Don Jeffries

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Jim D. is exactly right here. How can Americans lecture Russia about interfering in other elections, when we have specialized for decades in overthrowing regimes, invading and occupying small sovereign nations? But then again, how can we lecture certain countries about having nuclear weapons, when we are the only ones who ever used them on another nation? And as for North Korea, while we continue our escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have never even invaded South Korea.

Cliff, You know I respect you, and we're on the same page regarding the JFK assassination. But.... We are seeing an entirely different set of facts here. Whatever money Trump might have accepted from Russians over the years in no way differentiates him from any other corporate One Percenter. His primary focus all his life has been making money, in any way he can. In this regard, he is no different than any other billionaire. There's an old adage about it being impossible to become a billionaire honestly. I think that's very true. By focusing on the "Russians," we diminish our own massive domestic corruption. And this goes for Hillary Clinton as well. I don't think she "colluded" with the Russians, either. We are more than capable of subverting and conspiring without the help of the Russians or anyone else. Voter ID laws are not "racist." They are completely necessary in order to prevent anyone voting multiple times, or using a dead voter's name. Everyone has an ID- even illegal immigrants, which effectively allows them to vote at least in California, and also diminishes any remaining value left in American citizenship. If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, then what is the benefit of being an American citizen? This has become a new calling card for the pro-war, anti-union establishment Left. Everything is "racist," and nothing else matters. Identity politics, and the social justice warriors that enforce it, is one of the primary reasons behind Trump's election. His support was generated largely because so many people are tired of being lectured about being "racist" and about having some kind of "privilege" which translates into working paycheck to paycheck, losing pensions, and being unable to retire. I think too many Americans are falling into this phony "left" and "right" paradigm, which restricts debate and causes contention over issues like transgender bathrooms, which effect only a minute fraction of the population. We are able to "choose" between an establishment left that loves war, trade and immigration policies that have killed American industry and crushed working class wages and benefits, and an establishment right that loves war, wants to exploit the cheapest labor possible, and thinks rich people should be called "job creators." There's not much "choice" between authoritarian social justice warriors who want people fired for the slip of a tongue, and greedy Ayn Rand disciples who want to eliminate minimum wage and bring back child labor. Sorry to ramble. None of this has anything to do with the JFK assassination. Except that it does illustrate how far we've sunk as a society just over fifty years later. Those on the left who believe the "Russian" conspiracy theory (the only conspiracy theory the msm has ever pushed) cannot possibly be a fan of JFK's American University speech, which I still feel was the greatest political speech in American history.

Tommy, You sound more and more like an old-line anti-Soviet guy, circa 1956. Surely you must have a revisionist opinion of Joseph McCarthy at this point? For the record, Putin has put out a decree that any Rothschilds entering Russia are to be arrested on the spot. He has banned GMOs from Russian food. He has made inferences that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Much of what he says sounds a lot more reasonable than the tired rhetoric we get from our own homegrown Republicrat politicians. If you think Putin is so bad, what must you have thought of Lenin or Stalin?

Donald Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, as virtually all members of the One Percent are. He has been influenced by "Russia" as much as Thomas Graves has. No matter how many times you repeat the "Russian mobbed-up" talking point, it's as meaningless as the millions of msm references to Russian "collusion" in the election. As I covered extensively in Hidden History, this country has a sordid tradition of electoral fraud. The "Russians" have never had anything to do with it. The only demonstrable fraud in the 2016 election was the early efforts of the Republican party to stop Trump from getting their nomination, and the clear, irrefutable documentation produced by Wikileaks (as always, not by any professional "journalist") revealing that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders to deny him the Democratic nomination. It'a laughable to see the same people who demanded Detente and "peaceful coexistence" with the Russians, when they were taking over other sovereign nations and subverting liberty everywhere, suddenly seeing a "Russian" behind every tree. "It's the Russians" has become the pat response to any allegation of corruption on the part of the Clintons, Obama, or any other Deep State criminal. This is exactly how the Right used to find "subversion" on the part of any freethinker in Hollywood or elsewhere back in the 1950s. None of this has anything to do with the JFK assassination, of course. But it does demonstrate how Thomas Graves firebombs nearly every thread on this forum with his purposefully incomprehensible nonsense. If he hasn't already done so, I would urge him to contact Cass Sunstein about that program to place disruptive trolls all over the internet. And no, I'm not a fan of Trump's. He's become a veritable Goldstein for our collapsing society, for the proles to either take out their two minutes of hate on, or hold out false hope as an opponent of the overwhelming corruption everywhere.

Why do any of you treat Thomas Graves as a serious researcher? His every post is filled with sarcastic jabs and unsuccessful attempts at humor. He has become much more than just another John Armstrong-basher, as he promulgates the only conspiracy theory the establishment has ever loved- the "Russians did it" nonsense. He is also becoming some kind of outlandish grammar cop. From what little I can decipher out of his multitude of posts, Graves now believes disinfo agent/lone nutter Edward Epstein was essentially right. He is promoting the Oswald-did-it mantra, just in a more subtle way than Tracy Parnell or DVP. Reading his posts is like watching a mainstream media broadcast, while very drunk. Chris Cuomo might as well be posting here. Engaging him in "debate" and treating his intentionally incoherent ramblings seriously just lowers the level of discourse here. It's hard to picture all the fine researchers who no longer post here, ever giving Thomas Graves the time of day. For the record, RT is the only television network that will tell the truth about the massive corruption in this country. I'm proud to have been interviewed at their studios a couple of times. They are not disseminating any propaganda, unlike our own homegrown television networks, which are far closer to the old Pravda. The difference between Pravda and CNN, CBS, NBC, etc., is that the Soviets were awake enough to at least realize they were absorbing state propaganda.

Jim DiEugenio is one of the few people in the JFK assassination research community who seems to understand just how putrid our professional "journalists" are in this country. If we had an independent mainstream media, with curious reporters, editors and producers who desired to publish the truth, then I would not have been able to write a book like Hidden History. Forget any muckrackers out there, feverishly trying to expose corruption. I'd settle for a media that simply questioned official sources. High-paid journalists, along with what I call the court historians, are tremendously vested in these official narratives, of both important political events, and even very old slices of history. For instance, the government still is blocking the request from the descendants of John Wilkes Booth, to have the body buried in Baltimore's Green Mount Cemetery exhumed. And they are stopping the exhumation of an even older historical figure, Meriwether Lewis, as well. High profile historians have a reputation to uphold, as do professional "journalists." For decades, they have insisted that any and all "conspiracy theories" are absurd. Thus, if DNA testing proved that the body in Green Mount, for instance, was not Booth, they have a lot of explaining to do. The Post is the kind of film that exemplifies everything wrong with our media, and our society. The entire gist of the film is to make establishment liberal-type heroes (the kind of man Tom Hanks imagines himself to be, I suppose) out of an editor and publisher who, in reality, did everything they could to appease the powerful elite in this country. More importantly for those interested in this particular subject, they slandered the true heroes who investigated a crime that "professionals" wouldn't, and did everything they could to cover up the truth about the JFK assassination. The reason why Donald Trump maintains any support at all is because his "fake news" proclamations are directed primarily at sources that undeniably have never produced any accurate reporting on any significant subject. I believe that most Americans today are historically illiterate. They don't even know anything about the "fake" official narratives, so how do we expose the lies and cover ups behind them? I only read some of the threads here now, and am frankly shocked at the level of discourse. Jim DiEugenio has a great deal of patience. If you've studied this case to any degree at all, you should know how big this conspiracy was, and how the cover up continues. And you certainly should be able to spot a piece of disinformation like The Post for what it is.

This odious piece of cinematic disinformation cannot be compared in any way, shape, or form to Oliver Stone's JFK. Stone took very little dramatic license; he basically combined a few characters to create the fictional Willie O'Keefe, couldn't use Ruth Paine's real name for fear of a lawsuit, and idealized Jim Garrison a good deal because he needed a single protagonist. The Post takes real events and skewers them beyond all recognition. It makes a heroine out of Katherine Graham, who was an obnoxious One Percenter that was never any kind of true liberal zealot, despite the histrionics of Hollywood's favorite actress. Graham's timeless quote, "There are things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows" should tell anyone all they need to know about her "journalistic" instincts. This film, like almost every film about a given slice of history, is selling the official narrative. The official narrative here is that the establishment Left, represented by Ben Bradlee (Richard Helms' childhood buddy) and Katherine Graham, is altruistic and worthy of every accolade we can bestow upon them. The casting of Hanks, Hollywood's loudest lone nutter, is very revealing. Hanks is a quintessential establishment "liberal." As I showed in Hidden History, the establishment Left despises the Kennedys, especially JFK. The official narrative is that JFK was no different than LBJ or any other politician, and was in fact more personally corrupt, what with all those gangster molls and spies he was screwing. He was also somehow deathly sick at the same time, and any cover up associated with his autopsy was due to the Kennedy family wanting to keep all this suppressed. Jim DiEugenio is exactly right here. Much as Ken Burns' Vietnam (and again, Burns is yet another faithful establishment liberal) failed to mention the significance of NSAMs 263 and 273, this film distorts the historical record by casting those who were part of the problem by covering up a myriad of sordid deeds (first and foremost, the truth about the JFK assassination), as being crusading "journalists" for the truth. And people wonder why so many of us are down on Hollywood.

There must be more to the document, Jim, but the part about airing only what is "consonant" with the FBI report has been out there for a long time. The rest of the document would be new, and certainly interesting.

This is par for the course with Trump. He likes to excite his base, make them continue to think he's an outsider, then ultimately act exactly the same as his predecessors.