Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. 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.
  2. Don Jeffries

    Where is the exit?

    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."
  3. 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.
  4. Don Jeffries

    Who changed the motorcade route?

    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.
  5. 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?
  6. Don Jeffries

    Ted Kennedy

    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
  7. Don Jeffries

    Roger Craig's ID inside 317

    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?
  8. Don Jeffries

    Ted Kennedy

    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.
  9. Don Jeffries

    The Future of the Education Forum

    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.
  10. Don Jeffries

    Why I am leaving the forum

    First, let me also urge Paul to stay on. This forum needs more valuable posters, not less. I wasn't aware my pm box was full- haven't used it in a while. I cleared out a lot of space, so should be able to receive messages now. I don't care if Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg was posting here, no one voice should be dominating what passes for discourse here.
  11. Don Jeffries

    David Josephs

    If David was banned for not using a capital "T" for Tommy Graves' name, that would set a new standard. One of the most irritating things about Thomas Graves is his long-time tendency to mock others in his passive-aggressive way, and this certainly includes their names. But I guess since he prefaces nearly every response now with "With all due respect," he's following the rules. Could some moderator explain why David Josephs can't post here?
  12. Don Jeffries

    David Josephs

    Well, I tried to ask this question of my fellow moderators, too. They hid my thread on the subject, and the other one started by Paul Brancato drew predictably few responses. Assuming I'm still a moderator, I was never asked to vote on moderating David Josephs in any way. But then again, maybe I'm not a moderator any more. None of them answer my emails, so I'm not really sure. If David Josephs has been banned from the forum, that is a true outrage. He is one of the most knowledgeable and coherent researchers left in this fractured "community" of ours. It looks like the moderators desire a forum where Thomas Graves is the dominant voice here, with his Edward Epstein-inspired KGB/Russian "collusion" fantasies. At the very least, they should provide some explanation.
  13. Don Jeffries

    What happened to Don Jefferies thread?

    I was able to read the hidden thread. To clarify, I wasn't even sure I was still a moderator. I haven't been posting much over the past few years, and frankly I'm not sure why I'm doing so now. I wasn't advocating that anything be done to Thomas Graves or any other poster, just as I never voted to ban Jim Fetzer, Greg Parker, or anyone else over the years. I merely ask for consistency. And yes, I waited for an answer to my email, but since I haven't received any replies to my emails to the moderation team for quite a while, I decided to post. If the moderation is to be basically hands-off, which I personally favor, then it's unwise to moderate (and especially ban) any poster for anything other than vulgar or personal attacks. I have never seen much of that on this forum over the years. I think that makes for a more interesting, lively place. Certainly if all the banned posters were back, the threads would be longer and the debates more intriguing. On the other hand, if you're going to police the place, then police everyone equally. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else personally believes about this case, but it's undeniable that most of those who have been banned here, or subject to repeated moderation, were "extreme" types who believe a huge, powerful conspiracy was behind the death of JFK. I haven't seen any neocons banned. This kind of moderation leads to perhaps a more civil, but more boring forum. It's your choice.
  14. Don Jeffries

    What happened to Don Jefferies thread?

    Yes, what happened to my thread? There is no point in emailing the moderator group- they never reply back. For the record, I am not advocating that Thomas Graves or anyone else be moderated or whatever. I am merely pointing out the glaring inconsistencies of the moderation here, as I have done repeatedly to my fellow moderators. Instead of just deleting threads, why not provide a reasonable explanation?
  15. Don Jeffries

    Politico Article

    Kirk, I can't pretend to understand the dog and pony show that passes for our political discourse today. On the surface, the Mueller investigation is typical partisan politics at work, and by "partisan" I mean at the gutter, mud-slinging level. Huey Long called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee for good reasons; the Dems and Republicans will never get "partisan" about war, for instance, or any significant kind of corruption. I am still undecided if Trump ever had any sincere principles, or if his populist rhetoric was theater, to rally segments of the populace behind a message that touched on real issues that effect their lives. The Goldstein-like hatred for Trump, which continues nonstop from every pillar of the establishment, is truly puzzling, since he has not even attempted any of the things he promised, and has surrounded himself totally with Bush-friendly neocon types. Not a hint of "draining the swamp." If the entire thing isn't just being staged (after all, the guy who correctly declared the system was rigged won the election), then I suspect the elites are afraid of Trump being such a loose cannon that he might just attempt something good someday. No sign of that yet, but it could be they hold their breath whenever he takes the stage, in fear that he might just rant about 9/11 being an inside job or something. Trump did, like Clinton before him (a supposed doubter of the Warren Commission) publicly say Oswald killed JFK. And I'm still waiting on that vaccine commission chaired by RFK, Jr., or an audit of the Fed. Bottom line; the Mueller probe and the relentless cries of Russian "collusion" from the establishment are just another in what H.L. Mencken referred to, long ago, as "an endless series of hobgoblins." The American people are being more ignorant that usual if they believe that the Russians are in any way responsible for the pathetic state of this country.
  16. Don Jeffries

    Politico Article

    People often ask me if I think everything is a conspiracy. I respond that our leaders have been overwhelmingly corrupt and/or incompetent for a very long time, and the manner in which they conduct important business is simply organized corruption. That's a pretty good definition of conspiracy. As Truman administration James Forrestal once said, before he "jumped" out of a window at Bethesda Naval Hospital, if things were random, once in a while a mistake would be made in favor of the common people. If true outsiders could ever attain power in this country, then we'd have someone good rise to the top, at least occasionally. Instead, whoever's "in charge," whether they are "liberal" or "conservative," we see the same agenda; perpetual war (more literally nonstop bombings and occupations of other sovereign nations); outsourcing of industry; demands that the riff raff continue to "sacrifice," leading to ever lowered standards of living; laughable rhetoric about how "great" America and Americans are; complete neglect of our crumbing infrastructure; and a rigged economy and marketplace that ensures a steady flow of wealth upwards into a small elite. The court historians, like mainstream "journalists," control the public debate with constant barrages of misinformation. Most Americans are historically illiterate; try even explaining the false official narratives to most young people. They don't even know the fake history, so how do we expose the lies? As Orwell said, "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." As I will show in Hidden History 2, the leading "liberals" of their day supported virtually every war America has ever been in. This includes Vietnam, which was supported by almost all of the establishment Left (think LBJ, Humphrey, etc.) until the later years. If we had politicians, business leaders, and professional journalists who were independent minded, you'd see some real diversity at the top. You'd see some hard-hitting stories about the many crimes and cover-ups perpetrated by powerful people. But instead, each and every one of them, and I do mean every one of them, dismisses any "conspiracy theory" which rears its ugly head. Except, of course, for the "Russian" narrative they're trying to sell. None of this can possibly be mere coincidence.
  17. And by the way, trying to claim the "commies" were funding Mark Lane is straight out of the CIA handbook. It also eerily corresponds to how the "Russians" are now used by the establishment left as bogeymen that can be conveniently blamed for any and all dissent in America. Tommy, was Joe McCarthy right? After all, in his day, the Soviets were a lot more powerful....
  18. I think I'm still a moderator here. Either way, is it true that Robert Charles Dunne can't post here? He just posted for the first time in quite a while. Considering how the nonstop, often laughable stream-of-consciousness output of Thomas Graves is tolerated here, it would be a sad reflection on this forum if there is some kind of limitation placed upon a person of RCD's caliber.
  19. Don Jeffries

    Politico Article

    Jim, Remember that Arianna Huffington permitted no talk of "conspiracy theories" in her organization, and Jesse Ventura lost his place as a columnist with them because of that. Arianna would later lecture Luke Rudkowski of We are Change when he brought up the subject.
  20. Don Jeffries

    Politico Article

    To my knowledge, there isn't a single mainstream media outlet that doesn't have an editorial policy of "no conspiracy" regarding the JFK assassination (or any other event, outside the ludicrous Russian "collusion" nonsense.). Even formerly open-minded Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are now loud and proud lone nutters. I also can't think of a single mainstream journalist who doesn't buy the lone assassin fairy tale, outside of David Talbot or Jefferson Morley. It's almost like they have to sign some kind of contract about this subject when they enter the field.
  21. RCD, It's great to see you alive and posting again. I hope you'll chime in more often. This place certainly needs more people like you.
  22. Sandy, I'd like to compliment you on your good research. You're one of the few in this community now who are asking important questions, and approaching the subject with an open mind. As I've said before, those dismissing Harvey and Lee out of hand are not interested in the whole truth. Whether his entire theory is correct or not, John Armstrong conducted a massive amount of research, all out of his own pocket. How many who post on this forum have done any independent research on this subject?
  23. Don Jeffries

    JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    As I showed in Hidden History, the establishment Left has always despised the Kennedys. The liberal blogosphere is thus no different in this regard. I have known several loyal Democrats, for instance, who vote the party line every time. Except when a Kennedy runs, that is. Then they actually vote for the Republican opponent.
  24. Don Jeffries


    Getting back to the classroom photo- I too have long wondered about the circumstances behind this photo. Oswald blackening out his teeth is a ridiculous notion, but how (and why) this picture was taken is I think an important question. I never remember a single instance of anyone taking a photograph inside a classroom during my twelve years of public education. I'm not sure cameras were even permitted in schools, and one would guess that the teacher (or a student) would have noticed the photographer getting his camera out and snapping the picture inside this classroom. If the idea was to display the remnants of a fight, why not simply take a photo of Oswald outside the classroom somewhere? There is much about Oswald that is almost surrealistic. For example, what kind of cosmic coincidence is it that the only home movie footage of him just happened to be taken on November 22, 1962? How many other young men in his economic class would have been offered both radio and television interviews? How many would have been the subject of a novel (written by his very interesting Marine Corps buddy Kerry Thornley) before the assassination? Some or all of these intriguing questions may be related to the Harvey and Lee phenomenon. But there is no doubt that Oswald- whoever or whatever he was- was far more than a misguided Marxist defector forced to work lowly-paid jobs.
  25. Don Jeffries

    Jim DiEugenio spanks The Post

    And if Putin is awful because he was once KGB, what was the KGB like when it really had power? Why would the same "liberals" who seemingly want us to go to war with Russia now, and in fact supported sanctions against them, have been so desirous of peace with the Soviet Union? And why do they seem so cool with China?