Loading…
0
The FBI files vs. the news articles on JFK, I stopped reading one of them fast
I spent like 6 months deep in the JFK rabbit hole, mostly reading news articles from the 60s and a few modern recap sites. Then a buddy who does archival work sent me actual scanned FBI and CIA memos from the National Archives. The difference is wild. The news articles frame everything as a clean narrative with conclusions, but the memos are full of contradictions, dead ends, and handwritten notes questioning their own leads. For example, one memo from 1964 straight up says a witness's story fell apart under a second interview, but the newspaper I read never mentioned that. After comparing about 30 documents side by side, I trust the raw files way more, even though they're messy. The reporting feels like it already picked an ending, while the files just show the chaos. Has anyone else tried going straight to declassified records instead of summaries, and did it flip your take on any case?
1 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In1 Comment
theas944d ago
30 documents isn't really a big enough pile to call it.
3