have force fed us the pap that one man acted alone in the Kennedy assassination. to this day, not a single human being has been able to replicate the feat of Lee Harvey Oswald in getting off three shots, including a killing head shot, using a bolt action rifle in the time that Oswald had. Maybe Matthews could get one of his Beltway buddies to respond to that.

As a thirty-plus year researcher on the subect of JFK's assassination, I've found that those who believe that Oswald acted alone are invariably the least well read on the subject. Anyone who is familiar with the facts of the case can PROVE with the Warren Report's own evidence that the commission's conclusions are not supported by that evidence. Furthermore they can show that this same evidence would tend to indicate that Oswad was completely innocent of shooting ANYONE.

The problem is simple. If you don't read, you can't be expected NOT to be ignorant. Allen Dulles is famous for saying, "Americans don't read." The assassins depended on the cover up. The commission depended on people NOT reading.

Sylvia Meagher discovered to her distress and consternation that the near 900 page Warren Report and 26 volumes of evidence had NO INDEX! She took the monumental task upon herself of creating one and providing it to the world. In the course of her task she discovered that the evidence does NOT support the conclusions and wrote her brilliant critical alalysis of the report, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT explaing the same.

Ms. Meagher's book is the place to start, if you give a damn, but it's only the beginning, because once you understand that the single bullet theory was always nothing but a theory and that it was proposed as a "what if" with the clear understanding that it was NOT even possible BECAUSE it had been ESTABLISHED that the back wound penatrated no deeper than the second joint of the pathologist's finger, you've now only established that there HAD to be a second shooter, so the next phase of research only just begins.

The mainstrem media abandoned JFK with the death of Dorothy Killgallen.

Journalism was once the guardian of truth, be it unfair or unbalanced or not. Two weeks ago I saw Diane Sawyer taking a fellow anchor to task for not being fair and balanced.

You need not fall back on the claim that you are fair and balanced, if you can make the much stronger claim that you are truthful and accurate.

The earliest books on the JFK killing and cover-up all asked in their own way: if we allow this to stand, what can we expect for the future of this country? And look what we got: Viet Nam and lies, Watergate and lies, Regan's deal with Iran behind President Carter's back, Iran -Contra, Bush I , his war and his debt and his LONG history of cloak and dagger, the persecuted Clinton administration and the completely corrupt Bush II administration and their acompanying baggage.

We've lowered the bar in this country since JFK to the point where opinion is valued as the truth and the president has a lower IQ than JFK had after he was shot, but only people who are SERIOUS readers can tell the difference and know that it does matter that the word is pronounced NU CLE AR.

Good article about Chris Matthews. Expecting him to come out with a principled view that he actually stands by is like trying to find someone who will admit to voting for Nixon. One day I actually heard him say (about the Bushies) that he had "always been skeptical about these guys." Oh really?

In fact, it is the lone-nut theorists who are evidently unable to accept the fact of conspiracy. Why? Because if these murders grew out of a confluence of powerful interests, as is virtually certain, then the rest of us have a responsibility to do something about it.

_______________________

The above is a quote from Rick Raznikov's post, and I have to admit, for practically my whole life I've wanted to do something about it and have felt powerless.

How anybody could be dumb enough to believe there is no conspiracy, given that first Oswald and then Ruby were shot and silenced, has always been beyond me.

I have Talbot's book here and am looking forward to reading it, because he HAS done something by writing it, and I deeply appreciate that.

You have dissected Matthews perfectly. He is a one note wonder in that since his epiphany he has loudly campaigned against the war. However, he has done everything conceivably possible to undermine the party and the presidential hopefuls that might lead us out of this disaster.

One only has to look up the definition of "empty suit" to view a graphic of the noggin' we've all come to know as Tweety.

I'm so sorry I cant stand to listen to Chris Matthews...he's such a fake... but will definitely get and read "Brothers" as for Vince Bugliosi...I really admired him when exposed the hypocrite Ken Star...during Clinton impeachment and had to visit a porn shop (for first and only time in my life to get his article ...which was published in PENTHOUSE MAGAZINE. I guess Bugliosi is too old to fight the fight or maybe his

Brothers are on the other side of this issue.

Funny, I, too, want to like Chris Matthews! I don't know why, really, except that he "seems" so sincere. But, after watching the last show, I was appalled at the level of discourse, the idiocy of the panelists, the reaffirmation of the Warren Report. I thought we had, at least re: the Kennedy conspiracy, accepted the obvious and learned to live with it. Now I know it is hopeless and truth will not out.

Look: Matthews has long been a toad; forget him. It's a waste of time watching dolts on television anyhow.

Anyone who has spent any serious time investigating and/or researching the assassinations of the 1960s knows that neither of the Kennedys nor Dr. King were killed by "lone nuts," regardless of the official government theories.

Those who suggest conspiracies, however, rather than being faced with factual issues, are attacked for exhibiting psychological problems, notably an "inability" to accept that a "loser" such as Oswald could kill a Kennedy. That's the line we get from dolts like Matthews and his friends.

In fact, it is the lone-nut theorists who are evidently unable to accept the fact of conspiracy. Why? Because if these murders grew out of a confluence of powerful interests, as is virtually certain, then the rest of us have a responsibility to do something about it.

For someone in denial, Vince Bugliosi maybe, it is a lot more convenient to blame a lone nut "loser" because this removes all guilt and all responsibility. Oswald, by the way, was not quite a "loser" in the ordinary sense. He was entrusted with difficult missions on behalf of American intelligence until it came time to throw him to the public.

Thanks to Mr. Talbot for still talking about the most important crime in our history, because until we face up to it, until we deal with it, we'll continue to suffer its consequences.