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

 

"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.

 

 

 

 

Buell Wesley Frazier, curtain rods and the lack of blaming Frazier

 CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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)

PAT SPEER:

I've talked to Wes on three occasions for a total of maybe an hour. I think he tells the truth as he remembers it. The record is clear, moreover, that he was one of the most problematic witnesses for the DPD, FBI, and WC. He said from day one that the bag they believed Oswald had used to bring in the rifle was 1) not the bag the DPD placed into evidence, and 2) too small to have held the rifle. After I explained to him that the official-story has Oswald bringing shipping paper and tape from the TSBD out to the Paine's house on the 21st, to wrap up his rifle, moreover, Frazier became adamant on another point. He declared that this did not happen. Period. (FWIW, it seems clear he was never asked about this by WC counsel Joe Ball because Ball knew what Frazier would say...and was afraid it would further "dirty" up the record...) 

Posted 6 hours ago

  13 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Well, Let's see if Ruth Paine said the wrapped items were blinds and shades, or curtain rods.

Expand  

I think this is from Ruth Paine's Washington testimony. Jenner went back with her to Dallas and they found two curtain rods in the garage that were not wrapped. It seems possible then that Oswald did indeed take two wrapped curtain rods to work on the 22nd.

I looked into this a great deal a few years back and added a chapter to my website about it. I discovered that...

1. Neither Ruth Paine nor Michael Paine took a close look to see if any curtain rods were missing until 4 months after the assassination. (Michael took a quick look a few days after the shooting but saw a wrapped package that actually held blinds, not curtain rods.) 

2. The wrapped package containing curtain rods Ruth remembered placing in her garage was the exact size of the package Frazier said he saw in Oswald's possession.

3. The curtain rod in Oswald's rented room was damaged as of the evening of 11-22-63. No investigation was performed to find out how or when it was damaged. Oswald's landlady said it was damaged by the DPD, and at another time the press, but it appears she really had no idea when it was damaged and was only assuming someone other than Oswald had damaged the curtain rod.

4. The date on the FBI's memo informing the WC that the curtain rod had been damaged was typed over, which made it appear the WC did not know about this until after Oswald's landlady was interviewed by Ball. In any event, he asked her no questions regarding this, and failed to follow up on the FBI report in any way.

5. The set of curtain rods tested by the DPD for fingerprints were tested before the curtain rods retrieved from Mrs. Paine's garage by Jenner were retrieved. This should lead us to suspect, then, that there was another set of curtain rods that were made to disappear. This is supported, moreover, by the fact the rods tested by the DPD had prints on them, and the rods placed into evidence by the WC (presumably the rods retrieved from the garage) show no signs (such as a piece of tape with an arrow) of ever bearing a print.

 

In sum, then, this strongly suggests Oswald helped himself to a set of Mrs. Paine's curtain rods, and that this set was later found (perhaps at the TSBD). But then made to disappear... 

A Masterclass on the JFK Secret Service and their protection of President Kennedy before 11/22/63

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A4JISOOfe0&t=1169s

THE LINK ABOVE:

**ALL you wanted to know about the Kennedy Detail agents and were afraid to ask. All you need to know - this one video compiles everything into one package. The ultimate proof that JFK was often protected just fine. All that changed on 11/22/63. The overall contrasts are stunning. RARE films, photos, agent interviews, etc.**

The state of the JFK assassination case

 

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

 

 ***RESPONSES***

 

PAT SPEER:

 

I wrote about this in 2013. There was a decided and perhaps co-ordinated effort among the major news media to downplay the possibility of a conspiracy, and make conspiracy theorists look like loonies. As a result, those wanting to feel smart without actually doing any research took to dismissing the case with a wave of a hand. Things continued to slide from there, with the sloppiest, stupidest and bloodiest videos getting the most views, to such an extent even that many newbies are first exposed to Files-did-it, Greer-did-it, Hickey-did-it, and Judy-did Lee nonsense. This pushes the genuinely curious away, IMO. And serves as a filter whereby most newbies developing a marginal interest in the case are gullible and overly excited by bright shiny objects, or cynical trolls who think it's fun to "own" the "nuts"

 

Vince, you're saying that after almost 60 years, slightly over 60% of the US public still believe there was a conspiracy.  It's not just all of us old folks anymore. 

I believe it crept up to as high as 80% in the mid-70's and early 90's. Since that time it's trickled downwards. I attribute that to a number of issues.

1. The media rarely reports on it except to say it's old news and if it was gonna be solved it would have been solved long ago. You could discover a death-bed confession from LBJ and it would barely make a dent.

2. The conspiracy theories that get the most attention on the internet and youtube are everything-but-the-kitchen sink theories that serve to reduce real sustained interest more than they increase real sustained interest. Whether or not it is true, when someone's opening line is that almost all the evidence is fake or that almost all the witnesses lied, most people tune out.  I know that when I developed a real sustained interest it wasn't because I read a book saying the body was altered or the autopsy photos were fake, although yes I did read those books. What got me hooked was that I discovered Rex Bradford's History Matters website, and read for myself the autopsy protocol, the Clark Panel report, and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel report, and could see that the descriptions of JFK's wounds we're in opposition to each other. In short, people are more likely to take an interest if they can see something for themselves than if they are told what to believe by some old white guy.

3. it's not always the message. Sometimes it's the people receiving the message. We have an epidemic of historical proportions in this country in that many have little understanding of how the world they live in got this way. I mean, why read a book when you can have fun killing people on your computer?

 

Jeremy Bojczuk

The vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy;

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.

Denny Zartman:

 

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.

Gene Kelly:

 

• 
  
• Members

·        

•  796
• Gender:Male
• Location:Philadelphia PA

•  

Posted 12 hours ago

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

Michael Griffith:

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. 

Kirk Gallaway

here 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.

Gene Kelly:

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.

Tom Gram:

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.  

 

 

In August 1960, the CIA considered Guy Bannister & Associates for use as a cover organization through the QKENCHANT program

 In August 1960, the CIA considered Guy Bannister & Associates for use as a cover organization through the QKENCHANT program

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The inquiry was conducted covertly i.e. without Bannister's knowledge. The CIA would later lie about this and say that Bannister approached the CIA and offered his services. During the investigation, the CIA found out that Bannister's operation wasn't very successful and developed derogatory information about him so the proposal was abandoned. However, the project itself was NOT abandoned, and Security Officer Jim O'Connell furnished the CIA with an alternate detective company to use instead:

My BLACK OP RADIO appearance now online!

https://blackopradio.com/archives2022.html?fbclid=IwAR0piQj7FXuwQtnWdLYsgMAgqQidwTs1UDbpAgxpl8n1NEJpY2JmLcVfbR4 

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE