Definitely very interesting indeed. I see how it could potentially be a random/minimal association, but Ferrie's denial of ever knowing Oswald ups the intrigue.
Thank you for this list. I grew up watching “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” because it was played on the History Channel so often. I now know it’s conclusions are poor. However, I will give it credit for opening curiosity to much better sources.
To be honest, I was very conflicted on where to put TMWKK in my list, and second-guessed it more than anything else in the story. Like you, I watched it when it first came out. Then I watched it again in preparation for this piece.
It has a lot of good material, and it deserves credit for taking on such a sprawling project. In the end, I thought it was not discerning enough. That was my thinking.
I myself tend to look on anything coming from the "Hitler Channel" as sensationalized and often exaggerated. But you are indeed correct that at least it was a start as far as JFK research goes.
Nov 22, 2023·edited Nov 22, 2023Liked by Steve Byrne
Generally a good list to choose from.
However, I take an exception with the PBS Frontline documentary "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".
When I first saw it thirty years ago, the facts that were revealed were quite intriguing, especially hearing Oswald's diary entries being read by actor Gary Oldman ( Who played Oswald in JFK), as well as the then new information from former Soviet archives. However, it all fell apart at the end when the producers trotted out none other than Gerald Posner to explain everything away. No one with an alternative view was shown. In other words when something that could have provided another perspective to the story came close to the surface, the producers ran like frightened rabbits behind the protective wall of the Warren Commission.
I made a point of stating the above criticism to PBS in a comment I mailed them, (email wasn't around back then.), and in return got the usual canned reply postcard.
No doubt the producers felt they had to put that in otherwise the doc would have never had been aired at all.
My final opinion- Well made, with many new revelations and facts, but avoid the last 15 minutes.
Thank you for sharing your first hand experience. I am not surprised by what you wrote.
Back in the day I used to love Frontline, that is, until they did a program on a topic about which I am exceptionally well-informed: affordable housing. Frontline produced a manipulative film to support a preordained point of view. They did not use information on-the-ground-experts attempted to provide. My husband (who is a leading national practitioner) and I were appalled. Much later, I read somewhere that key Investigative documentary outfits are “owned” — at least those based in Washington D.C.
1.) KRON's: JFK An Unsolved Murder 1988, a 1988 documentary done by then local news reporter Sylvia Chase who looks into the Lifton evidence and interviews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0IRPmRFhlA
2.) "JFK UNSOLVED: The Real Conspiracies" an ABC7 Originals documentary based on Thompson's book, "Last Second in Dallas."
I'm not gonna get into David Lifton's THEORIEs, but David Lifton's INTERVIEWS have always been, for the most part factual, and, unexplained. Sylvia Chase does the world a service by having a professional journalist interview most of the Bethesda autopsy technicians and put their testimony on record.
JFK unsolved revisits and further litigates the Dictabelt debate and evidence and introduces very persuasive blood spatter evidence that I had never heard before.
Both are important because they represent honest, solid local journalists doing their job to establish facts of the case.
If my writing implied that Morris, Thompson (or the film) was arguing that the Umbrella Man didn't exist, I definitely didn't mean it to.
The documentary fully acknowledges that the Umbrella Man was there, and even shows him. It just is raising doubt on the idea that he was there as part of the plot -- that there was an innocent explanation for the open umbrella.
The volume of explosive revelations over the years has affected my ability to accept such explanations of innocence even from someone as respected as Errol Morris. I just find it difficult to accept the umbrella man was located right next to the limousine as JFK was brutally executed on a day when an umbrella was unneeded. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I put some stock in umbrella man being some sort of signaler - whether a symbol of the military umbrella coverage JFK failed to provide during the Bay of Pigs (to his credit) or a symbol to the assassins that “he isn’t dead yet.”
I dont believe the Story brought forth about Umbrella Man. We all need to concentrate more on all we've come to know about the truth of what happened 60 years ago. As the years have passed by since November 22, 1963 especially early on I never thought we would have answers to the Kennedy Mystery. But we do. A Coup happened in Dallas in 1963.
Just day or so ago I watched that New York Times little film on You Tube. I could not help but think that the intended message of the film — esp with its tie to the ever-condescending NYT — was broader than the Umbella Man:
“See how silly people are … making up a conspiracy about completely innocent goings on. Therefore, ANY dissenting explanation about what took place that day is just as silly.”
The Frontline photo of Lee Oswald with David Ferrie is a case breaker like the Morley/Newman interview with Jane Roman
Definitely very interesting indeed. I see how it could potentially be a random/minimal association, but Ferrie's denial of ever knowing Oswald ups the intrigue.
Thank you for this list. I grew up watching “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” because it was played on the History Channel so often. I now know it’s conclusions are poor. However, I will give it credit for opening curiosity to much better sources.
To be honest, I was very conflicted on where to put TMWKK in my list, and second-guessed it more than anything else in the story. Like you, I watched it when it first came out. Then I watched it again in preparation for this piece.
It has a lot of good material, and it deserves credit for taking on such a sprawling project. In the end, I thought it was not discerning enough. That was my thinking.
Thanks for the comment!
I myself tend to look on anything coming from the "Hitler Channel" as sensationalized and often exaggerated. But you are indeed correct that at least it was a start as far as JFK research goes.
Generally a good list to choose from.
However, I take an exception with the PBS Frontline documentary "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".
When I first saw it thirty years ago, the facts that were revealed were quite intriguing, especially hearing Oswald's diary entries being read by actor Gary Oldman ( Who played Oswald in JFK), as well as the then new information from former Soviet archives. However, it all fell apart at the end when the producers trotted out none other than Gerald Posner to explain everything away. No one with an alternative view was shown. In other words when something that could have provided another perspective to the story came close to the surface, the producers ran like frightened rabbits behind the protective wall of the Warren Commission.
I made a point of stating the above criticism to PBS in a comment I mailed them, (email wasn't around back then.), and in return got the usual canned reply postcard.
No doubt the producers felt they had to put that in otherwise the doc would have never had been aired at all.
My final opinion- Well made, with many new revelations and facts, but avoid the last 15 minutes.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, John. Appreciate it.
I agree that the tail end of the film seems to lean more heavily into the LHO-did-it narrative.
Thank you for sharing your first hand experience. I am not surprised by what you wrote.
Back in the day I used to love Frontline, that is, until they did a program on a topic about which I am exceptionally well-informed: affordable housing. Frontline produced a manipulative film to support a preordained point of view. They did not use information on-the-ground-experts attempted to provide. My husband (who is a leading national practitioner) and I were appalled. Much later, I read somewhere that key Investigative documentary outfits are “owned” — at least those based in Washington D.C.
Two local documentaries to consider:
1.) KRON's: JFK An Unsolved Murder 1988, a 1988 documentary done by then local news reporter Sylvia Chase who looks into the Lifton evidence and interviews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0IRPmRFhlA
2.) "JFK UNSOLVED: The Real Conspiracies" an ABC7 Originals documentary based on Thompson's book, "Last Second in Dallas."
I'm not gonna get into David Lifton's THEORIEs, but David Lifton's INTERVIEWS have always been, for the most part factual, and, unexplained. Sylvia Chase does the world a service by having a professional journalist interview most of the Bethesda autopsy technicians and put their testimony on record.
JFK unsolved revisits and further litigates the Dictabelt debate and evidence and introduces very persuasive blood spatter evidence that I had never heard before.
Both are important because they represent honest, solid local journalists doing their job to establish facts of the case.
No one can dispute the fact that Umbrella Man appears in the Zapruder Film. It is a fact.
If my writing implied that Morris, Thompson (or the film) was arguing that the Umbrella Man didn't exist, I definitely didn't mean it to.
The documentary fully acknowledges that the Umbrella Man was there, and even shows him. It just is raising doubt on the idea that he was there as part of the plot -- that there was an innocent explanation for the open umbrella.
The volume of explosive revelations over the years has affected my ability to accept such explanations of innocence even from someone as respected as Errol Morris. I just find it difficult to accept the umbrella man was located right next to the limousine as JFK was brutally executed on a day when an umbrella was unneeded. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I put some stock in umbrella man being some sort of signaler - whether a symbol of the military umbrella coverage JFK failed to provide during the Bay of Pigs (to his credit) or a symbol to the assassins that “he isn’t dead yet.”
Agreed. Even those accepting that this was an (essentially) innocent coincidence would have to acknowledge that it's an amazing coincidence indeed.
I dont believe the Story brought forth about Umbrella Man. We all need to concentrate more on all we've come to know about the truth of what happened 60 years ago. As the years have passed by since November 22, 1963 especially early on I never thought we would have answers to the Kennedy Mystery. But we do. A Coup happened in Dallas in 1963.
Fair enough. I won't claim deep-diving expertise on the Umbrella Man story.
Just day or so ago I watched that New York Times little film on You Tube. I could not help but think that the intended message of the film — esp with its tie to the ever-condescending NYT — was broader than the Umbella Man:
“See how silly people are … making up a conspiracy about completely innocent goings on. Therefore, ANY dissenting explanation about what took place that day is just as silly.”
I definitely share you cynicism about the NYT's (non)coverage of the case over the years.
And your thinking on *why* this film was picked for the prestigious Op-Docs series may have some merits.
But I think that the resumes of Errol Morris and Josiah Thompson carry some weight, too.