On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

There’s circumstantial evidence pointing to CIA involvement in RFK’s assassination.

Coincidentally, the LAPD detectives who controlled the investigation were CIA contractors.

Coincidentally, James Angelton had RFK’s autopsy photos in his personal files. Why Angleton was interested in the RFK assassination? No one knows.

Additionally, Sirhan Sirhan is easily hypnotized and while some have suggested that he experimented with hypnosis and maybe hypnotized himself, the CIA’s MKULTRA projects included experiments with hypnosis. So it’s possible that he was an unwitting participant in an MKULTRA-related project.

I don’t know enough about the role of the CIA in MLK’s murder but I’ve seen lots of stuff that points to an FBI role.

Obviously, Jim Garrison couldn’t have known of the things I mentioned back in 1969 but his intuition was probably close to the truth…

[Mitch Todd]

So, Knudsen didn't actually "tell the HSCA that he did not take photographs".

Again, his replies to the two questions that I quoted preclude him from having taken photos of the autopsy. Thus, he said he didn't. You are trying to insist that it doesn't count unless Knudsen said it in a way that you consider acceptable, but that requirement is simply your own invention.   

[Fred Litwin]

Was There a Diversionary Action to Allow the Snipers to get into Position?
Jim Garrison believed that someone in Dealey Plaza simulated a epileptic attack to divert people so that the snipers could get into position on the grassy knoll. Does it get any crazier than this?

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-there-a-diversionary-action-to-allow-the-snipers-to-get-into-position

[Jon Banks]

JFK Revisited: Oliver Stone and the New JFK Fact Pattern
BY JEFFERSON MORLEY

Excerpt:

Reviewing the Record

Stone and his writing partner James DiEugenio perform a basic task of journalism and history in their new documentary JFK Revisited, a task curiously ignored by our newspapers of record and academic historians. In the two-hour film, available on Showtime, the Oscar-winning director revisits a significant historical event—the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963–in light of substantial new evidence. You wouldn’t know it from the predictable media abuse, but his method is time-tested and honorable.

The Washington Post performed this function in June 2007 when the CIA declassified “the Family Jewels,” a file of allegations of CIA misconduct collected in 1973 amidst the Watergate scandal. Under court order, the Agency finally coughed up the 600-plus pages of material 33 years later. I was the World News editor at Washingtopost.com at the time and role player in the journalistic full-court press that followed.

Bob Woodward took the lead while other senior reporters sifted the papers for new information about the Watergate scandal. We looked for what was new and what it meant for historical understanding of the Watergate affair. At the Post web site, we strove to put the new information in context so readers could make sense of a major event in Washington memory. The in-depth coverage was capped by Woodward’s incisive take on what was truly newsworthy: CIA director Richard Helms emerged from the new files as “the perfect Watergate enabler.” This was proficient journalism as the first draft of history.

Stone’s granular documentary, narrated by actors Whoopi Goldberg and Donald Sutherland, seeks to do the same for JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963: make sense of the newest information. A huge body of new information has come into the record since Stone made his movie. The commercial and critical success of JFK shamed Congress into releasing millions of pages of long-secret government files related to Kennedy’s assassination. Since passage of the 1992 JFK Records Act, federal agencies have made public more than 319,000 once-secret government records, amounting to a new historical record of JFK’s assassination, that is much more comprehensive and detailed than the record available to Stone in 1991.

What to make of this new information?

Stone and DiEugenio interviewed scores of witnesses and experts, me included. They asked us the same basic question about the JFK story that the Post asked about the Family Jewels: what do we know today that we didn’t know yesterday?

Leave aside the conclusions of JFK Revisited for a moment, and note its curious lack of their competition. The Washington Post has never comprehensively reviewed the new historical record of JFK’s assassination that has emerged since the 1990s. Nor has the New York Times, despite voluminous new evidence and a steady stream of newsworthy disclosures.

Since the 1990s, we have learned, among other things, about Operation Northwoods, a top-secret Pentagon plan—a policy conspiracy, if you will– to provoke a war with Cuba in 1963 via violent deceptive operations on U.S. soil. We have learned the surprising extent of the CIA’s pre-assassination surveillance of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. We have learned about Agency propaganda operations involving Oswald before and after Kennedy was killed. We have learned about possible tampering with the photographic record of Kennedy’s autopsy, and we have learned about the CIA’s obstruction of Congress’s JFK investigation in the late 1970s.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/31/jfk-revisited-oliver-stone-and-the-new-jfk-fact-pattern/

[Jerry Organ]

JFK Revisited: Oliver Stone and the New JFK Fact Pattern
BY JEFFERSON MORLEY

Excerpt:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/31/jfk-revisited-oliver-stone-and-the-new-jfk-fact-pattern/

But what remains constant is the WC critics' luddite armchair-expert wherewithal to distort and misrepresent evidence and facts, and to spin the fine work of authorities and experts. For example, the agitprop mockumentary "JFK Revisited" touches on the old chestnut that Gerald Ford edited a sentence in a draft of the Report to "move up" the back wound.

Did Gerald Ford “Move” Kennedy’s Back Wound To Make It Consistent with the Single Bullet Theory? ( Link )

[Jon Banks]

But what remains constant is the WC critics' luddite armchair-expert wherewithal to distort and misrepresent evidence and facts,

There's usually more than one interpretation of factual information and history. What you call "misrepresentation", I call "a different interpretation" of the facts. It happens all the time with historic events.

Historical consensus and historical narratives can and do change over time. 

People who are convinced of a specific narrative tend to fall victim to Confirmation Bias, which affects how they interpret facts (new or old information).

And that logic applies to both the CT and LN sides of the JFK assassination debates.

There's no denying that we know far more today about the JFK assassination and the investigations that followed than what was known 40 to 50 years ago. So it seems unreasonable to suggest that people can't or shouldn't reach new or different conclusions about factual or historic information in the case.

I'll even go a step further and say that with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we know more than the members of the Warren Commission knew at the time when their work was done.

For example, the agitprop mockumentary "JFK Revisited" touches on the old chestnut that Gerald Ford edited a sentence in a draft of the Report to "move up" the back wound.

Did Gerald Ford “Move” Kennedy’s Back Wound To Make It Consistent with the Single Bullet Theory? ( Link )

I'm not sure what your angle is here. President Ford admitted to doing it. We can disagree on his motive or intent but there's no denying that he did it...

NY Times: Ford Made Key Change In Kennedy Death Report -

Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

Mr. Ford, who was a member of the commission, wanted a change to show that the bullet entered Kennedy ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission originally wrote.

Mr. Ford said today that the change was intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html

[Jerry Organ]

There's usually more than one interpretation of factual information and history. What you call "misrepresentation", I call "a different interpretation" of the facts. It happens all the time with historic events.

Historical consensus and historical narratives can and do change over time. 

People who are convinced of a specific narrative tend to fall victim to Confirmation Bias, which affects how they interpret facts (new or old information).

And that logic applies to both the CT and LN sides of the JFK assassination debates.

There's no denying that we know far more today about the JFK assassination and the investigations that followed than what was known 40 to 50 years ago. So it seems unreasonable to suggest that people can't or shouldn't reach new or different conclusions about factual or historic information in the case.

I'll even go a step further and say that with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we know more than the members of the Warren Commission knew at the time when their work was done.

The quantity of information has certainly increased (theories, web sites, biased mockumentaries) but it's been at the expense of quality.

I'm not sure what your angle is here. President Ford admitted to doing it. We can disagree on his motive or intent but there's no denying that he did it...

NY Times: Ford Made Key Change In Kennedy Death Report -

Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

Mr. Ford, who was a member of the commission, wanted a change to show that the bullet entered Kennedy ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission originally wrote.

Mr. Ford said today that the change was intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html

Would be no problem if "JFK Revisited" commended Gerald Ford for clarifying and making more accurate a passage in a draft of the Report.

[Jon Banks]

The quantity of information has certainly increased (theories, web sites, biased mockumentaries) but it's been at the expense of quality.

More information is good actually.

Adults and experts can make up their own minds and decide for themselves.

Would be no problem if "JFK Revisited" commended Gerald Ford for clarifying and making more accurate a passage in a draft of the Report.

I think JFK Revisited correctly noted that Gerald Ford attempted to polish a turd with his correction.

The "turd" being the incoherent medical evidence that stemmed from Kennedy's botched autopsy.

It's impossible to resolve many of the questions about the medical evidence due to the lousy autopsy conducted in 1963.