John Kelin

Look, I don't want to spend much more time on this, and I sense you don't either. But it is in the original Moorman photo. Yes, the one Marcus showed to de Langre was not the original but a copy of the original. But it wasn't a half tone, and de Langre concluded it was a man. (He saw the half tone, too...same conclusion.) I would suggest anyone interested in reading more find a copy of #5 Man: November 22, 1963, the monograph by Ray Marcus. Andy W. at Last Hurrah has had it in the in the past and may well still have it in stock. There is more to the story than what I've presented here, and it's fascinating. John

Who are the "qualified experts" and what are their qualifications? If the image is NOT ON THE BEST QUALITY MOORMAN and is only seen on a halftone copy, what do the experts say? Jack I'm going to type in a few paragraphs from the "#5 Man" monograph by Ray Marcus. This is from Chapter 6, "Expert Opinions." <quote on> In September 1967, I showed a specially prepared display of the #5 man to twelve photo experts in Boston and Los Angeles in order to solicit their opinions as to whether or not they believed the image represented an actual person. The display was prepared so as not to reveal the context -- no reference to the assassination, no sketch or cut-out shapes of the image -- the display showed only the enlargements, not the full Moorman photo. The experts were questioned separately, none knowing -- till afterwards if at all -- what the others had said; nor did I answer until afterwards the inevitable question, "What's this all about, and who are you?" Of the twelve, ten promptly identified #5 as a man, and two said they were unable to discern anything they could recognize. Three of the former were employees of the Graphic Arts Service at M.I.T.: Richard Hefferan, Supervisor, Benjamin Poole, Coordinator of Photographic Work, and Robert Lyon, Photographer. These three, and Howard Tribe, supervisor of the UCLA bio-medical photo lab, made sketches of #5 man and signed statements confirming their observations, again independent of each other. (I had drafted the statement, inviting each to make any changes to it they wished.) These sketches were quite similar to each other in major details, varying primarily according to the drawing ability of the interviewees. The ten who recognized the image as a man also described him in generally consistent terms: subject visibile from lower chest upwards; youngish; light-to-medium build; balding or with light or thinning hair; right point of shirt collar visible (light colored); right elbow elevated and extended to his right; both hands in front, right somewhat higher than left; straight object apparently held in hands. Two volunteered the opinion that he was wearing sunglasses, noting further that his markedly darker left "lens" must have been perpendicular to a line from the camera lens, and was reflecting no light. The most memorable reaction to the display was that of Richard Windmiller, supervisor of the photo analysis department of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Although he declined to sign a statement, he said -- after a quick look at the images -- "You don't need an expert to tell you that's a man." <end quote> Ray reproduces the signed statements and sketches in his monograph. He also reproduces his "Blow up" article from the L.A. Free Press, 11-24-67, which describes the various experts cited above. Another quote from the "#5 Man" monograph: <quote on> One photo expert not mentioned in the "Blow-Up" article was Jacques De Langre, whose decades-long experience as a professional photographer included work for the War Crimes Investigative Team of the U.S. Army at the close of World War II. In a letter to me on January 16, 1968, after stating his opinion that #5 in the half-tone print is a man, and referring to a copy supplied by [Josiah] Thompson to [David] Lifton of the badly decayed Moorman original, he says: "While the first generation print is so poor as to preclude easy location and recognition in it of this #5 man, by comparing the half-tone carefully with the first-generation print, I have determined to my satisfaction that the #5 man indeed is present in the first-generation print. "The copy I made this date from the first-generation print, when compared carefully with the first generation print and the half-tone, also shows sufficient evidence of the #5 man to determine that he is there." <end quote> De Langre's 1-16-68 letter to Marcus is also reproduced in the "#5 Man" monograph; the portion quoted above represents only the last couple of paragraphs. John Kelin

This is all pretty obvious. Granted, #5 man is in an exposed position. But there he is. Evidence of the old glazzies, as they say. Thus far my resume does not include running an assassination team, so I can only offer speculative replies. If I were running an assassination, and had bogus Secret Service agents on the knoll area, and was prepared to kill off any troublesome witnesses, and controlled the subsequent investigation that included a plainly spurious official report, #5's location might not be too problematic. #5 man does not appear to be firing. So what? The D.B. Thomas "Echo Correlation" article from 2001 bolsters shots fired from the front -- not necessarily #5 man, whose weapon does not appear to be in a firing position, but from the front. I imagine many here, maybe most, are in agreement on this point. Presumed experts on this forum dismiss the validity of #5 man. So be it. Other qualified experts, not part of this forum, have confirmed its validity. So be it. I remain interested in the image, but concede it is, comparatively speaking, minutiae. The overriding issue, of course, is the criminal conspiracy that killed JFK. John Kelin

Take a look at #5 Man, November 22, 1963, the monograph by Ray Marcus. Andy W. probably has it. On p. 97 Ray shows copies of the Moorman photo made from the original Polaroid. The copies were made in 1967. While they are much less clear than the half-tones, the #5 man image is still there. John Kelin

Hi all, I have been interested in the #5 man detail of the Moorman photo for a long time. David Lifton describes his discovery of this detail in his book, Best Evidence (though he doesn't call it "#5 man"). Lifton also describes seeing the film Blow Up, directed by Michaelangelo Antonioni, a few years later, and noting the obvious similarities between what its protagonist is doing, and what Lifton himself did in 1965. Ray Marcus, who worked closely with Lifton on these images and kept at it when Lifton moved on to the work that became Best Evidence, described these things to me in a phone interview about eight years ago. I thought it might be interesting to juxtapose some of his remarks over a clip from Blow Up. The results can be seen at the URL below. Be forewarned, there's a little self-promotion at the very end. It lasts a little less than four minutes. John Kelin

Do you have any details on the press conference? I'm assuming tomorrow. I'd like to cover it for our newsrooms. (KCBS/KCAL LA) I posted a press release to the CTKA web site last week (I'm the webmaster): http://www.ctka.net/RFK_second-gunman.html John Kelin

Presented for what it's worth: I came across something odd about Priscilla Johnson a few years ago. In 1956, Truman Capote published a book called The Muses Are Heard, a nonfiction account of an all-black American cast of Porgy and Bess visiting the Soviet Union. On page 102, Capote describes how, as part of the American entourage, he and several others, including the widow of composer George Gershwin, went to the ballet one night -- in Leningrad, I think. <quote> Sitting in the row ahead, there was one girl whose hair was neither plaited nor a sour bundle of string; she had an urchin-cut, which suited her curious, wild-faun face. She was wearing a black cardigan, and a pearl necklace. I pointed her out to Miss Ryan. "But I know her," said Miss Ryan excitedly. "She's from Long Island, we went to Radcliffe together! Priscilla Johnson," she called, and the girl, squinting near-signted eyes, turned around. "For God's sake, Priscilla. What are you doing here?" "Gosh. Gee whiz. Nancy," said the girl, rubbing back her tomboy bangs. "What are you doing here?" Miss Ryan told her, and the girl, who said that she too was staying at the Astoria, explained that she had been granted a lengthy visa to live in the Soviet Union and study Russian law, a subject that had interested her since Radcliffe, where she'd also learned the Russian language. "But, darling," said Mrs. Gershwin, "how can anyone study Russian law? When it changes so often?" "Gosh. Ha ha," said Miss Johnson. "Well, that's not the only thing I'm doing. I'm making a kind of Kinsey report. It's great fun, gosh." "I should think," said Miss Ryan. "The research." "Oh, that's easy," Miss Johnson assured her. "I just keep steering the conversation toward sex; and gee whiz, you'd be surprised what Russians think about it. Gosh, Nancy, the number of men who have mistresses! Or wished they did. I'm sending articles to Vogue and Harper's Bazaar. I thought they might be interested." "Priscilla's a sort of genius," Miss Ryan whispered to me, as chandeliers dimmed and the orchestra conductor raised his baton. The ballet, in three acts with two intermissions, was called Corsair... <end quote> Capote died in 1984. A few years before his death there was a book out called Conversations with Capote, a series of interviews conducted by a guy whose name I can't recall. By then Capote was in the last stages of drinking himself to death, but I seem to recall that he claimed having known both Jackie Kennedy and George DeMohrenschildt -- can't recall whether he mentioned PJM. But gosh. Gee whiz. Very curious.

Hi...I skimmed over the headers to the many replies to the first message in this thread. Maybe this tune was mentioned, maybe not. Take a listen: This is by Lou Reed, of all people. Rightly or wrongly, I associate Lou Reed with songs about heroin and cross-dressing. And yet here is this number. John Kelin

"Ventura professes something like admiration for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, whom he spent time with during a trade mission as governor, finding him engaging and perceptive. Ventura writes that he asked Castro about the Kennedy assassination, he says the Cuban leader denied involvement but similarly believed that Oswald did not act alone." Full article: http://wcco.com/local/new.book.jesse.2.623472.html In 2003 Jesse Ventura spoke in Dealey Plaza, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the JFK assassination. After he made some remarks about JFK, someone in the crowd shouted out, "What about your trip to Cuba?" and Ventura spoke about it for a couple of minutes. I was in the audience. I had elbowed my way to within a few feet of Ventura. I had my small pocket tape recorder and taped the former governor's remarks. I have uploaded the Castro portion here: http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/ventura-castro.mp3 John Kelin

Hi Charles, I would like to discuss this with you some more, but privately. Please email me at: johnkelin@comcast.net Thanks, John

John, I've just finished your book: I enjoyed it, and found much that was new and intriguing. Of the several criticisms I would make, the first and most important lies in your attitude to the Z film. Like the early critics you write so lucidly about, you accept uncritically its veracity and fail to acknowledge, let alone discusss, any of the early descriptions of the film. Yet these descriptions are, in some instances, radically at odds with both the duration and content of the version we have today. Why did you ignore the welter of material challenging its authenticity? And why do you think all of the early critics you deal with omitted any reference to the early descriptions? Paul Hi Paul, In my book, the Zapruder film is described and dealt with contemporaneously, primarily through the eyes of the critics. There is a passing reference to the question of authenticity, which is in the book's Epilogue. Authenticity was never an issue when the earliest critics were active and so I do not deal with it. I disagree with the semantics of your remark that "the early critics you deal with omitted any reference to the early descriptions." The word "omitted" implies some deliberate behavior. You might feel, with hindsight, that this was an area that could have been explored at that time. Since, in the first years, the Zapruder film could only be seen at the National Archives, I don't think that was the case. Personally, I am not interested in the authenticity issue because I think it clouds things. As I noted earlier, I think there is only one way to interpret the Zapruder film as we have come to know it. I'm sorry to have to quote Ray Marcus again, but I did talk to him about this, and he said: "They’ve tried to take evidence that’s both clear and convincing that you get over to a lay public – that’s the crucial thing, they don’t care about a few people – that a lay public can understand, and to render them seriously arguable." John

Hi John, Thank you so much for these efforts on my behalf. It is truly appreciated. I'm a bit stumped as to why that email bounced back to you. Error messages like the one you quote can be hard to interpret. All of the old Fair Play stuff you posted looks fine. The only exception is the very minor point that the article called "JFK Breakthrough" should have a question mark, "JFK Breakthrough?" Thanks again. I am very happy to be part of this forum. John Hi John. I sent you an email but it was returned with the message: Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was not reachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configuration parameters. Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not have a mail system running right now. Your message was not delivered within 4 days and 0 hours. Host comcast.net is not responding. The email said: I am a great admirer of your Fair Play work. It has been brought to my attention that you have recently published Praise from a Future Generation. I have ordered a copy and have started publicizing it on the index page of my website on the JFK Assassination: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm The page currently gets 11,645 page impressions a month. I have also included it on my home page that gets over 3 million page impressions a month. I have also created a page on you: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkelinJ.htm Please feel free to send me any information to update this page. I have posted your biography and added it to your signature. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37 I have also registered you on the forum. I look forward to reading your postings. You will find the JFK index here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4311 I hope you will participate in our JFK Online Seminars: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=197 You might be interested in our book section: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=204

Hi Charles, I agree with your Ultimate Mantra completely. It is the same notion, in different words, expressed by Ray Marcus in Addendum B: "I believe to this day that it is virtually an intellectual impossibility to study this material and related documents that have since become public, and come to any conclusion other than that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy." (p. 22.) I assume that when you say "cognitively impaired" it is in the broadest sense, and includes those who are thoroughly dishonest or in a state of denial. There are plenty of them. Nowadays, "reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence" is as simple as a computer with internet access. I do not refer to forums such as this one or, God help us, alt.conspiracy.jfk (if it still exists). I do, however, mean YouTube: I think the Zapruder film is all you really need to to see to understand the simplest of truths, which is that the head shot was fired from the right front. I don't think there is any other way to interpret the movement of Kennedy's head and upper body. You have said some kind things about my book, Charles, and I thank you for that. I tried responding a week or so ago but was still learning how to use this site, and I don't know if those messages got through. At that time I mentioned having been present at the recent Lancer conference when, via cell phone, you made some very moving remarks about the memorial service for George Michael Evica. (The cell was held up to a microphone and a roomful of people heard you.) John

Hi Cliff, This may be self-evident given the book I wrote, but as far as I'm concerned the assassination was essentially solved by the end of the sixties. Considering Oswald's background, and considering who was in control of the evidence (and everything that happened to it and virtually everything we know about it) I can really draw only one conclusion. The matter of the clothing holes is addressed in my book. I do not, however, present it in any analytical sense or try to refute people like John Hunt. I merely present the evidence circa the mid-sixties, and let it, I hope, speak for itself. As you probably know, the issue of a bulge in JFK's clothing rose its ugly head again in early 2007 with the release of the Jefferies film. We added a section to the book as a result. The film brought out the usual apologists and they got the usual lopsided press attention. In any case, my principal interest at this stage remains the earliest critics. Thanks for your interest and thanks for providing the "source of [your] pessimism." As to your comment that the JFK case might have been better off if you'd picked a better hobby, I disagree...but YOU might have been better off! Heh-heh. I think The Last Investigation is one of the best books on the case, easily the best in the flood of post-JFK film books. For what it's worth, Rex Bradford tells me that the Mary Ferrell Foundation intends to re-publish this book in the not-too-distant future. Best, John

Hi Dawn, I'm so glad you not only enjoyed the book, but LOVED it! Thank you. Mary Ferrell -- well, I readily concede she is underrepresented in the book. But trust me, it was not for lack of trying. In the book's intro I describe several aborted interviews with her in November 2000 at the Lancer conference -- those were not good situations, each coming at the end of long days. We had about ten minutes both nights before the room started filling up with people who just wanted to kick back and relax. Later we just never connected. I called her a number of times and emailed even more times but subsequent interviews never panned out. There were a couple of people who told me they didn't want to provide info on her, on the grounds that certain data should come from Mary while she was still alive. I couldn't argue with that -- and you can't make people cooperate if they don't want to, of course. I have been asked about this elsewhere, and my short answer is, "Well, she didn't really know who the hell I was." I can't imagine what it would be like, in my later years, to have some nosy stranger come poking around asking a bunch of sometimes personal questions about stuff that happened thirty or more years before. For what it's worth, though, I have not given up on this, and I hope to someday have a revised edition of the book. As recently as the last few weeks I have read and logged the available correspondence between Mrs. Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher. That did not even begin until 1970. The letters did not yield as much info as I had hoped, but there was some useful stuff. Also, Debra Conway has agreed to help me out on this. We had a long phone conversation early this month during which we agreed to pursue this once the holidays are over. I am especially interested in the earliest of Mary Ferrell's material, specifically the index cards she began creating almost right after the assassination. I need to find out what happened to this stuff. I hope it still exists, but she told a newspaper, sometime around 2000/2001, that she wanted some of her stuff destroyed upon her death. By the way, any revised edition of my book would also include Mae Brussell. Thanks, John

Hi Wim, I would have to say, quite frankly, that at this late date the chances of positively identifying any of the visitors to the Odio apartment would be similar a snowball's chances in a pizza oven. John

Hi Bill, Thanks for posting that. I must say that one of the coolest moments of this entire book publication experience came last month in Dallas, when I was there for the Lancer conference. My 12 year old son and I were in an iHop restaurant in a booth with torn vinyl seats. It was 6:30 in the morning. I opened the Dallas Morning News, and there, on the book review page, was the Tom Dodge article. John

John, I can't wait! Please pardon the reflexive pessimism of my earlier posts. As Michael Hogan correctly pointed out, Salandria (and Fonzi) would have to be included in any book on the early researchers. As to the source of my pessimism, a history... I first became interested in this case in 1975 when I read about it in Creem (America's Only Rock & Roll Magazine!) In 1977 I read Carl Oglesby's The Yankee and Cowboy War. That book made a lot of sense, and sated for a time my curiosity in the case. Between 1991 and 1997 I was an avid reader of JFK assassination literature. I read The Last Investigation in 1994 and whole-herartedly agreed with Fonzi's conclusion that the physical evidence -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothing -- was the smoking-gun in making the case for conspiracy. But when I got on the internet in 1996 I found that the only other researcher to make that point, other than Fonzi, was Jim Marrs. It seemed to me that the case had veered off into these highly complex controversies, such as the police dictabelt and the contradictory head wound evidence. Surely the case for conspiracy could be readily made in such a manner that a kindergartener would grasp it. In 1997 I started to post my own research into the clothing evidence on internet groups. I sometimes wonder if the JFK case would have been better off if I'd picked another hobby. In response to my postings, two pieces of utter fraud have been produced in rebuttal, both of which reached a far, far greater audience than I ever have. My two usenet antagonists: John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman. Zimmerman went on the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History to claim that he could pin-point "exactly" the high back wound using a stand-in for JFK and an x-ray machine. His experiment contradicted his earlier claims about the location of JFK's third thoracic vertebra, a fact he failed to note in the show. His prior analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos concluded that JFK's jacket was only elevated an inch in Dealey Plaza, and his x-rays verified the fact that the clothing had to be elevated at least two inches. He touted this as evidence in support of the SBT, all the while knowing it was a lie. At the end of November 1999 John McAdams triumphantly posted to his site John Hunt's article, The Case for a Bunched Jacket. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm In this article John Hunt concluded that JFK's shirt and jacket were "bunched up" over 2" in near-tandem at the time of the shot in the back. John McAdams declared this analysis "definitive." By varying degrees, Hunt's work was smiled upon by such notables as Gary Mack, Martin Shackelford, and Debra Conway. Here's the opening paragraph: And what evidence does Hunt produce to conclude that JFK's clothing was sufficiently "bunched" to account for the SBT trajectory? From the article, emphasis added: Not yet finished? In what scientific or academic discipline does one get away with publishing one's conclusions and then leave out the case upon which those conclusions were based? As it turns out, Hunt's "evidence" is nothing more than his tortured analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos and the witness testimony. He describes the highly visible shirt collar in Willis #4 and then claims that the jacket in Croft #3 was up to the level of JFK's ear. He describes a "distinctly arched shape," i.e. convex, on JFK's left shoulder in Betzner #3 while showing a blow up of Willis #5 showing a concave curvature at the left base of JFK's neck. Hunt refers to his "home experiment" wherein he managed to get his jacket to ride up a couple of inches, but he failed to note that in the same experiment his shirt didn't ride up at all. This is a work of academic fraud, well blessed by several leading figures in JFK research... ...and Wikipedia: From the Wikipedia entry for "John F. Kennedy Assassination," emphasis added: So a "case" presented as an academic exercise which refuses to provide a methodology is now to be regarded as "historical criticism"? Other than Jim Fetzer referring to John Hunt as "intellectual scum," Hunt has not been taken to task by anyone of note in the JFK research community. Indeed, his views appear to have been widely adopted, and the clothing evidence is rarely cited. Such is the source of my initial pessimism concerning your book, John, which extends to the JFK research community as a whole. Nothing personal! For the record, the Dealey Plaza films and photos show JFK's jacket dropping: I think any bright 5 year old could see that JFK's shirt collar was occluded in the first Nix frame, and visible in the second. Ergo, the jacket dropped, contrary to the arguments of all LNers and a sadly large number of "CTs". Thankfully, I hear the hooves of the Cavalry approaching -- your book, John, which I hope will re-focus attention on this crucial evidence.

Hi all, John Simkin has kindly invited me to join this forum, which I came across recently via Google. Pardon my breach of etiquette if introductory messages like this are not usually made. I've been interested in the assassination for a long time now, dating back to about 1976. Alas, I am among the dwindling number old enough to remember the day it happened (I was then seven). Once upon a time I published a web site/ezine called "Fair Play," recently published a book relating to the case, and presently am the "web master" (a term I dislike) for Jim DiEugenio's Probe site (ctka.net). I also edited, in 1999, a book of Vince Salandria's assassination writings called "False Mystery." Thus far I've made a few tentative forays onto this forum but am just now getting a handle on how to navigate my way around. I'm happy to be here. Happy New Year, John Kelin

Greetings, I am slowly getting a feel for using this web site. I have only today (12-30) seen this thread about "Fair Play." Thanks for the flattering comments. Of course I am willing to discuss any aspect of Fair Play (or PRAISE, or whatever) but am a little hesitant to jump into it, if only because there doesn't seem to be much interest in the thread. (Should I insert one of those smiley things here?) I'll check back and take it from there. Happy New Year, John

Thank you, John Kelin! I ordered the book last Sunday and anticipate its arrival like a little kid waiting for Xmas. The entire transcript of the Fonzi-Specter encounter -- a lovely slice of research heaven! Words cannot express my gratitude, sir! Hi Cliff, First of all, thank you so much for ordering the book. Just so there is no misunderstanding, the book does not reproduce the Fonzi-Specter encounter in its entirety. It makes up three or four pages, I guess, of one chapter, and is augmented by some stuff that happened both before and after the encounter. Also, it is placed in the general context of the developing story of the critics. The transcript Fonzi sent me is on the order of 80-something pages, so reproducing it would have been impossible. He also sent me ten pages of questions he prepared with the help of Vince Salandria. Please let me know what you think of the book once you get it and read it. John Kelin

Thank you, Dixie. I've had a little trouble learning how to use this site, and have lost a couple of posts in the process. I don't think I can re-create them now. But I will say, recalling the various comments to this thread, that of necessity I used a very narrow definition of "first generation critic", and it came down to those who started on or just after 11-22 or 11-23. For the most part, "starting" meant immediate skepticism and clipping newspaper articles. I also wanted to invite anyone who might be interested to take a look at a video I posted to YouTube: There is also a two-part video, each part about ten minutes long, also on YouTube. Lastly, there is the book's web site: http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/praise.html Yesterday I wrote a thank-you to Charles Drago for his kind remarks. Alas, I was not successful posting that one and I'm not sure what corner of cyberspace that text wound up on. With that in mind I will now shut up and see if I can successfully post this. John Kelin

Hi all, I must keep this post short. I"m new to this group...I see my book has been discussed here over the last few days...I have been able to make partial replies through the kindness of Courtney Redd...but I'm having a devil of a time trying to learn this interface. Can't seem to find a way to post the messages I've written. So this is one last attempt before I give up for the night and go to bed. On my frustration meter, I'm somewhere around an eight (scale of ten). Just in case this goes through...thank you to all who have made comments about the book. Seeing all these remarks is simultaneously gratifying and scary. If this thread lasts, and I can learn this %$* interface, I'll post some more. John Kelin

Born in Rockford, Illinois, John Kelin grew up mostly in Michigan. He worked for several years in public radio at WEMU-FM in Ypsilanti, then moved to the news department at WXYZ-TV in Detroit. In 1991, Kelin began working as a technical writer at Sun Microsystems in San Francisco. Shortly thereafter, Kelin and his family moved to Colorado, where they remain. John Kelin was seven years old when President Kennedy was assassinated, and that event remains his earliest clear memory in life. His interest in the assassination and the first-generation critics dates to 1976 when he attended a lecture by Mark Lane, now one of the subjects of Praise from a Future Generation. Kelin co-founded Fair Play magazine in 1994 on the then-fledgling World Wide Web. Fair Play was the first of what by now are many JFK-oriented sites. As the magazine's publisher and editor, he presented the work of many Kennedy assassination researchers and writers, including Christopher Sharrett, James W. Douglass, and Joan Mellen, as well as his 1999 interview with Kerry McCarthy, a cousin of John F. Kennedy. Here he also debuted his important article, "#5 Man." Kelin's assassination writing has also appeared in The Kennedy Assassination Chronicles. In 1998 Kelin met Vince Salandria at a conference in Dallas. Salandria gave Kelin complete access to his assassination-related correspondence from the 1960s. This began almost ten years of full-time research, leading to the publication of Praise from a Future Generation. In 1999, Kelin was a recipient of JFK Lancer's "New Frontier" award. He has been listed in several editions of the Master Researcher Directory.