Skip to main content

Welcome to the JFK Assassination Cover-up, Chapter 20.

**

The Dallas Morning News, notoriously uninterested in real journalism about the most infamous event ever to take place in its city, recently ran a JFK-related piece in its entertainment section. One of a flood of stories purporting to provide insight into the event as we head toward the 50th anniversary, it was headlined:

Looking for fiction about the JFK assassination? Choose carefully

Now, why would we need fiction about the JFK assassination, when most of the purported “fact” put out by the establishment is, as any serious researcher will tell you, straight from someone’s imagination? Nevertheless, here is this article on what to look for among offerings that openly proclaim themselves fanciful accounts.

Before the author of the Morning News piece gets to his favorite novels, however, he must show obeisance to the mandatory establishment line on the event itself:

With next year’s 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in sight, Dallas is about to experience a torrent of books revisiting Nov. 22, 1963, and its long aftermath.

There will be memoirs such as the recent one by Secret Service agent Clint Hill. There will be self-published “I saw three Guatemalan midget shooters on the grassy knoll” conspiracy books. There will be several charging that LBJ was behind it all. (LBJ is currently a growth industry in conspiracy circles.)

There will be books claiming that Oswald, or whoever, ended the reign of Camelot (see Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot, published this October). No matter that the idea of the Kennedy years as an incarnation of a golden age in American history was a whole-cloth fantasy concocted by a shell-shocked Jackie Kennedy two weeks after her husband was killed. [snip]

Many might find these opening paragraphs deeply offensive, with their snide, even vicious references to hallucinating losers seeing “Guatemalan midget shooters”; gullible fools feeding a “growth industry;” and Jackie, all alone, “concocting” a “whole-cloth fantasy” that John F. Kennedy was actually doing important things when he was cut down.

Now, why would a “respectable” newspaper publish this kind of thing? And who would write it?

At the bottom of the essay, we learn that “Special Contributor” Don Graham

“is the J. Frank Dobie Regents professor of American and English literature at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is teaching a course on the history of the Kennedy assassination. He’s the author of several books on Texas culture, including State of Minds: Texas Culture & Its Discontents and Kings of Texas: The 150-Year Saga of an American Ranching Empire.

It’s amazing that in a liberal city like Austin, a formidable university would have an endowed chair occupied by someone willing to write such an article. Or is it? Is it any coincidence that a school largely funded by people who have little use for JFK and his attempt to change the tax structure for oil interests would have a person “teaching a course on the history of the Kennedy assassination” who is capable of ignoring the many books by serious researchers that present evidence of an organized hit? Prof. Graham apparently cannot fathom that long-time fans, enablers and perpetrators of violent coups against democratically elected leaders abroad could possibly support or cover up yet another coup, albeit a domestic one, against a man they deemed a threat. The professor is also content to ignore the final report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979), which concluded that Kennedy was most likely killed as the result of a conspiracy.

---

Read the full, hyperlinked piece over at WhoWhatWhy.com -- http://whowhatwhy.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  uh yeah.... (5+ / 0-)

    "Now, why would we need fiction about the JFK assassination, when most of the purported “fact” put out by the establishment is, as any serious researcher will tell you, straight from someone’s imagination"

    and who exactly would these "serious" researchers be?  I think this diary deserves the same derision you have a problem with in the article.   And the conclusion was that it was the result of a conspiracy..but does not at all identify the conspirators

  •  academics use their words (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrugalGranny, realwischeese

    in ways that are not always obvious to others. Besides if you've ever read any J. Frank Dobie you'd know he was a racist of the first order-loud and proud about it. I could never figure out why the whole department wasn't more embarrassed by him than they were. His value is solely in identifying good original source material.

    "At least we ain’t Lazarus and had to think twice about dying" - Ray Wylie Hubbard

    by Wordsinthewind on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 06:00:40 PM PST

  •  Did you save your best for last? (6+ / 0-)

    Pushing a CT?

    The professor is also content to ignore the final report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979), which concluded that Kennedy was most likely killed as the result of a conspiracy.
    No, wait. You set out down the CT path early on
    Now, why would we need fiction about the JFK assassination, when most of the purported “fact” put out by the establishment is, as any serious researcher will tell you, straight from someone’s imagination?
    You seem to be dangling bait to attract some donuts. I'm not sure I can resist. Nope - I don't think I can.

    "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 06:27:30 PM PST

    •  check the archives (0+ / 0-)
      Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

      The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

      http://www.archives.gov/...

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:37:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  read Case Closed by Posner (0+ / 0-)

        It scientifically debunks any and all conspiracy theories. It even follows each bullet and confirms its origin from Oswald. I was CT believer until I read that book. It all makes sense now, and there was no grand conspiracy.

        "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

        by realwischeese on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 04:53:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  posner (0+ / 0-)

          is not exactly the most credible journalist. and a bullet cannot defy the laws of physics.

          anyway, the apparently offending statement was the claim that a house invetigative committee in 1979 concluded that there was a second gunman and a conspiracy. the apparemtly offending statement was accurate. and the archives are there for anyone to peruse.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 08:20:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and you can take your conspiracy shit elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

            DK is not for you

            "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

            by realwischeese on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 04:57:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

              when a democratically controlled house subcommittee reaches a conclusion, that conclusion is not ct. deal with it.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 05:49:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  1979 (0+ / 0-)

                Believe it or not, there have been more and better analyses of the assassination since 1979 which concluded that there wasn't a second gunman.  Just because some Congressional subcommittee in 1979 came to a conclusion doesn't mean it's the truth for all time.

                History will be kind to us because we will write it.

                by Sky Net on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:54:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  the truth is unproven (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  realwischeese

                  there are holes and questions in all the popular theories, and all subsequent supposed refutations of 1979 also are problematic, the most notable and most dubious being posner. and note that the committee didn't propound any theory of its own, other than with broad strokes. to me, that remains the most accurate assessment. i don't think any of the theories meets the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prevailing theory is among the most flawed.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:38:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lawrence, it is the discussion that is prohibited (0+ / 0-)

                    We here at DK do not discuss fringe CT crap. Sorry , find a site you can shit on, not this one. Kos is tired of this crap.

                    "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

                    by realwischeese on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:51:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                      there is nothing forbidden about discussing the holes in the prevailing theory, and in linking an official house committee's conclusion. there are specific theories about specific conspiracies that are forbidden. i'm also guessing it would be frowned upon to propound any of the alternate theories about this assassination, without having extraordinary backing evidence, which no more exists than does the extraordinary evidence that would be necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the prevailing theory.

                      i quoted an official report by an official house committee from a time when democrats controlled the house. the house and the committee members have never disavowed that report. your hide rate is inappropriate.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 07:58:24 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  yea....right (0+ / 0-)

                        good luck threading that one thru

                        "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

                        by realwischeese on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 08:54:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  as a student of history (0+ / 0-)

                          i find your discomfort with history rather interesting. and this is factual history. in the late '70s, the democratic congress went through a remarkable phase of oversight and transparency. and as part of that phase, the house formed a select committee specifically to investigate assassinations. its members included such fringe conspiracy mongers as chris dodd, louis stokes, and harold ford, sr. and the committee concluded what i quoted above. from the official government archives.

                          these are historical facts. there is nothing to thread. you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 09:07:07 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  historically correct (0+ / 0-)

                            In the sense that there was a committee, they did do a report and you did quote accurately from it.

                            However, subsequent analyses with better technology and better information have shown pretty decisively that their report was wrong.

                            Just because you've accurately referenced a report doesn't mean what's in the report is accurate.

                            History will be kind to us because we will write it.

                            by Sky Net on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 10:39:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                            the staff director and chief counsel for the committee thinks the committee didn't go far enough, and that the cia was not as forthcoming as it pretended to be. and while the acoustic evidence was subsequently criticized by some, the committee's acoustic expert rebuts them on point, and stands by the committee's conclusions. given the report's inflammatory nature, it's odd that congress never saw fit to disavow something you claim was pretty decisively proven wrong, and that its staff experts continue to refute their critics.

                            the committee was very careful and deliberate, and unlike the posners of the world it did not overreach its evidence or engage in wild-assed speculation, and its conclusions are still the official congressional record.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 10:52:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  CT (0+ / 0-)

                            I've had these sorts of conversations with CTers before, and they always go the same way.  Anyone who challenges the conspiracy theory is "engaged in wild-ass speculation" or some such, whereas those who support the theory are brave seekers of the truth who will follow it wherever it leads, although it always seems to lead to a conspiracy theory.

                            Look, I know conspiracies are more exciting than real life, and if you want to throw in your lot with the tin foil hat crowd then that's your prerogative.  But not here.

                            History will be kind to us because we will write it.

                            by Sky Net on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:50:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  when a congressional investigation (0+ / 0-)

                            led by democrats makes an official conclusion that stands to this day, unrefuted by any other congressional investigation, its archives a public record, its members and staff still standing by their work, it is not ct. and given that they did not offer an alternate narrative, because they found none that could be factually validated, there is nothing at all exciting. unknowns that are likely to remain unknowns are not exciting. it is extremely revealing that you cannot accept the official record of the official congressional investigation. enjoy our commonly accepted narrative. there is comfort in consensus.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:45:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  A regents professor is not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, terjeanderson

    an endowed chair.

    I'll let other commenters address your more consequential factual shortcomings.

    Grew a mustache and a mullet / Got a job at Chick-Fil-A

    by cardinal on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 06:33:18 PM PST

  •  Who What Why are you aware that you might (3+ / 0-)

    well get banned for posting this? I tell you just in case you care and don't want to get banned. You just delete the thing and remember not to post conspiracy theory posts. Except if they are theorizing about Obama and Dems giving up on Social Security or something, for some reason those are ok. But world trade center, and other nutty things, and this post might just fit the ticket, earn you ban on sight type action.

    Just sayin.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 06:42:48 PM PST

    •  Is there anything we can discuss here then? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cynic in seattle

      It appears that nobody can come out and say the truth about anything in the msm so everything we have to say is at odds with the "official story" no matter what the subject.  I really don't know where you draw the line.

      Afghanistan war off limits?  War on terror off limits?  Drug war off limits?  The fact that Obama represents the 1% off limits?

      Somebody is gonna have to define "Conspiracy Theory" for me here so I know what subjects I can tell the truth on.

    •  imo diarist isn't posting a theory though (0+ / 0-)

      House Select Committee on Assasinations says conspiracy was a fact.

      WE don't know the players but it happened.

      Are we allowed to speculate about known conspiracies that we don't know who was involved ie speculate about unknown aspects? perhaps not. Yet, Diarist does not speculate about the conspiracy fact. Just is irritated by it's denial, seems to me.

      I took the diary as irritation at where a writer was coming from...around that and around the disrespectful tone.

      •  Careful (0+ / 0-)

        "House Select Committee on Assasinations says conspiracy was a fact." ???? says it was likely. That's a long way from fact.

        "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

        by realwischeese on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 04:55:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't read the exact wording however (0+ / 0-)

          my understanding is that it concluded it had been a conspiracy, likely isn't something I can dispute

          But, don't all such reports headge a bit with "likely"? I would be surprised that Warren commission (or most reports) says "likely" Oswald was lone gunman, for example.If so, people still concluded.."Government concludes Oswald did it, case closed". Government said case was closed as welll, (speculative) "likely" or not

          ie not sure likely means much in this context, but it's fine if you correct me. It means the same to me.

          The main idea though is that MOST people seem to be aware only of Warren commisison findings of lone gunman when it comes to "what the offical conclussion is". Not that officially government thinks it's a conspiracy.

          Since Gov thinks it "llikely" is a conspiracy, how can we call just saying that "looney conspiracy" talk that would be banned from Kos?

  •  So is Watergate off limits? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Not just the Dallas Morning News (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    realwischeese

    Mainstream Corporate Media across the board in the USA has given zero attention to the potential forces behind the assassination and the powers that be would prefer that it remain that way.  

    Disinformation, derision of serious JFK assassination research and Kennedy family sentimentality will rule the day as far as those powers are concerned.

    "Sisters, brothers and the whities, Blacks and the crackers, Police and their backers, They're all political actors"--Curtis Mayfield

    by Cynic in seattle on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:04:09 PM PST

  •  Can you guys take this elsewhere? (8+ / 0-)

    Daily Kos is not the place to start a debate over this kind of stuff.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:40:18 PM PST

  •  HR'd as a conspiracy theory (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terjeanderson, realwischeese, lazybum

    I have a friend who believes all that crap about crop circles, building #7 (which collapsed in 9/11), cows mutilated by aliens, rosicrucians, knights of malta, New World Order,and blah blah blah. Everything is a fucking conspiracy to him.

    He's not very religious, but he's always telling me to read some book or look at some website because it will open my eyes. I tell him that's like telling me to read the Bible to find out the secret to life. CTs and religion require a leap of faith, which I'm not prepared to take. I tell him that believing in invisible angels is the same thing as invisible aliens from another planet. I like him as a friend, but I'll always challenge his opinions about conspiracies.

    But CTs are not allowed on Daily Kos. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    But the angle said to them, "Do not be Alfred. A sailor has been born to you"

    by Dbug on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:40:17 PM PST

  •  And how exactly does this help elect Democrats? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    realwischeese, lazybum

    Conspiracy theories are time and energy down a rat hole.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:32:40 PM PST

  •  This is a Democratic political blog (0+ / 0-)

    Jack Kennedy's murder is an unsolved mystery.  Whether you believe the official version of events or an alternative this is not the place to try to hash that out.

    But Jack Kennedy is also a Democratic hero.  A man who was killed because of the job that he was doing whether the murderer was a single derranged individual living in the fevered swamp of Dallas in 1963 or some organized group.

    To this day President Kennedy is admired.  And he was a Democrat.  Despite any document personal shortcomings.  And this drives the hard right in this country crazy.  Because of that, they have been on a systematic crusade to assassinate his character for the past fifty years.

    We as Democrats should not shy away from confronting these cowards who would piss on the grave of an honorable public servant who gave his life for his country.  Heroes are hard to find.  We shouldn't so easily abandon our own.

  •  Gee, who could possibly have predicted that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe

    WhoWhatWhy was a maven for CT? Oh...

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 08:01:21 AM PST

  •  In Response to "Waxing Conspiratorial" (0+ / 0-)

    At WhoWhatWhy, we strive to tackle subject matter deemed "off-limits" by mainstream news sources. One such subject is the Kennedy assassination. The original, hyperlinked article on our site was written by Russ Baker, our senior editor and author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years.

    For those not well-versed in the various theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination and their assorted degrees of veracity (as well as that of the official Commission's report), it is quite understandable that he could be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for merely pointing out shortcomings in others' reviews of the subject. However, I implore all of you concerned with CT diarists to investigate the rigorous work done by Mr. Baker on the issue. One need not be convinced by his conclusions, but should at least examine his methods and findings before labeling his work as worthy of "banning," an interesting threat given the need for free inquiry and debate in a democratic society, particularly from a website premised on such noble aims.

    If his work on the Kennedy assassination is too outside the margins for this site's viewers, I recommend his extensive documentation of the George W. Bush presidency, its lies, and the entire family's ascendance into power (hardly a radical contention to DK readers, I would imagine). Mr. Baker was also the recipient of the Deadline Club's Online News Exclusive for 2005, beating out Newsday and Business Week for his article Why Bush Left Texas, the founding investigation for the now-notorious abdication of George Bush's flight duties as an National Guard Airman during the Vietnam War.

    Mr. Baker's work has earned praise from the likes of Gore Vidal ("One of the most important books of the past ten years"), Dan Rather ("A tour de force….Family of Secrets has made me rethink even those events I witnessed with my own eyes"), Bill Moyers ("[His] work stands out for its fierce independence, fact-based reporting, and concern for what matters most to our democracy"), as well as the chief archivist of the Nixon tapes writing of his research on the Kennedy assassination, "enough of these connections are sufficiently well-documented as to merit serious consideration...".

    As anyone who visits WhoWhatWhy will tell you, we try to tackle that which isn't discussed on even the most "liberal" of websites and publications, but never fail to keep our work thoroughly sourced. If DailyKos readers are truly concerned with Mr. Baker's conclusions, or his work, I suggest they do their own investigations and rebut him, rather than talk of "banning" him for merely discussing topics others deem off-limits.

    For more on Russ Baker, check his Wikipedia page.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site