Don Jeffries

Tom, We don't need to uncover any more "evidence" at this point. We should be stressing, over and over again like a political talking point, that the official story is impossible. We shouldn't be drawn into providing answers for the msm "journalists" who will surely be skeptical of anything disputing the official narrative. We don't need to produce a "theory" for them to ridicule. We should just demonstrate effectively that their own "theory" is ridiculous. This has been the argument of the LNers since the 1960s- "Where is the new evidence," or "I've seen no evidence of conspiracy." As Mark Lane used to reply, "What's wrong with the old evidence?" And as for fact checking, that only comes into play when people try to theorize. The facts demonstrate conclusively that there was a conspiracy. And as I've pointed out many times, the worst "fact checker" out there can't hold a candle to the dismal record of the authorities. We shouldn't be expected to solve the case, but we can certainly demonstrate what didn't happen- Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy.

Ron, Unfortunately, I believe Moore does accept the official story. I saw him on an episode of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect several years ago, when Gerald Posner was one of the other guests. Maher,quite predictably, passionately defended the Oswald-Did-It fairy tale, and so did Jim Belushi. When the assassination was brought up, Moore didn't say a word.

Michael, In all likelihood, only LNers will be granted access to msm organs during the 50th anniversary coverage. Thus, my call for a statement is probably a moot point. However, I still think it's important for those of us who have devoted most of our lives to this subject to stop bickering with each other and try to coalesce into a united front. I think that can be done, and we can rally around a rather broad statement like the one I wrote. So, to answer your questions, if the past is any indication, I expect to be disappointed over the 50th anniversary coverage, and to be reading more of the same kind of divisive threads I have bemoaned so often on this forum and others. I would like to be able to say that those of us who have researched this case extensively were finally able to set aside petty squabbles for the greater good, and for a much larger, common cause.

Again, Tom- many thanks for exposing these intriguing connections.

During a recent appearance on the Alex Jones show, Richard Belzer, who is friends with Tom Hanks, shared an interesting story. Apparently, he was able to corner Hanks at a party and tried to set him straight about the JFK assassination, and Hanks I guess at least listened. However, the next time he saw him on the street, Hanks was quickly bustled away by his entourage, only barely saying hello to Belzer. I guess he was quite anxious to avoid the subject. Tom Hanks isn't stupid. I'm sure Richard Belzer isn't the only person who has attempted to enlighten him about the evidence in the JFK assassination. We can only speculate about his motivation, but he can't honestly believe the official story.

Michael, Jim addressed your concerns pretty much as I would have. While there is no one group representing JFK assassination researchers, we've often been referred to as a community. A fractured, dysfunctional community, but a community nonetheless. I think a statement like that would be valuable for anyone who gets a chance to address the public, via radio, television, or large circulation newspapers and magazines. I think the point that should be hammered home relentlessly, is "The assassination was never honestly investigated, and the official explanation is impossible." Don't be baited into providing a "theory," just explain that it isn't up to any researcher to prove what happened. It's enough to declare that the government's version of events couldn't have happened. This is crucial now, because of the 50th anniversary, as Jim notes. We aren't going to really win with the mainstream media, as they are partisan advocates for the government's narrative, but we can at least try and be more effective in the limited opportunities presented to us. That's why I was hoping to get people like David Lifton and Josiah Thompson to agree with this statement. They are the ones more likely than the rest of us to get a public forum on the 50th anniversary. I think they would be much more persuasive, and could disarm the msm "journalists" by initially making this kind of strong declaration.

Yes, I could live with that statement as well. However, I really thought my original statement was about as pared down as could be, while still coming as off a strong declaration of collective belief. The important thing, imho, is for us to reach a consensus. While this thread has been very active, how many people have actually agreed to that rather innocuous acknowledgement of conspiracy? Most of the posts have been between DVP and others, regarding issues that have nothing to do with the topic, and in fact they exemplify why there is a need for a consensus statement in the first place. I'm beginning to think that more people prefer the infighting to a spirit of camaraderie.

It appears Lee Harvey Oswald is causing some to be reluctant to support my rather simple statement. I'm a bit surprised that seasoned researchers still hold out any possibility that Oswald was shooting a weapon that day, or that he was a willing conspirator. I would think that the prosecutorial thrust of the bogus investigation, ignoring any leads that led away from Oswald, and the absurd nature of the "evidence" discovered against him, would have convinced all of you that he was framed. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we were all drawn to this case- the shoddy Carcano, with its dubious paper trail leading to Oswald's alleged alias, the acknowledgement that Oswald was "a rather poor shot," no ammunition sales traced to him, no evidence he had ever practiced with a weapon in America, etc.? Oswald's innocence as an alleged assassin seems to me to be part and parcel of any credible belief in conspiracy. I appreciate all the replies here, and am grateful that some of you supported my statement. Still, I am disappointed in the predictable derailment of this thread by DVP. I would like to hear from more of you regarding this consensus statement. If we are any kind of real community, we have to agree on something.

While Obama, like all Presidents since November 22, 1963, does the will of his masters, he could at least summon up the courage to call publicly for the release of all withheld documents from the assassinations of the 1960s (and the Wallace shooting as well). Since the goverment officially claims each crime was the resulf of a lone gunman, what possible "national security" concerns could explain why they haven't been released to the public? This is an issue that exemplifies why the "left" and "right" paradigm is phony. No one can justify keeping these documents locked away, and indeed nearly everyone that comments on the issue declares they are personally in favor of releasing them. And yet they remain withheld. That shouldn't happen in a democracy, or a constitutional republic.

You'll note that my statement says nothing about Oswald's possible role in any conspiracy. Jim Garrison was the first, I believe, to postulate that LHO was some kind of intelligence operative, and had been assigned to infiltrate a group he was told might be plotting to kill the President. I happen to personally think this is the most likely explanation of Oswald's role as unwitting patsy. I don't think it's likely that he was a witting conspirator, but my statement doesn't address that. Any way we look at it, Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK.

Well, DVP has predictably derailed this thread, turning it into an argument about the head wound. Getting back to the topic here, I would love to hear more of you chiming in. And I'm serious about the research community trying to finally come together in some kind of unified force. I can't believe any one who has studied the evidence and realized the official story was impossible could not agree to the statement I wrote. I'd love to know if David Lifton could support it, or Josiah Thompson. Or the posters here who regularly find themselves in fierce squabbles with others who doubt the official story. We continue to eat our own. I was just made aware that Joe Backes headlined a recent post on his blog, "Why Don Jeffries Is An .....(expletive deleted)." From what I've read, Joe and I seem to agree on the main issues in this case. I expect this stuff from LNers like Paul May- whom I also recently discovered has termed me "an incompetent moderator" on another forum, but not from those who agree there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. We all need to put aside these petty personality disputes, and reign in our egos. We ought to be able to rally behind a simple point of agreement, if exposing the truth about the assassination of JFK is really what we desire.

Okay, John- well, I guess that shows we all really can't agree on anything. Would you really reject that statement because you think JFK's assassination was less important than some other one? Btw, what 20th century assassination was more important? I appreciate the replies here, but would like to know how many others would stand behind this kind of consensus statement. I'd especially like to hear from those who have been involved in many heated debates on this forum, with other members who dispute the official story.

Reading over the recent posts involving David Lifton and Jim DiEugenio, and keeping in mind all the past disagreements between so many good researchers on this subject, I would like to know if it is possible for us all to agree on anything about the assassination at this point. Leaving aside the arguments over minutiae dear to the hearts of specific researchers, can we find a consensus here? Those of us who know the official story is impossible should be able to come up with a platform expressing our collective thoughts. So, I have drated the following, and wonder if the research community could find a way to rally around something like it: The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time. Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Thanks to the efforts of the msm, "conspiracy theorists" have been demonized like no other group in America. In reality, "conspiracy theorists" are often not theorizing at all, but simply pointing out the inaccuracies in the official narratives of important events, doing the job real reporters should be doing. Our well paid "journalists" are only skeptical of those who question authority, but are never skeptical of the authorities themselves. Again, I think if you can see past Alex Jones' wild and crazy personality, he actually presents an astonishing amount of information. In most cases, he has solid sources to back it up. Sure, he makes mistakes, but considering how much stuff he's putting out there (and I will acknowledge he'd be better off focusing on fewer issues at a time, but that just seems to be his style), his accuracy is pretty good. It's certainly a lot better than any mainstream media organ I can think of. What's important to me, and to a lot of others I think, is that AJ has tapped into a huge discontent, which is growing all the time. People, especially an increasing number of young people, understand that they aren't being told the truth about important things, that there is a fundamental unfairness in the system, and their leaders seem only to care about the interests of the select few at the top of the economic ladder. The internet has fueled this discord, and few have a larger presence on the internet than AJ. Look at the Piers Morgan interview. AJ was lambasted by many for being so aggressively over the top. But who ended up looking ridiculous? AJ subsequently filmed a sign outside Morgan's estate, which informed the public that it was protected by armed guards! Exposing that kind of monumental hypocrisy resonates with the public.

Alex Jones fills a void. Because we know that the msm are not real "journalists," and serve the same purpose that Pravda once served in the old Soviet Union, our options are limited in terms of alternative news. Right now, AJ is the most well known anti- establishment voice out there, and reaches more people than all the others combined. He provides an open forum for guests like Jim Marrs, Gerald Celente, Richard Belzer, Paul Craig Roberts and many others. AJ is far from perfect. He has a huge ego (again, do any of those involved in studying these matters not have a huge ego?), makes way too many predictions (like most of the anti-establishment types have been doing since Penn Jones, who had a worse record than AJ on predictions), and is probably not easy to work for. However, unless we accept that he is a paid disinfo artist (and as I've said on this forum, defending those who are accused of being disinfo agents, there is no concrete way of proving such an allegation), then it seems likely that he is who he appears to be. A loud, overly animated, wildly energetic guy who has a wide breath of knowledge and cares deeply about his country. I admire AJ for many reasons. First, he is just about the only "patriot" type I've seen who steers away from divisive racial and religious issues. He is often accused, for instance, of being a shill for "the Jews," because he doesn't focus that much attention on Israel (and his wife is apparently half-Jewish, which makes him even more suspect). He also has a surprising number of black supporters, as does Ron Paul. The most important point he makes, time and time again, is that the whole "left" and "right" paradigm is phony. Few "liberals" in public life are truly friends of the people. They support the same disastrous policies as their "conservative" brethern, as witnessed by the passage of the odious Patriot Act, and more recently the banker bailout and the legislation protecting the literally poisonous interests of Monsanto and their backers like Bill Gates. AJ, love him or hate him, broadcasts real news and has intelligent guests who offer refreshing perspectives on that news. If you want to get heated up about gay marriage, watch the msm news. AJ asks the questions real journalists should ask. On his worst day, AJ is far more accurate than Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow are on their best.

The official narrative here is unraveling as rapidly as they usually do. First, the aunt delcares emphatically that the naked guy being handcuffed and placed in the police car is the older brother. Now, we can see the images of this guy ourselves. If it's not him, it's a dead ringer. Look at the muscular physique- like you'd expect of a heavyweight boxer. As I attempt to show in the book I'm trying to get published, those who rule us, and have ruled us since at least November 1963, are engaged in organized corruption. You can't investigate any of these cases, from the assasinations of the 1960s, to Waco, or Oklahoma City, or 9-11, or the Franklin child sex scandals, or TWA Flight 800, or October Surprise, or Sandy Hook, to countless other examples, without seeing the same things over and over again. Evidence lost, destroyed of withheld. Mainstream media compliance with whatever official story is developed, no matter how absurd or how often it changes. Unnatural deaths. And, most importantly, the continuation of the deindustrialization of America, wealth transfer from the middle class to the super rich, fewer government services at greater cost to the taxpayers, and perpetual war and global meddling in other sovereign countries. Now they are claiming that the younger brother is admitting guilt. It's convenient that he can't literally do this, of course, since we are told he may never talk again. But never worry, the government will be able to summon up handwriting "experts" who will testify that the confession of guilt was indeed written by the accused. They've been doing this since the Hauptman trial. As I've said before, those who killed JFK weren't honest before November 22, 1963, and didn't become honest again afterwards. They would eventually die, of course, but the system ensures that those who come after them will be kindred spirits, and be sure not to rock the proverbial boat.

Stephen, I understand that you are literally close to this situation. And yes, I would certainly be protective of my daughter as well, as you were. But I hope that I'd at least be outraged by the videos that have leaked out, showing just how the paramilitary forces occupying Boston were treating citizens. Shouting out "raise your hands" to virtually everyone they forced from their homes? Putting it as politely as possible, their actions were over-the-top and tremendously excessive. Those of you who have no concerns here should remember that we were also "told" by the authorities that Lee Harvey Oswald, a "commie," acted alone. The evidence against him was said to be overwhelming, by the same sources you evidently trust so implicitly now (local police, FBI, Secret Service, Justice Department, CIA, politicians from both major parties, mainstream media). That official story set the tone for all the ones to follow, the latest being this absurd Boston Marathon fairy tale. As the venerable Paul Rigby noted, it's hard to keep up with the ever changing official narrative. Now we are hearing the older brother was suspected in a murder a few years ago. Ane yet his boxing coach testified that he was a great guy, and couldn't conceive he was capable of this crime. And, of course, despite his diabolical bent, he was surprisingly lenient with the guy whose car they stole. What a fortuitous break for the authorities- the brothers leave this witness behind to finger them and, we now hear, claim that the brothers admitted to him that they were the Boston Marathon bombers! Independent Canadian journalist Dan Dicks spoke to the brothers' aunt yesterday, but she was terrified and ultimately would not meet them in person. She kept telling him that she feared being killed. And she also wanted him to tell the world that she was 100% certain that the guy the police forced to strip naked in front of the world was her older nephew. The one they claimed was killed in a "shootout." Now you can look online, at several videos that have frozen the frames of this guy's arrest, and he certainly looks like the older brother. Dark hair, and a very powerful build (remember, he was a heavyweight boxer). Needless to say, if anyone in the mainstream media had the slightest instincts of a real reporter, they would be grilling the authorities relentlessly, and interviewing the brothers' family with an open mind. As Jim D. stated, not every defendant is guilty. And, of course, plenty of defendants are. However, unless one is wealthy and/or some kind of celebrity, the standard of innocent until proven guitly simply doesn't apply, in the minds of the vast majority of the American people (and certainly in the minds of the authorities). As I said previously, all our arguments aside, this kid will be convicted. There is no chance of him being found not guilty, by any jury they pick, in any courtroom they pick, presided over by any judge they pick. And he will, like every widely celebrated defendant since Sacco and Vanzetti and Richard Hauptmann, be given an inept defense. That is how our system works in these cases. I'm sure Detective Colby will be along shortly to show me the error of my ways again. The reality is more and more of us every day are realizing the authorities have no credibility and refuse to believe anything they say in these high profile cases. The "evidence" in this case is likely to be similar to the "evidence" used to convict Timothy McVeigh. Lots of emotional pleas, and continuous references in the press to the supposed radical philosophy of the defendants.

For those with open minds, here is just one little nugget to contradict the official story. This is an interview, from a caller into a radio talk show, who witnessed the older brother being shot and run over by the police, not his brother.

I added a few things to your post, Stephen, to reflect the legal niceties that still, however tenously, exist in this country. Look on You Tube- there are a few citizen videos leaking out. If you aren't frightened by the sight of armored tanks and troops in full military gear, roaming freely throughout American neighborhoods, you've lost your sense of history, and of exactly why this country declared independence in the first place. You can see those troops and officers shouting at innocent, baffled citizens, demanding they all put their hands up. Homeowners were rousted from their residences, and treated like suspects. The only "evidence" against these brothers is a video of them walking down the sidewalk. They had backpacks on, the same as countless others there. The video of the younger brother supposedly planting the bomb has curiously not been released to the public. I wonder why? Our corrupt leaders know that their bogus "evidence" will be dismantled and discredited by citizen researchers on the internet as quickly as the first phony picture of the dead Bin Laden was. Call it "lockdown" instead of martial law if you prefer. "Lockdown" is a prison term, and that's the way citizens were treated. If you don't think the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated here, we have a really different view of the Bill of Rights. I realize I'm in the minority in this country, but that doesn't stop me from mourning over how few Americans care about their own civil liberties, or how many cheer and applaud the tyrannical actions of those whose salaries they pay. Ultimately it doesn't matter who planted the bombs. The person or persons accused by the authorities will always be found guilty. It happens every time. This kid will have an inept defense, if he's even allowed a civilian trial. They always get inept defenses. Most people only even pay lip service to the notion that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty if the defendant is a football player or some other celebrity. Otherwise, they are seen as guilty, and referred to as such, from the moment they're taken into custody. What about the Navy Seals, or persons dressed in obvious Navy Seal gear, at the scene? There are pictures of these guys running, after the bombing, and their backpacks are clearly gone. One of their backpacks had a distinct logo, which certainly appears identical to what is seen on the remains of the backpack the bomb was in. Suspect #2, on the other hand, is seen in a photo after the bombing, with his back unfortunately juxtaposed against a dark doorway. It is at least debatable that his backpack is still there. So Boston was "terrorized" by these brothers? How did they transport these bombs, and grenades, and guns, they used against the police in their lengthy gunfight? There has been no talk of a car, other than the one they allegedly highjacked. So they were walking around town with all this stuff? How could they carry all that? And, being the bloodthirsty killers they were, why didn't they kill the guy whose car they stole? And what about the poor schmuck who was stripped naked in front of all those spectators, and paraded around on video? They humiliated that guy for no reason. I hope he sues them for everything he can. Those who poo-poo "conspiracy theorists" are simply not studying the facts in these cases. The authorities have been staging false flags since well before they trotted out Operation Northwoods and actually did the Gulf of Tonkin. It's the nature of corrupt people to conspire to maintain their power, or to acquire more power. One thing our corrupt leaders know for sure now is that the American People will accept martial law with huge smiles and loud cheering.

There are the usual troubling questions here. The "evidence" against these brothers consists of them walking around the area carrying backpacks. There were lots of people with backpacks there, including a number of obvious Navy Seals (they were wearing their patented logo). But since the American people have shown conclusively that they absolutely love martial law, I don't expect that the surviving brother has any chance at justice. How many amendments to the Bill of Rights were broken during the "lockdown" around Boston? And with all that law enforcement and military presence-they looked like an occupying army-they still couldn't track down one 19 year old kid. If the citizen hadn't been smoking a cigarette and alerted the authorities, he'd probably still be at large. And yet the same voters who loved having their homes searched and movements restricted are unanimous in calling these guys "heroes."

The fact that such a prominent leftist like Henry Wallace was willing to support Nixon over Kennedy is indicative of just how unpopular JFK was with the establishment left of his day. Eleanor Roosevelt didn't like him, nor did Harry Truman. Adlai Stevenson didn't either, but ultimately grew to like him. The Kennedys have never been popular with the hierarchy of the Democratic Party.

Mark, The argument that those questioning the official story of any of these events, where there is loss of life, somehow are being disrespectful by doing so is misguided, imho. On the contrary, trying to actually investigate these incidents honestly, honors their memories far more than exploiting the victims and preying on the emotions of the public does. Considering recent history, and the distrust so many Americans now feel in their leaders, it would be extremely naive not to be skeptical about these tragedies, which garner so much attention from the msm and political figures. As John points out, so many of them happen around this time of year. The fact this occurred on April 15, the day when Federal Income tax returns are due, certainly raises some eyebrows. If an anti-government group is subsequently blamed for the bombing, certainly the date chosen will be duly noted by the authorities, and probably considered part of the motivation behind it. With the dull state of too many citizens' critical thinking skills, it could also easily be used as "evidence" against them. I haven't studied this case much yet, but certainly the fact bomb sniffing dogs were at the start and finish lines before the bombs went off, as well as testimony indicating officials were publicly telling people not to panic prior to the bombs exploding, certainly provides food for thought. Also, there was apparently a scheduled "drill" that day, as there was on 9/11, 7/7 and Sandy Hook, among others. At this point, it's hard not to automatically discount the official story for any of these events.

David, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that those witnesses encountered the real Oswald? Or that they were entirely credible in identifying someone who looked exactly like him?

John Hunt is someone I can't really figure out. I had my own run in with him, I believe it was on Lancer, many years ago. He kept trying to claim that "the Kennedys" were responsible for limiting the autopsy at Bethesda. I told him that Harold Weisberg had published the autopsy form which provided a space for "limitations" and that RFK had signed it and specified none. Imho, this was just another of the attempts to blame the Kennedy family for the shortcomings of those "investigating" this case.

I think Lee is completely right here. If the KKK was the driving force behind the JFK assassination, they had to have been even unhappier than the anti-Castro Cubans over the results. The Civil Rights laws and Voring Rights laws that were passed after JFK's death were certainly not something supported by the KKK. Maybe they were happy just to have killed a Damn Yankee. And the KKK became a laughingstock in subsequent years, with virtually no political influence. I think the coverup proves that there were a lot more powerful forces behind the assassination of JFK.