Don Jeffries

Step up to the plate for what, Greg? I've rebutted your assertions over and over again. You're just going to keep making the same claims. You may not use large fonts or emoticons, but every post you write is loud, very loud. You're figuratively shouting over others, which is a timeless strategy that works on a lot of people. Please tell us how you know Albert Doyle's real name is Brian.

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it. Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived. Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case. You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

Mark, The emails I'm referring to were sent since you became a moderator. You should have received them. I realize you weren't a moderator at the time the individuals I mentioned were banned, but the same inconsistency remains in terms of how posters are moderated. I know it's a thankless job, and we all do the best we can.

Mark, My comments about this forum on DPF were nothing I hadn't expressed to you and the other moderators in several emails. Did you get those? I do want this forum to flourish, and have done my best to add something of value to the discourse here. I don't know what you mean about my discussing problems I have with the administrators of this forum with Greg Parker. I think James is doing a good job- it's not easy managing all these strong personalities. I have accused the other moderators of being inconsistent in applying the rules, going back to when Jim Fetzer, Peter Lemkin, Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully were banned. My comments about Greg Parker's forum are appropriate, because they serve to explain why it's understandably hard for me to be civil with him, given how I've been attacked there. How his forum is run is his business, but would you respect someone who allows you to be ridiculed like that on his own forum? To be honest, if Greg Parker wouldn't keep insisting on defaming the memory of Jack White, then I wouldn't continue this circular, pointless debate. Apparently, there aren't many people here who cared about Jack White.

During my recent appearance on John Barbour's BBS radio show, I was surprised to learn of his close friendship with Frank Sinatra. John explained how that friendship broke up because of his co-chairmanship of a committee to save Thomas Noguchi, who was pilloried by the establishment following his autopsy report on Robert F. Kennedy.

Greg, You continue to act as if when I post on DPF that I am somehow running away from you, and saying things that I don't say on this forum, where you can directly respond. I don't say anything on other forums that I wouldn't say here. Do you really think I've been shy about confronting you? Geez, how much confrontation do you want? At this point, I think it's obvious that you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours.

Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, despite all your claims of victory, the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy.

13-6.

I'm very interested in seeing this interview, Douglas. Please leave a link when it's archived somewhere.

Harold Weisberg is still one of my all-time heroes, despite his ornery personality. Thanks for the tip, Greg. I knew I could count on you.

Thanks for sharing this, Vince. Having spent a memorable evening with Harold Weisberg back in the 1980s, I can attest to how crotchety he was, and the low opinion he held of almost all other researchers. I think it's a given that if he were posting on these forums, he'd be banned in due order. I can't figure out how to access the others chapters. Your link allows one to read the Preface, and see the Table of Contents, but I can't find a way to read those chapters. Am I missing something?

Vince, I agree with you, but find it even more amazing that he died in February and we are just hearing about it now. If you hadn't reported it, would we have ever known? I guess that speaks to how many other researchers he was in contact with. The research community, such as it is, is becoming more dysfunctional by the day. Seemingly every author who writes about this subject is scrutinized and ultimately rejected by the majority of those who call themselves researchers, regardless of whether they actually have produced any original research or not. Livingstone's personality seems to have been on a par with so many others connected to this case. He would have fit in perfectly on the JFK assassination forums. I read several of Livingstone's books. As someone mentioned on another forum, he would have been served well by having a good editor. His books are awkwardly written, and therefore sometimes challenging to read. But he certainly produced some valuable research. It's no surprise that he was engaged in feuds with several other researchers. This so-called community has always been more about feuding than about presenting a united front.

Bernie, You are woefully mistaken if you think I'm influencing anything here as a moderator. Everything I've written in these threads is as a member only.

I urge interested parties to recall Paul Trejo's comment earlier in this thread, where he stated that the name "Lee" is basically unknown in Spanish, and that its closest approximation would be "Leon." Thus, it seems perfectly logical for those wishing to implicate Lee Oswald to witnesses whose primary language is Spanish, to use the name "Leon" instead.

Bernie, I found the official post-assassination timeline for Oswald to be absurd long before Lee Farley arrived on the scene. In fact, on the Bledsoe-bus thread he started, I first ran afoul of both him and Greg Parker. Not realizing anything about their personalities, I merely chided them for being what I thought was aggressively disrespectful to David Lifton. The fact that I agreed with them totally and disagreed with David mattered little to them. I had taken them to task, and they would not accept that. Thus, I became, in their eyes, some kind of Lifton fan boy. This will, I'm sure, come as a great surprise to David, whom I have only had a few email exchanges with and really don't know at all. But it is indicative of how Greg Parker seeks to manipulate things in order to convey the message he wants. If you think I hate Greg, I suggest you check out the forum he runs, and see just what kind of vile things have been said about me over there, including the most childish cartoon caricatures imaginable. I object to what Greg Parker is doing here- twisting information, attacking the messenger, and playing the martyr all the while, claiming it is he who is being attacked. For all I know, Greg Parker could be the nicest guy in the world. I wouldn't have a forum that attacked him, or anyone else, like that. You''ll notice that I can disagree with Armstrong's post-assassination timeline without attacking his work overall, and without trying to brand his massive book as being worthless. I also would never accuse him of being dishonest or deceptive, as Greg continues to do, without any proof, in regards to Jack White.

For the record, all my comments in these threads are made as a member, not a moderator. I'm not attempting to use what little "clout" I have here to accomplish anything other than object to much of what Greg Parker is saying.

Larry, David has already provided Sylvia Odio's testimony, in which she clearly states that the man was introduced as "Leon Oswald." I did this as well, some time ago, in the Sylvia Oido-Inconvenient Witnesses thread. It doesn't appear that her testimony is about to stop Greg Parker from claiming what he wants to claim. As I've stated before, I have no vested interest here- I am not an Armstrong disciple. However, there is no denying that he unearthed a huge mass of material, and that much of it is important. I can't imagine Armstrong has made much money on his book. It might have cost him more to have it printed, for all I know, than he's made in sales. Whatever you can say about it, Harvey and Lee took a lot of time and effort on his part. I'm sure there are mistakes in Armstrong's work- as I noted, I don't accept his post-assassination timeline and Tippit scenario, which relies heavily upon the official narrative. However, it's irresponsible for Greg or anyone else to infer that the entire theory is deceptive in nature, and especially to continue accusing the late Jack White of unethical behavior.

Thanks for posting that old thread, Greg. It confirmed what I remembered- that there was nothing sinister or inconsistent in what Jack White said about his friendship with Kudlaty. Friends and classmates often go their separate ways, but still consider themselves "friends." Yet you jumped all over Jack's comment that he hadn't seen Kudlaty in decades, but had been friends with him all that time. I have lots of good friends that I haven't seen for many years, usually because we don't live in the same area, but we still talk and I would never consider them not to be friends just because we hadn't seen each other. You also questioned how Jack could have known Kudlaty's wife better than Kudlaty. The only purpose in this desperate effort was to try to make him look inconsistent- which you didn't, and he wasn't. How would knowing his wife better discredit Armstrong's theory? One would think that Armstrong's theory destroyed your own theory, or discredited your own work. This is clearly not the case. Why is this so personal with you? Why is it so important to you? As it is with most of your arguments against Harvey and Lee, you are stretching credulity to the breaking point here, in trying to poke holes in the theory. Not to mention, of course, making outrageous attacks upon a good man's character.

White certainly sounds like quite an "extremist," perhaps even a "conspiracy theorist." I suppose that he, probably like many others, made a choice to sacrifice principle and integrity for financial security. Part of the reason I chose to focus on so many different topics in Hidden History was because I too, believe it is all "fraudulent." Our leaders didn't just suddenly become corrupt, and start withholding evidence, "losing" evidence, silencing witnesses, etc. on November 22, 1963, and they certainly didn't return to any imagined ethical behavior afterwards. This is standard operating procedure for those who rule us. Unfortunately, it seems that we have to wait until after high profile people like White die to learn about their real views. It's a real shame that so few with a public platform are willing to simply tell the truth. If JFK was writing Profiles in Courage today, he'd really struggle to find any recent candidates.

Greg Parker warned others here not to open perfectly fine links, provided by Jim Hargrove. When some of us, including Jim, questioned this, Greg responded in predictably indignant fashion, and attempted to make it look as if he, as always, was being wronged. A reasonable person would have simply said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I didn't mean to infer that you were being dishonest- I just reacted to what my software was telling me." There are three primary reasons I continue to be drawn back to this topic. One, Greg Parker just keeps cavalierly accusing Jack White of fraud, without even using the "alleged" thing that the msm never uses on Oswald and other patsies. Two, his obsession with dismantling the Harvey & Lee theory has caused him to discount all the strong indications that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination. And now three, he accused Jim Hargrove of posting dangerous links, was found to be in error about this, and not only doesn't apologize, he plays the victim and acts as if Jim was wrong to question it. If others would simply call him out on his behavior and the way he presents speculation as fact, then I could find time for hundreds of more important things than posting here. I know that the vast majority of the research community, including most who have posted and still post here, have always found Sylvia Odio, for example, to be entirely credible. As such, her encounter with a seeming Oswald impersonator represents strong evidence of an attempt to frame him in advance for the assassination. But no one beyond myself and a few others have confronted Greg here about his contentions. Why is that? Most of you certainly have confrontational personalities. I personally resent all this a lot more than Jim Hargrove's misunderstanding about how the p.m. system works here.

Mark, I don't recall what thread featured that- I'm sure you must remember. Greg Burnham doesn't post here that often, I would imagine he can recall. I think it was hidden pretty quickly. I'm not baiting anyone. You swallow Greg Parker's logic- that he can attack people and their ideas with reckless abandon, utilizing dubious theories about Asbergers and tonsil regrowth, among other things, then play the innocent victim when people fight back. I really wanted to leave this subject to others, but someone has to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. The links Jim Hargrove left are perfectly fine- I tried them. Did you? When someone makes a reckless charge like that, and there appears to be no legitimate reason for doing so, then don't you think he should be confronted? I'm sorry, but someone who is so zealous to discredit John Armstrong's theory that he dismisses all the very solid evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination is not helping the cause of truth. You're right- I'm contributing to the food fight, and I apologize for that. I'm not a disciple of Armstrong. For me, the official story is impossible, whether Harvey and Lee is valid or not. You and Bernie seem to feel that Greg has destroyed Harvey and Lee. I disagree completely, and feel that he has been reaching for straws in a desperate attempt to discredit one particular theory. David Josephs, on the other hand, in my view has argued his case extremely well.

Bernie, James Gordon has been more than patient with Greg Parker, and had in fact taken away David Josephs' posting privileges not that long ago. On the other hand, those in Parker's camp have been far more aggressive and offensive than David Josephs, Steven Gaal or Jim Hargrove. For instance, Mark Valenti told David bluntly, "F....You, David," and advised Greg Burnham, on another thread, to "Shove it up your a...." Thomas Graves was allowed to taunt all his opponents with childish nicknames. And now, what will happen to Greg Parker, after he warned people not to click on the links Jim Hargrove posted on the Frankenstein picture thread? These were harmless, legitimate links, provided by Jim in order to further the debate. Maybe Greg'a computer is different from all others, and strangely susceptible to viruses that don't exist. The alternative is that Greg was falsely labeling Jm's links as dangerous, when clearly they weren't. Imagine how Greg would respond to someone saying that about any links that he provided. I can hear the demands for a public apology now. Maybe he'd even start one of those dramatic "countdowns" he tried to use once with me. Regardless, you will never see an apology from Greg on this or any other forum. Greg Parker is the one doing the baiting here, not David or those who support him. He attempted to bait me at least twice since I promised myself that I'd ignore these threads (once by writing, "P.S., Hello, Don" for some inexplicable reason, and in another intimating that I was protecting David Josephs). Greg has also, of course, defamed the good name of deceased researcher Jack White, and declared, with only his opinion as "evidence," that he willfully forged the Oswald photo in question. And in my view, no one here outside of myself has really taken him to task for that. No matter what you think of Jack White, or what your suspicions may be, it is far more irresponsible than the most extreme "conspiracy theorist" ever dared to be to just accuse someone who can't defend himself of forgery. We continue to see middle-aged men, on this forum and others, unable to express themselves without resorting to childish tactics, and pointing fingers at others with the timeless childhood claims of "But it's his fault! Why don't you do something to him?" The more time I spend on these forums, the more I realize how counterproductive they've become. Most of you simply enjoy engaging in these figurative food fights.

I would hope that David and Jim Hargrove can do a better job than I can of explaining the photo in question. I got the newspaper to send me a pdf of the version that first appeared in their paper in 1959. That's about all I can do. Jack White's relationship with Kudlaty doesn't change the fact that the FBI asked for Oswald's Stripling school records the day after the assassination. The official narrative maintains that Oswald never attended Stripling. Is it that inconceivable that Jack White would have known some of the people involved in all this, given that he lived in Texas? Kudlaty's story should be viewed apart from the fact he knew Jack White, no matter how close they were. My main issue with this picture are the allegations that White knowingly altered it. That's a serious charge, and I can't believe no one else on this forum is defending him. Does your silence suggest that you believe Jack White was capable of such chicanery?

Greg, You've made serious allegations against a researcher who spent decades studying the photographic record of this case. I can't believe I'm the only one on this forum who is outraged by your efforts to besmirch his reputation, especially when he is no longer able to defend himself. I contacted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they provided me with the image that is in their archives. I find the photograph to be of dubious quality, and I think it looks "Frankenstein" enough without any additional doctoring. I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Armstrong used a lower quality copy of the photograph, which may have caused even further distortion in the image. You claim not to like conspiracy theories; that's a far simpler explanation than speculating that Jack White amateurishly butchered the photo to support someone else's research. I'll let the rest of you debate this; as I said, I find most discussions of photographic interpretation to be pointless. But I do hope that someone else here will speak up for Jack White. I can't be the only one on this forum who respects his memory and resents these scurrilous allegations against him.

Thanks, Brian. I had some difficulty with this, but here's a link where you can view the front page that is in the newspaper's archives: http://postimg.org/image/vfthluhxd/ Gary Mack also sent me a link to the Armstrong version, which came from what Gary said was a different edition, but should still be considered an official page of record. I freely admit to not being an "expert," however one qualifies as such, in photo interpretation. However, it is my uneducated opinion that this photo of Oswald was, from the beginning, very muddy and "Frankenstein" like in appearance. I don't know why the newspaper wouldn't have requested, and used, the best possible image in all cases, but it looks like the picture was of the same dubious quality long before either Jack White or John Armstrong got their hands on it.