Don Jeffries

As someone who has probably spent far too much time examining the "official" narratives in widely reported events, it is tempting for me to say that the prudent thing to do is to assume they're wrong, because they almost always are. We limit our intellectual thought process when we say, "THAT's too extreme," or "Not everything is a a conspiracy." On the contrary, I think it can be demonstrated that organized corruption is entrenched within every powerful organ of our civilization at this point. It's standard operating procedure for there to be wild, conflicting accounts reported by mainstream journalists, slews of unnatural deaths associated with these events, missing or damaged evidence, etc. It defies common sense to believe that all this is purely coincidental. At least once in a while, cops ought to not lose evidence or fail to do the logical thing. The authorities should sometimes not withhold evidence, or make ludicrous claims of "national security." And while some of us can be accused of seeing too many conspiracies, at least occasionally those investigating these events ought to find one, and there should be at least once mainstream "journalist" who doesn't immediately discount the very word conspiracy. As for the specific event in question, the shootings in Paris; I have not wasted a lot of time on it. I did see an alleged victim lying on the sidewalk, shot point blank in the head, with no subsequent blood visible afterward. That was kind of impossible, but hey- it's what you expect from these things at this point. After all, Gary Webb supposedly shot himself twice in the head, and his family seems to even accept that. As Ron points out, there often seems to be a gleeful "calling card" in these events, perhaps best exemplified by the pristine passport from one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, appearing miraculously amid the vaporized remains and rubble. Maybe CE399- the Magic Bullet- was actually an early version of one of these "calling cards." If you research these events, it's very difficult to remain trusting of our institutions or any of our leaders.

Thanks, Paul.

I was able to communicate with a local reporter covering the JFK, Jr. plane crash, and his perspective was very interesting. I touched base with FAA flight specialist Edward Meyer, who was tasked to prepare the official report on weather conditions at the time. If anything, his disagreement with the notion that the weather was responsible for the crash was even stronger than it was in 1999. I communicated with several others, including JFK, Jr.'s ex-girlfriend and a member of his adult inner circle. Those who are interested in a thorough examination of the official narrative of JFK, Jr.'s death, really ought to check out my book Hidden History. http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/1629144843 I devote an entire chapter to the subject, and certainly am grateful for the good work done by Skolnick and other researchers on the internet.

That's absolutely not true, Len. The results of my investigation into the death of JFK, Jr. can be found in my new book Hidden History. http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/1629144843/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

I've posted the first of two chapters that were ultimately not included in the published edition of my book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American History, on my blog, for interested readers. Here's the link: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/

The notion that some critics of the Warren Commission were intelligence assets is not a new one. Mark Lane was even listed as one of the Illuminati's supreme rulers in Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson's classic sci-fil trilogy Illuminatus. Some of you may recall that the authors of that work sprinkled Kerry Thornley's principles of Discordianism liberally throughout it. Knowing that American intelligence agencies co-opted Leftists like Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem back in the 1960s, it is certainly plausible that some critics of the official JFK assassination narrative would have been co-opted as well. However, this is really a pointless line of inquiry. If someone is a "shill," or a "disinfo" agent, they are certainly not going to admit it. You're not going to be able to point to a memo somewhere that proves it. On this forum alone, numerous posters- from Jim Fetzer to Josiah Thompson to David Lifton to many lesser known names- have been accused of being purposefully disruptive, of being insincere in their stated beliefs, allegedly at the behest of shadowy forces that may be paying them for their efforts. I have my own suspicions about others, but I think it's best to treat everyone as if they legitimately believe what they say they do. In the past, I've challenged those who have inexplicably converted from conspiracy to lone nutter, but I realize that was a fruitless effort. I still don't understand them, or lone nutters in general, but I'm not going to accuse any of them of being an intelligence asset. They're incomprehensible to me, but none of us can prove that they're paid disinfo agents. If Mark Lane has abruptly decided, at almost ninety years of age, to repudiate much of his lifelong work by claiming the wound in the throat was an exit wound, and that this is what the Parkland doctors said, then it is just as unfathomable to me as what the lone nutters postulate. I think it's more logical to believe that he really did have a "senior moment," as Pat indicated.

I have to agree with Vince. It's incomprehensible that someone like Mark Lane- who devoted most of his life to writing and lecturing about this case- would just cavalierly contradict so much of his work in a single statement, without even an explanation. Mark Lane will be 88 in February, so I do think (and certainly hope) that this is just a simple case of confusion. I will post his reply if he answers my email.

I emailed Mark Lane a few days ago, asking him about the quotes in question. He sometimes replies to my emails, but hasn't yet. I will share his response if he does.

However we look at it, no rational person would have created that Select Service card, if the purpose was merely to use it as a means for a second identity. I agree with you, Jon, that it is far from certain that the card was really found on Oswald, and it's very unlikely that he would have created it himself. He could have been ordered to, of course, as part of whatever assignment he was on, and those who were directing him may have relied upon his naivety. The whole Hidell "alias" is part of the Oswald puzzle. I have never accepted the premise that Oswald just adopted this second identity, for whatever reason. For all we know, he was telling the authorities that he'd never heard of that name, or seen that bogus Select Service card, during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

Another clear indication that Oswald was working in some kind of intelligence capacity is the fake Select Service card found on him. It was in the name of Hidell, of course, but had a photograph of Oswald. The problem there is that real Select Service cards didn't have photographs. Thus, it would have been useless as a form of identification. It could have been useful, however, in setting up a patsy.

This is nearly impossible to believe. Are we sure the transcript is accurate? If Lane actually said this, it contradicts everything he has written on the subject for nearly fifty years. If anyone is in regular contact with Lane, it would be interesting to hear his explanation.

I agree with you, Larry, that there was no mystery about their relationship. That was my point- they were such an incongruent pair, and thus their "friendship" would be unexplainable outside of the clandestine world. I don't there is any clearer indication that Oswald was connected to the world of Intelligence.

Probably the single most telling aspect of Oswald's life was his close friendship with George DeMohrenschildt. It is simply not fathomable that a cultured, much older man of such a background would ever encounter a low-wage earner like Oswald, outside of the workforce, where they would have only had an impersonal business relationship. DeMohrenschildt came from a very wealthy White Russian family, and when they emigrated to America, they became close to the Bouviers, Jacqueline Kennedy's family. According to author Russ Baker, young Jackie was so close to Oswald's future best friend that she called him "Uncle George." Class distinctions would have expressly prevented the worlds of Oswald and DeMohrenschild from ever having collided. The idea that they were intimate social friends is laughable. DeMohrenschildt was attracted to Oswald for some other reason, and the most logical explanation is that the older man was "handling" him in some manner related to the world of Intelligence.

I asked Jim D. about the 1957 memo involving Ruth Paine, and am waiting for his response. In the meantime, another researcher forwarded me this link from a previous discussion here that touched upon this subject: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6696&p=61670

Stephen, I agree that counter-scenarios should be questioned. But the best critics- Harold Weisberg especially comes to mind- concentrated their efforts on the defects in the official case. They presented no "theory," despite the mainstream media's persistent efforts to lump all critics into the "conspiracy theorist" category. In my own book, I present no "theory." I don't think it's a "put-down" to state that those who have studied this case simply have to come to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the assassin of JFK, if they are being intellectually honest. Lone Nutters have a right to their opinion, but I don't have to respect it or give it the slightest bit of credence. If the official record proves one thing (albeit inadvertently), it's that the assassin couldn't have been Lee Harvey Oswald.

I've never bought into the notion that critics of the official story have to present a counter scenario of their own. Since virtually all real investigation into this case has been done by lay citizens, without the backing of any media organ, without subpoena power, and without much background in journalism or law enforcement, I think it's unfair to expect them to do more than speculate. Beyond proving that the official narrative is untenable, of course. In a criminal trial, there is a presumption of innocence. It's incumbent upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No defendant has to show how the particular crime he's being charged with was committed, or who it was committed by. Oswald has been proven, beyond any doubt, innocent in the court of public opinion, and within the research community. We may never be able to prove, with certainty, exactly who was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But at this point, only someone unfamiliar with the evidence could reasonably believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald. I think that's what should be stressed; the official explanation is impossible. Put the apologists for the myth on the defensive. Don't be trapped into having to explain exactly what happened. Make them defend their house of cards. Sorry to stray a bit from the topic of this thread, but I did want to address the point about critics presenting a counter-narrative. One thing that independent citizen researchers have proven, I think beyond any reasonable doubt, is that Oswald was much more than what he has been portrayed as by the court historians, and almost certainly was working in some capacity for American intelligence.

I believe DiEugenio's reference was on page 343. I think that both the Paines had backgrounds that would lead reasonable people to suspect they were connected in some way to American Intelligence.

Stephen, The Navy memo was referenced by Mary Bancroft, close friend of Michael Paine's parents, and Allen Dulles's mistress, in her autobiography. It was referred to again by Jim DiEugenio in Destiny Betrayed, and he credited researcher Michael Levy with first obtaining it. Perhaps he has a link to a copy of the actual memo, or knows who does. I understand what you're saying in regards to Hoover's statement, but this leads us into the whole quagmire of the Oswald defection. Then we have the ridiculous diary and alleged suicide attempt, and most importantly his re-emergence into America, at the height of the Cold War, with little difficulty or interest from the intelligence community. However we look at it, there had to be a lot more to Lee Harvey Oswald than an embittered Marxist who barely eked out a living. As Richard Schweiker put it years ago, "the fingerprints of intelligence" were all over Oswald.

Pat, With all due respect, your adherence to a theory that discounts any shots from the front, and your insistence that the Parkland medical testimony doesn't contradict the autopsy photos and x-rays is beyond my comprehension. You've clearly put a lot time and effort into this, but I think most researchers will be mystified by the way you interpret the evidence. But then again, maybe I'm just dense....

Stephen, How would we logically explain the Navy Department memo that revealed Ruth Paine's interest in the Oswald family, from 1957? I don't see any ambiguity there. We may never know what agency Oswald was associated with, but everything about his background and short life suggests he must have been employed by one of them. He certainly wasn't a lone rebel-Marxist without a cause.

I think it's implausible to argue that Oswald was not some kind of intelligence asset. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover wrote an official memo about the problem of someone impersonating Oswald a few years before the assassination. It's doubtful that the director of the FBI would be wasting time writing memos about a wife-beating, minimum wage loser, or that anyone, anywhere, would be interested in impersonating such a nonentity. Armstrong's theory has many holes, but his research clearly unearthed a myriad of data which indicate that Oswald's background (and Marguerite's as well) were murkier and littered with the kind of puzzling gaps and contradictions that one simply doesn't find in the backgrounds of random people. Not only J. Edgar Hoover, but the humble housewife Ruth Paine was inquiring about Oswald years before the assassination. Someone was impersonating him, multiple times, in the weeks leading up to the assassination. He even had a co- worker at the Book Depository, Billy Lovelady, who looked enough like him to fool his own children. Oswald was apparently such a memorable character that he inspired fellow Marine Kerry Thornley to base a novel upon his life, again before the assassination. Then there was this young "loner's" close friendship with the cultured George DeMohrenschildt, who had ties to the intelligence community and Jackie Kennedy herself. DeMohrenschildt was decades older than Oswald. Why would a man like that want to be best friends with a 24 year old minimum wage earner like Oswald? However you look at it, Oswald was no "psycho" enraged over the failure of his marriage. He clearly had some kind of ties to someone or something powerful.

Thanks, Gary. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were a lone nutter, or that you haven't studied this case for decades (if you began in 1966, you were a decade ahead of me). I appreciate the reasoned reply.

Gary, I'm not blindly enamored with the "cocoon of Camelot." But I don't like unjust criticism of the Kennedy family, which Hunt was guilty of years ago, when he continued to maintain that they "controlled" the autopsy when Harold Weisberg's documentation proved that, to the contrary, RFK made no stipulations whatsoever. Perhaps John Hunt has done some great work. Those of us who have studied this subject for decades have lost all patience with anyone who gives the least bit of credence to any "bunched up" coat theory. What kind of methodology rejects the fact that Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the death certificate signed by Burkley, and the testimony of Sibert & O'Neill, all placed the back wound exactly where the holes in the clothing are? As Cliff points out so often, there is no rational reason for moving the back wound location up, even if the HSCA spot still makes the SBT nearly impossible. The location of the holes in the clothing-which should be categorized as "best evidence" if anything is, makes it completely and utterly impossible. Your question about where the bullet went that entered JFK's throat has been asked by lone nutters for a long time. How do we know where anything went? The limousine- the literal "crime scene"- was corrupted before any "evidence" was collected from it. There is no reason to trust anything that came out of the limo, given the circumstances, much as there is no reason to trust in the legitimacy of the photos and x-rays that came out of Bethesda. Sorry- I apologize for steering this thread off course.

I agree with Cliff. Anyone who gives the slightest credence to the "bunched up" theory is not a researcher to take seriously, imho. How many times does the evidence have to be examined before we can just admit that the SBT is completely, utterly impossible? I exchanged posts with John Hunt years ago on another forum. The topic was JFK's autopsy, and his inference that the Kennedy family was, in effect, responsible for at least some of its defects because they tried to limit it. I mentioned that Harold Weisberg had destroyed this notion years before, when one of his countless FOIA requests produced the actual autopsy paperwork, signed by Robert Kennedy, which documented that he (speaking for the family) was not asking for any limitations. Hunt ignored the fact that the documentation showed that the Kennedy family was not in "control" of the autopsy. On the contrary, it certainly appears that military officers present that night were controlling it. Blaming the Kennedys for losing JFK's brain, or the inexcusably shoddy autopsy itself, led directly in my view to the later (and ongoing) efforts to blame JFK for his own assassination, and to diminish him as a person and a political leader.

Pat, I probably should have worded that sentence differently. I certainly don't want to infer that I believe the evidence anywhere points towards a lone assassin. But the "official" record is all the defenders of the myth have. By dismissing so many witnesses as "mistaken," we are left to argue over what is in the record, much of it missing and all of it distorted.