Don Jeffries

Is it possible that Judyth could, like others in this case, simply have elaborated on some kind of reality over the years, exaggerating her own connection to a historical event? I recall how Richard Carr was scrutinized so severely a few years back, on this forum, and several alleged inconsistencies found in his background. As I pointed out at that time, who could survive such scrutiny unscathed? Judyth is only human, like the rest of us. Many people start out exaggerating, and then have to lie to keep things going. This leads to more lies, of course, as the old expression informs us; "What a tangled we we weave, once we practice to deceive." The fact that Judyth has passionate followers would only exacerbate this. Few of us are immune to believing our own press clippings. As Patrick Block so cogently pointed out, there is some kind of connection probable here. Judyth did work at the same place Oswald worked, at the same time. Sure, she could have invented the story completely, but it's just as likely that some of her tale is true, and that over time she exaggerated it, out of ego or whatever.

Larry, I largely agree with you about debating the trajectories and locations of shooters. As for the wounds, the unusual, botched nature of the autopsy colors everything in the record. My concern here is that minimizing the testimony of the Parkland medical personnel, in terms of a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, is just another way of ignoring eyewitness testimony in favor of the "official" record. Whether it's the witnesses who reported that the limo stopped or almost stopped, or the observations of the doctors at Parkland, dismissing them means another unnecessary concession to the forces that so strongly desire a "lone nut" conclusion in this case. Really, if researchers downplay the testimony of eyewitnesses, what are we left with? The "official" record, tarnished and unbelievable as it is, points towards a lone assassin, much as the tainted "evidence" found on the sixth floor and supposedly in Oswald's possession, or connected to him through the Paines, points towards him as that assassin. Declaring that shots came only from behind makes a mockery of all the initial reports about an entrance wound to the throat, and ignores the fact that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from in front. It dilutes the case for conspiracy and is really only a short jump in logic away from agreeing with the discredited conclusions of the Warren Commission.

Thanks, Jon!

Thanks, Paul!

Let's speculate for a moment. IF Oswald was indeed Prayer Man, or even the figure in the doorway many now accept as Lovelady, how many witnesses would have had the courage to come forth, once the authorities started speaking about the ironclad evidence against him, the sniper's nest, the defection to Russia, etc.? And with the way most researchers now cling fiercely to the notion that it was Lovelady there, with the debate considered over, such a witness wouldn't even be welcomed by many of those who think Oswald wasn't a shooter. Wesley Frazier is a witness whose testimony can be used to both incriminate and exonerate Oswald. We know that he was grilled by authorities initially, and perhaps was considered a backup "lone nut." If he suddenly admitted that he'd seen Oswald on the steps somewhere, how would that effect his credibility with researchers? It's doubtful that anyone would believe him at this point. We really know nothing about "Oswald leaving the TSBD." Those 'investigating" this crime simply picked 12:33 p.m. out of the air, enshrining it as the time Oswald left the TSBD, when there is zero evidence for that. Given what we know of Oswald's reputation as a "loner" at work, how likely is it that anyone would have been talking to him, if he WAS out front on the steps somewhere, or even have noticed him? In a much more trusting 1963-era America, very few citizens would have been willing or able to summon the resolve to provide such a smoking gun that proved Oswald's innocence. Analyzing photographs is something I feel unqualified to do, although I grant you that it always makes for interesting debates on these forums. The best evidence, in my view, for Oswald leaving the TSBD are the at least five separate, unconnected witnesses, who reported someone resembling him racing down the slope and into a Rambler shortly after the assassination. That certainly seems more credible than the official story.

Thanks, Vince!

I know we've been over all this many times before. Still, it bears repeating. The Parkland medical people did describe a head wound that simply isn't seen in the extant autopsy photos and x-rays. Considering how shoddy JFK's autopsy was, and how questions exist about every aspect of it, imho it's naive to trust any of the official evidence that came out of it.

Thanks, Don.

Thanks, Bernice! I hope your husband likes it, too.

My new book, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, has just been released by Skyhorse Publishing. http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/1629144843 I communicated with witnesses like the nephew of Seymour Weitzman and the son and granddaughter of the elusive Secret Service agent Henry Rybka, among others. It features the first in-depth investigation into the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr, and covers everything from the Kennedy assassinations to 9/11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, Franklin Credit and other child sex scandals and the fraudulent nature of the big charities. I hope that many of you here will be interested in reading it.

Ben Bradlee epitomized all that is wrong with the mainstream media. Supposedly one of JFK's closest personal friends, Bradlee nevertheless remained in step with The New York Times, every television network and all the other organs of the establishment press, promoting the lone assassin fairy tale whenever anything was written on the subject. The "highlight" of the Post's assassination coverage came when trusty George Lardner, Jr. attacked Oliver Stone's JFK before it had even been released, thanks to Harold Weisberg leaking him an advance copy of the script. Even when public interest in the assassination was at its peak, Bradlee's newspaper continued to promulgate the impossible official narrative, and certainly never did any investigating of their own. There was never any Woodward and Bernstein associated with the Kennedy assassinations. Bradlee lived a long and satisfying life. But his newspaper did a shameful job of reporting on the assassination and countless other important subjects.

I taped the same 6 hours of NBC coverage that Kathy is referring to, sometime back in the 1980s. The History Channel used to air it around every anniversary. To be fair to those reporters, the technology was primitive and they probably didn't have the capability to conduct a bunch of remote interviews. However, overall the media in 1963 did a pathetic job; they established the pattern for the next fifty years, with their absolute failure to question anything the authorities were saying, or do any investigating themselves. If there had been a Harold Weisberg or a Sylvia Meagher on the staff of The New York Times or CBS News, and they were permitted to act like real journalists, this case would have been solved a long time ago. The lapdog nature of the press was best illustrated by the December 11, 1963 FBI teletype to J. Edgar Hoover, proudly boasting that NBC had promised to "televise only those items which are in consonance with bureau report (on the assassination)." It certainly seems as if every television network adhered to that, and abides by it even now. But to get this thread back on topic, thanks to Douglas Caddy for sharing the video. That was David Lifton at his best.

Brad, Great points about the media coverage, or lack of it. Many of us have long wondered why the rest of JFK's Texas trip was so thoroughly documented on film, while there is a glaring lack of professional footage of that fateful motorcade. The fact the press was uncharacteristically stuck far back in the motorcade is very suspicious. I would also note that while throngs of spectators lined the sidewalks throughout the motorcade, Dealey Plaza itself was only sprinkled with spectators. Why weren't more people there? The mainstream media then, as now, failed to ask obvious questions or do any investigating at all. They dutifully accepted anything that the authorities said.

Paul, "The Guilty Men" episode directly pointed the finger at LBJ. Powerful forces protested and quickly got the episode banned from further airplay. Coincidentally or not, the oft-aired "The Men Who Killed the President" series was not shown on the History Channel after this controversy arose, to my knowledge.

This whole episode- where leaks to the press intimated that there were some bombshell quotes from Jackie accusing LBJ of complicity in the assassination- is very strange. Recall that Caroline Kennedy was behind the release of these tapes, in a very surprising, uncharacteristic move, far ahead of schedule (Jackie had ordered that they remain private until 50 years after her death). Unlike her brother, Caroline has always seemed to blanch at the very subject of her father's assassination. These references to Jackie pointing the finger at LBJ were subsequently dropped, and ultimately the recordings aired on television contained nothing of the kind. To my knowledge, no one ever explained how these detailed initial leaks could have been based upon explosive comments that never existed. Perhaps ABC was unwilling to repeat the mistake of the History Channel and the "Guilty Men" episode of Nigel Turner's The Men Who Killed the President series. I found it impossible to believe at the time that any American television network would air such comments, if they existed. I still strongly suspect that there must have been something in those tapes, and that they were suppressed. Do we know if the unedited tapes can be accessed by the public?

I agree with the idea that at least some banished posters should be allowed to join this forum again. In fact, I think it would be a nice gesture to start over with a clean slate. In other words, let anyone rejoin that wants to. Many of those missing voices would certainly provide for some lively debates.

That was very interesting. Thanks for sharing, Douglas.

Why are you planning to stop posting here, Steve?

But John, the evidence is available for them to easily conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't do it, that the official narrative is unquestionably wrong. At this point, if they've studied the available record, they can't honestly defend the official story.

James, Like so many others, I'm grateful to you and your group for managing to save the forum. It's wonderful news that this resource will remain alive and well.

Dawn, There will be a thorough look at the death of JFK, Jr. in my upcoming book.

So where do we stand now in regards to the forum closing? In light of all the people who have offered to help financially, is John willing to keep it going? This forum has been a great resource. We all hope it will stay online.

Expecting any "professional" historian to examine significant political events like the JFK assassination honestly is like expecting a high profile mainstream journalist to report on it honestly. Historians have been well trained to dismiss any doubts about an official narrative, any mention of widespread corruption, or indeed any questioning of authority, as "conspiracy theories." If historians or journalists had done their jobs, there would have been no need for the Harold Weisbergs, Sylvia Meaghers, Vincent Salandrias and Mark Lanes of the world.

This is a real shame- the Education Forum has been an invaluable resource for everyone interested in the JFK assassination and related issues. I would also be willing to contribute something to keep the forum afloat- if enough of us do this, the cost would be minimal individually. I hope John addresses this possibility, and also clarifies whether just the assassination forum is being shut down, or the entire Education Forum.

Paul brings up the point I've always wondered about- why was there no film footage at all during the actual shooting? Some quick observations- I believe that was Kennedy brother-in-law Stephen Smith who was the first speaker to urge the crowd to disperse. The woman at his side was probably RFK's sister Jean, although she looked a bit different and certainly seemed amazingly calm under the circumstances. I was struck by the fact that the pantry seemed less crowded and not as loud as I assumed it must have been, considering what was going on. There wasn't quite the sense of pandemonium I expected. Thanks for sharing, Doug.