Fidel Castro's speech, broadcast on Cuban radio and television on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, reprinted here thanks to David Giglio at Our Hidden History.
Milicent Cranor refutes John Canal's claim that the back-of-the-head JFK autopsy photo was taken after the morticians reconstructed the head, supposedly moving the scalp from the back to the front, dragging with it the entrance wound, and covering up bone damage.
Writing of his gratuitous ignorance of the facts of the JFK case, Prof. Fernandez asserts that "[James] Piereson likes to walk among ghosts", and that he is joined in this by Regnery Publishing, which has muddied the Castro-did-it waters with the issue of Robert Wilcox's Target JFK.
Paul Bleau suggests that historians need to examine the similarities of the (failed) attempts on Kennedy's life in Chicago, L.A. and Tampa, and their links to executive action M.O., and to draw the more probable conclusions from this comparative methodology.
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.
In this two-part companion to his study of the textbook treatments of the JFK assassination, 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.
As one can see, Mark Lane was such an effective critic of the Warren Report that his ghost is haunted by its shameless defenders even in death. It is they who are guilty of what they say he was: namely, presenting the facts in a one-sided, polemical way, declares Jim DiEugenio.
James DiEugenio decries how the JFK assassination has been injected into the 2016 presidential election with Donald Trump's baseless accusation that Rafael Cruz was present with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans when he distributed leaflets for the FPCC.
In this series, history professor Paul Bleau examines how the JFK assassination is treated in school textbooks, and publishes excerpts from correspondence with some of the authors to whom he posed several methodological questions. The answers are highly revealing.
In this two-part essay, Jim DiEugenio builds on unpublished material obtained by Roger Feinman from CBS in order to reconstruct how the 1967 CBS special became the shameless defense of the Warren Commission's case against Lee Harvey Oswald that it was.
Jim DiEugenio praises economist Jeffrey Sachs for his criticism of Clinton's foreign policy views, and elucidates even further just how different a view of United States – Middle Eastern relations John Kennedy held, a difference which is highly revealing for the state of affairs we find ourselves in today.
John Armstrong reveals the details of how money orders were processed in 1963 by the United States Postal Service in order to furnish a backdrop for demonstrating the alleged ordering of the Mannlicher Carcano by Oswald could not have occurred as the Warren Commission and FBI claim.
Jim DiEugenio reviews the career of the University of Minnesota professor of philosphy of science, observing that his rather lax attitude toward critical analysis of scholarly sources, coupled to his taste for the "Sensational Solution", are responsible for the demise in respectability of this self-proclaimed authority on conspiracies.