Don Jeffries

Okay, Tommy- David's comparison of the hands? Is that better?

I don't understand why so many believers in conspiracy are now willing to accept the backyard photos as legitimate. Jack White proved conclusively, at least to me, that these photos are obviously faked. Look at Oswald's posture- does anyone, can anyone, stand that way without falling over? the shadows, size of head, etc., not to mention David's new study of the hands, indicates to me that they were crude forgeries constructed as a part of framing Oswald. And as I've asked before, if Oswald truly posed for these photos, what was his motivation? To have it documented that he was a commie gun nut? Wouldn't most wives also question such poses? Again, it just seems so obvious to me. I'm not a photo expert by any means, but imho any novice can determine these are not legitimate pictures. As for the rifle found on the sixth floor, legally speaking it was a German Mauser. Two individuals- Boone and Weitzman- both signed sworn affidavits to this effect. To believe they were each identically mistaken is something I'm not willing to do, especialy in light of how many other witnesses we've been asked to believe were also "mistaken" about evidence that always tended to point away from Oswald and towards conspiracy. And as Mark Lane told the Warren Commission, the words "Made in Italy" were clearly stamped on the Carcano. Even if we diminish any supposed expertise Weitzman had about guns, would both officers have been likely to identify a gun stamped as being from Italy as a German Mauser? The gun found on the sixth floor was still being described as a Mauser by Fritz late on Friday night. With the Enfield reports, and the report of a rifle being found on the roof, there is serious doubt that the weapon discovered by Boone and Weitzman was the Carcano allegedly (and quite dubiously) tied to Oswald.

Robin, I don't pretend to be able to decipher definitive things in these photos. I'm no photo expert. My point was that reputable witnesses most definitely described a bullet hole (even noting one could put a pencil through it). Also, we know that the windsheild was replaced and the crime scene corrupted. Just as the figure in the doorway doesn't have to be Oswald for there to be a conspiracy, there doesn't have to be hole in the windshield for there to be a conspiracy. But I feel strongly that neither issue has been resolved.

My hope is that arguments over film ateration do not cause researchers to ignore the real questions that remain about issues like the hole in the windshield or the identity of the figure in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photo. There are reputable witnesses, like reporter Richard Dudman, who described a bullet hole in the windshield in detail. We know the limo was washed, and as the limo was the crime scene, the crime scene was tampered with and ruined evidentiary wise. The windshield was replaced. There is no reason to just cavalierly declare that there wasn't a hole in the windshield.

Sean, I asked Gary more than once to explain exactly what it was that had turned him from a die hard believer in conspiracy to what appears for all intents and purposes to be a lone nutter. The only thing he ever referenced was all the "mistakes" that critics had made over the years. Even assuming that the critics have made as many mistakes as Gary believes, how does that change the sheer impossibility of the official story? The bullet holes in JFK's clothing, along with the supporting evidence of Boswell's autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate, are about as solid evidence as can be that the bullet that entered his back could not have exited his throat. EVERY piece of the evidence against Oswald is hopelessly flawed and, in an honest courtoorm, could not even be introducted into the record on chain-of-possession problems alone. But Gary never mentions any of this during his television appearances. I believe Gary still clings to a belief in "Badge Man," which in my view is one of the least provable indicators of conspiracy. As far as I know, he accepts everything else about the official story.

Well, changing the title of this thead doesn't seem to have drawn any more interest from educators. Again, this is just incomrpehensible to me. If you think I'm off base here, then please say so. I just don't understand how this crucial subject, which is in the news virtually every day, cannot be of interest to educators. The recent Steubenville, Ohio rape case has brought these issues to the forefront again. The accused were popular football players, and CNN was soundly criticized for the overt sympathy its female reporters covering the trial displayed towards the defendants. The mainstream media is not normally known to be sympathetic to rapists, and I think it's clear that they would have had an entirely different reaction if the defendants were not football players.

Jim, Jesse Ventura first brought to attention the fact that Ariana Huffingtion has an official policy of "no conspiracy theories" at the Huffpo. Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change questioned her about this, and she admitted it. You're right, she sure loves being some kind of minor celebrity.

I don't know why this would surprise anybody. Rachel Maddow is a typical mainstream journalist. And I have never heard, in 35+ years of studying this case, any television reporter question the official lone nut version of JFK's assassination. It really is like they sign a pledge, upon getting their big break in the msm, that they will always publicly support the "Oswald acted alone" story. I used to regularly watch C-SPAN's daily "Journalist Roundtable" for many years. Before they started making callers use different numbers as "Democrats" or "Republicans," or "Independents" (and yes, the "independent" number is much harder to memorize), they would usually have a good number of unscreened, "extremist" callers. Whenever any "forbidden" topic was broached, the host would normally cut the caller off abruptly, and the journalist-and I mean EVERY journalist-would kind of snicker and say "I've never been one to believe in conspiracy theories." I've heard this same, word for word response, on many other talk shows over the years. Evidently, there isn't a journalist out there, at least any one who has garnered significant air time, who believes there has ever been any conspiracy. The whole debate between "left" and "right" is orchestrated and controlled, so that no one with a public voice ever dares to venture outside their strict, narrow parameters. Marginal issues like Gay Marriage are what differentiates the Democrats from the Republicans, and they simply don't effect the lives of very many Americans. No one will address things of true importance, like the disastrous impact of Free Trade, or the nature of our corrupt, counterfeit fractional banking system. Needless to say, even the most "daring" politicians or social commentators from both ends of the spectrum (think the Pauls, Kucinich, Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader) are not going to publicly state Oswald didn't do it, or that 9-11 was an inside job. We have to stop paying attention to these overpaid presstitutes, as Gerald Celente calls them. They are all well-paid spokespersons for the corrupt state. We are making our own media by using the internet wisely, and everyday more and more people find it to be their best source for information. The msm is a dinosaur media, and it's really almost sad to watch them pretend they still matter. Alex Jones has more viewers than Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and co. can ever dream of. The Drudge Report gets more views than all the msm sites combined on the internet. The nature of media is changing rapidly, and the msm's lame attempts to co-opt it with sites like Huffington Post are just embarrassing.

Lee, You are completely misinterpreting an earlier post of mine, in which I expressed disappointment that Jim Fetzer had now even alienated a normally laid back and even tempered poster like Robin Unger. In no way did I state that I was "disappointed" in Robin, or lay any blame on him at all. I'm not going to be constantly defending my actions or non-actions as a moderator. As I've said before, the most troublesome posters here never believe they are violating the rules, yet they are the first ones to report other perceived violations, and demand others be taken to task. No moderation team can win in that kind of situation. Face the facts- this subject attracts egotistical, combative personalities. They constantly clash with each other, and thus no coalition can ever be formed, to rally behind a unified platform.

Lee, you're not "suggesting" anything. You're issuing a threat. And yet you don't appear to recognize the difference. If you don't want to "debate" multiple Loveladys, or feel that a chiropractor is beneath you, then what are you doing posting several times in those threads? If the arguments are ridiculous and hold no water, why don't you ignore them? You can't expect to say the things you do, in the manner you do, without people responding. I am not a "stirrer," I'm merely someone who has a keen interest in the JFK assassination, and is growing more disillusioned by the day in terms of how much discord and petty squabbling go on in our little community. I realize now why a great researcher like Gary Shaw just turned his back on this case. People should be able to disagree passionately about various aspects of this case, while agreeing on the larger question at hand. At this point, I'm not sure if the primary goal of most researchers is convincing the public that they've been lied to, and that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.

Lee, why do you state that I am a "moderator," as if there is some doubt that I am? Clearly, you don't approve of my performance as a moderator, but are you suggesting that I am not one? And I would note that Jim Fetzer's thread certainly has attracted your interest, and even appears to have brought Greg Parker back. Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either. I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?" Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care. I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

Lee, I only mentioned your post because it was suggested by Daniel that I am some kind of super censor, but am inconsistent because I refuse to edit Jim Fetzer, whom many consider the most offensive poster here. The other times I mentioned it was in the same vein- I certainly wasn't bragging about it. It's not an accomplishment. For the record, I don't have an "obvious affection" for Jim Fetzer. I still agree with his perspective on most aspects of this case, but am just as turned off as most of you are by the way he expresses himself. I've said this many times, including earlier in this thread, when I bolded the offensive parts of his post, and rewrote it in a less offensive style. Jim Fetzer, along with several other posters, was only recently taken off moderation. The moderators here do respond to rule violations, but if we reacted to every single thing that someone considers an infringement, a good number of the most prolific posters here would be on moderation. We prefer to allow free debate with minimal interference. Sometimes, a particular post stands out, and we act. And then we are invariably charged with bias, hypocracy, etc., because we didn't react to another post. You are a good researcher, and you've shared some important information on this forum. But you personalize things and anger too easily. You have more in common with Jim Fetzer than you realize.

Daniel, I don't normally censor anyone's posts, but that particular one from Lee Farley was way over the line. Jim Fetzer, meanwhile, never really deviates from his usual blustery putdowns. Jim, You seem to appreciate it when you are advised about just how bad you sound when you throw in all the unnecessary stuff in your posts. I even went to the trouble of editing and re-posting one of yours, which you acknowledged, to try and show you how much different (and effective) your arguments would be if you simply toned it down. Judging by all your posts that came afterwards, you aren't taking this advice. You see the almost universal reaction to them. I hope you'll consider Lindsay Anderson's sincere and valuable input as well.

Jim, here's my attempt to make your same points without your trademark style, which seems to turn the majority of readers off, so that they ignore the strength of your arguments: I can't understand theresistance to an issue that would settle the matter decisively. I have asked Robin Unger whether, if Lovelady was wearing the red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt he wore for the FBI, then could Lovelady possibly have been Doorman? Robin has posted film footage showing a man wearing the red-and-black-with-white lines shirt often claimed to have been the shirt Lovelady was really wearing. I point out that that shirt is buttoned to the neck, while doorman's shirt is obvioulsy not. This would mean he cannot have been doorman. This is a simple but decisive point based upon evidence he himself has presented. The man in the checkered shirt cannot be doorman. J. Edgar Hoover asked for proof that Doorman was Lovelady. But Billy arrived wearing a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt, which they photographed and sent to FBI Headquarters. They were not about to disappoint the director, so they sent him their report and stated that it proved Doorman was Lovelady--and hoped he wouldn't notice and they would not be sacked or sent to Siberia! Robin suggests that Lovelady "innocently" wore the wrong shirt. How could anyone go to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing during the assassination of the President of the United States and innocently wear the wrong shirt? And he confirmed it was the shirt he had been wearing with Jones Harris, when he interviewed Lovelady. Robin asks, "Where was Billy?" But we have figured out where he was.You can see how he has responded. So many have attacked me and Richard and Ralph for research that has the consequence of blowing the case wide open because it is such a simple proof that the whole government's position was fabricated from the start. Everyone knew that Lee was in the doorway and cannot have been a shooter. But that could not be admitted without implicating key officials in a massive and detailed cover-up. For what it's worth....

Len, Let me clarify one thing- I never "chided" Robin Unger, whom I respect very much, about anything. I did edit Lee Farley's personal attack on Jim Fetzer, which was worse than anything Fetzer has posted about anyone else on this forum.

Len, I've given up trying to stop people from being nasty to each other on this forum. I do, however, feel compelled to react to the truly over the top attacks, and Lee Farley's recent tirade against Jim Fetzer fell into that category. No one can deny that Jim Fetzer stimulates discussion, and is a provocative figure in this community. He's the only guy who can lure Josiah Thompson onto forums. And he always seems to catch your interest. The most questionable thing about Jim Fetzer's research is his reliance upon photo interpretation, and seeing alteration where many people don't. When he doesn't stray into those waters (which is not often enough, imho), I think his arguments and his logic are a lot more compelling.

Pat, Many of those who gave testimony that conflicted with the official story still managed to believe Oswald acted alone. John Connally is the most obvious example here; while steadfastly maintaining he was hit by a separate bullet, he never wavered from his view that Oswald acted alone. I think they simply weren't aware that what they were saying made the official story impossible. We are faced with the question of whether that many witnesses could have been mistaken, in the exact same way, about the same thing. Just as I find it dubious that nearly 60 witnesses voluntarily, and independent of each other, declared that the motorcade had stopped or nearly stopped at the time of the shooting, I find it just as unlikely that all those doctors and nurses at Parkland would have mistakenly noted a huge, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head. We don't see the limo stop or almost stop in the films. The back of JFK's head is intact in the autopsy photos. So, whether we accept it or not, it's quite logical to look into the legitimacy of the filmed record. Therein lies this debate.

I respect Robin Unger a great deal. Thus, I'm disappointed to see yet another valued researcher at odds with Jim Fetzer. Having read Robin's posts for a long time, I know he's not normally a combative sort of guy. So...once again, we find that Jim Fetzer's personality seems to be able to fire up nearly everyone. Imho, the animosity so many feel towards Jim Fetzer stems from his initial forays into the world of film alteration. I have said that I don't feel qualified to really comment on the issue of alteration, but I still feel that intepreting these photos and film frames is a highly subjective business, and is influenced by the bias of the observer. I think that Josiah Thompson's obsessiveness in opposing film alteration, conveying it as a personal-Fetzer-issue in the process, swayed a lot of people in the early stages of the debate. A lot of us read Six Seconds in Dallas as youngsters, and Thompson was an iconic figure in the research community. However, I didn't understand then, and don't understand know, why Jim Fetzer attracts such vitriol from so many people. Is it the cocksure nature of his conclusions? If so, there are others on this forum who are just as confident they are always right. Is it his condescension towards others? Again, he is not alone there. In all these debates, Jim Fetzer takes at least as many, if not more, punches than he gives out. Certainly, he has never produced anything as offensive as the post Lee Farley aimed at him on another recent thread here. He remains a lightning rod in our little community. I may be the last one left to say it, but I find Jim Fetzer's contributions to always be interesting. He stimulates discussion like no one else, on this forum and any other he's been a part of. I think that's a very good thing.

I edited some very offensive comments in an earlier post on this thread by Lee Farley. Obviously, everyone here should know that those sort of personal attacks and name calling is way over the line. We are rehasing this issue once again, with the participants reaffirming their prevous stances. Thus, I will repeat that the issue of the figure in the doorway has not been definitively settled, no matter how many times you say it has. It has not been conclusively established that the figure was Lovelady, and questions remain that can cause knowledable people to suspect that the figure may indeed have been Oswald. As has been said so frequently on these forums, we don't need Oswald to be in the doorway for there to have been a conspiracy. Those of us who have studied the evidence to any real degree, and have no agenda, know that Oswald didn't shoot anyone on November 22, 1963. I may be in the minority, but I continue to be skeptical about this whole question, since the authorities clearly pushed very hard to make that Oswald-like figure become someone else, and it was extremely convenient that they happened to have a real lookalike co-worker at the TSBD, who for all we know could have been one of the countless Oswald imposters running arouind the area in the weeks leading up to the assassination. Just because we don't need to have Oswald in the doorway to make the case for conspiracy doesn't mean that we should therefore just roll over and agree it was Lovelady. If it can be established to a certainty (which it probably never could) that the figure was Oswald, then no one on this planet could possibly deny there was a conspiracy.

So the most immaculately dressed politician of his time allowed not only his coat to ride up over FIVE inches, somehow his custom tailored shirt rode up to the EXACT same level? This is incredible to me- intelligent people buying the same kind of nonsense that brought us other impossible theories; the single bullet and the neuromuscular jet effect, for example. And as Jim notes, what are the odds that Boswell, Burkley and Sibert all just happened to "mistakenly" place the back wound at the same location as the holes in the clothing? It's much simpler, and more logical, to conclude that when an object is struck it will react according to the laws of physics, a bullet will be damaged when it strikes something, and bullet holes in a victim's clothes indicate where the bullet entered.

There is no good reason to just accept the HSCA's flawed T-1 location for the back wound. Imho, this concession is akin to all the other unnecessary back tracking that has led to those I define as "neo-cons" dominating the research community. Boswell didn't "mistakenly" identify the back wound at the precise location where the bullet holes in JFK's coat and shirt happen to be. Burkley didn't "mistakenly" identify it at the T-3 location, again where it happens to line up with the holes in the clothing. Sibert and O'Neill were "mistaken" about this, too. And we are supposed to reject this conclusive evidence because....? It doesn't matter if the SBT still doesn't work if the back wound was at T-1. Why are so many of you accepting it was at T-1, when the preponderance of the evidence shows it was at T-3, which makes the SBT completely impossible? Jim Fetzer is right.

Hi Rosalyn, I was just going over some of the older posts here, so a belated welcome to you. I suspect we've all heard the recording made by your father countless times over the years. Can you verify that the recording was actually recreated, and not live? If that is true, I've never quite understood why this was done. Would you shed some light on that? Again, welcome to the forum!

Cliff brings up a salient point; with all the feuding that continues to go on within the research community, what consensus could we arrive at, what would we have any spokesperson argue? I maintain that we need to keep it simple. Concentrate on the indisputable fact that LHO didn't do it, and that the official story is impossibly wrong. While I tend to agree with Cliff about the holes in the clothing being the clearest indication that no single shooter could have done it, I understand that ours is not the prevailing opinion among researchers. Perhaps an emphasis on how the crime was never intended to be investigated, with Katzenbach's November 25 memo and Hoover's early comments being primary sources for this. Thus, in my mind, I would have any "face" chosen emphasize the impossible nature of the official story and how the crime scene was corrupted, the chain of possession hopelessly muddled for all the key pieces of evidence, and most importantly, that the "investigation" was in reality a hugely flawed prosecutorial brief against the deceased Oswald. Despite Lee's reticence about it, I do think an "occupy" Dealey Plaza would at the very least garner more attention than anything else the research community could do. CSPAN might well cover something like that, and if there was a lineup of knowledgeable speakers, then a lot of people would be watching them on television. Most young people, born well after 1963, consider the JFK assassination a distant event they have no connection to. However, nearly every young person I talk to thinks there was a conspiracy. I think we limit our impact when we isolate the JFK assassination as an event unassociated with any other, when in fact a lot of us believe it was the beginning of the massive governmental corruption that has pretty much continued unabated until this day. The names may change, but we see the same witholding of evidence, destruction of evidence, violation of the most basic legal protocols and associated unnatural deaths in most of the truly significant political events since November 22, 1963. The research community needs to reach out to groups like We Are Change, Russia Today, Infowars and many others. They are full of enthusiastic young people who would probably love to "occupy" Dealey Plaza. Don't worry about the personalities of Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura. They have a lot more devoted followers than any of us could hope to have. They are consistently stating the official story of the JFK assassination is wrong. That's really the only critical point, isn't it? Don't quibble about minutiae, embrace all the people they bring with them. As I said, you're not going to impress the Anderson Coopers and Bill O'Reilly's of the world, no matter how "respectable" you try to be. They aren't interested in the truth. Treating the JFK assassination as the start of our slide into criminal corruption is the way to go, imho. If anyone has a connection to RFK, Jr. (maybe David Talbot?), I think he'd be the best possible "face" we could hope for.

Len, Earlier in this thread, Mark Wengler listed the claim of Steinem being associated with the CIA among a list of other "outlandish" claims. I just wanted to point out that there are indisputable sources for this.