Jump to content

The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

Jamey Flanagan

Recommended Posts

I think new episodes are way overdue in this series. I know it's not perfect and has it's flaws but it helped get SO many people involved in the research community. The purpose of this thread is to inquire as to what subjects would need to be covered most if there were 2 to 3 new episodes? I think a whole episode should be devoted to film and photographic evidence authenticity and anamolies contained therein. Included in this would be Doug Horne's fine work on the Z-film chain of custody. I would LOVE to see an episode going deeply into the Bush family connection to the assassination. Analysis of the mystery guy in front of the TSBD who is the spitting image of George Sr, the various FBI memos naming Bush, his connection to the Bay Of Pigs invasion, the states of Texas and Florida where it just so happens two of the 3 plots where to be carried out. Maybe even do a split episode in this with the JFK hit ties to Watergate and Nixon seeing as how Bush was RNC chairman and then CIA director under Ford. I would also like to see an entire Harvey And Lee episode. I know this subject is divisive amongst researchers but Armstrong's work is extensive whether you believe it or not. You could show both sides of the case for it or against it. Those would be my 3 new episodes just off the top of my head. I want to know what yours would be.  So, with that I'll sit back and enjoy the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It will not happen, at least not with Nigel Turner.

Which is, as far as I can see, fine.  Nigel Turner had the opportunity to really do some excellent and ground breaking work and to really inform and educate the American public on a key event in contemporary history.

To put it mildly, he did not do a good job. And the longer he went at it the worse he got.  What with Judy Baker, Dan Marvin, Barr McClellan, Steve Rivele, and Tom Wilson etc. The guy ended up being a joke. I mean why not Chauncey Holt or Files?  Or did I miss those?

The original series was the best part and I thought even that was kind of average, what with Rivele and Gary Mack's Badge Man.  And man, did no one notice that Rivele's theory clashed with the blowhard McClellan's?  When you title your series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and then you posit two separate sets of assassins?  Maybe the better title would have been The Many Groups who Killed Kennedy, or simply I Have No Idea who Killed JFK but hey, Who Cares?

Well, some of us are genuinely interested in trying to find that out.  And we do not rely on people like John Hankey to do so.

But, there is some help coming along.  I can inform you of that. I hint at it on Black Op Radio this week.  Keep your fingers crossed.  The reaction has set in to the 50th Anniversary orgy of denial and BS.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response! I am a big fan of your work! There needs to be a comprehensive series on the assassination in the style of TMWKK. It would most likely need to be released via Netflix however after the "Guilty Men" debacle on the "History" channel. Any mention of the Bush connection would get passed over by mainstream media networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

It would most likely need to be released via Netflix

I think we are on the verge of a major change in documentaries in this country. The current "Dirty Money" is just a start. That it took 30 years to even hear of a Bush connection is just yet another main stream control mechanism. I will pursue on another thread, but I think Errol Morris blew his chance with Wormwood by making a mishmash fiction/non-fiction film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone here tell me what makes them feel the Dan Marvin story is not credible?

Also, any new episode would have to include Dorothy Kilgallen's story and death.

Not only because of her decades of national celebrity fame and accomplishments but also because she went right to the heart of the action, interviewing Ruby in jail and who knows who else. Her death circumstances alone are worthy of much review and speculation.

Also, the newly disclosed fact that Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell was CIA should garner some coverage.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2018 at 12:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Read Allan Eaglesham on the Pitzer/Marvin story.

The Kilgallen story, from what I understand, is under serious consideration as a documentary. As it should be.

Jim, I read every link regards Eaglesham including his response postings ( and those by others) to Simpkin's original thread.

So many thoughts and questions

It seems even Eaglesham and Palmer for quite some time believed Pitzer's death was not a suicide based on their research of the death scene and body and wound evidence combined with conflicting medical and physical investigation report findings. Not to mention the incredible run around difficulty they encountered trying to get information from the agencies.

Regards Dan Marvin and his TMWKK story, Eaglesham and Palmer actually find David Vanek ( how did they accomplish this when the military told Marvin that David Vanek didn't exist- no military records? ) and found what they reported to be discrepancies between Vanek's and Marvin's recollections of that August day in 1965 of special forces training where Marvin claimed he was asked to eliminate an American citizen on American soil and after turning this assigment down, Marvin claims that the CIA man then talked to Vanek. Marvin honestly stated he didn't know what Vanek and the agency man talked about...saying it could have been the cost of ice cream.

Eaglesham reported that when confronted with Vanek's very different take on his interaction with Marvin that day and Marvin's solicitation story, that Marvin became extremely evasive and even refused to participate in a one to one conference telephone call with Vanek on the other end.

Eaglesham finally concludes that Marvin and his solicitation story did not hold up and was not credible.

One of a hundred questions here:

Did Eaglesham still believe Pitzer's death was not a suicide after concluding Marvin's story was not true?

Other questions: 

Was Vanek ever asked by Eaglesham whether he ( Vanek ) participated in assassinations of designated targets as Marvin described in their SF duties?

Vanek at least must have acknowledged being within the training area Marvin describes and on that specific day. 

So Marvin was right about Vanek's presence there.

Eaglesham reported that when confronted by Vanek's contrary recollections of that day in training, Marvin backtracked about his specifics of Vanek's closeness to him that day ( not mentioned by Marvin in the TMWKK interview ) and said something to the effect that even though his exact recollection of Vanek's actions that day might be wrong, it didn't mean that his basic story wasn't true.

I don't know anything about Eaglesham, his history and bonafides. So I can't speculate as to his own credibility.

As to Dan Marvin, it's very puzzling to me why he would make up his amazing story and be willing to publicly share it.

He had a full colonel and father and grandfather standing to risk in doing so.

Maybe I can come up with more worthy questions later about the Pitzer killing and Eaglesham's take on this and Dan Marvin.

Thanks for the links.

Oh, the gun found several feet to the " back left" of Pitzers body? That seems a physically illogical place for it's location even if it was jarred loose from his right hand as he slumped forward and down after it's discharge.

Were there any live rounds found still in the gun after it's use?  No fingerprints on the gun?

Aren't 38 caliber guns extremely loud when discharged? No one heard this? No one else in the building at the time of the gun firing?

Dennis David was wrong about Pitzer being left handed? I had not heard this until now. What authority made this determination? Pitzer's wife?

Pitzer having an affair with another woman in Pensecola Florida where he took secret trips?  

More questions than before after reading Eaglesham's research findings and conclusions.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,Pitzer's friend Jerrol Custer said this.


Custer: I saw this. Later on it was brought out that Commander Pitzer - well of course he made commander farther down the line - had committed suicide by blowing his brains out by putting a gun in his right hand and shooting himself.

Law: What's so unusual about that if you're going to commit suicide?

Custer: Well, it's kind of funny. How can you commit suicide when you have a deformed right hand? That couldn't hold a gun? This was clue [sic due] to a birth defect. And Dennis David' knew it. Everybody that knew the chief knew it and it was evident that night. When he was taking the movies, you could see the hand was deformed. But suicide was the reason for the death on his death certificate, which, I felt, was part of the cover-up. See, you have to be there. You have to see what's going on. Everything is plain and simple. It's there! It's right in front of you! The government feels the experts, so-called experts, are going to look at everything but the nose on their faces. And if you just stop and look at what's right in front of you and not try and surmise, "Well this is why, this is why that happened." My God-Kennedy's skull was pushed backward! Basic physics! You had to have a force from the front! If you had a force from the back, everything would have been pushed forward. Common sense! Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray and Joe:


Look, anyone can cherry pick certain things people say or post to make things sound mysterious or sinister.  

When I referred to  Allan, I did not mean his postings here.  I meant his  assiduous and painstaking and lengthy four part analysis at his web site.  Which you can see here:



There are more than two or three things that I find convincing about this analysis.

 First, he changed his mind about the case when confronted with new evidence.

Second, he concluded there was no film made of the autopsy.

Third, he looked at the autopsy photos.

Fourth, he consulted three professionals--MacDonnell, Wecht and Rydberg--who concluded that it was not a murder.

NIgel Turner, as I said, wasted a great opportunity.    He should be ashamed of himself.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was verification from other sources sought out regards Pitzer's right hand being deformed and to what extent?

Dennis David clearly said in his TMWKK interview that Pitzer was left handed. And one would logically think that a regular bridge playing partner just feet away would notice any "obvious" deformity of a fellow player's hands.

Did Pritzer's wife confirm this deformity?

When Pritzer's wife said the government couldn't get her husband's

wedding ring off his left hand finger, did she wonder or ask them why this was?

And even if his right hand was deformed...does that mean he was not right-handed versus left-handed?

No fingerprints on the gun? Pritzer wiped it clean after he shot himself?

And did you see where they marked the gun location as found at the scene? 3 feet to the left and more feet away behind his body?

Ray, if Eaglesham was right about Marvin's story not being credible...why do you think Colonel Dan Marvin made this up and was willing to share it to the entire world...considering the risk to his career and family standing and reputation.


Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wecht said Pritzer's death was a suicide?

I would think that the evidence of no prints on the gun, no powder burns on the bullet entry area and an exit wound on the left side of his skull etc, is pretty worthy cherry picking.

I will read Eaglesham's full analysis.

Don't know how I missed it. Thought I clicked 

on everything that was presented regards his study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any event this series needs to be put in the section as to what to avoid or be cautious of, in the JFK case. I remember growing up that I liked it because it was "the only game in town" on television but of course its....well...with all due respect, just bad. We need a new, stronger, evidentiary-based film or documentary for today's generation. Len was on an excellent track with his great 50 Reasons/50 Years series. Today's film could or would be broken down into segments for students and scholars alike, based clearly on hardcore evidence and documents and the painstaking research of others. What I'd give...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...