In response to a scene in John Barbour's recent film, Jim DiEugenio once again drives home the contradictions, lack of attention to scholarly standards of historical analysis, and dishonesty in the position adopted by Noam Chomsky on both JFK's presidency and the facts and circumstances of his assassination.

Two excerpts from 2016 Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award recipient Bart Kamp's compendious review of the evidence and testimony arguing against the official story that Roy Truly and Marrion Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Jim DiEugenio reviews the career of Edward J. Epstein, who has recently come under attack for his concoctions concerning Edward Snowden – all too familiar to students of the JFK assassination in the way they echo his equally questionable construction of Oswald as Soviet agent.

In the second installment of this book review/essay, Jeff Carter focuses on questions of authenticity, alteration, and the NPIC analyses which occurred over the week-end of the assassination but which the CIA later tried to deflect and all but make disappear from the record.

We re-present here the author's systematic analysis of the testimony taken by the Warren Commission from nineteen witnesses on the subject. With his usual acuteness, he managed to perform a tour de force of separating the wheat from the chaff on the issue.

The first in a two-part installment in which Jeff Carter reviews a book that "reveals some new – albeit not earth-shattering – information", but is also "imbued with a certain partisanship, not limited to family interests, which dulls the author’s critical thinking in some key areas."

From about 1966, it became the strategy of the MSM not to let the Warren Commission critics speak without being interfered with, or caricatured. After Stone’s movie came out, the MSM simply would not place the critics on their programs at all. Benson counters that by simply letting the critics speak about the case without being interfered with, writes Joseph Green.

By Bryan Bender and Neil Swidey, originally run on November 24, 2013, At:  The Boston Globe

This essay on [Willens' and Mosk's] work for the Warren Commission they served on is more notable for what they omit from the official record than what they include, writes Gary Aguilar.

Part two of the study, in which professor Bleau focuses on what interested historians could easily learn from the official investigations and the opinions and statements from the actual investigators, lawyers, and staff members who were involved in six investigations that were mostly government initiated and managed, if they weren't so predisposed to accept blindly the conclusions of the Warren Commission.