as city and county officials. In 1976 Marrs began teaching a course about the assassination for the University of Texas at Arlington. He left the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1980 and worked as a freelance journalist while continuing to investigate the death of Kennedy. Marrs eventually became convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been set up by the government and in 1989 he published Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. Published to critical acclaim and reached the New York Times Paperback Non-Fiction Best Seller list in mid-February 1992. It also became a basis for the Oliver Stone film JFK and he served as a chief consultant for both the film's screenplay and production. Since 1980, Mr. Marrs has been a freelance writer, author and public relations consultant. He also published a rural weekly newspaper along with a monthly tourism tabloid, a cable television show and several videos. Beginning in 1992, Mr. Marrs spent three years researching and completing a non-fiction book on a top-secret government program involving the psychic phenomenon known as remote viewing only to have it mysteriously canceled as it was going to press in the summer of 1995. Within two months, the story of military-developed remote viewing broke nationally in the Washington Post after the CIA held a press conference revealing the program but putting their own spin on psychic studies. Psi Spies is now available from JimMarrs.com. In May, 1997, Marrs' in-depth investigation of UFOs, Alien Agenda, was published by HarperCollins. Marrs has been a featured speaker at a number of national conferences including the Annual International UFO Congress and the Annual Gulf Breeze UFO Conference. Publisher's Weekly described Alien Agenda as "the most entertaining and complete overview of flying saucers and their crew in years." The paperback edition was released in mid-1998 and has since become the best-selling UFO book ever in the United States. Beginning in 2000, he began teaching a course on UFOs at the University of Texas at Arlington. In early 2000, HarperCollins published Rule by Secrecy, which traced the hidden history that connects modern secret societies to the Ancient Mysteries. In 2003, his book The War on Freedom probed the conspiracies of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath.