Isikoff is so arrogant and dismissive of the research community and their findings (which he apparently knows next to nothing about) that listening to him is a painful waste of time. He obviously hasn't spent the time studying the matter. Like all Lone-Nut-Killed-by-Another-Lone-Nut theorists, he merely accepts the Warren report at face value and dismisses all evidence to the contrary. I'm embarrassed for him.
A reviewer on Amazon says this about Shenon: "Asking Phil Shenon to tell you about the JFK assassination is like asking David Duke to give you the real low down on what happened in the Holocaust."
Michael Isikoff is a character I have encountered many times in 45 years of trial practice. He is loud, interrupting and cocksure. He is like many prosecutors and high paid insurance attorneys I have faced. He not only denies your assertions, ignoring the strong evidenciary basis underlying them; he huffs and puffs and snarls and just denies and defers. His entire case is based on snark. In many courtrooms, especially in MAGA country, his Limbaugh act is enough to win the verdict.
I am proud Jeff stood up to him and politely exposed the facts. Remember them? They are supposed to determine the outcome in our justice system.
This was a riveting interview. Among MSM podcasts (and I do qualify 'Yahoo! News' as MSM), the JFK assassination has seldom been covered in such depth. Michael Isikoff was a bit too loud and dismissive, but not to the extent of blocking Jefferson Morley from getting his points across. Here Morley expresses respect for both Isikoff and Philip Shenon, and since he knows them personally, one tends to defer to him on their character. It did not sound to me as if Isikoff was as well-read or knowledgeable as the two authors he was interviewing, but that was only my impression.
At the risk of sounding like a cliched mystic, I believe in “vibes.” At the tender age of 58, I think I’ve developed a sense for the aura that people give off in person. I had the pleasure of meeting not only Jeff Morley but also Rex Bradford, president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF), at a press conference in December 2022. An attorney for MFF, Lawrence Schnapf, was also there, but I had met him the previous month at a conference in Dallas. All three of these gentlemen gave off “good vibes,” and in combination with what I have read and heard from them, I would trust each for an honest, informed opinion on the JFK assassination.
I can’t speculate on what I would feel in person from Isikoff or Shenon if I met them, but I will say that Warren Report defenders usually give off "bad vibes." From those who uphold the official version, it is more common than not to encounter a highly orthodox flippancy, as if “Big Brother” is standing behind them, daring the critic to engage further. They even sometimes go so far as to refer to the “Single Bullet Fact,” as if doubling down on an “in your face” stance when even the Warren Report only calls it a "theory." Only Warren Report critics are ever branded “kooks.” Defenders never are. Under those circumstances, is it not natural to feel slightly paranoid about the online Warrenite community?
That being said, this interview did not convey the sense that Jeff Morley was doing combat with woodenheaded Warrenite hacks or Establishment spooks. It’s a valuable discussion and has motivated me to finally read “A Cruel and Shocking Act.” I’ll never be of the opinion that LBJ genuinely believed his own “foreign-born Communist conspiracy to overthrow the government” justification for the way he formed the Commission and the way the investigation was pursued, nor am I encouraged by an index that includes no entries for Bill Harvey or Santo Trafficante in any “inside” story of the assassination written after 1976. But I’ll read the thing. What the heck.
When Isikoff lists the things "We know," there isn't a single thing that amounts to actual knowledge. The evidence actually tells a different story on every item he names. Sheesh.
After listening to the interview, a few things stand out.
The show's host Mr. Michael Isikoff, asks leading questions, ignores contradictory evidence, dismisses serious criticism, jumps to conclusions, and generally comes across as condescending and arrogant.
Whenever Jeff made a point that effectively contradicted the official story Mr. Isikoff jumps in and attempts to shut down the conversation.
While Phillip Shenon supported the official story, he was far more professional and courteous.
And there were some issues that both he and Jeff agreed on. He also appeared open to the possibility of alternative views, in contrast to Mr. Isikoff's brash dismissiveness.
Mr. Isikoff and Phillip Shenon consistently refused to entertain the possibility of collusion within Government agencies in covering up the case. There's a consistent presumption of benevolence for the motives behind the coverup.
Studying his biography, one finds that Mr. Isikoff has a long history of ties to Establishment institutions.
It should also be noted that Mr. Isikoff collaborated with David Corn, another prominent Left Establishment journalist who vehemently defends the Warren Commission.
Mr. Hoffman may have possessed an enhanced ability to utilize sight as a result of hearing loss, but I think he was one freeway overpass too far away to reliably interpret what he believed he was seeing. More detailed images of Badgeman can be seen in most Rorschach tests but Moorman does capture the image of a person exactly where S.M. Holland indicated a shot was fired. Acoustic tests indicated a shot was fired from this precise location although critics of Donald Thomas say these shots occurred 30 seconds after the original gunfire.
Thank you. I believe many have read a good deal about this character. This was many years ago, before dedicated researchers explored umbrella flechettes, 6.5 mm sabots, Greer's hidden handgun, and Beverly Oliver. There are not as many coincidences in life as there are nay sayers, and I believe a shot was fired from other than the TSBD. What happened is what happened, and nothing more. Much of what happened has been unearthed but not accepted by the thought controllers. Meanwhile, Brading-Braden should be explained with fact.
The Brading name has been around for more than 50 years. This is not to say he may not have had some roll in the assassination but certainly most readers are familiar with the name.
Were there a shooter behind the picket fence, he left no identifying traces. He was competent. If Oswald was shooting from the TSBD, he left a trail suggesting he was guilty and may have had Cuban affiliations. If Oswald was a shooter, he did not escape detection. If someone desired to instigate military reprisals against Cuba, they were incompetent. If someone other than Oswald fired from the TSBD, they succeeded in framing Oswald and killing Kennedy, but why frame Oswald?
"They know what they’re talking about."
No, they don't.
Isikoff is so arrogant and dismissive of the research community and their findings (which he apparently knows next to nothing about) that listening to him is a painful waste of time. He obviously hasn't spent the time studying the matter. Like all Lone-Nut-Killed-by-Another-Lone-Nut theorists, he merely accepts the Warren report at face value and dismisses all evidence to the contrary. I'm embarrassed for him.
A reviewer on Amazon says this about Shenon: "Asking Phil Shenon to tell you about the JFK assassination is like asking David Duke to give you the real low down on what happened in the Holocaust."
Michael Isikoff is a character I have encountered many times in 45 years of trial practice. He is loud, interrupting and cocksure. He is like many prosecutors and high paid insurance attorneys I have faced. He not only denies your assertions, ignoring the strong evidenciary basis underlying them; he huffs and puffs and snarls and just denies and defers. His entire case is based on snark. In many courtrooms, especially in MAGA country, his Limbaugh act is enough to win the verdict.
I am proud Jeff stood up to him and politely exposed the facts. Remember them? They are supposed to determine the outcome in our justice system.
This was a riveting interview. Among MSM podcasts (and I do qualify 'Yahoo! News' as MSM), the JFK assassination has seldom been covered in such depth. Michael Isikoff was a bit too loud and dismissive, but not to the extent of blocking Jefferson Morley from getting his points across. Here Morley expresses respect for both Isikoff and Philip Shenon, and since he knows them personally, one tends to defer to him on their character. It did not sound to me as if Isikoff was as well-read or knowledgeable as the two authors he was interviewing, but that was only my impression.
At the risk of sounding like a cliched mystic, I believe in “vibes.” At the tender age of 58, I think I’ve developed a sense for the aura that people give off in person. I had the pleasure of meeting not only Jeff Morley but also Rex Bradford, president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF), at a press conference in December 2022. An attorney for MFF, Lawrence Schnapf, was also there, but I had met him the previous month at a conference in Dallas. All three of these gentlemen gave off “good vibes,” and in combination with what I have read and heard from them, I would trust each for an honest, informed opinion on the JFK assassination.
I can’t speculate on what I would feel in person from Isikoff or Shenon if I met them, but I will say that Warren Report defenders usually give off "bad vibes." From those who uphold the official version, it is more common than not to encounter a highly orthodox flippancy, as if “Big Brother” is standing behind them, daring the critic to engage further. They even sometimes go so far as to refer to the “Single Bullet Fact,” as if doubling down on an “in your face” stance when even the Warren Report only calls it a "theory." Only Warren Report critics are ever branded “kooks.” Defenders never are. Under those circumstances, is it not natural to feel slightly paranoid about the online Warrenite community?
That being said, this interview did not convey the sense that Jeff Morley was doing combat with woodenheaded Warrenite hacks or Establishment spooks. It’s a valuable discussion and has motivated me to finally read “A Cruel and Shocking Act.” I’ll never be of the opinion that LBJ genuinely believed his own “foreign-born Communist conspiracy to overthrow the government” justification for the way he formed the Commission and the way the investigation was pursued, nor am I encouraged by an index that includes no entries for Bill Harvey or Santo Trafficante in any “inside” story of the assassination written after 1976. But I’ll read the thing. What the heck.
I'm listening. Isikoff comes off very badly.
When Isikoff lists the things "We know," there isn't a single thing that amounts to actual knowledge. The evidence actually tells a different story on every item he names. Sheesh.
After listening to the interview, a few things stand out.
The show's host Mr. Michael Isikoff, asks leading questions, ignores contradictory evidence, dismisses serious criticism, jumps to conclusions, and generally comes across as condescending and arrogant.
Whenever Jeff made a point that effectively contradicted the official story Mr. Isikoff jumps in and attempts to shut down the conversation.
While Phillip Shenon supported the official story, he was far more professional and courteous.
And there were some issues that both he and Jeff agreed on. He also appeared open to the possibility of alternative views, in contrast to Mr. Isikoff's brash dismissiveness.
Mr. Isikoff and Phillip Shenon consistently refused to entertain the possibility of collusion within Government agencies in covering up the case. There's a consistent presumption of benevolence for the motives behind the coverup.
Studying his biography, one finds that Mr. Isikoff has a long history of ties to Establishment institutions.
It should also be noted that Mr. Isikoff collaborated with David Corn, another prominent Left Establishment journalist who vehemently defends the Warren Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Isikoff
All in all, Jeff stood up very well in defending the case for a plot, that in spite Mr. Isikoff's infuriating arrogance.
Along with listening to the interview, this from kennedysandking may be extremely useful:
www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/shenon-and-the-cia-s-benign-cover-up
Whatever Shenon's intentions are or were (they may have changed since this was written) it's
an interesting appraisal of arguably crucial omissions in his account.
Mr. Hoffman may have possessed an enhanced ability to utilize sight as a result of hearing loss, but I think he was one freeway overpass too far away to reliably interpret what he believed he was seeing. More detailed images of Badgeman can be seen in most Rorschach tests but Moorman does capture the image of a person exactly where S.M. Holland indicated a shot was fired. Acoustic tests indicated a shot was fired from this precise location although critics of Donald Thomas say these shots occurred 30 seconds after the original gunfire.
Thank you. I believe many have read a good deal about this character. This was many years ago, before dedicated researchers explored umbrella flechettes, 6.5 mm sabots, Greer's hidden handgun, and Beverly Oliver. There are not as many coincidences in life as there are nay sayers, and I believe a shot was fired from other than the TSBD. What happened is what happened, and nothing more. Much of what happened has been unearthed but not accepted by the thought controllers. Meanwhile, Brading-Braden should be explained with fact.
New interview with Jim DiEugenio that covers Oswald in Mexico controversy.
https://youtu.be/YljSMb-gKBY
The Brading name has been around for more than 50 years. This is not to say he may not have had some roll in the assassination but certainly most readers are familiar with the name.
Were there a shooter behind the picket fence, he left no identifying traces. He was competent. If Oswald was shooting from the TSBD, he left a trail suggesting he was guilty and may have had Cuban affiliations. If Oswald was a shooter, he did not escape detection. If someone desired to instigate military reprisals against Cuba, they were incompetent. If someone other than Oswald fired from the TSBD, they succeeded in framing Oswald and killing Kennedy, but why frame Oswald?