JFK Assassination: Six Decades Later, A Cold Case Heats Up
Long after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination — the event that sparked the term “conspiracy theory” — much remains unexplained, and secret. But news about it is still breaking.
November 22 marks the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination — one of the turning points and great mysteries of modern times.
People continue to disagree on two key questions: Who killed the most powerful man in the world on November 22, 1963? And why?
Two high-profile official investigations, the Warren Commission in 1964 and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976-1979), disagreed about the core of the case: The first blamed a lone gunman with indiscernible motives and the second blamed a probable conspiracy. It’s mind-boggling that authorities couldn’t reach a consensus on the question of who committed such a spectacular crime, and why — and cannot to the present day.
Still, the original “official” version of the story is the one that has endured virtually intact, and referenced constantly in corporate media — despite the second official story having superseded it, and despite subsequent unearthing of rigorously documented evidence to the contrary. It’s no wonder that many people are frustrated by this denial of evidence and common sense by our institutions.
On the other hand, some may prefer to sweep the known discrepancies about this 60-year-old cold case out of sight. They might ask why we should spend time on an old murder mystery when the world is facing so many dire problems right now. They may also doubt the wisdom of even exploring the possibility that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy at a time when America is convulsed by fabricated or wrong-headed — sometimes outright delusional — conspiracy theories. Why fan those dangerous flames?
Flammable Facts
Paradoxically, one of the reasons many Americans distrust officialdom, and why some believe almost any irrational scenario they hear, is their awareness that some conspiracies actually did take place. And, as shown below, some were actually proven to have been perpetrated and covered up by authority figures.
One eye-opening example of this: the revelation that law enforcement authorities were behind the silencing of Black nationalist leader Malcolm X, who was gunned down in 1965. The government prosecuted three Black men it claimed had acted on their own. But one man, the actual killer, always insisted the other two were innocent. As it turns out, those two had been framed under orders of J. Edgar Hoover. And a letter from an undercover agent pinned the sponsorship of Malcolm X's murder squarely upon the New York Police Department and FBI.
We’ve also learned, belatedly, about criminal actions by leading establishment figures. These include candidate Richard Nixon secretly wrecking the Paris peace talks on Vietnam during the 1968 presidential campaign, because the success of those talks would have given his opponent a political advantage. As a result of this unconscionable act — some would call it treason — another 25,000 American soldiers would die in southeast Asia.
On issue after issue — from the harm caused by tobacco products to the global warming caused by fossil fuels, both secretly understood and concealed by corporate interests for years — it’s clear there are real conspiracies by self-interested parties that deliberately deceive the public.
In these cases, it took a few determined activists and investigators to break through false scenarios that had been heavily pushed and widely accepted. Indeed, those who publicly cast a skeptical eye on controversial events that appeared too quickly “settled” have sometimes forced the establishment to make long-delayed, tacit admissions about high-profile crimes.
Why Raise the Lid?
The ultimate issue here is that we still don’t have enough candid conversation about the uglier aspects of our world, or about how we got to where we are.
One reason for this is that supposedly unbiased narrators — i.e. in academia, the media, etc. — have often ducked responsibility for reexamining divisive historical matters. Why is that?
It’s predictable that the powers-that-be — which control our key institutions, including social and news media — will impede anything that threatens to destabilize society and undermine their own tranquility and privilege. That definitely includes looking too closely at events like the deaths of major political figures.
It often seems that the system rewards cooperative narrators — who reject challenging narratives and promote merely inconsequential reforms — by placing them in comfortable and authoritative positions as intellectual gatekeepers while punishing the less cooperative, whose inquiries would make real waves.
Related: JFK Murder: Evolving Strategies for Damage Control
Taking risks to do honest journalism is the whole point of WhoWhatWhy, the nonprofit news organization I founded, and where I serve as CEO and editor-in-chief.
One of our cornerstone beliefs is that unrelenting candor is essential to the health (and indeed survival) of a democracy. Transparency has never been more needed than right now.
We also feel strongly that judicious examination of a historical mystery can provide a counterweight to indiscriminate conspiracy-theorizing; and that violent, if disguised, transfer of power is still a pressing issue today.
That is why at WhoWhatWhy we are marking the anniversary of this event with a series of articles, based in part on in-depth research for a forthcoming book of mine on the Kennedy presidency and assassination. Our focus in the series is on some of the copious new evidence we’ve seen, and new ways of interpreting information we’ve developed.
If you want to follow the series, come to whowhatwhy.org and sign up for our newsletters
If you have information to bring to our attention about any aspect of the JFK assassination — or are with the media and interested in covering or reproducing our work or inviting me to appear on a program — please click here.
If you would like to be on a mailing list to receive news of the book, click here.
****
Other Topics, Other Venues
If you want to hear me discuss Elon Musk's world of disinformation with podcaster Brad Friedman, click here. (There’s a long section to forward through; I come in at about 33:50)
Unraveling the mother of conspiracies only leads to more unraveling and the understanding that the orchestrated deception of the American people and people worldwide is embedded in the fabric of our existence. Still, it's good to know.
Russ -- Before we can plan a route, we must have a destination..
What is your ultimate destination in terms of investigating Dallas? Is it justice for JFK and the millions of souls who to this day are collaterally damaged by his killers? If so, how do you define such justice?