Can you help support a new 5-part video series on the JFK assassination?

(Although there has not been much news about it, Tom Hanks' production company, Playtone, is creating an "anti-JFK Truth" series based on Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History". Apparently, the person who initiated the project is actor Bill Paxton. In an interview posted at, Paxton characterizes Bugliosi's book as a friendly human interest story. Which it is most certainly not. Bugliosi's bloated, flawed book absolutely bristles with agenda; the agenda? To discredit all views that counter the Warren Commission as "conspiracy theory". To preempt and counter this production, another project is in the formative stages, conceived by independent researcher John Geraghty, in association with COPA. -rep.)


In cases such as the assassination of President Kennedy we have tried to break the deadlock of history through our published works, our conferences and focusing what little media attention the event gets on the realities of the coup that happened on November 22nd 1963.

Unlike in the case of Martin Luther King's assassination, we have had no legal resolution, even if it is symbolic, to the events in Dallas.

Myself and the Coalition on Political Assassinations have a proposal that we feel can both use our own media to further public understanding and also to create some support for full disclosure under the JFK records act, the establishment of a Dallas grand jury or some other legal remedy.

This project proposes to produce a 5 part documentary series to be made free online for all to view. The project will be collaborative in its funding, scope and production.

The documentary is intended to be a fresh review of the assassination, featuring the latest and best research.

The documentary will preempt an HBO mini series based on Vincent Bugliosi's book 'Reclaiming History'.

The working features of the 5 episodes are;

  1. An analysis of the assassination itself and immediate aftermath.
  2. Lee Harvey Oswald- his intelligence connections and his set up as the patsy.
  3. Official investigations, legal battles and the media.
  4. Foreign policy and the assassination. Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam.
  5. Seeking a resolution. What have we done and what can we do.

These are merely the titles and focus of the episodes. Much more ground will be covered within.

This is a short introduction to the project. A full explanation can be found here,

In order for this project to go forward we need members of the research community and interested parties to support it in whatever means are possible for them. By this we mean, financial support, technical support or by publicising the effort.

We would be very much keen to hear any feedback people might have regarding the series.
You can reach me personally at

Please do read the proposal and let us know what you think.

Many thanks,

John Geraghty and COPA

Still crazy after all these years...

I've been aware of the HBO project for some time.

I was a little bit surprised to see the "All-American" Tom Hanks involved. But I suppose it makes sense when you think about it.

"The documentary will preempt an HBO mini series based on Vincent Bugliosi's book 'Reclaiming History'"

I think it might be useful to release the film AFTER the HBO miniseries. That way you can counter the fallacies they raise. Doesn't mean you have to wait until it is released to start production.

Have you considered trying to contact Oliver Stone?


The idea is not only to preempt the Bugliosi piece and the information that it presents, but to kickstart some sort of legal remedy before the relase of the Hanks piece, which is looking at a release date of 2012/13 or so. It's a long way away and gives us a few years to get something going.

We're trying to negate its impact before it gets off the ground. The project isn't simply about informing people, but getting them active. We need to resolve this before the 50th anniversary or else it may be lost to history.

Edit: I will be contacting Oliver Stone by mail soon. He expressed a continued interest in the case by writing an article about Jim Douglass' book 'JFK and the unspeakable' in the Huffington Post. Jim Douglass' work will be at the centre of much of the documentary, so hopefully this will convince him to get involved.



I didn't realize the release date was so far off...

I still think it would be useful to counter some of Bugliosi's nonsense in your film, though I assume you'll be doing that anyway by virtue of the new information.

Good luck!

Just wondering

Is there anybody who has attempted to explain the head moving backwards and to the left? I haven't read Bugliosi's book (I doubt I could without developing an ulcer)

(Not the lame excuse with the back brace, that doesn't count)


Haven't read the book either. From what I hear it's roughly the length of War and Peace. Perhaps Bugly thought the length would intimidate critics and discourage book reviewers from actually reading it. He probably succeeded on the latter point, the former not so much. There are critical reviews of "Reclaiming History" all over the web. I'm not an expert on JFK research so I can't say which is best.

There's brief mention of Bugly's treatment of the head shot in Michael Green's review:

"I can’t resist describing one more singular piece of Bugliosi propaganda that goes to his great challenge to the professionals that the well informed person knows both sides of a question, so that we should all trust Mr. Well Informed Truth-Seeking Bugliosi. Bugliosi expresses his “greatest shock” over the fact that the Warren Report has “not…one single word of reference to the president’s head snap to the rear,” but explains away this seeming lapse by quoting Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley J. Liebeler that “It is only since the critics have raised this point that anybody has ever looked at it closely.” [35] The Bethesda autopsy reports addresses the direction of the head-snap obliquely in its introduction, just so you can’t miss it, and where it certainly does not belong, under “CLINICAL SUMMARY”:

Three shots were heard and the President fell forward bleeding from the head. (Governor Connolly was seriously wounded by the same gunfire.)

So, three shots, JFK falls forward from the shot from behind, and the same bullets that struck Kennedy wounded Connolly. All false, all put there by the Admirals, themselves under orders, all done in anticipation of the finding that the Warren Commission would have to sell, all done after the Zapruder film has been turned over to SAC Forrest Sorrels Friday night so its contents could be analyzed, lied about, reversed, in real time. What can one say of such a resolute and unflinching pursuit of the truth? One cannot begin to understand the Kennedy assassination and cover-up except as an operation of a national security state, transparent for all who are willing to face it, opaque to all others."



Jim Hoffman's site is such a treasure trove. I can't help but be in awe at the sheer volume of information presented there. I'll stop before I get ecstatic, but it's probably safe to say it's in the top 3 of research websites we have.

Nice little sarcastic jab in the title too, btw. "Besmirching History"

I was skimming

DiEugenio's review, when I read this (from part one):

Three "master marksmen" took two tries at duplicating what Oswald was supposed to have done. Now what does this qualification of "master marksman" mean exactly? As Meagher explains it, they were rated at the very top of the scale, not by the Marines, but by the NRA. In other words they were even better than the top shooters in the armed services by a level of two or more classes. In fact, they were so proficient they qualified for open competition and even the Olympic Games! Now compare this to Oswald who was one point above the minimum class possible when he left the Marines in 1959. Fair comparison right? Further, while these men practiced all the time, there is no known credible witness who saw Oswald target practice with the rifle in question. So right off the bat, one would have to wonder why the Commission had the military pick these guys and not a shooter more comparable to Oswald. The results as displayed by Meagher show why. Of the three men only one of them bettered Oswald's time. But here's the catch: they cheated. Oswald was firing from 60 feet up at a moving target. The three experts were firing from thirty feet up at still targets. As Meagher notes, wouldn't it have been quite simple to just rope off Dealey Plaza, put these guys in the sixth floor window, place a convertible in the street below, and try a true experiment? If this was not done, why was it not done? Neither in the text at this point, nor in the corresponding End Note section does Bugliosi tell you about the different settings or pose the question as to why they were not the same. But several sentences later, after giving the reader this incomplete information, he pillories the critics as being "so outrageously brazen that they tell lies ... about verifiable, documentary evidence ... " (p. xxviii) A few pages later, in discussing how the critics have sliced and diced Gerald Posner's book, he comments they are "going to have a much, much, much more difficult time with me." (p. xxxviii)

But even these "successful" (however forced that label may seem) experiments are contradicted:

In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.

The findings will fuel continuing theories that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy to murder the 35th American president on 22 November 1963.

The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.

But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.

It seems the attempts by the other side to deny the government conspiracy to murder JFK are well funded, and are increasingly absurd, with inflated rhetoric to match.

"much, much, much more

"much, much, much more difficult time with me." (p. xxxviii)


Thanks for the link to DiEugenio's review.

alex jones and JFK

Many months ago I heard alex jones say on his radio show that he was working on a JFK film. Recently, however, I have not heard him mention it again. Is it because he dropped the idea? Then someone recently posted on 911blogger about the "JFK II" film (the bush connection) and said that was an alex jones film, but I don't think that was alex jones. If you listen to the narrative it is another persons voice. Any one have any additional info on this? Seems to me that at the time jones was making a bit deal about the project and hyping it. Lately he has only been talking about another obama film and a chemtrail film.

JFK II was made by John

JFK II was made by John Hankey. There is a new revised edition.

Jones has a few clips online from his doc, but I haven't heard anything more about it.

Alejandro Jones.

Alex Jones was supposed to do a movie on JFK called "Black Sunshine" but that got put on hold for this Obama Deception film and something else. I have copies of the History Channel documentary called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" It was fascinating and something I hadn't seen before. Scott McClellan's dad is in it. See more about it here...

It must have hit too close to home because it was pulled out of circulation after one or so viewings. Great Stuff.

When the time comes we could

When the time comes we could make another episode or two to counter the Bugliosi stuff head-on, but our presentation should get the ball rolling. Offensive, not defensive!

I gave at the office...

Of "9/11: Press For Truth." :)

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Thanks John, Not a day goes

Thanks John,

Not a day goes by that I don't see a comment by you on Cindy Sheehan's facebook updates!


Is one of a kind, and someone whom I admire and respect immensely.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Evidence of Revision (5 part video, 8 hours) is astonishing

but COPA's JFK should far surpass even that.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Here is part 1 for those who have not seen it. The other FOUR parts are easy to find online.

Yeah, Tom Tvedten hooked me up

with that a couple of years ago. I'd never heard of it before. It's where I first saw the Mauser rifle being reported and the early scene of a reporter conditioning the audience with a spiel about a former president being assassinated while waiting for Kennedy to enter the room . That was chilling. Know what I'm talking about.? I love all the original raw footage/

Evidence of Revision is a solid documentary, for sure.

Side note: If Obama had any real intention to reform FOIA and promote openness and disclosure, he would release the complete JFK Files now!
There is NO legitimate reason for withholding them until 2017!


EOR is awesome.

There's an amazing clip of Walter Cronkite -- on the day of the assassination -- condemning certain high ranking Russian officials for suggesting the obvious -- that the hit was an act of state. He calls it "communist propaganda" or something to that effect.

There's also a disturbing entry in the series on Jonestown, suggesting (like John Judge and others) that it was some sort of bizarre post-MKULTRA experiment by the US government. It's not a new theory but there's a lot of interesting footage.


No surprise to me that Hanks would be behind this film, giving his involvement in Charlie Wilson's War, that whitewashed the US involvement in Afghanistan and helped supported a more romanticized view of US foreign policy.

Classic disinfo