Who Killed Kennedy? Thomas Buchanan

[John Kelin]

For an interesting sketch of Thomas G. Buchanan, pull out your copy of Brothers and turn to pp. 260-1. Be sure to check out David Talbot's corresponding end note, p. 435. (Both my page references are to the original hardcover edition.)

Most writers faithfully report that Thomas G. Buchanan was an American Communist, and usually say so in the first few words mentioning him. It is usually written as a smear. Communists, Socialists, and others are seen on a par with child molesters, or worse. Carl Marzani, who like Buchanan was victimized by McCarthyite hysteria, was once asked why he was a communist. His simple reply: Because I care about people.

[LR Trotter]

For an interesting sketch of Thomas G. Buchanan, pull out your copy of Brothers and turn to pp. 260-1. Be sure to check out David Talbot's corresponding end note, p. 435. (Both my page references are to the original hardcover edition.)

Most writers faithfully report that Thomas G. Buchanan was an American Communist, and usually say so in the first few words mentioning him. It is usually written as a smear. Communists, Socialists, and others are seen on a par with child molesters, or worse. Carl Marzani, who like Buchanan was victimized by McCarthyite hysteria, was once asked why he was a communist. His simple reply: Because I care about people.

As I'm sure Mr Kelin knows, it is not a good idea to ever underestimate the value of an ist or ism when a person or process is being described, usually negatively.

::

[Marian Buchanan]

Hi everyone -- I'm the daughter of Thomas G. Buchanan, and have joined this forum so as to be able to correct any misinformation there is here about my father. For instance:

This book was written in March 1964 and nailed a lot of the conspiracy evidence before the Warren Report came out.


It is possible that Buchanan was fed conspiracy information by Washington insiders who could have investigated the assassination early-on. This may have involved Bobby Kennedy who, because of his position, could not release information he had gathered so he chose Buchanan as a leak. Buchanan wrote the book too quickly and got way too much right to not have been assisted by serious insiders. This means that there could be a whole unknown history of an inside investigation that went on immediately after the assassination of which there is no record. It is possible that it was conducted by Bobby and covered-up by CIA with his assassination. Since Buchanan got his information out before conspiracy research had began it suggests that perhaps he got his information from directly knowledgeable persons or even participants like Ruby:



http://www.amazon.com/Who-killed-Kennedy...F+Buchanan

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

[Marian Buchanan]

Anyone know of a downloadable version of this book? pdf, epub, mobi, or whatever.
Thanks.

It's something my stepmother and siblings and I may consider making available at some point. But not currently available.

Marian Buchanan

[Marian Buchanan]

Hi all,

I would suggest to anyone interested that an excellent starting point re: Thomas G. Buchanan is here:

http://thomasgbuchanan.com

Oh, dear. A review by Robert Morrow on this book:

Thomas Buchanan wrote a fabulous work on the JFK assassination in early 1964, perhaps the first book written on it (not sure, but probably). And he solved it at a time when the murderers of JFK were running the government and holding positions of high power in business.
I give Buchanan an A+ on his research and intuition. So much of it has been confirmed over the decades.
Buchanan astutely fingered Texas oil interests as perps behind the JFK that would be the Dallas, TX oil men who were so close to Lyndon Johnson who the Kennedys were on the verge of destroying utterly.
Lyndon Johnson, a key perp himself, was in total agreement with Buchanan's thesis and he was telling one of his key mistresses Madeleine Brown that Dallas, TX oil men and military contractors were behind the JFK assassination:
Madeleine Duncan Brown was a mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years and had a son with him named Steven Mark Brown in 1950. Madeleine mixed with the Texas elite and had many trysts with Lyndon Johnson over the years, including one at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX, on New Year's Eve 12/31/63. In the late evening of 12/31/63, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:
"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."
He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!
"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that crap!"
"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.
"It was Texas oil and those _____ renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson] [Texas in the Morning, p. 189]

[LBJ told this to Madeleine in the late night of 12/31/63 in the Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #434, a suite permanently reserved for LBJ. They spent New Year's Eve together here six weeks post JFK assassination. Room #434 was the room that LBJ used to have rendevous' with his girlfriends.Today another room #254 -which used to be known as the "Blue Room" and now it is known as the "LBJ Suite" and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; #254 is located on the Mezzanine Level. Note: Lyndon Johnson's presidential schedule and other contemporary accounts confirm that LBJ indeed was at the Driskill Hotel on the night of 12/31/63 for a White House press party.]

Thanks for sharing the link, John.

Lauren, this comment is what prompted me to add the following disclaimer to the Comments section of each post:

Please note: Comments represent the views of their authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the family of Thomas G. Buchanan or other readers of this website.

Also: This is not a forum for debating theories on the Kennedy assassination, it's a comment section for readers to offer thoughts on this specific page's information about Thomas G. Buchanan's life and writings.

Marian 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/

[Lauren Johnson]

Yes, indeed, Marian, I understand. FWIW Morrow was actually banned from DPF some years ago.

Glad we finally got you connected here.

[Tracy Riddle]

Welcome to the forum, Marian. I enjoyed your father's book and still think it was very insightful and useful. Focusing on discrepancies in the constantly-changing official story is always the best way to go soon after an event occurs.

[Albert Doyle]

While I might be totally out in left field about a leak helping Buchanan I have to add that I have seen cases where researchers missed important clues that led to a better understanding of the case and that it is better to speculate and be wrong than to miss important clues.

[Marian Buchanan]

I didn't want to let this go unanswered for too long, but I also wanted to be as clear and thorough as possible in my response, so it took me a while to compose this. You've added an additional thought since then, Albert...

While I might be totally out in left field about a leak helping Buchanan I have to add that I have seen cases where researchers missed important clues that led to a better understanding of the case and that it is better to speculate and be wrong than to miss important clues.

... but I think what I was going to say still applies, because if you are still thinking there may have been a leak to my father, then you are indeed still "out in left field" about this. (Quick side note: I wouldn't put speculation on that much of a pedestal, if it involves mistaking unfounded assumptions for clues. But back to your earlier post: )

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:
[...]

Sorry if it appeared that way but my wording clearly states a speculative intent.

I recognize you were careful in your wording in most places ("It is possible... could have... may have involved..."). The concern I was expressing was that people won't necessarily quote you verbatim when propagating this theory, or even register the degree of speculative intent in the first place. Because when reading anything written or hearing anything said, people in general often gloss over those kinds of qualifiers and leave with the impression that what's being said is founded on an adequate number of verifiable facts. The risk of that assumption is made greater by there being one spot where your wording comes across as a statement of fact ("so he chose Buchanan as a leak"). As a theory propagates through other people, it can tend to lose any careful qualifiers and get spread as information instead of speculation.

If it has no merit by all means part of the intention of that speculation is to spur discussion that further elucidates the issue.

If elucidating the issue is the goal, then it shouldn't be so hard to accept what I'm saying as sufficient elucidation based on my familiarity with my father's personality and work. But instead, you seem to be taking it as nothing more than an "opinion" that has no real impact on your continued speculation. Case in point:

However seeing your response I'm not sure it necessarily excludes insider sources one way or the other.

That's a bit of a Russell's Teapot argument. It makes it seem like you're very attached to your insider-leak theory, like you'll cling to it no matter what anyone says. Just as no one can disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars, no one can disprove the existence of an insider-to-Buchanan leak of which there is no record or trace anywhere. So clingers gonna cling ;-) but I'm still hoping that's not what you're doing.

I'm sure many official-type insiders might not want to be associated with a known communist sympathizer

Three assumptions here:

1) That an insider would think it was a good idea to leak information to a journalist with whom they wouldn't want to be associated and whose writings on the matter could easily be perceived as non-credible (at least in the U.S.) because of the journalist's communist leanings. How exactly would that help the truth come out in a way that Americans would believe?

2) That my father was "known" by hypothesized insiders to be a communist. (He wasn't just a sympathizer). He was indeed known by the FBI, from back in the late 40s when he was the first American journalist to be fired explicitly for being a member of the Communist Party. But that doesn't mean he was known to be a communist by anyone who might have wanted to leak information to a journalist in 1963 or 64. At least, not until what he wrote about the assassination got attacked by people trying to discredit him and his theory. At which point, we're back to point #1: how would it serve an insider to leak information to a journalist who was under a credibility attack that used his communist ideals as an argument against his credibility?

3) If the thought is that my father might have been approached by an insider before his credibility got attacked, the assumption is that he was known as a journalist (i.e. someone to whom one might leak information) before he wrote about the Kennedy assassination. He wasn't. (Other than by the FBI, who knew him as an ex-reporter turned computer programmer and closed his file when he moved to France in 1961). It was my father's articles in l'Express that got his writing career rebooted. He had lost his first reporter job back in 1948 and was blacklisted in the U.S. thereafter, so although he continued to write for foreign papers as a freelancer even before moving to France, his journalistic work was no longer being published in the U.S. Although the facts about his 1948 firing were reported in Time magazine, not every potential insider would have necessarily paid attention to that at the time, and people have short memories anyway. I'm told there's no mention of his case in the books about blacklisting, so apparently he got very little attention after the initial media coverage. From soon after 1948 to 1963, there was no reason for anyone in the U.S. to be aware of him as a journalist. He didn't get any recognition for that until after his writings about the Kennedy assassination started getting published (which, of course, prompted the FBI to re-open his file). But although l'Express published his analysis as a series of 6 articles over a period of time, he wrote it as a whole report before it was shown to them or anyone else. So how would anyone have thought to leak information to him before he was even involved in writing about it? By the time it would have occurred to anyone who had such an intention, my father's theory was already formed. (And, as mentioned, his credibility was already under attack.)

so if there were I'm not sure how you would trace that?

That's the Russell's Teapot argument: you speculate something without a factual basis, then argue that the fact that there's no trace doesn't mean that it's not possible. But just because something speculated can't be falsified, doesn't mean it's true or even a reasonable or well-reasoned belief.

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.

Actually, it seems like quite a stretch to me, partly because I challenge the assumptions mentioned above. Also, the purpose of the message to the Russians seems to have been very different from the likely purpose of a leak to a journalist. But my main objection is that the speculation is based on another unsound assumption: that any information RFK gave to the Russians via Walton was anything more than a theory based on suspicions. You can share a theory but you can't leak it, you have to have actual knowledge or evidence for it to be a leak. 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.

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.

Yes, you are questioning what I'm saying: you're saying it doesn't disprove your insider-leak theory. But you're also painting what I'm saying as a mere opinion. So let me clarify what I'm stating: as one of several family members who lived with my father during the time he was writing about the Kennedy assassination, and talked about it with him later in life, I'm not speculating that he didn't receive insider information, I'm saying that I know he didn't. You're no doubt going to question that too, but before I address your anticipated response in more detail, let me finish replying to the rest of what you're saying in this paragraph:

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.

That's a (let's say) 'interesting' juxtaposition: what I'm saying is my "opinion" and what you're saying is an observable "fact"? I'm afraid that's simply not true. One can argue that "no man is an island" is a "fact" fair enough, as a very, very general statement. But the structure of the sentence ("and...") implies that the rest of the sentence is factual too, which it most definitely is not. Instead, it's based on several unfounded assumptions: that there "had to" have been a leak, and that the information upon which my father based his theory "had to" have included whatever was allegedly leaked. Why? What points to it other than your disbelief that several people can arrive at similar conclusions when looking at the same available information?

The contents of Who Killed Kennedy? are close to Trumbo's Executive Action.

If so, so what? Why would you expect my father to be the only one who arrived at the conclusions he did? Several people coming to similar conclusions just means that the theory is not totally inconceivable. The fact that there are also several other theories out there means that, while not inconceivable, my father's theory is also not proven. I'm not saying this to evaluate anyone's theory as correct or incorrect one way or the other, I'm just pointing out that several theories can exist without being proven, and the fact that each theory has multiple proponents and multiple detractors means nothing at all about how each proponent of a theory came to adopt it. It certainly does not provide evidence of a leak.

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.

You're still arguing, further above, that it doesn't set the record straight, that there is still the possibility (I'd say even a suspicion on your part) of a leak I simply don't know about. I'm certainly trying to set the record straight, but in order for readers to accept the record, they have to let go of any unfalsifiable theories.

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.

You added this edit after the fact, but you still left the Russell's Teapot argument in the earlier part of the post. So let me repeat: I'm not speculating that my father didn't receive insider information, I'm saying that I know he didn't.

I realize you probably want to object that I cannot be sure, that maybe he hid that fact from me and everyone else in the family, including my mother and later my stepmother, and never wrote down anything anywhere that would give it away. But again, that's the Russell's Teapot logic. It's not reasonable to rely on something unfounded and disregard what is well-founded through actually knowing a person and their work.

If we stick with what's consistent with my father's values and personality as I and the other members of his family knew him, then it has to be conceded as reasonable evidence that, if he had received insider information, his family would have known about it sooner or later. At the time of his work reporting on and analyzing the JFK assassination, he shared his thoughts and discoveries with my mother all the time, formulating his theories out loud, telling her about the latest developments, reacting to other people's theories.

As a journalist, having a reliable insider source would have been a feather in his cap, and the man I knew would have been gleeful about it and would have wanted to share his excitement. Even if security precautions had necessitated he keep such a name private, he would have included my mother, and later my stepmother, in that circle of privacy. Clingers to the insider-leak theory might find room to doubt this, and there's no way to falsify any claim that my father went against his own personality, values, and habits, to hide something of which there is absolutely no evidence or trace. But to those of you who are reasonable, my information as an insider to the family dynamics and my father's way of being should suffice to convince you that he received no leaked information.

There's another reason why it would not be like him to keep the existence of a leak so secret that not a single soul could ever find out about it. He believed that truth was paramount, and would have found a way to make it known that his information came from a reliable inside source, even if he had to say that the source could not at that time be named.

If the source had been Robert Kennedy, then the latter's death would have freed my father to go public with that information.

He was not afraid to reveal information that powerful people might want suppressed, including information about the suppression efforts themselves (like the way he and Garrison had to find a way around the interference with Garrison's correspondence a fact that my father revealed in articles published in Europe that included his interviews of Garrison).

If there had been an inside source that my father still couldn't safely reveal by 1984, when his book Big Brother was published (about the FBI's surveillance of him over the years a perfect place to reveal this kind of secret), then he would have entrusted the information to one of his children, so that the truth could come out later in history.

But he did not. No end-of-life revelations to any of us, even though he had 4 years of a terminal illness to pass on his legacy (and did, in fact, ask one of his daughters to try to get his unpublished fiction manuscripts published once he was gone, so it's not like he hadn't given any thought to what could be published posthumously).

So the point of this long-winded response is to say: I realize I'm not going to convince anyone unreasonable who has already made up their mind and is attached to a pet theory. But to those of you who believe in truth and rational, critical thinking (just as my father did), I'm telling you: there is no reasonable evidence that my father received any insider leak and then hid that from his family and the public for the rest of his life.

As for the work-around theory that "no man is an island" means that "at some point in the chain" my father "had to" have gotten information that was leaked to "others" that sounds very much like grasping at straws. It assumes a leak, with no real justification for making that assumption.

The truth is that, on any topic including this one, several unconnected people can come to similar conclusions as each other on the basis of available media reports. It may be less glamorous to recognize that fact than to invent a more thrilling explanation that can't be falsified, but sticking to the reasonable, evidence-based explanation is the more philosophically and intellectually sound thing to do.