5 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

Very disappointing to see that only three of the eleven presentations over the two days are being presented "live" in the auditorium. Is this symptomatic of a falling-off in interest in the overall JFK assassination issue, or a reflection of a serious reduction in new research in the UK?

Just wondering, especially with the 60th anniversary coming next year.

I think it is Covid, convenience, cost and maybe even a little laziness. It costs hundreds of dollars to go in person but it is 100 percent free from the comfort of home. Especially if you have done a lot of these conferences (as I have), I either won't do them now or it would probably have to be remote.

7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I agree with about 95% of your take on TMWKK. TMWKK was a major step forward in reaching a large audience with suppressed/ignored facts about JFK's death. It had a major influence on me and further motivated me to keep researching the case.

Thanks!

35 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Like too much of the JFK event background story world.

Suspiciously strange.

I have not seen any Marvin discrediting pieces that even half-way factually explain his alleged made up story and his motive for putting it and himself out there for the entire world to see.

I wonder if Marvin's grand kids ( who he said meant everything to him ) now think he was not right mentally after reading reports that his TMWKK story was false and made up?

With Marvin dead, one would probably never get to the bottom of his motivation. Perhaps he was looking for his "moment in the sun", so to speak.

I am very skeptical of Beverly Oliver as the Babushka Lady, but she definitely was a Colony Club dancer with the right connections to have known Ruby and so forth. Also- I am amazed no one has come forward to say "I am the Babushka lady" or "my mom was the Babushka lady." One would think she risks a lot but putting herself out there as someone she was not, yet I have seen some major debunking videos and so forth.

Image 19 from Negative Strip 32: Downtown of the front entrance to the Colony Club – Works – eMuseum (jfk.org)

 

9 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Oliver Stone's 1993 film "JFK" and Nigel Turner's TMWKK series were the primary triggers of my later life obsession about the JFK event.

So many thoughts on the Turner pieces. 

Too many to share except in spurts if the thread stays in play.

Generally agree with your grading reviews of the individual episodes but with many differing takes as well.

But who am I to even comment on such?

Having no film/documentary education background at all.

And many of our most highly regarded JFK researchers here on the forum hate Turner's TMWKK effort.

They trash it's structure, content, overly dramatic music scoring, etc. Worse than no integrity.

However, for better or worse ... it's out there. 

It's been viewed by millions - educated, informed and not.

Obviously there is something compelling enough in it's presentation to draw in that many viewers. I believe the high emotion sharing of witnesses is a big part of this.

There is so much presented in TMWKK series ( much of which contradicts ) that it would be easy to dismiss the entire piece as simply too scattered.

Yet, imo...that is common sense illogical, unreasonable and even irresponsible.

Yes, there are 1,000 smoke cloud stories depicted and discussed.

Not all of them with real fire underneath.

However, enough are that they should be given their true truth value consideration.

The series gives us much background information about so many peripheral characters and their testimonials that we would have never even known about otherwise.

Heck, even Vince's work was given much more exposure from his inclusion in the series.

Will post more but wanted to get one nagging question out of the way here with my first response post.

Colonel Dan Marvin.

Was his highly emotional shared story a figment of a damaged and delusional mental illness imagination? Perhaps brought on by a serious case of PTSD or guilt over some of the brutal things he had to do in his military career duties?

If he made up his story, it was a doozie with many date and name details and his high emotion performance in sharing it was worthy of professional actor dramatic acting cudo's imo. 

What is the final assessment of Marvin? An emotionally broken person who creates false reality memories to cope with his trauma?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, Joe! Well, I don't know about on here, but TMWKK has many fans and, like you said, it has been seen by millions and is quite popular on You Tube. Yes, as I note, it is definitely flawed, but the good definitely outweighs the bad overall.

Re: Marvin---I don't know what to make of his rationale behind that. Bottom line- Vanek debunked his claim and there is no evidence for it.

"THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY" DVDs 1-9: flawed but indispensable.

While I already had the official DVD release of parts 1-6 and the official release of parts 7-9 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy (TMWKK), I decided to take a chance and buy the complete series on Ebay, as it was just two DVDs (as opposed to four over two different packages) and contained them all. Parts 1-6 are in pristine condition but parts 7-9 have a slight bootleg quality to them (turns out that this IS a bootleg; oh, well-it was cheap). Still, having watched them all again, here is my 2022 assessment:

First off, wow: so many people from this series have passed away (Larry Harris, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Phil Willis, Marilyn Willis, L.C. Graves, Jim Leavelle, etc. etc. etc.)!

Second: while the newer parts 6-9 have their moments, parts 1-5 are clearly the best overall, yet even they have some shortcomings.

I also must say that I adore the music in this series, especially the theme music at the end of parts 1-5. I should also add that this series is quite valuable for all the films, photos and re-enactment type filming of actual locations in Texas, Florida, New Orleans and elsewhere.

[the official DVDs have the narration by British narrator Hilary Minster. The ones broadcast on television in America, at least parts 1-5, are largely by A&E's Bill Kurtis using the identical scripts]

PART ONE- THE COUP D-ETAT (1988/1991):

I give this one a solid A and it is clearly one of the best. The late Paul O'Connor, the late Gary Mack, the late Penn Jones [uncredited], Dr. Cyril Wecht [now 90], Robert Groden [now 76], the late John Connally, the late Ralph Yarborough, the late Dr. Robert McClelland, the late Dr. Paul Peters, the late Aubrey Rike, the late Eugene Boone, the late Paul Bentley, the late Bob Carroll, the late Gus Rose, the late Phil Willis, the late Marilyn Willis, Linda Kay Willis [now 73], the late Butch Burroughs [uncredited in this episode], the late L.C. Graves, the late Jim Leavelle, the late Marilyn Sitzman, the late Harold Weisberg, the late James Tague, the late Seth Kantor, the late Billy Grammar, Mary Moorman [now 90], and the late Don Archer all make noteworthy appearances. There is good usage of the Zapruder, Nix and other films, including archival clips of Jack Ruby, Allen Dulles, and others. Even if one is of the lone-nut inclination, there is a lot to like about this episode from an archival/pure reporting standpoint. The series gets off to a strong start here.

PART TWO- THE FORCES OF DARKNESS (1988/1991):

I give this episode a C to C- (with elements of an F), as this one takes a rapid downturn and has some dubious stuff in it. Beverly Oliver (the so-called Babushka Lady...), the late Charles Brehm, the late Jack White, the late Gordon Arnold, the late Ed Hoffman, Steve Rivele [now 73], and a few others from part one make an appearance. The so-called Badgeman image in the Moorman photo is discussed at length, then we get into the whole Steve Rivele/Corsican mafia crud that has largely been debunked. For his part, Rivele says: "I believe that Sarti was involved, but apparently I was wrong on the other two. If I were working on the case today, I'd look at Paul Mondoloni of Montreal... Two points I would add: I saw a documentary TV show last year about the KGB's investigation of the assassination, and was amazed to learn that they came to the same conclusion as me. Second, I was contacted two years ago by a former CIA agent (who worked in the mind control program among others), who told me that I was right about the assassination. Small comfort but better than nothing." [source: Stephen Rivele (spartacus-educational.com) ] As well as Lucien Sarti, he also named Sauveur Pironti and Roger Bocognani as being involved in the killing. However, Pironti and Bocognani both had alibis and Rivele was forced to withdraw the allegation.

Rivele is the co-author of The Plumber: The True Story of How One Good Man Helped Destroy the Entire Philadelphia Mafia (1991), The Mothershed Case (1992) and Lieutenant Ramsey's War: From Horse Soldier to Guerrilla Commander (1996). He also wrote the screenplays for Nixon (1995) and Ali (2001).

 

After an ok start of some dubious quality, this one was painful to watch.

 

PART THREE- THE COVER-UP (1988/1991):

A big recovery here, as this episode garners a grade of a B-plus to an A. The late FBI agent James Hosty, Gary Shaw, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, the late Mary Woodward (Pillsworth), the late Col. Fletcher Prouty, the late Bobby Hargis, the late Luke Mooney, the late Charles Harrelson, the late Roy Vaughn, the late Larry Harris, the late Patrick Dean, the late Everett Kay, as well as several from part one, make an appearance here. Some good stuff related to Jack Ruby and Joseph Milteer and some dubious stuff regarding the 3 tramps.

Parts one and two were basically one episode upon their original release, while parts 3, 4, and 5 are the outtakes. Seeing how the Rivele “revelations” were of a dubious nature, I am glad that Nigel Turner saw fit to release the rest of the footage in three more episodes, as they largely redeem the series.

PART FOUR- THE PATSY (1988/1991):

This episode, all about Lee Harvey Oswald, is the other essential episode in this series and, like episode one, garners a strong A grade. Ruth Paine [90 in a few days], Buell Wesley Frazier [now 78], the late Harold Norman, the late Marrion Baker, the late Helen Markham, the late Ted Callaway, the late Butch Burroughs [credited this time], the late Gerald Hill, the late Paul Groody, the late Jim Garrison, the late Edwin McGhee, the late Reeves Morgan, and a few others from episode one make noteworthy appearances here. As with episode one, people of both a pro and anti-conspiracy background will find much to admire here.

There are valuable clips of Oswald’s statements to the press during his captivity, silent footage of Donald Wayne House, Oswald leafletting in New Orleans, audio excerpts of Oswald on the radio, and fascinating video footage of the 1981 exhumation of Oswald, among other items.

The Tippit case, the Garrison take on Oswald and New Orleans (including the Clinton, LA incident) and other Oswald items are discussed. Like episode one, this one is well worth your time and attention.

PART FIVE- THE WITNESSES (1988/1991):

I give this one a B-plus grade, deducting a little only because it has an “outtake” kind of feel to it. Quite a few participants from the prior four episodes make an appearance with extended or different comments this time around. In fact, not one new participant is introduced, thus my defining this one as a bonus cut/compilation/ outtakes episode.

That said, several of the on-the-cutting-room-floor comments are noteworthy and I am glad they saw the light of day. Mary Woodward laments that the JFK limo did not speed up in time (something she would pontificate upon during her 1993 C-SPAN appearance). Detective Jim Leavelle states that Oswald said that President Johnson’s views on Cuba would be identical to Kennedy's, making one wonder why the supposed lone-nut, pro-Castro Oswald would want to kill Kennedy in the first place if no “reward” was forthcoming. Larry Harris speaks about the unfairness of the Oswald police lineups. Gary Mack discusses the “fake” Secret Service agent(s) encountered by Joe Marshall Smith (and others) in Dealey Plaza. Harold Weisberg waxes poetically about both JFK and the media.

Overall, a very good (if slightly uneven) way to end the original part of the series.

PART SIX- THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE (1995):

After a roughly 4-year lull, Nigel Turner returns with an interesting mixed bag of revelations. I give this one between a B-minus to B-plus. Part six is the first of four new(er) episodes that have a video---as opposed to film---feel to them, thus making for a crisper visual feel.

Marina Oswald Porter states that her late first husband Lee was “absolutely innocent of the murder of President Kennedy” and “I know he is innocent”, bold statements to start off this new episode. The HSCA’s Robert Tanenbaum makes a couple brief appearances but does not really contribute much at all. One almost gets the impression he was added to fill out the program, although I could be wrong.

The late Tom Wilson, from my neck of the woods in Pittsburgh, PA (like Dr. Cyril Wecht and the late Jerrol Custer, but I digress), makes a lengthy appearance of both a fascinating and somewhat dubious---but nevertheless intriguing---nature. He claims to have unique image processing techniques that demonstrate, via the original (or close to original) assassination films and photos, that President Kennedy was struck from the front, thus indicating a conspiracy. I met Wilson in 1991 (11/22-11/23/1991, to be exact- during an interview of Jerrol Custer by author Harry Livingstone that wound up in High Treason 2) and he was a sincere and intelligent man; definitely no nut. That said, his processes were never peer reviewed and, ultimately, are inconclusive at best. Still, fascinating to watch just the same. Wilson concludes his lengthy segment stating his conviction that the fatal shot to JFK must have originated from the Elm Street storm drain, the perfect segue into the next segment and guest.

Jack Brazil demonstrates in person in Dealey Plaza his opinion that the fatal shot did indeed originate from either the storm drain on Elm Street and/or the adjoining one on the corner of the underpass and grassy knoll above. As with the Wilson segment, this is entertaining but, to be kind, inconclusive at best and perhaps dubious at worst. Still, with great production values, camera angles and dramatic music, this part of the program is strangely gripping, even if one’s brain is screaming “Hmmm-I don’t know about this.”

Next comes the highly dubious and debunked (by the ARRB) “revelations” of the late Colonel Dan Marvin and his notion that William Bruce Pitzer, stationed at Bethesda, was assassinated as part of the extended JFK assassination conspiracy and that he was almost recruited to be the assassin. I really won’t waste your time on this one- see the ARRB’s Final Report for the debunking. This segment was painful to watch.

The late Dennis David makes an interesting appearance (much different that the one he gave to author David Lifton in the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO) wherein he claims to have seen a film and photos that the aforementioned Pitzer had in his possession that depicted the right rear of Kennedy’s head missing and a right temple (entry) wound. I met Dennis in 2016 and he seemed like a nice and genuine man. It is really hard to say he was lying about this, but without the film and photos, it is hard to be conclusive about this.

The late Bill Turner, Thomas Hartmann and Lamar Waldron make somewhat boring (to me) contributions to round out the program about Oswald, the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro and, in the case of Hartmann and Waldron, the so-called Operation Freedom stuff (which would morph into C-Day for their 2005 book Ultimate Sacrifice).

PART SEVEN- THE SMOKING GUNS (2003):

As an actual participant in this program, perhaps I am too biased to write a review of it, but here goes. I would give the first 40 minutes or so of the program a stunning A-plus review, while giving the awful last 20 minutes a solid F-minus. This episode is a real paradox to me: truly the (very) good, (very) bad and (truly) ugly. First, let me say at the outset that it was Professor James Fetzer who showed up unannounced on my door on 8/11/2001 (yes, exactly one month before 9/11) to invite me to participate in this program. A little over a year later, in September 2002, the one and only Nigel Turner showed up at my door unannounced (luckily, I was home between jobs then) and we went to my sister’s house (away on vacation; my apartment was deemed an unsatisfactory location) to begin what would turn out to be a SIXTEEN HOUR (over two days) filming, yet I only received a few scant minutes when the show finally aired in November 2003 (parts 7, 8, and 9 drew massive ratings, were shown 4-5 times each and the VHS and DVD sales were thru the roof: over 50K sold, as verified by two different History Channel customer service reps at the time [and, no-I made not a cent]).

I will first spare you the well-worn details, but parts 7-9 were banned in April 2004 and only parts 1-6 were still available on DVD. Since then, of all networks, NEWSMAX TV began several airings of parts 7 and 8 in 2019-2020, while all 9 parts have been available on You Tube and (bootleg) DVD for years, as well.

The first segment begins with a look at the JFK Secret Service and the destruction of motorcade records during the ARRB’s tenure (file video of the ARRB board members and the final report are shown). Despite later going over the edge after 9/11 and (especially) Sandy Hook, Fetzer does a pretty good job summarizing both the destruction of records and the agency’s performance on 11/22/63, which acts as pretty good lead into my segment.

Although only given roughly 3 and a half minutes to work with, Nigel did a masterful job with editing and did a really good job covering the bases and showing very good archival films from the Dallas motorcade. Gratefully, the WFAA/ABC black and white video of the start of the motorcade at Love Field is shown, although I make a minor error (later vindicated somewhat) by stating that the agent who three times protested being called away from the limo was Secret Service agent Henry Rybka---it was actually Donald Lawton. That said, as it turns out, Rybka ALSO jogged with the limo and appears in both still photos and newsreels just before the start of the better-known WFAA video begins. I am pleased with the overall rundown of Secret Service deficiencies I was able to cram in there, although I believe my 14-plus minutes of air time on the 2016 DVD/Blu Ray A Coup in Camelot (filmed in 2013) is much better overall (even my 2021 appearance on the UK/Australia/Ireland documentary The JFK Assassination is a tad better and much longer, but I again digress [my as-yet-unreleased appearance on the 2013 documentary KILL KING 63 is very similar to A Coup in Camelot, so if it never surfaces, so be it]).

Journalist and author Connie Kritzberg (deceased) talks about how she spoke to Drs. Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark and how what she conveyed in her article was changed by the FBI against her knowledge until after the fact. The late Dr. Charles Crenshaw, the late Dr. Robert Livingston, and the late Dr. Evalea Glanges all make valuable contributions.

The late Professor Doug Weldon, Attorney at Law, has a fascinating segment about the JFK limousine windshield and the evidence of both a hole in the windshield and how it was later destroyed. Through his interview with the late George Whitaker, who worked for the Ford Motor Corporation, as well as audio excerpts and a copy of his letter, demonstrates further how the windshield had a hole in it, as well as the destruction of this vital piece of evidence.

Dr. David Mantik, who was also featured with me on A COUP IN CAMELOT and would later appear on JFK REVISITED, makes a valuable appearance discussing the autopsy photos and his many trips to the national archives to view them. Photographer Joe O’Donnell makes a fascinating (if somewhat suspect) appearance, as his bonafides are not 100 percent in my opinion. Nevertheless, by talking at length about White House photographer Robert Knudsen and the autopsy photos, the focus turns more to Knudsen than it does O’Donnell here. Finally, Dr. Gary Aguilar, also later to appear on JFK REVISITED, makes a noteworthy appearance discussing the suspicious HSCA statement (later confirmed as dubious by both the HSCA’s Andy Purdy and Bob Blakey) that all the Bethesda witnesses disagreed with the Parkland doctors. The mid-1990’s ARRB file releases demonstrate that the HSCA lied and that the Bethesda witnesses, by and large, agreed with the Parkland doctors and nurses about the location of the wounds. Two interesting HSCA-era video clips of Blakey are included for contrast.

Then, it happens- right when one is inclined to grade this episode as the best in the lot, the final 20 minutes of the program, awful crud about John Liggett and his very dubious connections to the case (including what looks like a bad photoshopped photo of Liggett with Ruby!), comes along to torpedo any notion of such a grade. One can argue that this is THE worst segment on the entire TMWKK series and I would not argue the point. From Wikipedia: “Malcolm Liggett, a retired economics professor, labor economist at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and employee of the Office for Wage and Price Stability in the Executive Office of the President from 1975 to 1981, sued A&E regarding the episode "The Smoking Guns," which claimed Liggett was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Liggett and A&E reached a settlement, which required that a letter by Liggett be read on the show History Center.”

PART EIGHT- THE LOVE AFFAIR (2003):

The Judyth Baker “story” for the full program. Grade: Would rather not say. Next…

 

PART NINE- THE GUILTY MEN (2003):

When this episode first came out, I would have probably given it between a B and an A. Now, I give it a grade of C-minus to F. Its only redeeming features are the true tidbits about LBJ in spite of the fact that there is (no longer, if there ever was) no evidence that LBJ did it. Author Joan Mellen and her book Faustian Bargains went a long way toward debunking this whole notion for me.

This was the infamous episode that sunk them all and caused so much controversy. Again, from Wikipedia: “[This episode] was based substantially on the book Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K. by Barr McClellan. The book and the episode directly implicates  (LBJ) – who was the Vice President at the time of the assassination – and its airing in 2003 created an outcry among Johnson's surviving associates, including Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, former LBJ aides Bill Moyers and Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America), as well as U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford– who was the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission member – and Jimmy Carter. These Johnson supporters lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel, and subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel. The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004, titled "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired. The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, "The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologized to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show." 

Taking all of this into consideration, unlike part eight, I can still actually watch this one and find some value in it. Researcher Ed Tatro does a masterful job of being the anti-Robert Caro, so to speak, and catalogues all of Johnson’s malfeasance, although none of what he speaks of equates to guilt in the Kennedy assassination. The late Madeleine Brown, the late Dr. Charles Crenshaw (about the LBJ call to Parkland), Phyllis Bartlett (corroborating the LBJ call to Parkland) and Greg Burnham have interesting things to say.

That said, I feel sorry for Walt Brown: he really stuck his neck out about the Mac Wallace fingerprints that have since been debunked (not his prints and he was not even in Texas at the time) and I’ll bet he regrets saying it is a “slam dunk” that Wallace was involved now. The late Nathan Darby appears and offers his now-debunked opinion that the prints are Wallace’s (they are not).

So, there you have it: warts and all (and, yes- some big warts at times), TMWKK is still a valuable and indispensable addition to your collection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/24/2022 at 7:05 PM, Michael Griffith said:

Where are all the up-and-coming WC critics that we'd be expecting to see entering the research community? I know there are some, but I'd hope there'd be more. I'll be around for another 20 years or so, but as I look around, it seems to me that most other prominent conspiracy theorists are at least in their late 60s, and many are in their 70s or 80s. Who will be the leading opponents of the lone-gunman myth in 10 years or 15 years? Will they be badly outnumbered by WC apologists?

So true. I can think of three (early) twenty-somethings; that's about it. I am a "young one" at 56.

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

You are spot on @Vince Palamara , but the education of America must go on.

Thanks! I agree---I won't give up.

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Robbie Robertson is making another film, which I was interviewed for.

That will be out in December.  He has a very large audience on Spotify.

Awesome! I am being interviewed today.

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Surely only the lonely lone nuts still believe.

 

HAHAHA

20 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Vince, I really respect all of the work you have done on the Secret Service and JFKA, we’re all grateful. I do seem to remember you started the JFKA on the opposite side (I think), and you changed your mind the more you got into the evidence. Perhaps it might be worth taking a closer look at this one? 

 

Thanks. I briefly went to the dark side (sort of) in 2007 for a few months (although I still believed at the time that there were multiple conspiracies to kill Kennedy, I thought Oswald beat them to the punch). I never bought the 9/11 stuff and I have seen, heard and read much of it these past 20-plus years.

The book that debunks all the 9/11 truther junk...by pro-JFK conspiracy author Anthony Summers! 

On 8/23/2022 at 12:24 PM, Michael Griffith said:

I'm sorry, but I think he should have known better than to associate with Alex Jones.  Among other craziness, after 9/11/2001, Jones joined the bizarre 9/11 "Truther" movement in claiming that the WTC towers were destroyed by "controlled demolitions." Disturbingly, several other JFK assassination researchers also began peddling this garbage. This did enormous damage to the cause of spreading the truth about JFK's death.

 

You can frame this, Michael- very well said! So true. Jones and FETZER did a lot of damage with all that silliness + the Sandy Hook crap and all the "false flag" junk.

Very interesting excerpt (page 187) of The Lone Star Speaks: Untold Texas Stories About the JFK Assassination by Sara Peterson and K.W. Zachry (2020)

7 hours ago, Robbie Robertson said:

William Law is the author of In the Eye of History: Bethesda Hospital Medical Evidence in the JFK Assassination. Law interviewed many of the autopsy participants and witnesses to events at Bethesda Naval Hospital, including Dennis David, Paul O'Connor, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, James Sibert, Francis O'Neill, and others. His interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy began in 1975 when he first saw the Zapruder Film on television. Another important factor was reading Best Evidence by David Lifton.
 

Out Of The Blank #1193 - William M. Law

 

Huge respect for William Law. It was fun working with him in March 1998 when we interviewed Jerrol Custer.

Hi, Robbie!

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I see your point Vince, but I'm not sure I agree with all the pessimism. The goal of historical research should be pursuit of the truth, and the collective understanding of the JFKA and the surrounding history is still inching forward every single day. 

It's unfortunate and sad that attracting new interest in the case has turned into a propaganda war of lone assassin vs. conspiracy. If the media and advocates for Oswald's sole guilt could bring themselves to acknowledge just a sliver of ambiguity in the evidence, and actually encourage people to study the case in depth and come to their own conclusions instead of demonizing those with even a passing interest in the assassination as nutty "conspiracy theorists", we might be able to make some real progress. 

Right now we are right on the cusp of the biggest leap forward since the ARRB. Everyone gets worked up about still-withheld files, but the vast majority of documents that are already released have been locked up at NARA since the 90s and have never been seen or analyzed by basically anyone - other than maybe a handful of dedicated paper junkies. Once NARA digitizes the entire ARC, I guarantee that there will be new major breakthroughs and patterns noticed that we never knew even existed. Online access to the FBI Field Office files alone will be a complete game-changer for research, and for the sake of history we should be encouraging as many people to parse and study those files as humanly possible. 

The problem is that most people don't realize just how inconclusive and messy the evidence in this case really is. The debate has raged on for 60 years for a reason, but it takes a massive time and attention commitment to get to the level of understanding required to make connections and spot problems in the official story. I'm a "new generation" researcher myself, and what ultimately piqued my interest enough to do primary-source research is that the critics, despite all their flaws, frequently come across as more honest, thorough, objective, and interested in an accurate portrayal of history that those defending the conclusions of the Warren Commission. As long as propaganda, deception, and outright denial of genuine ambiguity in the evidence is required to promote the idea that Oswald acted alone to the average citizen, curious people will continue to see right through it and take action to search for the truth.

The best we can do as a "community" is to stick to the evidentiary record; acknowledge when we are speculating; acknowledge that we could be wrong when interpreting inconclusive material; and engage with and genuinely consider the arguments of the other side. That goes for folks on both sides of the fence. I have nothing against anyone's opinions about the JFKA as long as their belief is genuine, they are willing to engage in cordial, collaborative discussion about the evidence and articulate their position, and are willing acknowledge when they might be incorrect. My personal experience with lone assassin theorists on this forum has been generally positive, but I do wish that the LN - CT dialogue in general was a lot more encouraging and collaborative than a fiendish search for flaws in opposing arguments and condescending quips at others' intelligence. 

Basically my point is that as long as we all take the high road and stay committed to finding to truth, even if it contradicts our own deeply ingrained beliefs, interest in and sustained skepticism about the JFKA is here to stay.  

Excellent points, Tom!

8 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

The perpetrators got away with it. No one was successfully prosecuted for his murder. The coup was achieved. But history will be the judge, there is no escape. Those who care must make sure history wins. If we fail in this endeavour, we only have ourselves to blame! 

So true! 

3 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

NBC News ran a story in 2017 that stated: 

Most Americans doubt they know the real story of what happened on November 22, 1963. More than 60 percent believe gunman Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone – and they’ve been skeptical from the beginning.

Gallup has tracked the Kennedy conspiracy question since the day of the shooting.  A poll taken immediately after the murder found that 52 percent of Americans believed “others were involved in a conspiracy” while 29 percent thought Oswald acted alone. But by December of 1976, the conspiracy number jumped to 81 percent in the Gallup data. There are likely a few reasons for that spike. The film of the assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder became public in 1975 and that helped lead to the 1976 creation of the House Select Committee on Assassination, which investigated the deaths of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  The conspiracy figure stayed relatively high in the Gallup data, not dropping below 74% for decades. The latest numbers from Gallup, from a 2013 survey taken to mark the 50th anniversary of the event, showed 61% of Americans believed the assassination was a conspiracy, while 30% believed Oswald acted alone.

And a new survey from FiveThirtyEight released this week finds that’s right about where the public is today: 61% believe others were involved in JFK’s assassination, while 33% believe one man acted alone. But the most interesting finding in the recent poll is the breadth of the nation’s JFK conspiracy beliefs. More than 50 percent of most every demographic group believes “others were involved” in the assassination: Men and women, whites, blacks and Hispanics, registered voters and non-registered, all age groups.  The one demographic group that believes Oswald acted alone, according to the poll, is college educated white people – and the numbers are very close with 48 percent saying one man killed JFK and 46 percent saying others were involved.

Gene-thanks for this!

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

There are definitely trends and counter trends . Certainly there's a more hard core conspiracy element in the population today, and as I've said before, I think the misinformed people and their wacko theories take the JFKA conspiracy down with it.

 I'm not sure how much faith I put in fluctuating polls about how many people believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I don't how many here have seen these man in the street interviews with everyday people asking questions about history, politics and geography, but the level of knowledge of the everyday person is just appalling to when I grew up, and these people can seem reasonably intelligent and even articulate!

I think with the everyday person in the general population, the general support is soft. Which can be expected in a now almost 60 year  historic event, and with the  general lack of knowledge or enthusiasm for history presently.  I think the general response to the question, "Was JFK killed by a conspiracy" to the average person who of course has never been motivated to study it at all, and whose main exposure is maybe some documentary on TV .has become  sort of a sociological weather vane now, or a sort of badge  by which he or she might of course acknowledge that JFK died as result of conspiracy to simply reaffirm that they are "no fool" and don't blindly believe what their government or authorities in general say, but will never really translate to any concrete action.

Kirk, you nailed it! Excellent!

12 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think you are overestimating the level of public support for the lone-gunman theory. However, we should not be surprised that the numerous anti-conspiracy documentaries and articles over the last 10 years are having some effect. When major networks broadcast seemingly authoritative anti-conspiracy documentaries, when news channels broadcast anti-conspiracy segments, when established newspapers and journals publish anti-conspiracy articles, when YouTube is loaded with anti-conspiracy videos, and when some of the pro-conspiracy videos on YouTube are downright whacky, all these things have their effect. 

How many cable or streaming networks/channels have broadcast JFK Revisited? I certainly hope Oliver Stone is making it as easy and inexpensive as possible for networks/channels to broadcast JFK Revisited. How many pro-conspiracy documentaries are available on Amazon Prime Video or Netflix or HBO?

Finally, if the research community wants to get the truth to more people, they had better stop producing material that attacks/alienates a huge chunk of their potential audience. They had better stop assuming that to believe and care that JFK was killed by a conspiracy you must also accept the liberal view on a number of controversial issues that have nothing directly to do with the JFK case. 

 

Very good points!

12 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Vince

Interesting point about time not being a friend.  When I reflect back to how I first became interested, and then educated myself, it's quite the journey (and I'm still travelling).  First it was certain prominent books (not all of which were accurate or enlightening).  Next were conferences and talks given by certain experts and television specials (which in retrospect weren't reliable sources of valid information). More recently, it's been the computer and websites like the Education Forum, with a focus on whom I personally consider to be the most knowledgeable individuals. The difficult part is wading through a veritable mountain of information - and filtering well-disguised disinformation - to arrive at a coherent story, one that rings true.  It takes great patience and persistence. 

When I think of the current generation (and my own children), they generally don't have the patience to read books, or perform the necessary due diligence.  They want instant news and learn from Tweets (i.e., sound bites).  And with so much out there now - including valid differing points of view - it's an almost impossible task to discern the Truth. As far as the older generation, when I forward information about JFK Revisited to my friends and family, some have taken the time to watch it and were impressed (so that's reassuring).  However, given that the story is now more than 50 years old, I fear that many (young and old) just don't much care, nor does history interest them. 

Last, one thing I've learned in my JFK journey is to respect the many different perspectives and individual views ... that's its healthy to disagree (because that is how we learn). Nor do I like simplistic labels like LN's or CT's; we are all too sophisticated to be simply labelled as such.  The reality is that there's a lot more to the JFK story than simply one guy taking three shots from the 6th floor (all on his lonesome).  Where we all differ is in the details, and who was behind it (and why) ... nonetheless, I believe that the majority (70% or more) still don't buy that simple story. 

Gene

Excellent!

12 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I think a lot of young people don't see much relevance in the JFK assassination these days. JFK was not an active figure in their lifetime and increasingly not even in their parent's lifetimes. I think what FDR might or might not have known prior to Pearl Harbor would be a comparable example of a historical event also irrelevant to their interests or lives. Something like that would be of interest to those who already had an interest, otherwise it's just a historical mystery involving people that were never current for them.

Of course, interest in true crime mysteries never really go completely out of style. Unfortunately the JFK assassination comes with a lot more baggage than the event spotlighted in your average Netflix true crime series. Almost every single person's first exposure to the JFKA is in the context of someone else characterizing conspiracy theories as crazy. In TV and movies, any conspiracy-minded character has to spout off some sort of wacky connection or theory about the JFKA. In comedies, the wackier the better. It's almost obligatory. That conspiracy theorists are wacky is something the online LN t_r-o_l-l_s take as a natural fact of life. Most of them have never read a single book or seen even one documentary on the subject, but they all know the conventional wisdom that JFKA buffs wear tinfoil hats, twiddle shortwave radio knobs, and think Mr. Spock was shooting from the grassy knoll.

So there will always be that contingent of folks who are uninformed LN's constantly attacking those people who think there might be more to the story than what we've been told. They will only grow more strident with time, I believe. Sunk cost fallacy and all that.

Regarding the people who believe the "Hickey did it" theory, I would wager 95% have never read a JFKA book or seen any other documentary than "JFK: The Smoking Gun", mainly because of its wide availability on free streaming platforms. The Hickey theory also provides them an answer to what happened, while more serious JFKA docs don't come up with a final conclusion that points to one person or a conclusive single account of all events. The Hickey theory is easily comprehensible. It can be digested in an hour or two, while dedicated researchers repeatedly spend decade after decade debating and discussing the fine details of every obscure aspect.

Read your comment a couple times- excellent! I am glad I raised this issue. Great feedback.

15 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

The anti-conspiracy machine is gearing up on this side of the pond.

We are approaching the 25th anniversary of the deaths of Diana Spencer/Dodi Fayed/Henri Paul in Paris in 1997.

To mark the anniversary Channel 4 in the U.K. are screening a four part series titled 'Investigating Diana: Death in Paris'. Part 1 screened last night, Sunday 21st.

Monday's Guardian reports:-Jessop and Peel astutely note that her death turbocharged the infant internet’s mutation into a post-truth tool, enabling every disaffected boob to sick up their conspiracy theories about her demise. But, more importantly, Jessop and Peel have reworked Diana’s death so that Investigating Diana comes on as if it wants to be this summer’s Tiger King or Making a Murderer.

 

Interesting, indeed!

16 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Vince Palamara writes:

It's worth remembering that the 'Hickey shot Kennedy' nonsense isn't a conspiracy theory, but a lone-nut theory.

Obviously, it's a 'conspiracy theory' in the propaganda sense of the term, in that it's far-fetched and easily debunked. But it proposes that Oswald, the lone nut, was taking pot-shots at Kennedy from the sixth floor, and that neither Oswald nor Hickey were part of any conspiracy.

Although the Bronson film shows that it didn't happen, the hypothetical notion of an accidental head-shot has a propaganda use. It allows two contradictory items to be reconciled:

• (a) the low-entry, high-exit head wounds described by the autopsy pathologists, and
• (b) the notion of a lone gunman shooting from 60 feet above the street.

The theory's function has been to persuade the uninformed public that Oswald acted alone. That is no doubt why it was trundled out on the 50th anniversary, despite having been debunked 20 years earlier, and why it may get put forward as a credible explanation again next year.

Great comment!

12 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I think a lot of young people don't see much relevance in the JFK assassination these days. JFK was not an active figure in their lifetime and increasingly not even in their parent's lifetimes. I think what FDR might or might not have known prior to Pearl Harbor would be a comparable example of a historical event also irrelevant to their interests or lives. Something like that would be of interest to those who already had an interest, otherwise it's just a historical mystery involving people that were never current for them.

Of course, interest in true crime mysteries never really go completely out of style. Unfortunately the JFK assassination comes with a lot more baggage than the event spotlighted in your average Netflix true crime series. Almost every single person's first exposure to the JFKA is in the context of someone else characterizing conspiracy theories as crazy. In TV and movies, any conspiracy-minded character has to spout off some sort of wacky connection or theory about the JFKA. In comedies, the wackier the better. It's almost obligatory. That conspiracy theorists are wacky is something the online LN t_r-o_l-l_s take as a natural fact of life. Most of them have never read a single book or seen even one documentary on the subject, but they all know the conventional wisdom that JFKA buffs wear tinfoil hats, twiddle shortwave radio knobs, and think Mr. Spock was shooting from the grassy knoll.

So there will always be that contingent of folks who are uninformed LN's constantly attacking those people who think there might be more to the story than what we've been told. They will only grow more strident with time, I believe. Sunk cost fallacy and all that.

Regarding the people who believe the "Hickey did it" theory, I would wager 95% have never read a JFKA book or seen any other documentary than "JFK: The Smoking Gun", mainly because of its wide availability on free streaming platforms. The Hickey theory also provides them an answer to what happened, while more serious JFKA docs don't come up with a final conclusion that points to one person or a conclusive single account of all events. The Hickey theory is easily comprehensible. It can be digested in an hour or two, while dedicated researchers repeatedly spend decade after decade debating and discussing the fine details of every obscure aspect.

Well said!

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ponder this by Dick Russell, himself a JFKA'er.

Part 1: CIA’s Extraordinary Role Influencing Liberal Media Outlets Daily Kos, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone

Part 2: The Belly of The Daily Beast and Its Perceptible Ties to the CIA

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/the-daily-beast-ties-to-cia/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cia-liberal-media-outlets-the-real-anthony-fauci/

What passes as "left-wing" or liberal media has funding or other ties to the national security state. The Daily Beast once described the JFKA research community as a bunch of old white guys who wear bad shirts. That, while reviewing JFK:Revisited. 

Ever wonder why the WaPo defines every aspect of America society as "white supremacist"---but not the US military, trade or foreign policies?  

In addition, of late, many left-wingers have begun to think of the FBI and Deep State operatives---who are legion on CNN and MSNBC---as the good guys. 

Trump has become the dividing line. If the Deep State torpedoes Trump, then the Deep State is good. 

So...the reception to DiEugenio's JFK's Revisited was more favorable in right-wing media than in left-wing media. A turnabout from 40 years ago.

The American Democratic Party, the media and the Deep State are forming tighter bonds than ever, somewhat jousting the Old Guard GOP from the loveseat. 

See the Cheney-Donk love-fest for more clues. 

The JFKA is not a polite topic of conversation. 

But DiEugenio has broken through with his excellent production. 

 

I agree! JFK Revisited: The Complete Collection is THE best documentary ever @James DiEugenio