Don Jeffries

Mike,

I thought it was your position that CE399 sent through JFK but didn't hit Connally. Now you are suggesting otherwise, and adopting the typical lone nutter stance.

How did that undamaged bullet shatter Connally's wrist? Never mind, this kind of debate was resolved decades ago.

I liked it better when you were in your own world, like Tom Purvis.

Mike,

I have already noted that there is evidence in the record indicating that the bullet that entered JFK's back didn't exit, and neither did the bullet entering his throat. And I don't discount completely David Lifton's thesis that the back wound was fabricated. There are questions throughout the record that were never resolved, because there was never a real investigation.

However, no matter how you look at it, those two wounds don't line up, unless you postulate that someone was shooting from inside the trunk of the car.

Mike,

All those who handled the bullet at Parkland Hospital, and on the way to Washington, D.C. were unable to identify it as CE399. O.P. Wright told Josiah Thompson that the bullet he saw had a pointed tip, while CE399 was rounded. Why are you pretending there is ANY evidence that CE399 was involved in the assassination? There is far more than reasonable doubt here...

There was an entrance wound in the back, and a wound in the throat that was described by everyone who saw it before the tracheotomy as being of entrance. You can't match up a wound with another if the trajectory is competely impossible. A bullet being fired from above cannot, under any circumstances, exit at a point higher than the entry, if it strikes nothing inside the body. Period.

I apologize for calling you an LNer. At this point, I would say you in the same incomprehensible category as Tom Purvis is. Perhaps he can understand what you're saying.

Mike,

The chain of possession problems with CE399 would have made it legally inadmissable in any honest court of law. The same thing applies to the Mannlicher Carcano, which had no legal chain of custody (the rifle found on the sixth floor was declared to be a Mauser, in sworn affidavits by the officers who discovered it).

If you persist in not understanding the impossibility of a bullet fired from six floors above entering at a lower point than it exits, without strking any bone and remaining in nearly pristine condition, at least consider the legal aspects here. This crucial "evidence" was carried back to Washington, D.C. in the coat pocket of SS agent Richard Johnsen. Does that sound proper to you?

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't cling to physical impossibilities like the SBT. Whatever happened in Dallas, the SBT didn't. You might as well argue that JFK is still living.

Mike,

I have read some of your posts, both here and on Lancer. You did not previously impress me as a lone nutter. Now you are acting as if you've just been struck on the road to Damascus, and have seen the light indicating the SBT is valid. Where are you going with this line of thought?

If you've spent any time at all researching this case, you should have rejected the SBT as an impossibility. The condition of the "magic" bullet alone rules it out as a missile that could have caused 7 wounds. Look at the same ammunition, in the official record, test fired into other substances and compare. It isn't incumbent upon lay researchers to state what happened to any other bullets. The crime scene was taken over and ruined as evidence by the Secret Service. There are strong indications that a bullet was found in the grass at Dealey Plaza. The entrance wound in the back was documented nicely in Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, and backed up by Burkley's death certificate reference and, of course, the all important matching location as shown on JFK's shirt and coat. The wound was far too low to have exited from the throat. It's that simple.

We have an entrance wound to the throat, as noted early on by Dr. Perry and others. Dr. Clark declared that this bullet did not exit. There are indications a bullet was removed at the autopsy. These are all questions you should study before jumping into the deep end and purporting to defend one of the most untenable theories ever devised.

Once you declare the SBT possible, no credible researcher is going to pay attention to anything else you say.

Thanks for starting this thread, Nate. The "left" is primarily responsible for suppressing the truth about the JFK assassination. Prominent "radical" leftists such as I.F. Stone, like his later day peer Noam Chomsky, stubbornly maintained Oswald was the lone assassin. In researching my present book, I've been astounded at how almost all the counterculture leaders stayed away from the topic of the assassination, even during the Garrison investigation. What kind of "radicals" were they?

If Vietnam was the primary issue the "radicals" were protesting, then why didn't they grasp the significant changes that occurred in our policy there upon JFK's death? Even if they weren't aware of NSAMs 263 and 273, the contrast between the two administrations should have been obvious to them, especially when JFK's brother became a leading, anti-war presidential candidate. But then, no Kennedy family member dared to touch the subject, either.

Certainly, Carl Oglesby was one radical who devoted much attention to the JFK assassination. Sid Blumenthal was another. However, when Blumenthal became a member of the Clinton administration, he appears not to have made this an issue. While the '60s radicals lambasted LBJ, without factoring in the death of his predecessor, by the '90s any discussion of the Kennedys revolved around their supposed personal scandals.

The response to Oliver Stone's JFK showed us, once again, that the "left" doesn't want to see the assassination examined in any meaningful way. If you haven't done so, read JFK: The Book of the Film by Stone and Zachary Sklar. It documents the disdain that most of the "left," along with most of the "right," held for his movie. Chris Matthews is the most visible example in the mainstream media today, but he merely exemplifies how "liberal" Democrats view this issue in near unanimity.

It's a sobering thought, but there are probably more members of the John Birch Society and other far right groups that doubt the official story of the assassination than there are prominent "leftist" leaders. It's also sobering to consider how much more receptive the "liberal" establishment press was to the fanciful tales of Exner and co. than they were to any and all "conspiracy theorists." No one can say the press treats the Kennedys favorably any more.

We used to have lots of leftist civil libertarians. Now there are practically none who have a substantial public voice. The "left" in America has become a laughingstock of political correctness, of condescending to the special interest groups that form the basis for the Democratic party coalition. Most "liberals" now want to suppress the rights of others to speak their minds. They worship the police nearly as much as the "right" does, and they clearly have learned to love war.

Even the best of the "liberals" today, like Dennis Kucinich, don't ever broach this subject.

Joan Mellen has done some great work on Garrison, but she has a low opinion of RFK and is willing to believe the worst about him. Of course, I'm sure she'd say I am a starry eyed devotee of the Kennedys who refuses to hear anything negative about them.

The campaign to discredit the Kennedys, which began in earnest with Judith Exner, has clearly worked even on some very honest, respectable researchers. Joan Mellen is one of them. As Jim DiEugenio has pointed out so cogently, just trace the sources back for all these allegations. They are inevitably CIA connected, or originally emanated from the Jack Anderson/ Seymour Hersh/C. David Heymann school of "journalism."

Regardless of what one thinks of evolution, there was a logical progression from "survival of the fittest" to eugenicist thought. The elite that Steven quoted (and many more he didn't quote) clearly and unequivocally desire to rid the world of the people they clearly consider to be of "inferior" stock. In my view, this is why they concentrate so much on "controlling" the population in Third World countries. Certainly a lot of well intending persons do simply want to teach birth control to those who may not be educated about it, but I think this whole issue has been twisted in order to achieve the primary goal of the eugenicists; which is a dramatic reduction in the earth's population.

The mass sterilizations that took place historically in America were tied to eugenicist thought. The notion that someone shouldn't breed who isn't "fit" to do so is tied directly to eugenicist philosophy. Perhaps they're just super responsible, and care so much about the poor that they want fewer of them. I think eugenicist quotes are blood curdling, regardless of their context.

My research into this area has disillusioned me even further. For instance, I've always admired George Bernard Shaw and, to a lesser extent, Bertrand Russell. I found hideous eugenicist statements from both of them freely accessible in the public record.

I think it's very hard to support a group that appears to openly desire plagues and other global catastrophes. It sounds innocuous to be concerned about "over population." However, it's when you examine the details, the "how" of reducing the population, that you begin to shudder. However you look at it, eugenicists want to eliminate large numbers of human beings.

John,

I didn't think much of Cromwell's book. She developed a theory and really didn't provide any solid evidence for it (Sickert becoming bent on killing women because of an earlier botched operation on his genitals). Plus, she never even mentioned Stephen Knight, who was the first author to shine light on Sickert, let alone give him any credit.

Steven is correct- the elite do appear to want to eliminate the "wrong" kind of stock. This is such a consistent, prevalent theme over the past more than 100 years that it is undeniable. Eugenics logically came from Darwinism; the idea that the "fittest" should survive. Prince Philip's comment, Bill Gates' comments, and many others, were not flippant anomalies. While these same people seem "liberal" to the naked eye, they are more snobbish in their thinking than any "racist" you care to choose.

Margaret Sanger not only said the things Steven quoted, she also wrote in a letter that has been widely disseminated that it must not be publicized that "we" want to exterminate the "negro" race. She was also photographed at KKK rallies. Despite this, she's a liberal icon today. Go figure. The whole "population control" thing is tied directly to the eugenics philosophy, which holds that "inferior" genes should not produce.

I delve into this subject in some depth in the book I hope to complete soon, which will be a compilation of conspiratorial activity since November 22, 1963.

Paul,

You have the same right to theorize as I do. Because the crime was never investigated, all we can really do is speculate. Your theory sounds a lot like the "benign coverup" some has postulated for years; under this scenario, instead of avoiding a civil war, LBJ sold Warren and others on avoiding a nuclear war, because of Oswald's Russian connections. I don't buy either scenario.

I agree that Walker would have had a great deal of support in middle America at that time, much as Joe McCarthy did. However, I don't think either of them had very many friends among the truly elite (especially Walker). We are still locked into this right-left paradigm. Most of those who have covered up the truth about JFK's death have been nominal "leftists." Certainly, the vast majority of mainstream journalists are "left" in an establishment way, but they all believe the official fairy tale. And most of those who attack JFK's reputation, with the sexual allegations, the inference that both he and RFK wanted to "get" Castro, are also supposed "liberals."

While it's possible that loose cannons like Curtis LeMay could have been permitted to organize the assassination, I just don't think it could have happened without the help of those much, much higher on the food chain. Walker and his JBS friends might have applauded the assassination, but I am very dubious about them being the primary conspirators.

Paul,

If you agree with my premise, I'm not sure what you're saying. If "rightists" like Walker were behind the assassination, and the motive was overthrowing Castro, how come they stopped trying to do that once JFK was dead? There were no further assassination attempts, no second Bay of Pigs under LBJ's administration. Cuba, in fact, was never a national political issue in America again.

How did General Walker and other "rightists" have enough power to kill the President, enlist the most powerful government officials in the coverup, get the mainstream media to lie about the facts, but fail to even attempt to oust Castro- when that was the reason behind it all? A "rightist" conspiracy couldn't have been happy with what happened after JFK. Culturally, we drifted much farther left with the Civil Rights legislation, feminist movement, sexual revolution, etc. They certainly didn't "win" anything in this regard by killing JFK. So what did they accomplish, in their twisted minds?

The mainstream media didn't like General Walker and his ilk in 1963, and they still don't like anyone with those kinds of "rightist" views. Why then, would they continue to coverup for this "rightist" conspiracy, nearly fifty years later? That just makes no sense to me. For some reason, even knowledgable researchers are reluctant to face the fact that the most powerful forces in our society conspired to kill JFK and are still covering it up, all these years later. The Secret Service stood down in Dallas, and allowed the assassination to happen, imho. Were they controlled by General Walker and co.?

We know Hoover orchestrated the coverup. We know McGeorge Bundy was inexplicably assuring cablnet members there was no conspiracy, only a few hours after the assassination and when he could not possibly have been in a position to know that. We know Katzenbach wanted to "assure the public that Oswald was the assassin" before Oswald's body was cold in his grave. We know the mainstream media continues to lie about this subject, when many of those doing the lying weren't even born in 1963. We are dealing with extremely powerful elements here. I think it's a mistake to blame the assassination on right wing "extremists," or "anti-Castro Cubans," or "renegade" CIA agents. This was a huge conspiracy.

Robert,

I must respectfully disagree with you. Obama's health care measure had two very good provisions; getting rid of the pre-existing condition nonsense and permitting adult children to be insured up to age 26. However, the rest of his health care initiative leaves much to be desired. He hasn't done anything else significant on the domestic policy front to help the 80% of Americans who are truly struggling.

Obviously, his foreign policy mirrors that of Bush. And Clinton. And the elder Bush. And Reagan. As the mainstream media reminds us continuously, American's two carbon copy "competing" political parties have agreed to a "bipartisan" foreign policy. There can never be any disagreement between the Democrat and Republican candidates, unless it is for Romney, this go round, to attack Obama as not being war mongering enough. How many defenseless countries does Obama have to bomb and/or occupy before Americans stop listening to Hollywood and see this guy for what he is? Another typical establishment puppet.

When Obama starts talking about 80% of the people not being paid enough to meet the ever increasing costs of living, and tries to actually do something about the sinful disparity in wealth, then he may get my support. As long as he continues to boast about a nonexistent "recovery," he is merely playing politics. 100 million people of working age are now unemployed. That's about 36.3% of the populuation. If you factor out retirees, stay at home parents and high school kids who don't work, that still leaves you with a true unemployment rate of probably at least 25%.

Our problems are unsolvable, because all those in a position to solve them are massively benefiting from the present system. As long as we have this incredible inequity of income (best illustrated by the fact the richest 400 Americans have more collective wealth than the bottom 50% of the population), nothing else matters. We simply must ahare the wealth.

Like Pat, I also have never heard any phone call from RFK accusing LBJ of being behind it.

Good discussion here. I maintain that the whole "Cuban" connection to the assassination is another smokescreen, like the mafia. There has been a concerted effort for many years to insinuate that RFK, and even JFK himself, were responsible for the assassination. Virtually every source accusing RFK of being behind, or even supportive, of the efforts to kill Castro are connected to the CIA. Combined with all the hit pieces on the Kennedys by "leftists" like Alexander Cockburn and Seymour Hersh, it should be obvious to all that the establishment still feels threatened by them.

Thanks, Daniel, for quoting from Jim DiEugenio's superb piece on the "posthumous assassination" of JFK. If you bring these things up, you're accused of being a Kennedy fanboy. The more I study history since the JFK assassination, the more I become a Kennedy fanboy. the Kennedys were doing something to really shake the powers that be, and they appear to still resent that. Their attempts to slander JFK's and RFK's memores are laughably transparent. Hopefully, some of us still know better.

If JFK was killed because of "Cuba," whether you look at it as a group of angered "anti-Castro" forces fired up over the Bay of Pigs, or Castro himself annoyed at the Kennedys attempting to kill him, nothing changed with the assassination of JFK. Cuba effectively died as an American political issue after November 22, 1963. Where was the next invasion? The future attempts on Castro's life? Castro not only stayed in power, but still lives on, nearly fifty years later. if "Cuba" was the motive behind the assassination, the conspirators couldn't have been happy.

During Gerald Ford's brief presidency, he signed an Executive Order expressly forbidding assassination as an option by U.S. government entities. This was in response, of course, to the revelations of the Church Committee regarding CIA attempts to kill Fidel Castro.

Think about how far we've come in less than 40 years; in the mid-1970s, a majority of Americans realized that assassination was wrong, period, no matter how allegedly evil or despotic the target was. Now, we are perfectly willing not only to assassinate American citizens who have not even been charged with a crime, but to openly brag about it.

Btw, even if we accept the argument that Al-Awlaki was truly a danger to us all, how do we explain the subsequent murder of his 16 year old son, shortly afterwards? Was the kid a deadly "terrorist" too? How can anyone justify that? Maybe he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? No wonder they can sell singile bullet theories to people....

America has lost its moral compass.

Getting back to McCarthy and RFK, I think it is at the very least interesting that two CIA officials left the agency to take key positions in McCarthy's campaign.

McCarthy, like so many "leftists," didn't like the Kennedys. His reported reaction to RFK's assassination, where he criticized RFK's "demagouging" and basically blamed him for his own death, paved the way for later day inferences from the Secret Service and others that JFK was responsible for his own assassination. McCarthy and Kennedy were seemingly political allies. Thus, the enmity between them is odd. Maybe he resented RFK for being so "ruthless."

With so many powerful forces aligned against them, the Kennedys must have been doing something right.

Paul,

Your trust in Marina, DeMohrenschildt and the Paines is misguided. The picture we have come to accept of Lee Harvey Oswald was built almost exclusively on their testimony. Marina's testimony before the Warren Commission was laughable. Yes, she was under pressure, but her willingness to undermine her husband's memory in order to curry favor with the authorities is so transparent it practically screams out at the reader.

Remember, Marina not only is the primary source for Oswald taking a shot at Walker, she also described him either burying the rifle in the ground or hiding it in some bushes afterwards. She reported that he carried his rifle under a raincoat, and practiced shooting it near a bus stop! That is the kind of ridiculous story a child, or in this case a frightened young woman with little knowledge of English or American culture, would devise. As if this weren't enough, Marina also testified that she had kept Oswald locked in the bathroom (by holding onto the door from the outside) to prevent him from shooting Richard Nixon. Picture the petite Marina being physically strong enough to do something like that.

The backgrounds of DeMohrenschildt and the Paines alone make the entire relationship with the poverty stricken Oswalds highly suspect. Adult relationshps are inevitably tied to class and income. DeMohrenschildt was a vertiable aristocrat; he was friendly with Jacqueline Bouvier's family. Because their ties to the Oswalds bear serious scrutiny, the testimony of the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts must be looked at skeptically.

As for Edward Epstein, he was always given more credit than he deserved, imho, for Inquest. Basically a master's thesis he wrote while at Cornell, it was not a critical examination of the evidence, or the flaws in the official case against Oswald. The fact the CIA singled out Epstein's book as being harder to refute is akin to Brer Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch. As author Thomas Pynchon once noted, they don't have to worry about answers if you ask the wrong questions.

That email address for Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't work.

The use of the word "reckless" in describing RFK, Jr. is anti-Kennedy 101 stuff. That's the msm's favorite adjective for Kennedys. It's curious that anyone would write a biography about RFK, Jr. Does he really warrant this kind of attention? His older brother Joe has never had such a book written about him, and he served several terms in Congress.

The timing of this book is not accidental, imho. There has been talk of RFK, Jr. running for Governor for quite some time. From what is left of the fractured next Generation of Kennedys, he probably holds out the greatest hope for political success. First, his wife dies unnaturally (seemingly the only way the Kennedys die), and now this. I await the inevitable announcement that he will not be seeking political office.

To Len, those who question the links between vaccines and autism and other disorders are "loons." Needless to say, the medical and pharmaceutical industries have a vested interest in this subject. They aren't going to risk the public relations disaster and class action lawsuits from understandably irate parents, so they simply smear those like RFK, Jr., who think these vaccines may have irreparably harmed countless numbers of children.

This is very sad news. I regret not ever meeting Jack White. His research into the JFK assassination, 9/11, the Apollo hoax and other areas will live on.

It was an honor to communicate with him on this and other forums.

As Harold Weisberg stressed so often in his books, the actual work of the Commission was done by the staff. Of the staff, Arlen Specter, David Belin and Wesley Liebeler were especially active; Specter was primarily responsible for the actual writing of the Report. The Commission members themselves heard very little of the testimony. So, it is theoretically possible that Earl Warren and co. didn't understand the fraud they were perpetrating on the American people, although Warren and Ford's performance while Jack Ruby pleaded to be taken to Washington to testify certainly didn't make them look good.

Whoever was tasked with doing the investigating, didn't do any. As Mark Lane pointed out early on, the Commission's work was divided into several areas, such as Oswald's background; where, he asked, was the area called "Who killed JFK?" The Commission never entertained the possibility that Oswald wasn't the assassin. The only "conspiracy" they would have looked at would have been one involving the assassin Oswald and his possible confederates.

The authorities had solid evidence that someone resembling Oswald was seen running to a Rambler moments after the assassination; there were five witnesses who independently testified to this. They simply ignored this kind of productive lead, and instead built an implausible scenario using witnesses who would have been laughed out of court. They tracked down one woman who had never interacted with or even met Oswald, and deposed her for several pages of meaningless testimony. Meanwhile, this same crack staff somehow neglected to call the most crucial witnesses imaginable, the most obvious ones like Admiral Burkley. This simply cannot be attributed to incompetence. Instead, it strongly indicates a willful suppression of the truth.

As the early critics showed so clearly, the Commission's own record completely contradicts its conclusions. One need not do anything else but sift through the official record to prove there was a conspiracy.

Glenn,

What is it you are after here? Those of us who dispute the official story of the JFK assassination cannot be expected to name assassins and provide their addresses to you. We have no subpoena power, and most of the witnesses are long gone now, anyway. But we've studied this case for a long time and have concluded Oswald couldn't have done it.

In an honest courtoom, the "evidence" against Oswald couldn't even have been entered into the record. Legally speaking, the rifle found on the sixth floor was a German Mauser, because the only men who found it signed sworned affidavits to that effect. Because the Carcano was never legally "found," there is no chain of possession for it. Thus, a real defense attorney would have objected to its admissibility and an honest judge would have thrown it out. Even beyond that, there are a myriad of questions about WHAT model rifle Oswald ordered, and a great deal of doubt that Oswald ever ordered any rifle at all. Read up on the subject.

As Greg pointed out, the crime scene was the limousine itself. It was taken over after JFK's body was carried into Parkland, and all evidentiary value compromised and destroyed. Anything found in the limo would have subject to the same kinds of objections noted above. There is nothing more basic about a murder than a crime scene, and this one was rendered legally worthless.

Oswald was tested twice in the Marines for shooting proficiency. On the his last test, the one which would have reflected most closely on his ability on November 22, 1963, he barely made, by one point, the lowest classification the Marines have. He was, in the government's own words, "a rather poor shot." Real marksmen have been tested, under far more favorable conditions, with guns that worked properly (Oswald's alleged weapon had a defective scope and had to be repaied before the experts would dare to fire it), and they couldn't duplicate his supposed feat.

There are questions about everything in this case, because no one ever really investigated it. The government told us, in Katzenbach's November 25, 1963, that "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, and that he had no confederates at large." An honest government would have said, "with the death of the primary suspect, we must explore all avenues and leave no stone unturned to find the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy." The Warren Commission neglected to call critical witnesses like Admiral Burkley, the recipient of all the medical evidence, yet did track down and depose Anne Boudreax, a woman who knew someone who had been Oswald's babysitter. She had never even met the Oswalds. She had no relevance to this case whatsover, and yet the "honest" officials "investigating" this crime called HER as a witness, but not some of the most obviously important true witnesses.

Every aspect of JFK's sham autopsy is up for debate. It was a disgrace, what Harold Weisberg rightfully called "unworthy of a bowery bum." You need to educate yourself on the basic facts of this case, and stop being distracted by the personalities, on this forum and elsewhere, who gravitate to this issue. Yes, a lot of believers in conspiracy can be bombastic, overbearing, nasty and unwilling to admit fault. The same can be said for most every lone nutter I've ever encountered. Personalities don't determine the truth; the facts do. The evidence in this case clearly and unequivocally proves that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy.

Tommy,

I understand those possibilities. However, what kind of activity could he have been monitoring inside the TSBD during the assassination? What activity would have been going on, when everyone (except apparently Oswald) was watching the motorcade?

If he was waiting for a phone call, wouldn't he have objected to it coming during the motorcade, when he could have been watching a public figure he greatly admired? And we have that delay to consider again- if the phone call was to be timed to keep Oswald out of sight while shots were being fired, he had to have been waiting 10-15 minutes for it. Wouldn't he have grown impatient? Pehaps maybe even decided to catch a glmpse of Kennedy?

Larry,

As always, I respect your input. I'm curious, though, as to how Oswald remaining inside the TSBD during the assassination can be reconciled with an intelligence assignment, outside of being told he was infiltrating a potential plot to kill the president?

How would his handlers have kept him away from the windows, if not the outside with the rest of the crowd, while someone he admired so much was driving by? How could they have associated anything to do with Cuba, or guns, with Oswald not being allowed to watch his idol, during perhaps the only chance he would ever have to see him in person?

The key here is how he was controlled that day. Their patsy could not show up conspicuously in any films taken during the shooting, or interact with any witnesses at the moment of the assassination. How did they stop this from happening? We must factor in the fact the motorcade was running behind schedule, too, which would have potentially altered his instructions.

I think it's important to question why Oswald remained in the building.