First Generation Critics of the Warren Report

[Dawn Meredith]

Praise From A Future Generation, by John Kelin, is a most interesting book to read. I really enjoyed reading it.

Yes, Vincent Salandria is in there, as one of the main First Generation Researchers. Also, his brother in law, Harold Feldman.

They all formed a Researchers Discussion Group and had Get Togethers and also corresponded by phone or letter.

A few of the ones discussed are: Shirley Martin, Mary Ferrell, Joachim Joesten, Maggie Field, Penn Jones Jr., Lillian Castellano, Leo Sauvage, Ray Marcus, Sylvia Meagher, Vincent Salandra, Harold and Irma (Immie) Feldman, Josiah (Tink) Thompson, Harold Weisberg and more.

Quite different and most enjoyable!

________

Dixie

Thanks, Dixie. I know David Lifton considers himself "first generation". Robert Groden probably is also.

I think Robert Cutler and Dick Sprague also were among the first. Among the earliest I recall were the

guys who ran the Assassination Information Bureau who made tours of college campuses. I cannot

recall their names. They also had early articles published.

As for me, all the people mentioned were my heroes who inspired me to branch out from being an

avid studier to an original researcher. There is a big difference between PRIMARY and SECONDARY

research. All of the "first genertion" did primary research from the beginning. Some of us started

with secondary research before branching out into primary research. My research started on 11-22-63

by collecting all newspapers and magazines (which I am now donating to UTA). I started primary research

in about 1965...which probably makes me "second generation."

Jack

Jack,

Marry F is discussed, although John said he did not get to meet with her much and she was not as open as he would have liked so that he felt she did not get the kind of in depth coverage he would have liked to have given her.

The Assassination Information Bureau consisted of Bob Katz, Carl Oglesby, Harvey Yazijian, Dave Williman and Jim Kostman. They began their efforts in 1973 and continued up through HSCA. No-one fro the AIB is mentioned in Kelin's book. This book is devoted to those who begin digging, interviewing and writing that first week, with government agents all over them. Ready to destroy lives and careers, to prop up the Warren fiction.

Dawn

[Peter McGuire]

I am about 200 pages into this book and I can't say enough good things about it! Another must read, folks.

Thanks Dawn. I just ordered it; you convinced me to do it sooner than later. If you say it's a must read, I know I can count on that. And thanks to Peter for the heads-up that Kelin's book was available.

The First Generation Critics as they've come to be known were a small but remarkable group of men and women. Gosh, that seems such a long time ago....

You are welcome. You can't keep your eye on everything and I sure learn a lot from you guys too. Amazon is an interesting place. Von Pein virtually lives there and will respond in minutes to a remark about one of his numerous reviews on Amazon about the Kennedy assassination. (Execution) The man even leaves his mark on paintings of Kennedy!

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

At Last!, October 22, 2007

By Steven M. Martin (Golden, co USA)

John Kelin's book, "Praise from a Future Generation," does what no other book on JFK's assassination has done before. For the first time, the story of those first brave few who dared challenge the official findings of the Warren Commission has been told. They were ordinary citizens: lawyers, housewives, reporters. Together, however, they managed to change they way an entire nation percieved those bloody days in November, 1963. Kelin's research is extraordinary, his storytelling equally skilled. Whether you see yourself as an expert on the Kennedy murder or just an interested novice, this book is a historical must!

This unused bullet didn't kill anybody, nor was it fired from anybody.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Peter McGuire

[Jack White]

Praise From A Future Generation, by John Kelin, is a most interesting book to read. I really enjoyed reading it.

Yes, Vincent Salandria is in there, as one of the main First Generation Researchers. Also, his brother in law, Harold Feldman.

They all formed a Researchers Discussion Group and had Get Togethers and also corresponded by phone or letter.

A few of the ones discussed are: Shirley Martin, Mary Ferrell, Joachim Joesten, Maggie Field, Penn Jones Jr., Lillian Castellano, Leo Sauvage, Ray Marcus, Sylvia Meagher, Vincent Salandra, Harold and Irma (Immie) Feldman, Josiah (Tink) Thompson, Harold Weisberg and more.

Quite different and most enjoyable!

________

Dixie

Thanks, Dixie. I know David Lifton considers himself "first generation". Robert Groden probably is also.

I think Robert Cutler and Dick Sprague also were among the first. Among the earliest I recall were the

guys who ran the Assassination Information Bureau who made tours of college campuses. I cannot

recall their names. They also had early articles published.

As for me, all the people mentioned were my heroes who inspired me to branch out from being an

avid studier to an original researcher. There is a big difference between PRIMARY and SECONDARY

research. All of the "first genertion" did primary research from the beginning. Some of us started

with secondary research before branching out into primary research. My research started on 11-22-63

by collecting all newspapers and magazines (which I am now donating to UTA). I started primary research

in about 1965...which probably makes me "second generation."

Jack

Jack,

Marry F is discussed, although John said he did not get to meet with her much and she was not as open as he would have liked so that he felt she did not get the kind of in depth coverage he would have liked to have given her.

The Assassination Information Bureau consisted of Bob Katz, Carl Oglesby, Harvey Yazijian, Dave Williman and Jim Kostman. They began their efforts in 1973 and continued up through HSCA. No-one fro the AIB is mentioned in Kelin's book. This book is devoted to those who begin digging, interviewing and writing that first week, with government agents all over them. Ready to destroy lives and careers, to prop up the Warren fiction.

Dawn

Thanks, Dawn...interesting, but not the usual definition of FIRST GENERATION critics. First generation

is usually considered the first two years, not the first week. Most leading researchers put Mary numero uno.

But though she was open to all researchers, she was somewhat secretive about herself and liked to stay

in the background. Knowing Mary, she likely felt that Kelin was being aggressively pushy and prying into

personal areas, focusing on her instead of the case. She liked for others to get all the credit; she pushed

me into national prominence for my work with the photos.

Jack

ps...thanks for reminding about the AIB members...they were among the most prominent of early activists.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

Nick Anez : "designed to deliberately deceive the American people, would have succeeded in its objectives if not for the efforts of a small group of individuals who detected inconsistencies, improbabilities and unqualified lies in the report."

_____________

I reiterate (stated before) : Warren and the rest of Kennedy's renmaining men DID participate in the production of the Warren report, replete with "inconsistencies, improbabilities and unqualified lies" and signed off on it deliberately and consciously. ie it was deliberately designed to enlighten, not deceive. To point the way, very cleverly.

I submit they had the trust in the USofA and World peoples intellect to find these and to question the conclusions. They were right.

______________

A coup had successfully been carried out.

The few did the only thing they could in the circumstances : produce a flawed report with the help of blind eyes re proofreading, such as switching the most important frames in films, provide the transcripts and clues, documentation, inconsistencies et.c and had it published world-wide where it now resides unrevised in 1964 form in many many libraries.

This cannot be changed, except by banning and burning it. This was the clever thing to do, it cannot now be undone. The stupidity of the 'coupsters' was to balk at reading and studying it and merely read the conclusions and accept it.

Because Kennedy's men did this, his legacy prevails and the coverup of the conspiracy will ultimatel fail. Take heart. All's GOOD.

[Courtney Redd]

Hi everyone.

I received an email from John Kelin this evening and he asked me to pass it along to you. Here it is, in its entirety:

Hi Courtney,

I hope that writing you now is not a violation of netiquette, if that term is still in use, but I'm not sure what else to do that the moment.

Let me admit this: I'm still vain enough, and the publication of my book still recent enough, that I Google my name and the book's title every 2-3 days, just to see what might be being said. So it was that tonight (12-22) I stumbled across something called The Education Forum, and read a dozen or so comments about my book. I'm gratified that they are about 99% positive. I'm flattered that among those commenting were Jack White.

One of the last comments I read was by someone named John Simkin, who said that he had invited me to participate in this forum. The last few months have, in one sense, been a blur, and if John invited me to participate I don't remember, and the invitation got lost in the shuffle. I apologize for that. Moments ago I tried to register so I could post a comment, and got the following error message:

The error returned was:

The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at the moment.

...which was just a wee bit frustrating.

So, Courtney, let me say now that should you be so inclined, you have my permission to post this email in its entirety to that forum. Perhaps I'll be able to iron out whatever snafu is currently preventing me from registering.

Should you post this, Courtney, and if these words are being read by a wider audience than just one, then let me invite them all to take a look at the book's web site at this URL:

http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/praise.html

In one of the messages I read, someone tried to explain what happened with Mary Ferrell. Yes, she is under-represented in my book. It is not for lack of trying. I interviewed Mrs. Ferrell in Dallas in November 2000 and tried to arrange for some follow-ups but it just never worked out. I explain all of this in my book's Introduction (see p. xv). I hope to have a revised edition of the book sometime in the future. Toward that end I have recently been reading through the correspondence of Mrs. Ferrell and Sylvia Meagher -- but that correspondence didn't even begin until 1970. As published, my book covers the earliest critics, from the time of the assassination through the end of the Garrison trial.

Anyway...I do hope to get onto this forum at some point, and I am very flattered that interest in my book is such that it is being discussed here, and at least one person has invited me on board. I would be very happy to discuss/describe/defend/whatever the book, which is, I humbly submit, an homage to the first generation critics: Ferrell, Lane, Salandria, Feldman, Meagher, Field, Martin, Jones, Marcus, Weisberg, Sauvage, Castellano, Arnoni, and Marguerite. (I hope I'm not forgetting anyone.)

If anyone is interested, I've given a few interviews lately that are accessible over the Internet. The most recent is to the Mary Ferrell Foundation at this URL:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Thanks, Courtney!

Happy Holidays,

John

*****

I'm going to email him to let him know how to contact John Simkin to get registered.

[John Simkin]

Hi everyone.

I received an email from John Kelin this evening and he asked me to pass it along to you. Here it is, in its entirety:

Hi Courtney,

I hope that writing you now is not a violation of netiquette, if that term is still in use, but I'm not sure what else to do that the moment.

Let me admit this: I'm still vain enough, and the publication of my book still recent enough, that I Google my name and the book's title every 2-3 days, just to see what might be being said. So it was that tonight (12-22) I stumbled across something called The Education Forum, and read a dozen or so comments about my book. I'm gratified that they are about 99% positive. I'm flattered that among those commenting were Jack White.

One of the last comments I read was by someone named John Simkin, who said that he had invited me to participate in this forum. The last few months have, in one sense, been a blur, and if John invited me to participate I don't remember, and the invitation got lost in the shuffle. I apologize for that. Moments ago I tried to register so I could post a comment, and got the following error message:

The error returned was:

The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at the moment.

...which was just a wee bit frustrating.

Courtney, tell John I invited him via this email address: johnkelin@comcast.net. Is this the same one that you have?

I will register him on the forum and send you the details.

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi everyone.

I received an email from John Kelin: (snip)

I would be very happy to discuss/describe/defend/whatever the book, which is, I humbly submit, an homage to the first generation critics: Ferrell, Lane, Salandria, Feldman, Meagher, Field, Martin, Jones, Marcus, Weisberg, Sauvage, Castellano, Arnoni, and Marguerite. (I hope I'm not forgetting anyone.)

Gaeton Fonzi?

Specifically, his encounter with Arlen Specter in 1966 as described in the following

article and in The Last Investigation:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/F...th_Specter.html

(quote on)

The Warren Commission Report says the entrance wound caused by the bullet which

came out Kennedy’s throat was “approximately 5½ inches” below the back of the

right ear. Yet photographs of the Presidents jacket and shirt, which were part of the

FBI supplemental report of January 13th, make it difficult to believe that is the truth.

These photographs were not part of the Warren Commission Report and were left out

of the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing

was in the Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and

the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was

5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back

seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth

fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be

determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter

bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches

below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had

the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound

described in the Commission’s autopsy report—placed below the back of the right

ear—and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that

difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up

from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your

arm a few times, he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here,

the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the

coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example,

but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of

the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It…it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could

be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that…aaah…that it gets…

that…aaah…this…this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back…sit back now…

all right now…if…usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but

if…but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where

your jacket sits…it’s not…it’s not…it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and

the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt…after all,

we lined up the shirt…and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the

tie, came right about here in a slit in the front…”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes…aaah…well, I forget exactly

where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to…aaah…understand the…

aah…the angle of decline which…”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that…that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up,

that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I…I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look

at that shirt.”

It is difficult to believe that Arlen Specter didn’t take a very close look at that shirt—and

that jacket—at the time of the investigation and that these factors didn’t indelibly stick in

his mind: Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House,

and if it is possible—but not probable—that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to

ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a

tightly-buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.

(quote off)

The Single Bullet Theory was demolished in 1966 by Gaeton Fonzi, who exposed

Arlen Specter and his Single Bullet Theory as a fraud.

If this encounter isn't covered in Mr. Kelin's book it's a grievous omission, imo.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

I was with John Kelin after Salandria gave his electrifying speech at Dallas COPA in 1998, and asked him for a copy of his speech, when John got permission to post it at Fair Play.

That meeting, I am sure, is what sparked JK to write this book.

And before people start to berate the book for not including certain people and stories, I suggest you get the book and read it before begin criticizing it for any speculative omissions.

Knowing John Kelin I am sure the book is terrific and fills a void in JFK research.

BK

[Cliff Varnell]

I was with John Kelin after Salandria gave his electrifying speech at Dallas COPA in 1998, and asked him for a copy of his speech, when John got permission to post it at Fair Play.

That meeting, I am sure, is what sparked JK to write this book.

And before people start to berate the book for not including certain people and stories, I suggest you get the book and read it before begin criticizing it for any speculative omissions.

I'm responding to John's comment -- "I hope I'm not forgetting anyone."

Since the name Gaeton Fonzi has not come up in this thread, I think my question

is valid.

If Fonzi and his encounter with Specter are not in the book, then my criticism is

justified, imo.

I see no harm in bringing this up, frankly, and I'll be delighted beyond words to

be wrong. But as Michael Hogan pointed out earlier, I have a poker background,

and to be brutally honest I sense a bluff at work. Not from John, necessarily, but

from the JFK research community as a whole.

Let us not forget this from Vincent Salandria, as written up by Fonzi in TLI, pg 28,

emphasis mine:

(quote on)

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly, "All the critics, myself included,

were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort

micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious,

it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...We must face that fact -- and not

spend anymore time micro-analyzing the evidence. That is exactly what they want

us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will

happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you

down."

(quote off)

At the time (1975) Fonzi speculated that Salandria was a little crazy -- turns out

he was highly prescient.

Knowing John Kelin I am sure the book is terrific and fills a void in JFK research.

BK

Yes, I'm sure it will.

As I say, I'll be overjoyed if it helps fill THE void in JFK research: the failure of the

JFK research community to effectively advance -- or even acknowledge! -- the

irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy (a failure in which I share, btw.)

What do the following have in common?

The Warren Report

The HSCA Final Report

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

The 2005 Cracking the Case Conference at Bethesda

Bugliosi's Reclaiming History

No where in any of the above was the discrepancy noted between the physical evidence

(the bullet holes in JFK's clothing) and the SBT.

I attended the Cracking the Case Conference. On the first day Anthony Summers

basically apologized for the title of his book Conspiracy because, (I paraphrase)

"The question is not what kind of conspiracy existed, but if a conspiracy existed."

Jeff Morley, sitting next to Summers on stage, nodded his head wisely.

I almost fell off my chair.

Color me jaundiced, but I think we've all been misled. Indeed.

[Pat Speer]

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure. I'd like to see it turned into an HBO movie...oh, that's right, HBO has poured all its money and credibility into Bugliosi's book telling us these early researchers were all sorely misguided and/or cranks.

The war drags on.

[Cliff Varnell]

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure. I'd like to see it turned into an HBO movie...oh, that's right, HBO has poured all its money and credibility into Bugliosi's book telling us these early researchers were all sorely misguided and/or cranks.

The war drags on.

Right on time. Case in point.

Vincent Bugliosi regards the final autopsy report as a legitimate medicolegal document,

and he places the back wound at T1.

Pat Speer regards the final autopsy report as a legitimate medicolegal document and

he places the back wound at T1.

This is a view shared by any number of "CT"s like John Hunt and Stu Wexler.

Of course, none of them can defend this position to save their lives, but it doesn't

stop them from dragging the case into meaningless black hole controversies like

the location of the head wounds and the NAA.

The reason "the war drags on" is because "instant-expert" newbies and their

"new perspectives" ignore the earliest research in the case.

Once the "smoking gun" evidence is acknowledged the need for the Parlor Game

"question of conspiracy" is moot. The pity is so many don't want that Parlor Game

to end, and so here we are plagued with issues that should have been settled over

40 years ago.

Sad.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure. I'd like to see it turned into an HBO movie...oh, that's right, HBO has poured all its money and credibility into Bugliosi's book telling us these early researchers were all sorely misguided and/or cranks.

The war drags on.

************

Hi Pat:

Yes, I read his book also when it was first released, it is one that is well worth the money, which

seems to be seldom......these days.

And has now and I think perhaps with some, will become somewhat of a reference book......you are correct when you mention how the official story has changed, in many areas......

It certainly has many gems within....

Movie, naw, they are all too busy with leading the public astray, to ever complete a worthwhile

project......

B......

P.S..Cliff: The Bug doesn't know xxxxe from brains...he was paid to do so imo......no surprise.....

Edited December 23, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Michael Hogan]

And before people start to berate the book for not including certain people and stories, I suggest you get the book and read it before begin criticizing it for any speculative omissions....

I see no harm in bringing this up, frankly, and I'll be delighted beyond words to

be wrong. But as Michael Hogan pointed out earlier, I have a poker background,

and to be brutally honest I sense a bluff at work. Not from John, necessarily, but

from the JFK research community as a whole.

At first you said you would not buy the book if Vincent Salandria was omitted. Just as a player factors in more than his own cards, I would have expected you to do a little Googling at the very least before making what in my estimation was simply an uninformed judgment based solely upon a promotional blurb from an Amazon webpage. When shown that Kelin's book was closely tied to Salandria, there was virtually no comment from you.

Now you're doing the same thing with Gaeton Fonzi. (Meagher refers to him as Gaetano Fonzi). Take Bill Kelly's advice and buy the book. It looks silly to criticize non-existent omissions, or omissions you can't be sure exist.

As I say, I'll be overjoyed if it helps fill THE void in JFK research: the failure of the

JFK research community to effectively advance -- or even acknowledge! (emphasis added)-- the

irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy (a failure in which I share, btw.)

What do the following have in common?

The Warren Report

The HSCA Final Report

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

The 2005 Cracking the Case Conference at Bethesda

Bugliosi's Reclaiming History

No where in any of the above was the discrepancy noted between the physical evidence

(the bullet holes in JFK's clothing) and the SBT.

From Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher:

The holes in the President's coat and shirt are also powerful evidence of a wound well below the neckline. The holes are about 5.5 inches below the top of the collar, while the wound is supposedly about 5.5 inches below the tip of the mastoid process. The discrepancy is substantial....

The Warren Commission may accept Hume's implausible speculations but it does not dispose of reports by eyewitnesses that the wound was four or six inches below the neck. Nor is it understandable that the Commission has failed to mention the discrepancy between the alleged location of the wound and the holes in the clothing in its Report...

The nature and location of the [back] wound are factors central to the theory of the crime....

(Emphasis added)

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure....

Well said. I have not read the book, but that is what I expected after reading Peter McGuire's post and Dawn Meredith's comments. A quick Google of John Kelin's name convinced me that his book was going to be a worthwhile and welcome addition. I fail to understand Cliff's negativity about a book he hasn't even read.

Thankfully, there have been many accomplished authors that appear on the Education Forum to discuss and answer questions about their books. It must be tedious for some of them to have to debate issues with members that haven't even bothered to buy or read the book, yet jump to unwarranted conclusions.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Cliff Varnell]

I see no harm in bringing this up, frankly, and I'll be delighted beyond words to

be wrong. But as Michael Hogan pointed out earlier, I have a poker background,

and to be brutally honest I sense a bluff at work. Not from John, necessarily, but

from the JFK research community as a whole.

At first you said you would not buy the book if Vincent Salandria was omitted. Just as a player factors in more than his own cards, I would have expected you to do a little Googling at the very least before making what in my estimation was simply an uninformed judgement based solely upon a promotional blurb from an Amazon webpage. When shown that Kelin's book was closely tied to Salandria, there was virtually no comment from you.

I asked a question about Salandria, and stated my reason for asking it.

The question was answered.

I said Oliver Stone should have made "JFK" about Salandria, not Garrison.

What more do you want, Michael?

Now you're doing the same thing with Gaeton Fonzi.

Yes. John Kelin asked if he'd left anybody out and I asked -- "Gaeton Fonzi?"

(Meagher refers to him as Gaetano Fonzi). Take Bill Kelly's advice and buy the book. It looks silly to criticize non-existent omissions, or omissions you can't be sure exist.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with asking questions of those who have read the book?

If such omissions exist I'll save my money. If such omissions don't exist, I'll buy it.

That's why I asked the questions in the first place.

As I say, I'll be overjoyed if it helps fill THE void in JFK research: the failure of the

JFK research community to effectively advance -- or even acknowledge! (emphasis added)-- the

irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy (a failure in which I share, btw.)

What do the following have in common?

The Warren Report

The HSCA Final Report

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

The 2005 Cracking the Case Conference at Bethesda

Bugliosi's Reclaiming History

No where in any of the above was the discrepancy noted between the physical evidence

(the bullet holes in JFK's clothing) and the SBT.

From Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher:

The holes in the President's coat and shirt are also powerful evidence of a wound well below the neckline. The holes are about 5.5 inches below the top of the collar, while the wound is supposedly about 5.5 inches below the tip of the mastoid process. The discrepancy is substantial....

The Warren Commission may accept Hume's implausible speculations but it does not dispose of reports by eyewitnesses that the wound was four or six inches below the neck. Nor is it understandable that the Commission has failed to mention the discrepancy between the alleged location of the wound and the holes in the clothing in its Report...

The nature and location of the [back] wound are factors central to the theory of the crime....

(Emphasis added)

And yet several decades later there was a conference in Pittsburgh devoted to the Single

Bullet Theory which featured "CT" speakers who place the back wound at the base of the

neck.

Another conference advertised as "Cracking the Case" didn't address the issue at all, and a

couple of published authors there questioned whether there was a conspiracy at all.

The earliest research is readily ignored by people who come on this Forum to praise it.

That is my objection here, Michael.

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure....

Well said. I have not read the book, but that is what I expected after reading Peter McGuire's post and Dawn Meredith's comments. A quick Google of John Kelin's name convinced me that his book was going to be a worthwhile and welcome addition. I fail to understand Cliff's negativity about a book he hasn't even read.

My negativity is directed at the current state of JFK research.

My negativity is directed toward sites like Lancer which characterize the SBT as

"not probable" rather than "flat out impossible."

I asked two questions about the book, and explained why I asked those questions.

I find nothing out of line with asking questions about the contents of a book.

Thankfully, there have been many accomplished authors that appear on the Education Forum to discuss and answer questions about their books. It must be tedious for some of them to have to debate issues with members that haven't even bothered to buy or read the book.

No where near the tedium I feel when the "case for conspiracy" is argued on

points that require advanced college degrees to verify.

And that's where we are today for the most part, Michael. Just look at Morley's

recent work -- what does he emphasize? The NAA.

We've gone backwards, Michael. All I want to know is if I'm going to spend

money on something that is actually going to move us forward again.

If Kelin covers this evidence I'll buy his book. If he doesn't, I won't.

Due diligence. Works for me...

[Michael Hogan]

Cliff,

If you want to go back and forth on this, I will. I was going to leave it alone until you brought up my reference to you and poker totally outside of the context of the example I was making.

This thread was supposed to be about John Kelin's book and the early researchers. Not Jefferson Morley, Anthony Summers, or Vincent Bugliosi. Nor is it about the current state of research, and your views of same.

It is not the responsibility of Mr Kelin to "advance the case" in the direction you feel it should be advanced. If you don't want to buy the book, no problem.

I asked a question about Salandria, and stated my reason for asking it.

Cliff, you didn't ask a question at all. You made several statements. And you made an unwarranted assumption that Salandria might not be in the book:

Vincent Salandria wrote a nice blurb for the book, but I didn't get the

impression that Salandria was in the book.

If that's the case I may not buy it.

I asked two questions about the book, and explained why I asked those questions.

You did not.

John Kelin asked if he'd left anybody out and I asked -- "Gaeton Fonzi?"

Cliff, John Kelin did not ask if he'd left anybody out. He said he hoped that he didn't. To me there is a difference.

If you want to characterize what people say without quoting them, at least be accurate.

The reason "the war drags on" is because "instant-expert" newbies and their

"new perspectives" ignore the earliest research in the case.

Yet when a new book comes out on that very subject, you threaten not to buy it.

We've gone backwards, Michael. All I want to know is if I'm going to spend

money on something that is actually going to move us forward again

Cliff, you seem to have a particular view as to what constitutes evidence in this case. If you expect Kelin's book to move everyone forward in lockstep with you, I'd wager you're bound to be disappointed. Save your money.

Due diligence. Works for me...

Normally your posts do exhibit due diligence. However, I didn't see any from you at the beginning of this thread.

You could have spent a minute or two with Google before promoting the idea that Salandria might not appear in the book simply because of what you read on Amazon. That would have been due diligence Cliff.