Who Killed Kennedy? Thomas Buchanan

[Albert Doyle]

This kind of speculation spreads false information, because people tend to forget that what they're reading is indeed totally speculative. The facts are very different:

Nobody fed my father any conspiracy information to be leaked. His book was not written "too quickly" for the kind of mind he had. His theory is based on reasoning about the 'facts' presented in the media and in the interviews he conducted or meetings he had (such as the ones with Katzenbach and Willens). Some of the information in the media was contradictory, especially comparing early reports to later ones, so when analyzing it all, there was a choice to be made about which information to take as fact, which to take as a mistake that was later corrected, and which to suspect might have been deliberately changed or omitted. The analysis also involves making narrative sense out of the bits and pieces of the material one deems factual.

So if my father's theory seems to have "way too much right" to you, it's not an indication of him having insider knowledge, it's an indication that you come to the same conclusions as him when formulating your own theory about what happened. You may be trusting the same information he did, separating the wheat from the chaff in the same way he did, understanding certain socio-political dynamics in the same way, etc. Those who don't share those ways of looking at the same available information can come to totally different conclusions.

In setting the record straight on another forum, a few years ago, I gave a more detailed explanation about the timeline of the writing of Who Killed Kennedy? and what contact my father had with which government officials. You can read the blog post version of that forum response here:
[URL="http://thomasgbuchanan.com/setting-the-record-straight/"]http://thomasgbuchanan.com/setting-the-record-straight/
[/URL]
I hope this helps clarify things you might have been wondering about.
:-)
Marian Buchanan

Sorry if it appeared that way but my wording clearly states a speculative intent. If it has no merit by all means part of the intention of that speculation is to spur discussion that further elucidates the issue.

However seeing your response I'm not sure it necessarily excludes insider sources one way or the other. I'm sure many official-type insiders might not want to be associated with a known communist sympathizer so if there were I'm not sure how you would trace that? I don't pretend to be an expert on this particular subject nor have I read the book. I've just read internet discussion of it and reviews. The only reason I speculated Bobby leaking is because he did so with the Russians via Walton so therefore Buchanan would not be too far a step from there. In any case, not being able to give this the research it would require, I can't speak at all on the sources for this book and I'm not questioning your opinion. However I think it is important to observe the fact that no man is an island and at some point in the chain your father had to have gotten information that, if it wasn't leaked directly to him, was so to others whom he somehow learned of. The contents of Who Killed Kennedy? are close to Trumbo's Executive Action.

I wish I could offer more but I am involved in serious other research. If there was no leaked source for you father's book then so be it and let the record be set straight. PS- No matter what their background, those who criticized the official story were heroes. I didn't mean to infer your father must have gotten help because he wasn't capable of seeing the obvious flaws in the ongoing information at the time. They were rampant and served as a source for one of the most questioned events in history. Seeing his background, his motives and capabilities were probably ideal and explain his being one of the earliest printed sources.


This is a background that would be a prime outlet for any possible Deep Throats (I'm not saying there was):



http://thomasgbuchanan.com/biography/