Tag Archives: Vincent Bugliosi

Why Are They Still Lying To Us About JFK’s Murder? A Minister Tells Us Why

Of all the great JFK assassination books published last year (to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the assassination), one of the best was written by a Methodist minister named Dr. Lance Moore. Dr. Moore’s book, “Killing JFK: 50 Years, 50 Lies–From the Warren Commission to Bill O’Reilly, A History of Deceit in the Kennedy Assassination,” is meticulously researched, eloquently stated, and worthy of serious consideration. Yet you have probably never heard of Dr. Moore or his book. That’s because the media blackout of all voices critical of the official version (read establishment lies)of the assassination have stifled the purveyors of historical truth. I sympathize with Dr. Moore and other JFK authors/researchers, because I too have been denied access to mainstream media outlets (with the notable exception of my hometown St. Louis Post-Dispatch). Despite this, 75% of Americans know we are being fed a pack of lies by NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all other corporate-owned conglomerates who have had a long, cozy relationship with the CIA.

In a piece written for OpEd News Dr. Moore condemns the unbalanced media and questions the purpose of continuing the cover-up a half-century after the event. He writes:

“A few days after the 50th Anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, my wife and I chatted with a new acquaintance in an upscale bar in D.C., a spot frequented by Congressmen. Leaning toward us across the table, a dapperly-dressed man confirmed my suspicions about the CIA and a certain magazine. His wife, he confided, works for the internationally-prestigious magazine, and she had told him the CIA frequented her workplace to spy on a nearby embassy–with full cooperation by her employers. I found her story credible, in part because it is now well-established that the CIA infiltrated and influenced a long list of newspapers and magazines.1 Initially, I had been surprised that the magazine in question, an organization with great credibility in the academic community, risked their reputation to broadcast blatant lies about the JFK shooting. Why fib about something that happened half-a-century ago? The answer is astounding: the CIA –fifty years on–still believes it cannot afford the hit to its credibility… it refuses to admit that Lee Harvey Oswald was a company man. And it still has a vise-like grip on the mainstream media.

I am not a kook. Several parchments from prestigious institutions hang on my wall to assure me that I’m not crazy. I’m not a 911 ‘Truther’ or a ‘Man didn’t land on the moon’ conspiracy nut. Yet, when I began promoting my book about the JFK assassination, I observed some curious things. Major news outlets circled their wagons around the ‘official’ government story that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut, nixing any dissenting opinions. Pro-Warren Commission, pro-lone-gunman pundits (a dying breed) were trotted out on CBS, ABC and even PBS. Credible experts who offer proof of government complicity were disinvited. Others in the assassination-research community told me similar stories of how they had been scheduled for cable news/network appearances, but were cancelled at the last minute–without explanation. Even my local city newspaper, which has featured my writing on other topics, refused to print a rebuttal I had written to counter a ‘lone-gunman did it’ fluff-piece they ran in November 2013.

I have been harassed. Nasty, over-the-top attacks were posted on the Amazon review page of my JFK book (despite four and five star reviews by 95% of readers). Correspondence between myself and Vince Palamara (a Secret Service expert who has been featured on C-SPAN, the History Channel, etc.) was sliced open and contents stolen, apparently with the blessing of the U.S. Postal Service.2 At the 50th anniversary event in Dealey Plaza November 22nd, an ABC-TV cameraman pulled out his iPhone and snapped a picture of my book’s cover, saying he was personally interested in it… but made it clear his network was not. A CBS reporter and his cameraman interviewed me, but the footage never aired. At the end of the day, outside the Dallas JFK museum in the Texas School Book Depository, I was assaulted–choked without any provocation–by the bodyguard of former Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, as I tried to shake hands with Hill after his book-signing.3 These are things happening now, not 50 years ago.

But let’s back up and look at the long media history. The few times the networks dared examine the topic, the reporting was one-sided. CBS, for example, gave extended screen-time to so-called “conspiracy debunker” Gerald Posner, but allowed only short, benign snippets from lone-gunman critics like Dr. Cyril Wecht (and Dr. Wecht is a top-notch forensic scientist; Posner is not). I challenge doubters to put a stopwatch on any major network’s coverage of the JFK assassination and see how much time is afforded the debunkers vs. the conspiracy ‘nuts.’ Though I am personally convinced that the CIA helped kill Kennedy, I concede there are two sides to this debate. So, mainstream media, give us both sides! The one-sided press coverage should scare the hell out of us.”

You can read the full article on opednews.com


JFK’s Wounds Are Glossed Over By History Channel Program


I am just now getting around to watching the multitude of JFK Assassination Anniversary specials which aired last month.  Too many to watch live, so I recorded them for later viewing.  And while most are the same tired old lies, some are almost fair in their presentation of both sides–conspiracy vs. Oswald did it.  On the surface, “The JFK Assassination: The Definitive Guide,” a History Channel presentation, appears to give serious researchers a fair hearing, but on second look, the program is cunningly and subtly biased.  Each time a legitimate piece of evidence is mentioned, there is a quick cut to a disinformationist like Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi or Max Holland, for refutation.  So while pro-conspiracy tidbits get the viewer tantalizingly close to a breakthrough, before the lead is explored in depth, in steps an establishment-approved and historically challenged idiot like John McAdams.  Nonetheless, it is worthwhile viewing for the special it might have been. 

Stunningly, there is even a mention of one of the most overlooked, yet significant, players in the drama (and, oh by the way, the villain of my book “The President’s Mortician), John Liggett.  Suspiciously his name is misspelled, as it appears fleetingly on the screen.  There is no James Melvin Liggett, but at least they got the middle name right.  Other key suspects, like George DeMohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, and Allen Dulles, are mentioned in passing…the message being that they are fringe and insignificant characters.  At least “Definitive Guide” is not a complete whitewash like “Lee Harvey Oswald: 48 Hours To Live.”

The most glaring cover-up was Posner’s easy dismissal of the Dallas doctors’ observations about JFK’s wounds.  At Parkland all medical personnel who attended to the President saw a fist-sized exit wound in the back of the head, near the right ear, in the occipital-parietal area of the head.  But the autopsy doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital saw a completely different head wound, one that was more than three times the size of the Parkland wound, and one that stretched from the rear of the head all the way to the front of the head.  In fact, the Bethesda wound was so large that the Bethesda doctors thought at first that surgery of the head area had been performed.  Dr. Humes uttered the phrase, “Surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull, is indicated.”  He recognized that someone tinkered with JFK’s head wound while his body was in transit from Parkland to Bethesda.  Who would do such a thing, and why, and where?  The answers to these questions are essential to solving the case for this simple reason: the Parkland wound indicated that JFK was shot from the front; the Bethesda wound indicated that JFK was shot from the rear.  Or put another way, if JFK was shot from the front, there is no doubt that a conspiracy took his life because Oswald, the ostensible lone shooter, was behind the Presidential limo at the time of the shooting and could have only hit JFK from behind had he indeed fired a rifle from the Texas School Book Depository.  If the wound was altered, there is little doubt that it was done to hide a conspiracy and frame Oswald as the lone assassin. 
In his book “Best Evidence,” JFK researcher David Lifton puts it succinctly: “The Dallas/Bethesda conflict regarding the fatal head wound was built into the records of the Warren Commission…its existence could not be denied.  On November 22, 1963, two groups of doctors saw the President’s head, and their descriptions diverged.  Only three explanations seemed possible: 1) Parkland Was Right And Bethesda Was Wrong.  In that case, the Bethesda autopsy surgeons falsely described a…wound…quadrupled its area, and incorrectly stated that half of the President’s brain was clearly visible through the hole in his head.  2) Bethesda Was Right And Parkland Was Wrong.  In that case, the many witnesses who saw the wound in Dallas somehow mistook a 6-inch hole at the top of the head as a much smaller hole at the right rear.  3) Both Groups of Witnesses Were Correct.  In that case, their descriptions conflicted because the size and location of the wound had been altered during the time interval that separated the two groups of observations.”

Astounding as it sounds, only the third option is viable.  It is unreasonable to believe that either of two sets of doctors knowingly lied about the wounds of the most important patient they would ever tend to in their lifetimes.  As Lifton puts it, “Of the three alternatives, only the third was plausible.  President Kennedy’s fatal wound must have been altered.”

You can find out how, where, and when this was done, by reading my book.