Who Killed Kennedy? Thomas Buchanan

[Peter Lemkin]

Marian, Thanks for joining the Forum and for setting the record straight on your father and his laudable clear and perceptive thinking and writing on what actually happened in Dallas at so early a point in time after the events. He obviously had the type of mind that could sift through the information and disinformation at hand and clearly see the likely scenario, despite it being totally at odds with the 'official version'. Kudos to him for that!

As for the timeline of events, as you put on your own webpage: [ http://thomasgbuchanan.com/setting-the-record-straight/ ]

I also have the book my father wrote about his FBI files, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, published in 1984 and titled Big BrotherMa vie revue et corrigée par le F.B.I. (Big BrotherMy life reviewed and revised by the F.B.I.). The latter describes the sequence of events to be as follows:

• My father first started writing about the assassination about a month after the event, on his own, as a freelancer, without being commissioned to do so. He wanted to put down in written form an analysis of all the inconsistencies being reported by the media at the time.
  
• He showed his report to friends who were able to bring it to the attention of the editors atl'Express.
  
• L'Express published extracts of what he had so far, as a series of 6 articles.
  
• L'Express then assigned my father to go to Dallas to cover the Ruby trial in real time.
  
• The editor at l'Express also arranged for my father to have an interview with Edward Kennedy during that visit to the States.
  
• Edward Kennedy arranged for him to meet instead with Katzenbach.
  
• Katzenbach spoke with him for around an hour and then, in my father's presence, called Howard Willens (liaison to the Warren Commission) to request that the latter speak with my father as well.
  
• Willens had a similarly long discussion with my father and then invited him to submit his report to the Warren Commission.
  

It is interesting and sad that the FBI (and other anti-communists) watched and harassed your father - as they did many others. It is fortunate that he convinced L'express to run the articles. His book really started the ever-growing list of books questioning the 'official version' and proposing instead what really happened - or approximating it as best as was possible without the details we know now. My hat is off to your father for his clear thinking, detective work and having shared that with the World Public.
Do I understand that your father and family moved to France after he was blacklisted in the USA? Did he move back to the USA at the end of his life or remain in France?
Again, thanks for your input on your father. I for one hope his seminal book can be reprinted with a new introduction explaining some of what you mention. In e-book format might be good too. I have a copy of his book, and it was one of the first books on the case I read long ago. It still holds up very well after all this time.

[Albert Doyle]

The Kennedy assassination is such an intrigue-laced event that any potential dye test of similarities in patterns is worth pursuing, even if wrong. I understand your being upset over someone speculating about a family member in a way that might present a false image to history. If I did so I apologize, however you should have a little patience since there are reasons to at least ponder such speculation that has paid off in other areas of the assassination. You should be a little more tolerant because the similarities between Trumbo, Walton, and Buchanan are close enough to merit speculation. Saying "So what?" is a little rash considering some such teleconnections have occurred before that have led to a greater understanding of the assassination. So it is not as reckless as you might feel, considering.

You have to understand being in France and having the background your father did made him an ideal source one way or the other. Isn't the fact he came out with one of the more direct and accurate books earliest prove that in itself? I'm not sure what we're arguing here. Leak or not your father was in an ideal placement to do this without any domestic US interference or the normal insider pressures some others experienced.

Walton met Bolshakov, also a known communist. This is in line with persons with known communist affiliation RFK was documented as reaching out to.

No, healthy speculation is the basis of all sound investigation. If I were investigating your father I might for instance speculate that he kept his communist sympathies and was working covertly for KGB in relating real time psychological warfare propaganda that contained a lot of correct information gathered by the Soviets. And I wouldn't apologize for it because it would be what any competent investigator would do if faced by these facts. It might have no merit whatsoever, but to object to the idea of this kind of speculation runs against all known forms of analysis of evidence. The police do it every day.

I find it hard to believe that RFK had hard incriminating evidence without acting on it or, if it was insufficient in and of itself, at least keeping a record of it somewhere, if only for it to be pursued or revealed later in history.

Case in point. I suggest you read more about this. You can find it on this website. RFK was murdered by CIA exactly because of the information he had gathered concerning the conspiracy behind his brother's death and his intention of bringing those who were guilty to justice. You are forgetting RFK sent a clear message to Bolshakov and Khrushchev that right wingers were responsible for his brother's death. If there was no dye pack connection to your father basically saying the same thing then I'm wrong. But it is no crime to speculate, seeing the circumstances. Oh, and RFK jr came out on the Charlie Rose show and said his father questioned the Warren Report.

I'm sorry but from what has already been revealed about the assassination and its cover up it would be very hard to describe it as an "unthrilling" event.


PS - I'm not sure you know that the Who Killed? precedent to a title has been used by authors like Fenton Bresler and his book Who Killed John Lennon? as an indicator of a book that exposes a government murder conspiracy. A tribute to your father most people probably don't realize.



.

[Marian Buchanan]

Do I understand that your father and family moved to France after he was blacklisted in the USA? Did he move back to the USA at the end of his life or remain in France?

That information is available on the Biography page of the website I've set up about him. http://thomasgbuchanan.com/biography/
Here are the relevant parts:

Buchanan's last employment in the United States was as a computer engineer (programmer). In those days, computers were not portable, they filled entire rooms. When the company was about to get a new model of computer, training for it required that he visit another facility that had the same model while they waited for theirs. Because the facility conducted work for the Pentagon, there would be a security clearance check routine for anyone not involved in what was considered to be "subversive" affiliations, but it would spell the end of yet another job for a communist, even though he had by that time left the Communist Party.

Buchanan moved to France in 1961 and worked as a computer programmer for a number of companies over the years

...

Tom Buchanan married his first wife in 1941. She and their 5 children joined him in France in 1963. He met his second wife a few years later and they remained together until his death. He died in Paris in 1988, of multiple myeloma.

In other words: he didn't move to France immediately after losing his reporter job in 1948 and getting blacklisted. Instead, he worked at a string of other jobs for another 13 years. By 1961 he had contacts in France through the publishing of his novel The Unicorn (published there in 1959 and in the US in 1960), so when this security check situation arose at his programming job, France was the obvious place to move to as an alternative to trying to find a new job in the US while the FBI was still making that difficult. I and the rest of our family didn't join him in France until 2 years later, and my parents separated 2 years after that but we all remained in France at that time. My father visited the States several times after moving to France, but never lived there again. He brought his elderly mother over to France to live with him and his second wife for the last few years of his mother's life.

Again, thanks for your input on your father. I for one hope his seminal book can be reprinted with a new introduction explaining some of what you mention. In e-book format might be good too.

Yes, I'm hoping to eventually publish certain of his works -- some for the first time and others re-printed in updated versions with commentary or editing. E-books are one of the formats I expect to use. I have to wait until I receive copies of the manuscripts from my stepmother through my siblings, who are still in France, where those documents are as well. I, on the other hand, moved back to North America in my twenties and now live in Canada.

[Marian Buchanan]

I understand your being upset over someone speculating about a family member in a way that might present a false image to history.

"Upset" is not how I would describe my feelings. I don't think you've depicted my father in a negative light, so my attempts at setting the record straight are more about getting the facts right rather than his image.

However, I acknowledge that my irritability at your way of reasoning did show a bit too much in the way I expressed my position, and for that I apologize. I usually try to be a bit more diplomatic in how I word things. You saying...

you should have a little patience

You should be a little more tolerant

Saying "So what?" is a little rash

So it is not as reckless as you might feel

...tells me that I've pushed some buttons, and I appreciate the effort you're making not to let it show more strongly than the reactions above.

When you say...

I'm not sure what we're arguing here.

… I would have to concur that you're not understanding what I'm objecting to.

When you say...

No, healthy speculation is the basis of all sound investigation.

… I am not objecting to the statement, I'm disagreeing with your notion of what constitutes "healthy" speculation. I don't consider it to be sound speculation to stray too far from verified facts. Where the line is, I can't tell you with any particular formula, but when I see the way you reason I don't recognize it as qualifying as the kind of speculation that I would consider "healthy" or sound.

So that just means that we may have to agree to disagree on what constitutes acceptable speculation.

But just to finish up with this particular instance of reasoning, when you say…

If I were investigating your father I might for instance speculate that he kept his communist sympathies and was working covertly for KGB in relating real time psychological warfare propaganda that contained a lot of correct information gathered by the Soviets. And I wouldn't apologize for it because it would be what any competent investigator would do if faced by these facts.

… I disagree with the notion that that's what a competent investigator would speculate. In fact, that, to me, would be an indication that, on the contrary, the investigator was not competent because they were letting themselves get too carried away with their biased imagination instead of first digging up as many verifiable facts as they could about all of the aspects they should consider. Instead of creating a narrative with no foundation in facts, they should start with questions that merely guide them in where to look for verifiable facts. So, for instance, if they were naive (perhaps I should even say indoctrinated) about the connection between American communists and the KGB, it might be legitimate for them to ask, "Since he was a member of the US Communist Party, is it possible this man was working for the KGB?" But since trustworthy evidence of that kind of thing might be difficult to dig up, it might not be a pursuable line of questioning. Either way, it would be unsound to go from just leaving it as a question to turning it into an elaborate, fact-free, speculative narrative.

As I say, this concept of what constitutes valid speculation may be simply one of the things about which you and I will always disagree.

When you say...

RFK was murdered by CIA exactly because of the information he had gathered concerning the conspiracy behind his brother's death and his intention of bringing those who were guilty to justice.

… you state all of this as fact, but you haven't given citation of any credible sources for me to form my own opinion about which claims you're making are more than just speculative theories.

You are forgetting RFK sent a clear message to Bolshakov and Khrushchev that right wingers were responsible for his brother's death.

I'm not "forgetting" that RFK sent the message in question, I'm just questioning whether it was anything more than a theory of his, based on suspicions rather than factual evidence. If there is some source material on this to prove what you're saying, I'd be glad for you to cite it for me. But I can't just take your word for it, given that you and I have different concepts of what qualifies as sound reasoning and sufficient evidence.

Oh, and RFK jr came out on the Charlie Rose show and said his father questioned the Warren Report.

To express this bluntly again, "So what?" (Don't take the expression for anything more than just a quick way to express my perception that your argument holds no water). What does it prove, beyond the fact (of which there's a record, isn't there?) that RFK wanted to re-open the investigation? Unless there was something more significantly evidential said that you haven't mentioned, it doesn't say anything about what kind of verifiable evidence (if any) RFK might have based that intention upon. He could just as easily have wanted to reboot the investigation to see if any evidence could be found.

Again, you may still disagree with me that there are some serious problems with stating things as fact when they're only speculations, and speculating in ways that float too far away from any factual foundation. But that fundamental disagreement is just how it will have to be between us.

I'm sorry but from what has already been revealed about the assassination and its cover up it would be very hard to describe it as an "unthrilling" event.

Well, then, good thing that's not how I described it! ;-) The " thrilling explanation" I was referring to was the insider-leak explanation you gave about how my father had managed to come up with his theory. The reality I was saying was a lot less glamorous was that my father just used his own analytical mind and politically-informed perspective to make sense of ordinary, publicly available media reports and their contradictions. I wasn't referring to how much of a "thriller" quality there was to the assassination itself.

So… can we agree to disagree and just leave it at that?
:-)
Marian

[Albert Doyle]

I can't see my comments in the quoted reply setting. (Why is that?)



Trust me. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated because he knew his brother was killed by conspiracy and was going to do something about it. His message to Bolshakov that American oligarchs and right-wingers were involved was the tip of the iceberg.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

I understand your being upset over someone speculating about a family member in a way that might present a false image to history.

"Upset" is not how I would describe my feelings. I don't think you've depicted my father in a negative light, so my attempts at setting the record straight are more about getting the facts right rather than his image.

However, I acknowledge that my irritability at your way of reasoning did show a bit too much in the way I expressed my position, and for that I apologize. I usually try to be a bit more diplomatic in how I word things. You saying...

you should have a little patience

You should be a little more tolerant

...tells me that I've pushed some buttons, and I appreciate the effort you're making not to let it show more strongly than the reactions above.

When you say...



… I would have to concur that you're not understanding what I'm objecting to.

When you say...



… I am not objecting to the statement, I'm disagreeing with your notion of what constitutes "healthy" speculation. I don't consider it to be sound speculation to stray too far from verified facts. Where the line is, I can't tell you with any particular formula, but when I see the way you reason I don't recognize it as qualifying as the kind of speculation that I would consider "healthy" or sound.

So that just means that we may have to agree to disagree on what constitutes acceptable speculation.

But just to finish up with this particular instance of reasoning, when you say…



… I disagree with the notion that that's what a competent investigator would speculate. In fact, that, to me, would be an indication that, on the contrary, the investigator was not competent because they were letting themselves get too carried away with their biased imagination instead of first digging up as many verifiable facts as they could about all of the aspects they should consider. Instead of creating a narrative with no foundation in facts, they should start with questions that merely guide them in where to look for verifiable facts. So, for instance, if they were naive (perhaps I should even say indoctrinated) about the connection between American communists and the KGB, it might be legitimate for them to ask, "Since he was a member of the US Communist Party, is it possible this man was working for the KGB?" But since trustworthy evidence of that kind of thing might be difficult to dig up, it might not be a pursuable line of questioning. Either way, it would be unsound to go from just leaving it as a question to turning it into an elaborate, fact-free, speculative narrative.

As I say, this concept of what constitutes valid speculation may be simply one of the things about which you and I will always disagree.

When you say...



… you state all of this as fact, but you haven't given citation of any credible sources for me to form my own opinion about which claims you're making are more than just speculative theories.

You are forgetting RFK sent a clear message to Bolshakov and Khrushchev that right wingers were responsible for his brother's death.

I'm not "forgetting" that RFK sent the message in question, I'm just questioning whether it was anything more than a theory of his, based on suspicions rather than factual evidence. If there is some source material on this to prove what you're saying, I'd be glad for you to cite it for me. But I can't just take your word for it, given that you and I have different concepts of what qualifies as sound reasoning and sufficient evidence.

Oh, and RFK jr came out on the Charlie Rose show and said his father questioned the Warren Report.

To express this bluntly again, "So what?" (Don't take the expression for anything more than just a quick way to express my perception that your argument holds no water). What does it prove, beyond the fact (of which there's a record, isn't there?) that RFK wanted to re-open the investigation? Unless there was something more significantly evidential said that you haven't mentioned, it doesn't say anything about what kind of verifiable evidence (if any) RFK might have based that intention upon. He could just as easily have wanted to reboot the investigation to see if any evidence could be found.

Again, you may still disagree with me that there are some serious problems with stating things as fact when they're only speculations, and speculating in ways that float too far away from any factual foundation. But that fundamental disagreement is just how it will have to be between us.

I'm sorry but from what has already been revealed about the assassination and its cover up it would be very hard to describe it as an "unthrilling" event.

Well, then, good thing that's not how I described it! ;-) The " thrilling explanation" I was referring to was the insider-leak explanation you gave about how my father had managed to come up with his theory. The reality I was saying was a lot less glamorous was that my father just used his own analytical mind and politically-informed perspective to make sense of ordinary, publicly available media reports and their contradictions. I wasn't referring to how much of a "thriller" quality there was to the assassination itself.

So… can we agree to disagree and just leave it at that?
:-)
Marian

I found the website honouring your father's memory to be most excellent, Marian. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

My uncle, Jeremiah O'Leary, also worked for the Star, and had a few bit parts in history concerning Jack Kennedy's death.

Hope to hear more from you. Peace. +