Don Jeffries

It seems like this thread wants to go down the Clinton path so...let me put my two cents in.

The American people were horribly misled by the mainstream press during Clinton's years as president. In reality, both Fiske and Starr ignored all of the truly dirty Clinton scandals, even while the press was crucifying Starr as "out to get" Bill Clinton. Remember the liberal prosecutor Starr hired to investigate the Vince Foster death? Michael Rodriguez was blocked by Starr and his staff at every turn. "I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go," Rodriguez said. He also testified that the FBI told him to back off and "be careful where I tread." In an interview, Rodriguez was very blunt, saying, "The whole notion of Fiske and Starr doing an honest investigation is laughable...The American press misled the American public by reporting that there have been several independent investigations, when, in fact, all of the investigations were done by the FBI…”

The official story of Vince Foster's death is as absurd as one of the lone-assassin fairy tales, and that alone should have gotten Bill Clinton impeached. Files were removed from Foster's office by White House staffers, with the knowledge of law enforcement, a belated "suicide note" found, and there are huge doubts about where the body was discovered, including a Secret Service memo stating it was found elsewhere.

The mainstrem media didn't just lie about the JFK assassination. They distort the truth about everything significant. The whole left-right paradigm causes us to assess people in predictable ways that permits the corruption to continue. The Kennedys were a threat. Perot was a threat. Ron Paul is a threat. Kucinich was a threat (and now he's been gerrymandered out of Congress). The Clintons were welcomed and loved by the establishment.

I know this thread has drifted off topic, but I've researched Bill Clinton quite a bit myself. In my opinion, he may be the single most corrupt politician of all time. Considering how widespread political corruption is, that's really saying something.

The Clinton Body Count was all too real. The Vince Foster case alone should have caused him to be impeached. The number of unnatural deaths around him was frighteningly surreal. I've communicated with Linda Ives, mother of Kevin Ives, one of the two boys who died on the train tracks back when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. These victims were real, and their families are real, too. The Ives family was apolitical- they weren't "enemies" out to get Clinton. Their son happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he died. Then the authorities lied about it, including the coroner, whom Clinton defended repeatedly, despite his monumental incompetence.

Trooper Danny Ferguson's wife "killed herself." A month later, her fiance "killed himself" at her grave site. That's like a bad movie script. Jerry Parks? Tells his family he's a "dead man," and then is shot and killed while driving his car? How many people die like this? People who weren't Clinton's "enemies" saw a hole that looked like a gunshot wound in Ron Brown's head. People don't magically turn the massive profit that Hillary Clinton did on cattle shares without some "help." The list of their scandals is endless. The only thing that saved them was the mainstream media, who ignored all the truly terrible stuff.

Clinton was totally corrupt. So were both Bushes. So is Obama. The left/right paradigm is used to divide and conquer the people. Sorry to go off topic, too. But I wanted to add my two cents worth.

Ross Perot's abrupt departure from the 1992 race was very strange and has never been adequately explained. I don't buy for a second the official excuse that his daughter's wedding had been threatened with sabotage. How do you sabotage someone's wedding? Spike the punch? Pay off the groom to muff his lines?

Remember, before Perot dropped out, he was leading in many polls. At any rate, the three way race would have been very close. He still did get 19% of the vote, but if not for the wacky withdrawal and re-entrance, I think it's clear he would have done much better. I think it's reasonable to infer that whomever and whatever caused him to leave the race, it was done to stop a renegade third party candidate from perhaps winning the election.

I believe that Perot himself accused Bush of being behind the wedding "sabotage." Clearly, if the powers that be want to kill somebody, they don't hesitate to do so and would have killed Perot. I think Robert Morrow gives one person- in this case, Bush- too much influence. Perot did despise Bush, and it was primarily because of the POW-MIA issue, which Perot had put his heart and soul into. I'm sure he was disillusioned with the whitewash congressional "investigation" led by John Kerry and John McCain, which was being conducted during this same time period.

Ross Perot may be just about the only billionaire I've ever liked.

Jim D.,

You know how much I respect your work. However, I think you have to be a little less critical of other researchers who are, in the final analysis, right about the big picture- i.e., they recognize there WAS a conspiracy. There are very few critics, past or present, who meet my ideal on this issue.

Harold Weisberg is one of my all time heroes, but he leaked an advance copy of Stone's "JFK" script to a guy like George Lardner, whom he knew would trash it. Sylvia Meagher's book was the best, but the part where she speculated was not. She was also apparently a witch. Think there might have been fodder there to criticize her? Mark Lane is another hero of mine, but he's been involved in some questionable stuff- Jim Jones' attorney? And "Cover Up" by Gary Shaw and Larry Harris is still one of my very favorite assassination books. But, like Meagher, the authors kind of embarrassed themselves with their chapter on "who did it?"

We've seen on this forum how authors we've all read and admired can have difficult personalities, and be unreasonable if not immature. In my view, that doesn't detract from their work, any more than Weisberg's betrayal of Stone (and CTers in general) ruins all the incredible work he did for so many years. None of us are perfect, and this subject especially seems to draw egotistical, disagreeable personalities. That's the primary reason the research commnity has always been in some sort of disarray.

John Hankey's work on JFK, Jr. has been top notch. That's really my primary interest there; his JFK work breaks no new ground, but his video is entertaining and I'm sure it's drawn newbies to the subject who are now CTers. Just because his Bush thesis is kind of ridiculous doesn't change the fact that everyone who watches it will be told the official story is bogus. And remember, we don't reject Sylvia Meagher or Gary Shaw because their own speculation was pretty ridiculous, too.

I don't want to attack anyone personally, but from what I've read by Seamus Coogan on other forums, his personality is more distasteful than anyone I can remember encountering on this forum. Maybe he's a really nice guy, but he seems almost to be bullying with his online style. I'm not sure what it is about him that you find so credible, when you seem to be so picky about the flaws of researchers like Hankey.

Alex Jones is the greatest force all CTers have working for them today, except perhaps for Jesse Ventura. He's not perfect, but pick any one of his broadcasts you choose, and it will invariably be more accurate than anything you get on any mainstream media story on these verboten subjects. I don't believe Alex Jones is that wealthy at all, but regardless, he is hardly in the same category as any high profile journalist in terms of financial worth. He constantly fights for the little guy, and I admire that.

We have plenty of "professional," truly well paid journalists that will find the flaws in any conspiracy "theorist's" arguments. We need to stop eating our own.

John Hankey's research into the death of JFK, Jr. has been invaluable. The video he produced about JFK, Jr.'s death was full of important information which destroys the official version of events. I think he concentrated too much on Bush, and certainly all his claims regarding the Bushes can't be proven, but that doesn't detract from his JFK, Jr. research.

I wouldn't smear CTKA like that- Jim DiEugenio has done great work, and I think they're just as interested in the truth as we are. However, I think the charge that some critics now get too anal retentive in regards to minor mistakes is on target. I don't know why we expect independent citizens, without any of the resources "official" investigators work with, to be perfect all the time.

As for Alex Jones, I'm a huge fan of his. I think his heart is in the right place, and he's fighting the good fight, against very powerful enemies. Sure, he makes mistakes, and is way over the top sometimess, but I'll put his accuracy record, on his worst day, up against any nightly mainstream television newscast you choose to compare it with. The most "irresponsible" CTer imaginable is closer to the truth than any source defending the "official" lie.

All CTers should be able to find common ground in their shared belief in conspiracy.

Joe,

I thought I'd heard everything about LBJ's behavior in Dallas, but I am unfamiliar with any reports he was upset over JFK being given the last rites at Parkland. I'm very intrigued by that. What's the source?

Clinton himself writes about taking Boggs to the airport in his memoir. Here's a link to a story that mentions it:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.cooper.html

Boggs didn't support the single bullet theory, but along with Richard Russell, didn't make his doubts public.

In another strange coincidence, the Congressman on board the plane with Boggs, Nick Begich, had a son, Nick, Jr. who has gone on to become a noted conspiracy theorist himself, concentrating on exposing HAARP. He appeared on an episode of "Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura."

If Reagan really wanted to find out the truth about the JFK assassination, he wouldn't have been one of the governors who blocked routine extradition requests during Jim Garrison's investigation.

A very young Bill Clinton, incredibly enough, was the one who drove Hale Boggs to the airport when his plane took off and vanished into oblivion. I doubt very seriously that he ever sought the truth about the JFK assassination. He supposedly tasked Webb Hubbell with finding out about that, along with UFOs, but there is nothing to indicate he ever did anything about either subject.

Bill Clinton publicly supported the lone assassin theory during his administration. Al Gore supposedly was a true believer in conspiracy; I believe he was in Congress leading up to and during the HSCA days. I don't recall him speaking about this subject, which he was allegedly so passionate about.

Of course all these people know Oswald didn't kill JFK. But they lie repeatedly for a living, and ignore the truth about a great number of important subjects.

Thanks, Barry. This is a perfect example of the fact that official duplicity didn't start on November 22, 1963. Most people prefer to ignore the transgressions of "liberals" like FDR, but the evidence is undeniable here. Well regarded historian John Toland's book "Infamy" addressed this subject in the 1980s. For his efforts, Toland-who had won a Pulitzer Prize- was slandered as a "nazi" by establishment historian Barbara Tuchman.

Huey Long alleged, in speeches delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate, that the Roosevelt administration was plotting to assassinate him. Supposedly, these speeches are still available in the Congressional Record. Since he WAS subsequently assassinated, and represented such a threat to the powers that be, I would love for someone to finally tackle that verboten subject in a book.

Glenn,

If you've studied the evidence in the JFK assassination (at least what evidence is available), then you know the official story is impossible. Period. It's been disproven over and over again, beginning with the original band of citizen critics in the mid-1960s. To say you are unsure whether there was a conspiracy indicates to me that you must not really be familiar with the facts in this case.

I think you are confusing the personalities on forums like this with the actual arguments used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination. Yes, there are a lot of bombastic, egotistical personalities on this forum and others. Welcome to the world of JFK assassination research. For whatever reason, this subject attracts those kind of people. You're playing the McAdams/Bugliosi/Posner game when you decry "conspiracy theories." Yes, we all have our theories about what happened, but that doesn't change the uncontestable fact that the official theory is impossible. We may disagree about WHO killed JFK, but Lee Harvey Oswald didn't.

I know you have your issues with Judyth Baker. Fine- much of the research community does. Not accepting her story, or John Armstrong's theories, or David Lifton's alteration hypothesis, or film alteration, shouldn't cause you to wonder if there was a conspiracy. We're all just people on an internet forum. None of us have the resources the Warren Commission and the HSCA had, but didn't use (or use properly). We can't be expected to name the real assassins for you to a definitive certainty. Our understandable inability to do so shouldn't cause you, or any other "fence sitter," to thereby state you are uncertain if there was a conspiracy.

We know how you feel about Fetzer, Baker and some others here. Tell us what you think of J.Edgar Hoover- who orchestrated the coverup after the assassination (to such a degree that he purposefully mimeographed documents over and over again in order to reduce their clarity), How about Arlen Specter and the rest of the Warren Commission staff, or the mainstream "journalists" who have never shown the slightest interest in investigating this case. Did you know that NBC News agreed to the FBI's request, on December 11, 1963, "to televise only those items which are in consonance" with the FBI's report? What kind of "free" press does that?

You are leery of "conspiracy theories." Again, what do you think of the official theory? Do you believe a bullet can travel downwards, from six stories above, enter a person about 5-6 inches down on his back, and then exit at a higher point, from his throat? Do you believe said bullet could continue on, shattering a thick human wrist in the process, and wind up in nearly pristine condition? Are you not the least bit suspicious of a Secret Service detail that failed to respond at all for six seconds to the obvious sound of gunfire? How about the driver who at least slowed the car down significantly and turned around to watch the president be hit with the head shot?

Are you satisfied with the autopsy performed on the president, one which Harold Weisberg rightly pointed out was "not worthy of a Bowery bum?" Does the failure to question, or even identify, significant witnesses to the assassination concern you at all? How about all the missing and destroyed evidence? Does that perhaps suggest to you a conspiratorial activity? Do you find Oswald's background more akin to an intelligence asset than to a lone nut?

I'm not attempting to be rude, but I find all "fence sitters" to be only slightly less incomprehensible than lone nutters. You have to be at least somewhat familiar with all the massive indications of conspiracy. Don't let your opposition to someone's personal theory, or to any individual's difficult personality, sway your views of the evidence. There are few things more certain in life than that in this case, there was a conspiracy.

Joe,

That's my point exactly- the information you present may be top rate, but when you throw in the kind of language you did, and adopt the confrontational tone you did, then THAT becomes the issue, not the subject matter. At least on moderated forums.

I don't know how you'd expect any moderator to punish a member for their perceived lack of knowledge, or simply being what the majority of researchers would consider "wrong" on a given issue. I've been through this many times here; just because I agree with you (or any other member who posts in an objectionable way) doesn't mean that I condone the manner in which you present your arguments. As I noted, you could have made your points without the gratuitous stuff, and that probably would have resulted in a lot of follow up posts from others agreeing with you.

It really isn't hard to leave out the profanity, and refrain from calling names. I've read some of your online work, and was particularly impressed with the article you wrote about Connally luring JFK to Dallas. That's probably why I'm so disappointed in the way you've expressed yourself in recent posts.

This is the stupidest crap I have seen on this forum since Lifton defended the Mary Bledsoe story.

Jim, your whole central premise is staggeringly stupid.

You have not read the basic material on this subject. I'll give you a hint, Jerry Bruno's book, "Advance Man," and Volume 11 of the HSCA report. In volume 11 you'll find a section on the motorcade.

I've given presentations on this topic. I know it backwards and forwards.

Your whole approach is so flawed it's beyond help. You don't go to Dealey Plaza and work backwards to Love Field. What the hell are you doing that for? Are you trying to find some distance measurement? Why? Your statement that "There seems to be nothing unsusal in the planning of the route," SCREAMS OUT LOUD how totally ignorant you are of the whole Texas trip to begin with, and the Dallas motorcade in particular.

When asked to explain your methodology of how in the hell the landing of Air Force One at Love Field has anything to do with the motorcade or the assassination you ignore the question. Instead, you reiterate your unexplained core principal, "But upon close inspection there was one deciding factor which guided the planning and distance the motorcade would travel....THE TIME ALOTTED....which was controlled by when Air Force One landed at Love Field."

What the hell are you talking about? What do you mean "time alloted?" There is no "time allotted." Are you seriously suggesting that assassins are on a deadline? What, are the assassins members of an assassin's union? They're only contracted to start shooting at exactly 12:30 local Dallas time? And if JFK's late they say F-it and walk off?

But, no, it gets better. You think if Air Fore One was "late," it would shorten the motorcade route? What the hell are you talking about? Air Force One isn't a commercial airliner. It didn't have a scheduled landing time at Love Field. And even if it did and was late do you think people were going to say the hell with it and leave? Not even Germans are that anal about promptness.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And how would they shorten the motorcade route? How would that work exactly with a route that was publicized and already had people standing along its path?

NO! The controlling factor was not the landing of Air Force One. There was no "controlling factor," everything was in place well beforehand. Nothing was left to chance. And I think you're trying to say there was, that there was a tight schedule and any deviation would throw the whole thing off and JFK would be saved. That was never a possibility.

JFK and Jackie went to shake hands with people along a fence line at Love Field. That took a few minutes The limo stopped several times so JFK could shake hands. One group had a sign which asked JFK please stop and shake our hands, another time he stopped for a bunch on nuns. That took some time.

This paragraph of yours also details your total ignorance of the case - "We also know, factually, that J. P. Hosty had, prior to the design of the motorcade route identified exactly where Oswald was working. Although this note, written by Hosty, seems to have disappeared without a trace and was not given an exhibit number by John J. McCloy while he was questioning Hosty, we must assume, that it, just as Hosty's two other notes about Oswald, made it to the office of Richard Helms!"

Oh really?

Hosty's WC testimony begins in Volume 4. FBI agent Fain had closed the Lee Harvey Oswald case. Hosty was given Marina Oswald's case. On March 14, Hosty learns that the Oswalds are living at 214 Neely St. Hosty learns that Lee has a contact with the New York Daily Worker from info received from the NYC FBI field Office. Hosty asks for the LHO case to be reopened. Hosty says he waited 45 days as a "cooling off period," because of what he thought were their marital difficulties which led to them being evicted from their previous apartment on Elsbeth street. So, in May he wants to check up on them. By then they were out of the Neely St address and left no forwarding address. Hosty's requests to reopen the LHO case on March 25th was accepted in late March, 1963. On June 17th, Hosty learns that LHO is now in New Orleans. Hosty corresponds with the New Orleans FBI field office during the summer of 1963. Hosty requested New Orleans to verify LHO was there. They do and inform Hosty. In August the New Orleans FBI field office takes control of the Oswald case, since the Oswald's are living in New Orleans they now get control of the Oswald file. New Orleans is now considered the "office of origin," to use FBI parlance since the subjects under investigation now live there. Any other FBI field office assisting in such a case would be called an auxiliary office. So, Hosty does not have jurisdiction, control, or any authority over the Oswald case as we head into the Fall of 1963. Hosty doesn't even learn about Oswald handing out leaflets on the streets of New Orleans until 6 to 7 weeks after the fact. There was no "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" in Dallas so Hosty wasn't concerned about an old event that happened in New Orleans. On October 3rd, New Orleans advises Hosty that the Oswald have left. Dallas now becomes the office of origin and the case is reopened for Hosty. All the New Orleans people know is that Marina left with a woman in a station wagon with Texas license plates, and the female driver could speak Russian. Lee had disappeared. The New Orleans FBI people did not know the name Ruth Paine, nor did Hosty. Hosty checks to see if the Oswalds have returned to the Ft. Worth or Dallas area. On October 25th Hosty learns that Lee had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. On October 29th the New Orleans FBI field office tells Hosty that there is a change of address postal card to 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas. Also on the 29th, Hosty interviews a neighbor living at 2519 West Fifth Street to find out who's at 2515 West Fifth Street and learns the name Ruth Paine. On Oct 31st Hosty does a credit check on the Paines. And does some further investigation on the Paines. Hosty is led to believe that Lee had abandoned Marina and the kids. On Nov 1st Hosty interviews Ruth Paine who tells him she thinks Lee is living somewhere in the Oak Cliff section, but she doesn't know where. She tells him Lee worked at the Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm Street.

So, it wasn't via some mysterious note. So, there is no missing exhibit number. Hosty wrote FBI reports. He should have, he was an FBI agent. It was part of his job to write reports.

You are mistaken in the belief that Hosty discovered where Oswald worked by some "note." You're conflating the note Oswald allegedly left for Hosty, which people did not know about until the 1970's. This note was written by Oswald to Hosty to get Hosty to stop bothering Marina.

Hosty is not really questioned by John J. McCloy, but primarily by a Mr. Stern, a counsellor for the Warren Commission.

On Monday Nov 4th, Hosty calls the TSBD and verifies LHO works there. Also, on Nov 4th Hosty requests that Dallas now becomes the "office of origin," as he had now proof that the Oswalds were in Dallas. On Nov 5th Hosty tries to learn where Lee is living. He goes to Ruth Paine's house. She doesn't know the exact address.

During Hosty's testimony he does refer to the fact that once information is written down into formal FBI reports the notes are routinely destroyed. This seems akin to a newspaperman's notes not being kept after he writes up a story and it is then published in the newspaper. There's nothing sinister there. But, he does say he has notes from Nov. 1963 when questioned by McCloy.

Hosty did know Lee Oswald worked at the TSBD but he was not aware of the motorcade route or that the presidential limo would pass by the TSBD. (4H460) Hosty further commented that there was no contact between the FBI and the Secret Service about the motorcade route before the assassination. However, on the 21st Hosty gave them some information about the "Wanted for Treason" poster, some guy in Denton who said something about JFK, and the possibility of some picketing.

So, Hosty never did confirm where Lee Oswald was living prior to the assassination.

What other notes are you talking about that went to Helms?

This is totally ass backwards - "It seems to be a certainty that people in Washington knew where Oswald was working and if they were planning an assassination of the President that would involve Oswald it would have to occur in Dealy Plaza. Controlling the landing time of Air Force One would be an integral part in the accomplishment of their goal."

Setting up the patsy was an integral part of the plot. Of course you need to have him near the shooting. The landing of Air Force One has nothing to do with anything other than getting JFK to Dallas and starting a motorcade. Read Jerry Bruno's book. If you had, which you obviously haven't, you'd know that Gov. John Connally promised Bruno that Texas Christian University was going to give JFK an honorary degree only to have Connally yank that idea away at the last moment, which necessitated the need for a Dallas motorcade. Getting bags and people onto Air Force One after the Ft. Worth motorcade and the flight over to Dallas would eat up the hole in the schedule now that JFK was not going to have a luncheon affair at TCU.

And again you stick to your ridiculous theory, "After speaking in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination Kennedy, I believe, returned to his hotel and had a period of down time until the planned departure of AF1. Air Force One had a rather large window of time that could have been used to reach Dallas and Kennedy could have been driven the short distance to Dallas in the time that was available but the reality is Kennedy's assassination could only have occured the way it did based upon the landing time of Air Force One at Love Field." - What total BS.

Down time??? There was a motorcade in Ft. Worth! There was no "down time." After the breakfast with the Ft. Worth Chamber of Commerce, hastily arranged by Bruno when the TCU plan fell through, thanks to Connally's mischief, JFK and Co. had a motorcade to Carswell AFB. They took a scenic route to avoid where the TFX fighter plane was being built. JFK also stopped here at various points to shake hands and greet various people, like schoolchildren as he drove by. JFK was in a white convertible. Jackie sat between JFK and Connally. They then flew to Dallas.

You're an idiot! Are you related to Robert Morrow in some way?

Kelly, you could learn something from reading Bruno's book too.

Joe Backes

Joe,

I have bolded all the parts of your post which nearly every member here would find objectionable. I have read some of your work, and was predisposed to think you were a pretty good researcher. However, in your infrequent posts on this forum, you have displayed a hot headed style that even the most difficult posters here don't approach.

You obviously know that calling someone an "idiot" is unacceptable. And how many times do you have to write "you don't know what the hell you're talking about" in a single post? Do you normally discuss this subject with others in such a nasty, angry way? What are YOU so mad about? For the record, I don't agree with Jim Root's theory here, either, and I certainly don't buy Mary Bledsoe's story. You could have expressed your views in a civil way, and been much more effective in debating this issue.

Can you drop the excessively combative tone? I'm sure you have some good input to offer.

I am extremely disappointed that no educator outside of Jean Walker has seen fit to comment on this important issue. With the tragic shooting in Ohio this week, that has now claimed the lives of three high school students, I thought I'd try and revive this thread.

The alleged gunman at Chardon High School, T.J. Lane, was bullied and a clear outcast, like all the other school shooters. The official response to the shooting suggests, however, that once again those in positions of authority are just not addressing the core problem here. Geauga County prosecutor David Joyce stated, "He chose his victims at random. This is not about bullying. This is not about drugs. This is someone who is not well and I'm sure in our court case we'll prove that." No, Mr. Joyce, according to all early reports, this kid Lane WAS bullied and WAS made to feel an outcast.

There is no excuse for what Lane, or any other school shooter has done. But if we want to understand why these incidents happen, we have to address the underlying factors that lead to such acts of violence. The vast majority of bullied kids will never pick up a gun and bring it to school. But all those who do decide to take out their frustrations in some sort of twisted "revenge" have been victims of relentless bullying and invariably outcasts in the high school social hierarchy. Yet no matter how many times it happens, the media doesn't address it, and as we see here from the prosecutor's clueless comments, our legal system is only concerned, as

always, with wins and losses in court.

Again, I would love to hear some thoughts on this issue from those who work in educational systems.

Thanks to Robert and everyone else who downloaded "The Unreals" last time. We had about 1400 downloads from Kindle, so the publisher is doing another, one day only, special leap year promo starting at midnight and all day tomorrow (February 29). You can download my book FREE again for one day only. Here's the American Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Unreals-ebook/dp/B004BLJAB4

As Andric noted, you can get Kindle for your p.c. as well. Thanks!

David,

While the names have changed, the mindset has not. Brian Williams, Matt Lauer, John King, Shepherd Smith are all indistinguishible from Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Harry Reasoner and Dan Rather. Each and every one of them will chant the "no conspiracy" mantra, especially when the JFK assassination is the subject. They are paid extremely well to read their teleprompters, and often belong to the same exclusive fraternities that the most powerful political figures belong to; the Council on Foeign Relations, for example. Some of them even get invited to the yearly Bilderberg meetings, where the world's elite gather to discuss the fate of the unwashed masses. Every "journalist" that attends these soirees agrees in advance to never report anything about them. Does that sound like the kind of press that is ever going to report the truth about important political events?

JFK may have been the lothario that many think he was. In my view, if he was indeed frolicking with Fiddle and Faddle every day, carrying on affairs with the most visible celebrities of the era, like Marilyn Monroe, getting involved with the molls of dangerous gangsters, like Judith Exner, having a dalliance with Mary Pinchot Meyer, wife of CIA honcho Cord Meyer (and also doing LSD with her, courtesy of Timothy Leary), and now apparently engaging in a sexual relationship with at least one teenage intern, then his political accomplishments are all the more impressive. And remember, also, the same sources that allege JFK was having nonstop sex, also claim that there was a huge coverup about his health- usually centered around Addison's Disease. So, a sickly, middle-aged man, long before the days of Viagra, was finding time for more sexual activity than young rock stars engage in, and still managed to appear, to the public, like a robust and classy world leader.

I'm as skeptical about the allegations regarding JFK's sexual exploits as I am about the "official" story of his death. As Jim D. has consistently pointed out, look at the sources for this- almost all of them can be traced back to Exner, Hersh, Heymann, etc. I'm wondering how many here accept the notion that there was a coverup about JFK's health. This has also been used to explain away the incomplete and shoddy autopsy JFK received; according to these same sources, the Kennedy family "covered up" because they didn't want the public to know about his Addison's Disease. It doesn't matter to them that RFK signed the form authorizing the autopsy, and placed no restrictions on it. Harold Weisberg was the first critic, I believe, to address this campaign to blame the Kennedy family.

The mainstream media now exists primarily to promulgate the party line, whatever that is. The party line regarding JFK and RFK is that they were reckless, irresponsible, unprincipled, typical politicians. The party line on their deaths is, and always has been, that they were both killed by lone nuts, and neither death held any political significance. If you don't think this is true, then find me one example of a prominent "journalist," who is given lots of television time, that will publicly declare JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but....

My publisher is offering a special two day, FREE kindle download of my novel "The Unreals" from any Amazon (includes UK, Canada, etc.) It won't cost you anything, but you'll be doing me a favor by helping my Amazon ranking. That's become increasingly important in the publishing world. This offer is good through Tuesday, February 14.

If you don't have kindle, please pass the info along to someone who has. Thanks!

Here's the link to my book's American Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/The-Unreals-ebook/dp/B004BLJAB4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

I'm astonished that any CTer would put their trust in the same sources who have consistently averted the truth when covering the JFK assassination. We're speaking about the same historical figures- John and Robert Kennedy; if they have been shown to distort the facts about their deaths, why should we place any credence in what they have to say about their lives?

I differ with Jim D. partially on the Marilyn Monroe death. I don't believe for a second that she killed herself, and I think the facts suggest a coverup of some magnitude. That being said, I tend to think that she was murdered because of the connection she had to the Kennedys. This was not done with their approval, but orchestrated by their enemies, as perhaps a kind of warning. Her suspicious death has been used by anti-Kennedy zealots, in order to tie them directly to it. I believe some have even suggested RFK himself gave her a shot or something. Is that a ridiculous scenario or what? So, once again, connecting those "bad" Kennedy boys to the murder of a movie star they both were allegedly sleeping with is done with the intention of making the public shake the heads in disgust and react to any assassination "conspiracy theory" with, "they weren't any good, anyway- they deserved it."

What is significant about the Mimi Alford story is that it represents the first example of an underling accusing JFK of sexual improprieties. JFK's alleged pecadiloes, up until now, were all with women wholly unconnected to his profession (well, okay, there "Fiddle and Faddle," but does anyone believe that?), and many of them were his equal in celebrity status. IF those allegations are true, then JFK's infideilty is still, imho, of a different stripe than the kind other politicians have engaged in. Bill Clinton, for instance, was accused of directly abusing his power over Paula Jones, Kathryn Willey, etc. I believe FDR's long time affair was with a secretary, and some have claimed that LBJ ordered his aide to marry an underling he impregnated. So the Alford allegations serve the purpose of, for the first time, placing JFK in a particular nasty light- of a powerful figure wielding his authority over his innocent young intern. Since there has never been the slightest hint that abusing his authority over others was a part of JFK's character, I think it's another reason to doubt this story.

I'm usually very cynical about politics, and there are very few politicians I have admired during my lifetime. In comparison to their contemporaries, the Kennedys were about as honest as political figures can be. They actually did try to accomplish some good, and they were murdered because of it. If there are such things as "good guys," then John and Robert Kennedy fall into that category.

I watched the interview with Mimi yesterday on the Today Show. Contrary to David Lifton's favorable impression of another interview, I thought Ann Curry's performance was an embarrassment to journalism. Zero skepticism. Fawning, soft and tender "questions" designed entirely to permit the guest to promote her book, elicit sympathy from the audience and place her firmly in the victim category. I don't know, but wouldn't there be at least one "Why should we believe you?" or "You must know that people are going to question your motives, considering you've written a book about this" or "What other evidence is there for this sexual relationship, beyond your own testimony?"

These same journalists will adopt an entirely different demeanor if they're questioning someone who is outside the establishment, or promoting something that challenges the powers-that-be. I remember in particular watching usually lame and submissive Matt Lauer attack Dr. Andrew Wakefield like a pit bull, in response to his allegations that vaccines are related to autism in children. In this case, the "interview" was no different than what you'd expect if Larry King was interviewing Mother Teresa. When an active sitting President, Bill Clinton, was accused of actual, forcible rape by Julia Broderck, these same "journalists" ignored her completely. Later, President Dubya would be accused of forcible rape by another woman, who then proceeded to die mysteriously. Sounds like there might have been a story there, huh? Not for these "journalists."

If you can't see a difference in the way the msm and establishment historians (like Reeves) treat all other presidents, and how they treat JFK and RFK, then I don't think you're paying close attention. As Jim noted, it's not the alleged affairs that are most important, it's the reaction to them on the part of the establishment. As for Doris Kearns Goodwin, would she have any notoriety if she hadn't supposedly slept with LBJ? She's obviously biased.

The Kennedys were different, and that's why they were killed. Those who conspired to do so recognized that assassinating their characters would be a crucial part of the ongoing coverup. Consider the sources for all these allegations. I don't apologize for still caring about the Kennedys. I think they were fighting evil forces, and I will always consider them heroes.

Jim DiEugenio's work in this area has been superb; for those who haven't done so, please read his "Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." This book is just the latest installment in the ongoing campaign to discredit JFK's memory in the public eye. It is done so with the intent, clearly, of robbing his death of any significance, since he was an immoral, reckless scoundrel.

JFK is still despised by those who run this world. The names may have changed, but the same forces remain in control. The establishment is notorious for protecting the reputations of those historical figures whom they wish to promote; you are unlikely to see, for instance, any scandalous books being published about FDR or Harry Truman. Certainly, no figure such as this woman could hope to come forth with some kind of decades old "tell all" book based upon sexcapades with politicians more favored by establishment historians. She would have been laughed out of any reputable publishing house in the world with this ridiculous story. The same publishers and news directors who scoff at any and all "conspiracy theories" have no trouble accepting the alleged personal anecdotal tales of the Judith Campbell Exners of the world. Why is that?

JFK (and RFK) threatened the establishment. They are still a threat to the establishment. Their reputations must be smeared, in order to prevent any future politicians like them (or those who might be interested in exposing the truth about their murders) from trying to follow in their footsteps.

Don't fall for this con job. The agenda is blatantly obvious.

The debate on this has not been closed, in my view at least, no matter how many of you claim it has. The questions about the shirt alone ought to raise doubts in thinking minds. How can any shirt looker newer eight years down the road? I don't see a pocket in the '71 shirt. We know that Lovelady lied. We also know that the authorities had a very strong motive to force that person in the doorway to be someone else besides Oswald. This issue IS important, because it's practically the only piece of evidence I know of that would singlehandedly prove Oswald didn't do it.

How many of you have ever worked with someone who was such a dead ringer for you that he could even fool your wife and kids? We know that there was an orchestrated campaign to impersonate Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination (whether or not one buys into the Harvey and Lee theory). Isn't it just too much of a coincidence that LHO happens to find employment, during the same time period, at a place where one of his co-workers appears to be eminently qualified to impersonate Oswald himself?

Not only does McKnight still believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway, so does well- respected critic David Wrone. I'd be surprised if Mark Lane still doesn't believe it. I don't think Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, etc. ever came to the belief that it was Lovelady. Every aspect of the official story is dubious, and every CTer should be skeptical when the chorus becomes "THAT was solved. Move on!" Imho, the matter of the identity of the figure in the doorway hasn't been solved.

Let's follow Thoreau's advice to "simplify, simplify" here.

We know that those tasked to investigate the assassination of JFK did not have any intention of doing so, and as a result left countless questions unanswered. We have no real way of knowing what Oswald said to Fritz or anyone else. Judging by his few public pronouncements, he was primarily concerned with obtaining a lawyer and appeared to be surprised he was accusing of being the assassin.

David Lifton did a great job of demonstrating how Billy Lovelady lied, although he then inexplicably still concluded he was the figure in the doorway. Why would Lovelady lie about anything to the authorities? It was quite convenient for the authorities to have an employee in the TSBD who looked so much like LHO, wasn't it? Whatever else you think about the Altgens photo, you can't deny that those who were busy covering up the truth and manipulating the "evidence" against Oswald, had a vested interest in that figure in the doorway not being Oswald.

There is no reason to trust anything that Oswald is officially claimed to have said in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Given the nature of the non-investigation being conducted, and the sense of self-preservation someone like Lovelady would have felt in such a situation, there is no reason to trust anything he, or the other witnesses in the doorway, said regarding just who was there at the time. There is no way of definitively knowing where he or Oswald actually was at the time of the shooting.

Imho, Fetzer and Cinque's certainty that the figure IS Oswald is just as valid as the prevailing view here that the figure definitely IS Lovelady. Lies from Lovelady, disappearing pockets, the coincidence of such a convenient LHO "double" working with him- so many reasons exist to question the entire official story about the Altgens photo.

I think we all need to remain skeptical about every aspect of this case.

David,

I commend you on your astute observations on this issue. However, you confound me once again by inexplicably concluding that, despite your research, Lovelady was the man in the doorway. Reminds me of Dan Moldea, writing a book on the RFK assassination, proving conclusively there was a conspiracy, and then incomprehensibly concluding that Sirhan acted alone.

Lovelady initially told the FBI he wore a shirt that day that couldn't have been the one we see on the figure in the Altgens photo. Then, to reinforce this, he shows up in that shirt for a photo. Some of us would consider that "best evidence." The authorities desperately wanted to declare that the figure wasn't Oswald, because that automatically meant he couldn't have been the assassin. No need to argue about nonsense like the SBT any more if that was the case. So obviously they had an agenda to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady.

I continue to be mystified about why so many CTers are just accepting that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. It hasn't. Strong doubts remain. I think it's probably Oswald.

Tom Purvis believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was a crack shot, the carcano was a good weapon and that he fired all the shots at JFK in Dallas. Without batting an eye, he also maintains that the Warren Commission "covered up." Since he agrees with all their ridiculous conclusions, it's very hard to figure out what he's talking about. They claim Oswald did it. Tom claims Oswald did it. So they are in agreement.

To top it all off, Tom is a film aterationist. If any of you can figure out how to reconcile all of these mystifying, contradictory sets of beliefs, please enlighten the rest of us.

Tom Purvis continues to inexplicably receive far more respect from nearly everyone on this forum than someone like Jim Fetzer does. Why do you scoff at Fetzer, let take seriously someone like Tom Purvis?

As a great admirer of Thoreau, I often try to urge others to "simplify" whenever possible. Let's simplify this issue:

a photo taken at the very instant JFK is being shot shows a figure in the background, peering out from the entranceway of the building where it is alleged shots were being fired from six stories above. This figure, at first glance, bears a strong resemblance to alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, especially because the rather distinct shirt he is wearing looks so similar.

When the idea that the figure might be Oswald started getting publicity, the authorities clearly took the stance that "it can't be Oswald." That wasn't even a consideration for them, because they'd already concluded he was the lone assassin. As we know from the Warren Commission's "investigation," nothing was going to change their minds about that. So...there just happens to be a TSBD employee who looks enough like Oswald from a distance to serve their purpose. The fact that Lovelady told the FBI he was wearing a short sleeve shirt that day, with very broad stripes, certainly is puzzling. WHY would he give them the wrong information on something like this? As Harold Weisberg did, I find that very important, because without the convenient Loveday it's very hard to dismiss the idea that the figure was Oswald.

I question just about everything regarding this case. Frankly, I've never understood why Oswald would ostensibly admit to not watching the presidential motorcade pass by his building (by eating lunch during it). How many other TSBD employees were not watching the motorcade? Kind of makes one suspect to convey the impression you care so little about the guy you don't even leave the lunchroom to catch a glimpse of him, doesn't it? That's just one of many reasons I place little credence in anything allegedly said by Oswald during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. On the other hand, if he were really saying, "Look, I was out front watching from the doorway, with the others," and that statement was recorded by someone, and we see that figure in the Altgens photograph after Oswald was killed, well, then you really have the perfect alibi, don't you?

As Jim noted, Lovelady's death was just one of many that befell potentially important witnesses just prior to the start of the HSCA investigation. I'm not saying the figure has been definitively proven to be Oswald, but again I don't understand how any of you can be so certain that the figure isn't him. At the very least, this is still an open question, and because the Altgens photo represents the smoking gun we've all been told we must have, if the figure can be shown to be Oswald, in order to persuade others to recognize that a conspiracy took the life of JFK, it's obviously an essential, important piece of evidence.

I don't rely on Fritz's notes or Cinque's analysis to state that I think it's very likely that the figure in the doorway is Oswald. Cinque does make an astute but simple observation; Oswald had to have been a rarity at that time, in wearing his shirt with the top unbuttoned to such an extent that a good portion of his undershirt showed. To a layman, the shirt the figure in the doorway is wearing, and the way he is wearing it, certainly seems to be identical to what we saw Lee Harvey Oswald sporting after his arrest.

I've brought this up before, but I don't understand why the new conventional view among most CTers is that the figure has been "proven" to be Lovelady. That's simply not true. Harold Weisberg analyzed this issue in depth over 40 years ago, and made what I thought to be an extremely compelling case that the authorities desperately wanted the figure to be Lovelady, and clumsily constructed a story to reflect that.

It is fair to say that it isn't certain the figure is Oswald, but it's ridiculous to claim that the figure is definitely Lovelady. What is most baffling is the willingness on the part of so many in the research community to backtrack on this issue, and act as if there have been any credible studies proving it was Lovelady. IF the figure is Oswald, the Altgens photograph represents conclusive, unadulterated proof that he was not the assassin. The early critics recognized the importance of this photo, and some us still understand that.

Again, the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on the figure being Oswald, obviously. However, IF the figure is Oswald, then no one anywhere can argue there wasn't a conspiracy.