Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

Members
  • Content Count

    1,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. Kirk, Thanks for posting that (and listening to "Coast to Coast," which I imagine is the show you heard me on). Actually, if you listen to Tulsi's reply to me, she says that she hasn't finished the book. She also suggests, with perhaps some nervous hesitation, that she has been persuaded by the premise of the book. I also gave her a copy of my book "Survival of the Richest," which is now out in paperback with a new Foreword by Naomi Wolf. I still fantasize about her reading it....
  2. Thanks to Douglas Caddy for his consistent support. Bart Kamp- if you actually read the article, you will see that I talk specifically about how the bickering in the research community goes back to the beginning, before my own start volunteering with Mark Lane's group in the mid-1970s. You are proving my point, with your juvenile name-calling on Facebook. Many good people, like Harold Weisberg and Lane, have been drawn into these pointless personality battles. The important thing, and the main focus of the research community, should be to consistently point out the impossible nature of the official story.
  3. To understand just how far from the truth the Fox News article linked above is, one has to have researched this case in some depth, as I have. The "friend" who maintained JFK, Jr. didn't talk about the subject contradicts what I found out from two of his very close friends, including one who was an inner member of his circle throughout his adulthood. They told me it was something he talked about all the time behind the scenes. Wayne Madsen was scheduled to meet with JFK, Jr. the week he died, to discuss a new position with George magazine. Madsen's main assignment was to research and write about the JFK assassination. It really is incredible what kind of lies and disinformation our state-run mainstream media disseminates to the public.
  4. I uncovered persuasive evidence that JFK, Jr. had long held a "quest" to find out who really killed his father. Please read my long chapter on the very suspicious death of JFK, Jr. in my book "Hidden History" for the full story. Here is one of several interviews I've given on the subject: https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-093-donald-jeffries-and-the-death-of-jfk-jr/
  5. I think it's great that more researchers are now focusing on JFK's very contentious relationship with Ben-Gurion, and his strong opposition to Israel's developing nuclear program. We should give credit where it is due; the much maligned late Michael Collins Piper was the first to delve into this area, in his book Final Judgment. Regardless of any other flaws he had, his contributions should be recognized.
  6. To my knowledge, RFK, Jr. hasn't commented on the book. Even though he has opened up with his own doubts considerably, he seems to confine his interactions to the more mainstream researchers (David Talbot, Jefferson Morley, etc.) The book establishes definitively that RFK was working on the case behind the scenes (which Talbot wrote about in Brothers), and JFK, Jr. had an absolute quest to expose the true murderers of his father (something I detailed in Hidden History). It also corroborates what David Lifton told me years ago- that Ronald Reagan had an intense interest in the case.
  7. I have finished reading The Inheritance, and will be interviewing Christopher Fulton on my weekly "I Protest" radio show this Friday. I've been researching this case since working as a teenager with Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I've read more books than I could ever remember on the subject. This book is special, and important. Fulton established that RFK, working with JFK's secretary Evelyn Lincoln, deliberately withheld what evidence he could from the government. This was done because RFK understandably didn't trust these agencies, and was biding his time until he could regain the White House and launch a real investigation. Fulton's work also verifies what I discovered in researching the death of JFK, Jr. He was indeed keenly interested in his father's assassination, and was about to enter politics. Fulton, unlike those of us who dabble in the minutiae of the assassination, paid a heavy price for possessing material the government wanted to remove from the public. He spent eight years in jail. During that time, his wife and lawyer died in suspicious car crashes, his mother died prematurely, and the guy who was bequeathed the watch and other material from Evelyn Lincoln, died very suddenly as well. This is a great read, and essential to anyone who wants to learn the truth about the subject.
  8. Yesterday, I interviewed Lisa Pease on my new weekly radio show "I Protest." https://tfrlive.com/don-jeffries-with-lisa-pease-and-gov-richard-lamm-83672/
  9. Much as we saw a lengthy recent discussion on Jim Jenkins here, with almost no mention of the go-to guy on that witness, William Law, here we have a thread about the Paschall film, with zero mention of Mark Oakes. Without the efforts of this seemingly forgotten researcher, we wouldn't even know about the Paschall film. Mark's excellent witness interviews were available for a long time on DVD, and included his ground breaking work on the Paschall film. They may still be, for all I know.
  10. Okay, I'll play long enough to ask a few questions. Since you're a lawyer, what do you think of the "evidence" against Oswald in a legal sense? If I'd been Oswald's attorney, I would have introduced the sworn affidavits of officers Weitzman and Boone, who both described finding a German Mauser on the sixth floor of the TSBD. I would then move to have any evidence related to the so-called murder weapon- the Italian Mannlicher Carcano- thrown out. There was no chain of possession for it, and legally speaking, the weapon found inside the building where Oswald worked was an entirely different one. How would you have introduced the Carcano into the record? Even if you play the "mistake" card and claim both officers were identically wrong in their identification, you can't explain away the fact that the Carcano had "Made Italy" stamped on it, as Mark Lane demonstrated before the Warren Commission while holding it up in front of them. As you well know, the same kind of chain-of-possession irregularities, to put it nicely, exist throughout this case. None of the evidence against Oswald would have been legally admissible in an honest courtroom. Now that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been introduced, because the odds are Oswald would have received pathetic Richard Hauptmann/James Earl Ray type of "representation" and the courtroom would have been a typically dishonest one. Every bit of evidence in the official record is tainted. Not only by chain-of-possession issues, but by so much of it being lost, purposefully destroyed, or clearly altered. Most lone nutters want desperately to believe in the official story, because they basically trust the system. Or they accept the msm narrative that JFK was a reckless womanizer who was somehow deathly sick at the same time. Their inference is that he was no good, and basically deserved what he got. Those of us who understand the policy changes that took effect upon the death of JFK, starting first and foremost with the inevitable escalation in Vietnam, prefer to believe that this charismatic political figure was killed for political reasons. But those who remain asleep buy into the unique American notion that political figures are killed by lone "nuts" for their own impenetrable reasons. I won't get sucked further into this assassination 101 stuff, but as a lawyer you should realize just how legally impossible the case against Oswald would have been, even in the hands of a capable public defender. Walt Brown elaborated on all this in his excellent book "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald."
  11. I posted earlier about John Barbour and others having difficulty in registering here. We've chased away lots of good people, and now apparently are making it hard for good people to join. First, the fact that William Law is being mentioned so sparingly here, when he is THE expert on the medical evidence at this point, and especially is the expert on Jim Jenkins, is very telling. I can understand why those like him have no desire to post on these forums. But many of us are used to credit not being given where it is due by this dysfunctional community of ours. All of the medical personnel at Parkland reported a huge wound in the back of JFK's head. As is obvious by looking at the extant photos, that huge wound isn't there. Considering how much other evidence in this case has been lost, withheld, or altered, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the Dallas people were telling the truth, and that therefore the photos are not legitimate. I'm not going to get into an extended debate. I do wish that those who know the evidence well, and are still posting regularly here, would be more involved in these debates. And please give a shout out to William Law on this particular subject.
  12. So Earlene Roberts is joining the endless cavalcade of witnesses, all of whom presented testimony that contradicted the official fairy tale, in being smeared and discredited here? We know that several witnesses had their original reports altered and distorted by the FBI and Dallas Police. We know that some claimed their testimony before the Warren Commission did not reflect what they'd actually said. Roberts not initially mentioning the police car being out front of the rooming house may very well fall into this category; perhaps her words were simply recorded inaccurately, something we know was common with those "investigating" the assassination. Unfortunately, Earlene Roberts did not live long enough to clarify these matters, so we have no way of knowing if she might have echoed what Julia Ann Mercer and others reported about the dishonesty of the authorities recording their experiences. I wasted too much time over the years debating those who don't understand this subject, or have an ulterior motive. Lance Payette acknowledges that he is not a serious researcher. This is obvious by his acceptance of the absurd official narrative. As Penn Jones used to say, the only way to believe the Warren Report is not to read it. In that vein, I contend that the only way to believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK is to not honestly study the evidence.
  13. Jim, John will be using his You Tube channel exclusively for this. Keep checking his channel for the details. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn-FKP9Xmu1a5f4U9VXIJEQ
  14. Could someone clarify the process for joining this forum now? John Barbour is only the latest person to mention to me how difficult this seems to be. I would hope that this forum would welcome everyone, especially someone as prominent as John Barbour.
  15. Doug, Thanks so much for promoting this- both John and I appreciate your support. Actually, I think the information will be able to be processed much more easily this way, rather than in one huge data dump. John Barbour has only the best intentions here. He wants people to know the truth. Articles in American Free Press are usually 800 words, thus it was written concisely. Those interested should watch the video John just put up on You Tube, which is linked in Doug Caddy's above post.
  16. I still stand with Cliff Varnell here. The bullet hole location in the back is vital, and its location should be unquestionable at this point to researchers, given Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's notation in the death certificate, and the incontrovertible evidence provided by JFK's coat and shirt. Where the throat wound exit was can probably be added to the countless questions left unanswered by those who gave President Kennedy what Harold Weisberg called an autopsy "unworthy of a Bowery bum."
  17. I watched a recent appearance by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on C-SPAN, to promote his new book. I was surprised to see him go against the establishment line not only on the assassinations, but the horrific image of his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, which began being promulgated by the mainstream media and court historians in the mid-1970s or so. RFK, Jr. matter-of-factly stated, "No, he was not a bootlegger," and went on to label that allegation as CIA disinformation. He also brought up something I'd never heard before; he said that Joe Kennedy was on a committee (didn't specify what committee) during the 1950s, and had advocated that the clandestine services unit of the CIA be abolished. He then mentioned that during his father's 1968 presidential campaign, he too had promised to end this division. It was unclear if RFK said this publicly (I don't think so), but RFK, Jr. seemed confident about what he was saying. RFK, Jr. brought up the lobotomy of his Aunt Rosemary as well. I have said for a long time that this is perhaps the most unfair criticism against Joe Kennedy. As he noted, the family was not ashamed of Rosemary, and in fact included her in everything. She was presented at court along with the other children to Queen Elizabeth. Joe Kennedy was trying to help his daughter, and took a chance on a new, very expensive procedure that he was told was revolutionary and cutting edge. Somehow, this has been distorted into the old "bootlegger" purposefully destroying his daughter's brain, presumably while foaming at the mouth. RFK, Jr. is clearly "awake" on a number of issues. It's a real shame that he has the hereditary speech issue that plagued his grandmother Rose Kennedy. Otherwise, he would be a really dynamic politician.
  18. Vince Palamara is one of the few in our fractured JFK assassination community doing real, worthwhile research. Thanks, Vince- know that a lot of us out here appreciate your hard work.
  19. I was the first researcher to contact Henry Rybka's family. During the course of writing Hidden History, I spoke to Rybka's granddaughter, and my friend William Law spoke to Rybka's son on my behalf. The details of those conversations are in the book, but suffice to say I was not persuaded by the revisionist argument that the agent being waved off was actually Donald Lawton, and not Rybka. The conversations we had with Rybka's family certainly didn't persuade me. I have the greatest respect for Vince Palamara's work, but I think he was too quick to accept the revised narrative that the agent in question was actually Lawton. We don't really know what Rybka looked like, nor do we know much about him in general. He died way too early, like so many others connected to this case. That little film clip at Love Field certainly looks conspiratorial to the unbiased observer. Whoever the agent was, he appears not to have been in the loop. The motorcade route doesn't get as much scrutiny as it should. Neocons in our community have attempted to diminish the significance of the change, and of the actual route eventually taken. Thanks to Jim D. and Joseph McBride and everyone else here who has contributed to a great discussion.
  20. Steve Jaffe, It's great to see you posting here. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates having someone with your history contributing on this forum. I'm intrigued by your comments about Rob Reiner. I assume you must have an insider's knowledge, because I've never heard any comments regarding the assassination from Reiner. So he knows there was a conspiracy?
  21. Ron, I definitely favor the theory that Ted wasn't in the car that night. His story made no sense, but I don't believe he was capable of purposefully leaving a young girl to die like that. Ted was talking calmly with witnesses on a yacht the next morning, appearing completely normal. Then Joe Gargan and Markham came up to him, whispered in his ear, and he turned white as a sheet and fled the scene. I think that's pretty telling. Paz, The best source for the JFK, Jr. death is the chapter on it in my book Hidden History. I will also be giving an interview devoted exclusively to this on the Midnight Writer News Show in the near future. In the meantime, here's an article I wrote on the subject a few years back : https://www.henrymakow.com/2015/07/JFK-Jr-Death-Was-No-Accident .html
  22. So we can now add Roger Craig- the only Dallas law enforcement officer who was trying to do his job that day- to the list of discredited witnesses? All of whom, of course, just happen to buttress the case for conspiracy?
  23. I covered Chappaquiddick in Hidden History. I don't think he was even in the car that night, and the incident in fact was his political assassination (at least in terms of the presidency). My research proved that JFK, Jr. at least was not only keenly interested in who killed his father, but actually was on some kind of quest to expose the truth behind the scenes. The Kennedy family's public posture about the assassinations has never made sense to me (just compare it to the way MLK's family fought courageously for the truth about his assassination), but I have no doubt that in private they discounted the official stories.
  24. James, This forum has always had a substantial number of lurkers who, probably with good reason, hesitate to jump into the fray with such strong personalities. It has always been dominated by a small number of posters. I respect you for providing this forum to everyone. You are certainly free to run it as you see fit, and we should respect the rules you establish. However, I have always thought that this is a lost cause in terms of this research community. Writing about the subjects I do, from the perspective I have, has brought me into contact with lots of extreme individuals who are attracted to the JFK assassination, 9/11 and other popular conspiratorial-type subjects. They are far too often opinionated to a fault, arrogant to varying degrees, and totally assured that their own take on a given issue is the right one. However, they are also willing to think outside the box, and are our best hope, imho, of solving the JFK assassination and other cases. My argument was, and has always been, that there is an inconsistency here and it seems the majority of the moderators have historically held a bias against advocates of a huge, all encompassing conspiracy. The neocon types, or those who expend more energy criticizing particular "conspiracy theories," or who castigate "conspiracists," have always seemed to be untouchable here. Those extreme types make this forum, or any forum, more interesting and intriguing. I'm sure I echo the sentiments of everyone by hoping that this forum continues to be available to researchers and interested members of the public.
×
×
  • Create New...