Marc E. Sirotkin
Wake Forest University

     The use of historical event web pages on the World Wide Web has revolutionized the time and effort that would have been required of a researcher using more conventional means. Web-sites have the ability to link a user to articles, graphs, video and audio clips, charts, interviews, and much more. Unfortunately, some web-sites are better sources of information than others are, as this comparison of pages on the assassination of John F. Kennedy will establish. The Kennedy Assassination web site by John McAdams presents a well-written and user-friendly site, providing a plethora of information in a highly organized fashion. The other web site reviewed, The JFK Page by Les Duffy, does not have the same abundance of facts or user-friendly access as that of McAdams’s web page. The two sites display the great difference in the quality of sites that are available on the World Wide Web.

     The McAdams’s web site deserves the greatest amount of focus in this paper. McAdams makes clear in his introduction that the purpose of the site is to tell the other side of the JFK story -- that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. He feels that too many web-sites and other sources are devoted to creating "fictitious" conspiracy theories. The goal of his web page is to prove from the abundance of evidence that Oswald did kill JFK on his own recognizance. The arrangement of the web site is divided into thirteen subheadings on the different areas of the assassination including: Dealey Plaza, The Single Bullet Theory, Lee Harvey Oswald, Oliver Stone’s Movie ‘JFK’, and Release the Documents, as well as many others. Each one of these subheadings provides information in an attempt to prove the main goal of the "single gunman theory." McAdams draws his information from a variety of different sources, helping to bring credibility to his finished product. For example, McAdams uses Warren Commission testimony, House Select Committee on Assassination testimony, the Zapruder Film footage, other video and audio clips, medical evidence, interviews, Dallas Police records, FBI and Secret Service files, as well as hundreds of other important sources. Most of all, the site does not try to convince the web site browser to believe what is written, but simply presents information. This allows browsers to be able to think for themselves by analyzing all of the available data and then draw their own conclusions.

     Of course, the overwhelming thoroughness of McAdams’s web page requires a great deal of time to completely analyze. For example, the first subheading, Dealey Plaza, is further broken down into ten different headings, which are also linked to other categories. McAdams is quite meticulous in his presentation style. He tries to address every possible detail that a conspiracy buff could call to public attention. The most unusual example involves Louis Witt, a possible conspirator to JFK’s assassination. Witt was the man seen in the Zapruder film with the umbrella that caused such a great deal of controversy. He gained a great deal of attention for having his umbrella open on a clear day. Apparently, one conspiracy buff thought that the umbrella was really a carbine rifle, and actually drew up plans of how the umbrella could have really been a gun. No matter how ridiculous this sounded, McAdams went above and beyond in proving that there was a valid reason for why the umbrella was open. He explains that Witt had his umbrella open that day for the purpose of making a political statement against JFK’s father. Apparently, Joe Kennedy had supported Neville Chamberlain’s weak pre-war policies towards Adolph Hitler. Though this sounds obscure, the open umbrella was a trademark of Chamberlain. And in fact, McAdams provides actual proof that Witt was in deed making a political statement. Though most of McAdams’s research is not this intense or unusual, this example does demonstrate the extent of McAdams’s scrutiny.

     Unfortunately, McAdams does not provide any information about himself or the creation of this web site. He does cite all the sources that he uses throughout the page at each specific point, but never really identifies his methods of obtaining this information. From the abundance of citations within the web page, it is quite obvious that McAdams has in fact viewed a great deal of the Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassination reports and used them within his work. Regardless of all the research accomplishments in his web page, McAdams is not too complacent to admit that some of his ideas have bombed. For example, McAdams thought that if he had a professional lip reader watch the Zapruder film, he would be able to find out what Gov. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy were saying. But because of the poor quality of film in the 1960s, the lip readers were only able to make out the words, "no…no." McAdams’s attitude throughout the page is quite open-minded, allowing him to present his information free of bias. His web site is quite lengthy, but is well organized and easy to follow throughout. The site is arranged in order of evidence. He simply presents all necessary data, including many other assassination experts’ articles on different topics. Once McAdams is confident that the browser has enough information on a topic, he moves on to address another point. If this web site needed any additional praise, the hundreds of links to other web-sites, articles, video and audio clips, drawings, graphs, charts, cartoons, and other sources make the page extremely interactive. Since it is designed for a real JFK assassination buff, the site would seem extremely overwhelming to the average browser. An interesting comparison would be to see what District Attorney Jim Garrison would have thought of this web site. In one of the subheadings, McAdams lists almost a hundred examples of factual mistakes within the Oliver Stone movie JFK about Garrison’s quest to prove that Oswald did not act alone. McAdams is very critical of the movie, due to its overwhelming popularity. At least, McAdams does explain his rationale for how he feels about Stone’s creation. Overall, this site displays the reason why the Internet has become a great medium for the study of historical events. With the ability to link to an array of resources, the World Wide Web is well represented with McAdams’s web site.

     In comparison, Duffy’s web site does not even come close to the same standards of McAdams. His page is presented from Duffy’s perspective as a resident of the United Kingdom. He explains that his reason for writing the web page is to clear up rumors in the UK about who was actually responsible for killing Kennedy. He states that many people in the UK do not know what to believe, with stories stating that either the CIA, FBI, Masons, Mafia, Cubans, or Lyndon Johnson were all or partially responsible. Therefore, Duffy takes no real side on the issue of a conspiracy, but rather has created a web page of audio and video clips, news articles, pictures, and links. His setup is more graphically impressive than McAdams, but is less user-friendly. In order to access the audio and video clips, the browser must have, or needs to purchase at an exorbitant cost, the program, Real Player v. 5.0. It is the only possible way, according to the site, to view most of the clips that Duffy provided. Though some of the pictures were accessible without this program, Duffy did not provide any analysis on them. In fact, his web page has no analysis, leaving Duffy’s opinion a mystery. His site is organized into five headings: Hit List (clips), Pic Album, Links, Articles Page, and Puzzles. Though Duffy provides a listing of several awards that he has won (including the 5-Star Web Page Award), it is quite perplexing why this web site would be any real help to a serious researcher. The clips may have been fascinating, but there is no background as to what they will show. All Duffy provides is a small two or three word caption on the pictures of the clips. This tells the user very little about sources, or what to expect.

     Duffy needs to update this web page to make it more user-friendly to the average web site browser, because at this point his site really is not worthwhile to anyone. Duffy needs to use an example of a web page like that of McAdams to understand how a site can be improved by having commentary on the pictures and clips. This helps explain to the browsers what they are viewing and the reliability of that source. Duffy seems to be an interested party, who has tried to link articles, pictures, and clips together in hopes of finding the truth. The truth is his web page will not ever help him find any answers. It would be a much better use of a web browser’s time to use Duffy’s links to other JFK assassination pages, and leave Duffy’s page alone until he has a chance to update the page to acceptable standards. Duffy’s web site does not do justice to the potential that the World Wide Web has in the field of history. McAdams’s page is by far the best example of the potential capacity that the web has in the future of historical research. Both web-sites show the great differential in the quality of historical event pages available on the Internet. Each site must be approached on the basis of its purpose, sources used, presentation, and overall merit. Overall, Duffy is a distant second to McAdams.