essay by historian

[Greg Parker]

Elementary Theses on the Role of Probabilities in Thinking about the Murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy by Pamela Kyle Crossley.

With thanks to to Thalia Cole at aajfk for providing the link.

[John Simkin]

Elementary Theses on the Role of Probabilities in Thinking about the Murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy by Pamela Kyle Crossley.

With thanks to to Thalia Cole at aajfk for providing the link.

You can find out more about her here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Kyle_Crossley

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~history/faculty/crossley.html

[Dawn Meredith]

Elementary Theses on the Role of Probabilities in Thinking about the Murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy by Pamela Kyle Crossley.

With thanks to to Thalia Cole at aajfk for providing the link.

Thanks Greg for posting this essay. It is always gratifying to know that there really are historians out there who have grappled with this case. Why there are not more is what remains the true mystry.

Dawn

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

David Kaiser grapples March 15th.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

[John Simkin]

David Kaiser grapples March 15th.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

I am confident that David will discuss his book on the forum. I met him in Dallas a couple of years ago when he was doing research into the case. You might want to look at this interview I carried out with him on the way that historians deal with cases like the JFK assassination:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6853

[Charles Drago]

David Kaiser grapples March 15th.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

I am confident that David will discuss his book on the forum. I met him in Dallas a couple of years ago when he was doing research into the case. You might want to look at this interview I carried out with him on the way that historians deal with cases like the JFK assassination:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6853

John,

I was struck by the following comments by Mr. Kaiser:

"I do not think internal CIA documents say A when not A is the truth very often, but it is obvious that many things are never documented, and any response to any other agency is based upon what is in the documentation, nothing more. (When some one asks, inside the CIA, 'what is our conneciton to x?', the answer is, in actual fact, 'what is in the files about X?')." (emphasis added by Drago)

In other words, Mr. Kaiser argues that there is but one "level" (my word) of internal CIA documents, and that all agency-to-agency communications in which documents are cited refer to holdings from such a repository.

He goes on to note:

"I have just discovered (actually Newman discovered it) a case in which a senior FBI official created an alternative vision of history but that is VERY rare."

Just how did Mr. Kaiser arrive at this conclusion? Is the falsifying of history indeed a rare occurence at the Hoover Building? Or is he arguing that such falsification by a "senior FBI official" is rare? Or is Mr. Kaiser inadvertantly telling us more about his (in)ability to discover more than one such instance?

I have reason to believe that Mr. Kaiser's book will fall into the "Mob did it" genre -- an interestingly timed follow-up to the Waldron/Hartman nonsense.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Charles Drago