Don Jeffries

Thanks, Richard, for unearthing a bit of Mooney's testimony that managed to have slipped by most of us. That could definitely be significant.

This thread represents the Ed Forum at its finest. Lots of reasonable analysis and speculation, with heretofore largely ignored aspects of this case subjected to fresh, intriguing perspectives.

I just wanted to thank Patrick Block for providing a real breath of fresh air on this forum. Not only does he appear to be very knowledgable about the subject matter he's discussing, he expresses himself about as cordially as possible. He is respectful and civil to others.

We could all learn something from him.

What sad news. I echo the sentiments of others expressed here. Doug was astute and civil, and the work he left behind will benefit future generations to come.

He was way too young and will be sorely missed by everyone in the research community.

Lee,

Why would you dramatically quit the forum? Nothing said in the post you referred to should have compelled you to quit posting here.

You know that I value your contributions here. I hope you'll keep posting.

Jim,

Again, I simply thanked Josiah Thompson for posting an interview I hadn't seen before. I also suggested that Chaney's failure to contradict the inferences that the Zapruder film had been altered might also be referred to as an "unintended consequence."

Nothing I said should indicate that I feel this interview proves Chaney didn't ride forward, as the other evidence you've cited many times before suggests.

Jim,

By thanking Josiah for posting this, I wasn't saying I accept his conclusion that this somehow disproves the notion that Chaney raced ahead of the motorcade. By noting that the conversation revolved around the idea the Zapruder film might have been altered, I was gently suggesting that perhaps one might also infer that Chaney's possible willingness to accept that the film didn't show everything the way it actually happened may be an "unintended consequence," too.

Regardless, I do thank him for posting the information, as I hadn't seen it before.

Very interesting, Josiah. Thanks for sharing.

I'm curious about Gil Toft's seeming inference that the Zapruder film was altered. Chaney doesn't really seem to dispute this notion. Also, clearly Newcomb was aware of all the indications that the motorcade had at least greatly slowed down, if not completely stopped, at the time of the assassination. Chaney's reaction is such that he appears to be familiar with such notions himself.

This is great material- please continue to post this kind of information.

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Greg,

Except for the parts I've bolded, that was a typically persuasive post. Can't you see how much more effective it would be without the unnecessary nastiness or sarcasm? Don't you understand how much harder it would be for David to respond inappropriately himself, if you stuck to your strong analysis of the evidence?

Greg,

You seem to be unduly concerned about my comparing this forum to someone's home. You're certainly an intelligent guy, so you get the analogy. Why is it outrageous for me to suggest that every poster here try to be more civil and abide by the forum rules? Yes, I know, David Lifton doesn't abide by them, either. Where I differ from you and some others here is by recognizing that David's nastiness and personal attacks didn't occur in a vacuum-there was a give and take between himself and Lee Farley, subsequently joined by you and Martin Hay, in which no one looked heroic and everyone at some point violated the tenets of minimally acceptable forum etiquette.

If I have an idealogical bias about the subject matter in these threads, it would be against the positions David Lifton has espoused. The inference that the moderators here have "coddled" David, or somehow been more lenient than we should be towards him is unfair. If you want to maintain that we've been too hands-off in general, then I, at least, would certainly plead guilty in that regard. I've admitted several times that my inclination is to let the debates flow in a free form fashion, and that includes the input of David Lifton, Lee Farley, you and every other poster on this forum. I never voted to moderate or punish you, Lee or Martin. I never liked heavy handed moderation on a forum, so when I was asked to become a moderator, I decided to try and be the kind of moderator I would feel most comfortable with.

This is a really simple issue. Make your arguments as passionately as you want, even point out the inconsistencies and illogical nature of what other posters are saying. Claim their ideas or theories are absurd. But there is no need to garnish your posts with juvenile names. Or references to someone's occupation. Or perceived lack of qualifications. Or their physical appearance in their avatar photo. The most irrefutable information and logic can be undermined by a few gratuitious "idiots" or "jerks" or a mean spirited allegation about another poster's station in life or lack of formal education. Is it really too much to ask? Exactly how am I being biased towards David Lifton by requesting that you all try and do this?

JFK liked to quote the old Chinese proverb, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Upon signing the nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets, he declared, "Let history record that we, in this land, at this time took the first step." I'd love to see you, or any of the other posters I mentioned, take that first step.

Don,

as with Lifton, you guys are predictable. DSL can say whatever crap he wants; spew whatever lies; ridicule and bully to his hearts content. Nada action from you guys. But all hell breaks loose as soon as someone responds to him with a few home truths. Worse still, one of you insists we should welcome his bile as somehow being a positive thing. At least you have included Lifton in your round of "chastisements". I knew sooner or later, one of you would be forced to. Pity it's too little, too late.

We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton. I wrote the post you're replying to. I disagree far more with David's views on this subject than I do with Lee or you. Like many others here, you want the strong arm of moderation applied to those you're arguing with, but object if it's applied to you or someone you agree with.

I do want to directly address some of the issues you raise.

1. Yes, moderating is a tough task. So what. Lots of jobs are. If you don't like it - don't do it. And if you can't do it FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY - you SHOULDN'T do it.

I've noted that there are so many offenses, by so many posters, that to apply every rule constantly would mean that a good portion of the most prolific posters on the forum would be on moderation. That's what we want to avoid, and thus the constant pleas for everyone to try and cut out the nasty stuff.

2. Bringing Lee Farley into it after he has said he is through with Lifton, is a bit harsh.

If Lee actually proves to be "through" with Lifton, I give him a great deal of credit. However, he is a big part of what we're discussing. I think his give and take with Lifton is the primary focus of what I'm talking about. Now, it's become a three on one situation, with you and Martin joining Lee in unanimous opposition to Lifton.

3. Do I ridicule Lifton? Sure. When he deserves it. I do it openly and transparently with a wink to actually reality. His, on the other hand, is of the mean-spirited, sly type based on his own morbid fantasies to avoid technical breaches of "the rules".

The fact that you (accurately) see Lifton's mean-spiritedness, but don't see Lee's, or Martin's, or your own, illustrates the main problem here. You are all posting in a mean-spirited manner, most of the time now. I've said many times that I am on your side in most every debate with David Lifton. I've told him I think it's ridiculous to cling to witnesses like Bledsoe. I didn't believe Oswald was on that bus years before Lee Farley started posting here.

4. You hate having to keep making these posts? Too bad. All that had to be done was to deal with Lifton from the get-go. This mess was created because he was never dealt with.

Yes, you (and others) want us to "deal" harshly with Lifton, much as Lifton would like us to deal harshly with you. Your attitude is akin to the child who keeps pointing at the other kid and cries, "He started it!" At this point, it doesn't matter any more who triggered the nastiness first. I can see how Lifton's sense of superiority and tendency to talk down to younger critics like Lee Farley would become really irritating. However, to respond in kind to the point of trying to demean him as an individual is just as misguided. As we try to tell our children, it takes two to tango.

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

So you respect the owner of the forum by stating you're going to do whatever you want. You obviously realize I didn't mean this was John Simkin's literal home. Why is it so difficult for you-laying aside the sins of any other posters-to simply say you'll try to post in a more civil way?

6. I will continue to criticize moderation when it is applied to me unjustly.

Again, you will do what you want.

7. I don't like Lifton. Correct. So what? Where do you state the reverse? You don't. Because you and the others have an inbuilt bias toward him. It has taken some effort to get one of you to even mildly rebuke him for any of his array of appallingly dishonest behaviors. Bottom line. It is you guys I blame. Not him. He clearly cannot help himself.

I certainly have no bias towards David Lifton. Yes, it's clear he doesn't like you, Lee Farley or Martin Hay, either. Does that make you feel better?

8. Swearing. Ban it by all means. But please learn a bit of history first. "Swear words" only became "swear words" because the upper classes decided that the slang used by commoners was "vulgar" and ought not be repeated by people "of breeding". Designating certain words as "vulgar" is historically nothing but elitist snobbery. Surely no history is unimportant? If this means nothing, then nor does who killed JFK - because historical truths and lessons are meaningless.

No one takes a back seat to me in my hatred of upper class snobbery. However, it's obvious that you, Lee, David, and every other poster on this forum abides by the rules against profanity, at least. Joe has certainly read the posts here and should know that isn't appropriate language.

9. You guys deal with me however you see fit. But while I can still post, I will continue to point out Lifton's lies if and when they are aimed at me or about me. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, he is free to pursue his fantasies without my input. I'm not here to play games, make friends OR enemies. But making both are almost inevitable when you stand your ground. Nor do I want this to be a lifelong (and losing) fight for the facts of 11/22, and if that means hurting a few feelings along the way -- tough.

Okay, continue with your "tough" stances. Keep calling each other "fantasists." That's the way to "fight for the facts of 11/22."

10. Speaking of which... your comment that "It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory..." may cause some to conclude that you agree with Lifton that this constitutes my belief about the case, or alternatively, it is the main focus of the web site - whether or not I support it. Neither of those propositions is true and I want you to reword the statement to say that "lying about Greg's website is against forum rules." Or if you cannot bring yourself to actually say it like it is, then simply withdraw the statement altogether. I'd rather no statement than a misleading one.

Greg, I've never visited your web site, so I know nothing about its content. I was merely trying to make a point to David Lifton. I certainly do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I agreed with Lifton's statements about it, because I have never even viewed your web site.

Jim,

I was speaking primarily as a member of this forum first, and as a moderator second. My observations would be the same, whether I was a moderator or not.

No "official" warning here- I wanted to try and address the nasty, bullying behavior on the part of too many posters on this forum. I cited specific names in order to get their attention, not to sanction them. As Tom Scully noted, any punishment would come from a group vote.

Okay, where do we start....

As a moderator, I would like to state first of all that too many posters on this forum are showing a total lack of respect for the moderating team. As you may know, I probably disagree with most of the other moderators much of the time on the issues discussed here, but I cannot find fault in their attempts to moderate what often degenerates into a juvenile shouting match. How do you moderate what is in effect a seventh grade food fight in the cafeteria? As I've stated before, I don't believe in heavy handed moderation. I have always thought that posters on an internet forum like this one ought to be able to conduct themselves as responsible adults. How many times do we have to beg you to stop the personal attacks, the name calling and the general nastiness? Our words appear to have had little effect on any of you. Also, when you are debating Pat Speer, Tom Scully or any other moderator, there is no need for you to bring up the subject of their moderation, especially when you are ridiculing it, unless it is connected directly to the discussion at hand, which it rarely is.

What are we to do at this point? If we moderated all who have technically violated forum rules, we'd be left with very few regular posters. What makes it all the more frustrating is the fact that the most egregious offenders here are also some of the most knowledgable and interesting posters. Without you all, the discussions would be less educational in nature and the flow of information would be diminished. No one wants that. However, none of us wants the general lack of courtesy towards others to continue, either. There is no excuse for some of the behavior that has been exhibited here recently. Belittling others, bashing moderators- is this the way responsible adults should be conducting themselves on any internet forum? If this were a gaming forum or something, populated primarily by teens and those in their twenties, then perhaps we should expect this kind of stuff. But this is supposed to be a forum dedicated to discussing the assassination of President Kennedy. People from all over the world read what we write here. Do you really feel comfortable with some of the bile that's being posted under your actual names?

David Lifton- you have developed a disturbing tendency to attack the messenger more than the message. It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory, or that he may believe in an Oswald twin. What Martin Hay or any other poster on this forum does for a living is just as irrelevant to any discussions. Any alleged personal issues regarding Robert Charles-Dunne are most certainly off limits here- don't you sense the irony of you complaining about others bringing up similar things, when you are guilty of doing it yourself? And are you regularly in the habit of alluding to legal action at the drop of a hat? Eventually, people are just going to stop talking to you if they sense that.

Lee Farley- You seem to have a personal animosity towards David Lifton that goes beyond the disagreements many of us have with him on several issues. There is an easily detectable venom in your posts that turns many of us off, even when you are making a logical argument (which you usually are).

Greg Parker- The same can be said for you- you clearly don't like David Lifton and feel comfortable in ridiculing him.

Martin Hay- Again, like Lee and Greg, some of your posts strike me as attempts to "bait" Lifton into something, and he predictably usually accepts the bait, and returns the nastiness. What was the point in passing along the observations of someone who works with Weisberg's papers, that amounted to nothing more than malicious gossip? Anyone that knew Weisberg knows how much he bad mouthed all the other critics. His personal observations regarding Lifton or anyone else don't pack much credibility because of this.

Joe Backes- Do you read the posts on this forum? What makes you think that it's acceptable to drop the "F" bomb and other words of profanity into your arguments? Is this how you normally discuss things? Injecting your own nasty tone into the discussions at hand have accomplished the almost impossible task of making a bad situation worse.

So much more could be said, but I wanted to single out the most egregious offenders and let them know how I view things. I am disappointed at having to keep posting things like this, but most of you simply won't try and reform yourselves. Think of this forum as someone's home- would you act so beligerantly, attacking those you disagree with personally, calling names- if you were their guest? PLEASE start showing everyone respect, even those you strongly oppose on each and every issue. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from people as educated and well spoken as all of you are. You can all make your arguments more effectively if you stop the name calling, the references to other posters' occupations, lack of qualifications, avator photos, etc.

If you want a heavy, hands on moderation team, then you're doing everything you can to get that. I don't think anyone would benefit from that, but you can't expect even the most tolerant team of moderators to continue to ignore what's been going on here. John Simkin provides a place for us all to express ourselves and communicate with others from around the world. If you can't or won't respect what I'm saying, or the moderation team in general, try to recognize that it is John's forum, and conduct yourselves as mature adults who know better.

Don,

How can I be clearer than to state, as I did at the outset, than to say I believe that some of the sightings are "deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis"? What exactly is it about that that you don't understand?

Does this help?

ad hoc -

a) concerned with a particular end or purpose

formed or used for specific or immediate problems or needs

I guess I'm the only one here who was getting the impression you were dismissing the idea of Oswald impersonators in general. It wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood someone.

But shockingly, I do at least understand the definition of "ad hoc."

Greg,

I have to repeat that I don't understand what you're saying here. I agree with you that certainly some of the sightings of an alleged Oswald could have an innocent explanation. However, you seem to be dismissive of the idea that there was a campaign afoot in the weeks before the assassination to use Oswald impersonators to implicate him. If I'm mistaken in thinking that, I apologize.

Do you doubt that Sylvia Odio witnessed a fake Oswald? Albert Guy Bogard? The people at the shooting range? Again, I'm sorry if I don't comprehend what you're saying.

To me, the fake Oswald encounters represent one of the strongest indications of conspiracy.

Greg,

It's always good to hear new perspectives, and I certainly don't believe we should stick rigidly to a collective consensus about many aspects of this case. That being said, I'm wondering where you're going with this line of thought.

The nature of the most well known "fake" Oswald encounters certainly seems to suggest an overt attempt to impress witnesses in a particular way, as a part of the overall framing process. Yes, Oswald was a nondescript individual in appearance; I suppose that's why the encounters were so outrageously designed. Oswald reckelessly operating a car (whether or not he could legally do so) and inferring he was coming into some money soon, while proclaiming "Maybe I'll have to go to Russia to buy a car" to hapless salesman Albert Guy Bogard; being blatantly advertised to Sylvia Odio as a potential assassin of Kennedy; angrily firing at the wrong targets at a test firing range- what else can all these suggest other than that they were a crucial part of the conspirators plans to fram Oswald?

Do you believe that Bogard, Odio and the witnesses at the test firing range were mistaken about what they'd witnessed? That they all imagined the Oswald name afterwards, when it was nationally known? That it was the real Oswald, doing such incriminating things? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're saying here.

One doesn't have to totally accept John Armstrong's theory in order to recognize that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK.

Thanks so much for sharing this, Douglas. For a long time, I thought I was the only one left who still suspects the figure in the TSBD doorway was Oswald.

This is yet another of those issues on which too many CTers have simply abandoned ship, unreasonably accepting that the figure has been "proven" to be Lovelady. Bill, I think we should all be skeptical about anything Oswald is alleged to have said during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. He also supposedly said, "You know- that's what boys do," in explaining why he had retrieved a weapon from his rooming house. I think that's a preposterous answer, and don't believe he really said that for a second.

As noted, the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on this issue. However, there is no reason to simply accept the argument that the figure isn't Oswald. There is at least as much reason to believe it is Oswald. And, if it can shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it is Oswald, then no one can possibly claim he fired any shots at JFK.

Okay, I guess David meant John, not Don. Correct?

I didn't get a private message from you, David. Just send me an email.

Lee,

I appreciate your passionate reply. I think I've said it before, but I am probably the most "hands off" moderator on this forum. I tend to believe that most everything is fair game, except for truly nasty personal attacks and profanity. I also don't devote as much time to moderating as several others do, so they tend to address things first anyway.

You mention that all of the early critics had issues with David Lifton. That may be the case, but the early critics, like many of the present day critics on this forum, were extremely prone to feuding with each other. I was fortunate enough to share a long evening with Harold Weisberg at his Maryland home in the early '80s, and I can tell you that he despised all the other critics except Harold Roffman, who was not as well known and was like a surrogate son to him. Having worked for Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry as a youngster, I can also categorically state that he and Weisberg particuarly hated each other. Lane didn't castigate the other critics in person like Weisberg did, but the whole group was very competitive with Weisberg's young followers, who were far fewer in number.

The critics became really fractured by the Garrison investigation. Some of the best, including Sylvia Meagher, never trusted Garrison from the outset. Others, like Weisberg, became disillustioned and were very critical of Garrison. While Mark Lane and much of the critical community remained loyal to Garrison and saw him as a heroic crusader, the spats and disagreements between the researchers became worse and have continued to this day. Weisberg wound up opposing all other critics, and in a shameful display of petty jealousy he leaked an early draft of Oliver Stone's JFK movie script to the Washington Post, permitting longtime Warren Commission apologist George Lardner to pen a lengthy diatribe in the paper attacking the film. Weisberg also opposed Nigel Turner's landmark television series, The Men Who killed the President, for unknown reasons.

Penn Jones distrusted numerous critics, including Mark Lane. So the feuds we see now on this forum are hardly new. They are just an unfortunate byproduct of the history associated with this case.

David,

Thanks for detailing your beliefs about the conspiracy. We have an honest disagreement about several specific aspects of this case, but the crucial thing is that we both know the official story is a lie.

Lee,

You can certainly express yourself well, and really offer a fresh perspective on this subject. However, like others on this forum, you too frequently resort to unnecessary name calling and personal insults. That detracts from your otherwise impressive arguments. You don't need to do this, and it winds up just reflecting poorly on you.

Once again, we have a popular thread, with active participation from well known critics like Josiah Thompson and David Lifton, that deteriorates into ugly personality disputes between CTers who agree that Oswald wasn't the assassin. This is the problem with the research community in general- always unable and/or unwilling to stop the infighting and address the big picture.

Like Jim Fetzer, I appreciate David Lifton's decades of research. I also learned a lot from reading Josiah Thompson's SSID, and am grateful for the early work he did on this case. I lean towards believing the films were altered, but do not find it necessary to go ballistic on those who don't think they were. I am probably now an agnostic on body alteration, but again will not question the integrity of those who feel strongly about it either way. When these points are discussed on this forum, everyone reading learns something. The problem is that invariably the most invigorating debates, like this one, are saturated with personal feuds and general nastiness.

I have questioned David Lifton and Josiah Thompson about several things that bother me. I've never called them names or ridiculed them personally, and haven't insinuated they were disinfo agents. While I agree with Jim Fetzer about nearly every issue, I have urged him to stop the personal insults and concentrate on his always impressive data. There are other posters here who often baffle me, but I have not, and will not, confront them in a personal way. We can and should analyze what others say, and the debates that follow from that are what makes this forum so interesting. If we could all just do that, without the gratuitious, juvenile insults, we would all benefit and be closer to achieving the goal we share in common- exposing the truth about the assassination of JFK.

I do not have any patience with lone nutters, but would still not attack them personally. I have noted often on this forum about the general transformation of the research community into a "kindler, gentler" form of CTer- which I've termed "neo-con." I've also questioned the prevalence of CTers turned LNers, which I find incomprehensible. If any of them deigned to participate in debates about the subject, I would firmly but politely question them about their sudden change of perspective. I would refrain from addressing them on a personal level, however. What amazes me is that the few LNers here do not attract the wrath of even the most aggressive CT posters on this forum. These CTers seem to reserve their venom for whatever fellow CTers they have an intense personal dispute with.

I've posted this kind of stuff before, and maybe this will fall on deaf ears again. Sometimes I feel like a kid trying to get his parents to stop the incessant arguing. We should all want to have a civil relationship with other researchers, instead of pushing for divorce. There is strength in numbers, and we have the majority on our side. However, if we continue to prove incapable of getting along with each other, then the lone nutters will have won this battle without firing an effective shot of their own.

Geez, how many times do we have to hear that mantra about people "not being able to accept" that a demented loser could singlehandedly kill a powerful figure like JFK? I can't tell you how many times I've heard this rationale, recited literally word for word, by the likes of Geraldo Rivera, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Howard Stern, Noam Chomsky, Stephen King and an untold number of other movers and shakers. They don't even vary it the least bit. Okay, we get it- we understood you the first thousand times!

"Left" and "Right" blend together on this issue, as they do on all matters of real significance. They present a unified front, and chant robotically, "There was no conspiracy!"

David,

I continue to be baffled by your willingness to accept the most dubious witnesses and claims which bolster the official story, while simultaneously believing that powerful forces tampered with the President's body and altered the film record. Again, I'm open to the body alteration theory, and can certainly believe that at least some of the films were tampered with.

I'm curious- exactly who do you think was involved in the conspiracy?

How can any group be permitted to "reserve" a public spot like that? Shouldn't it belong to the people in general, to use as they see fit, reasonably and peacefully? And don't forget that our friend Gary Mack, public face for the group that is clearly trying to stop "conspiracy theorists" from gathering there, still claims to believe in conspiracy.

Hopefully someone will organize an effective demonstration in protest.

This is yet another area where too many CTers have given ground without good cause. Legally speaking, the evidence indicates that the weapon found on the sixth floor was a German Mauser. This is because the sworn affidavits from the two men who discovered it (leave out Roger Craig's testimony, if you like) both "mistakenly" identified it in exactly the same way. An honest courtroom could not have accepted the Mannlicher Carcano into evidence because the legal chain of possession doesn't apply to it; those who discovered it swore it was a different weapon.

Of course, I know that it was very unlikely that Lee Harvey Oswald would have been tried in an honest courtroom, and thus the Carcano would have introduced with no objection from what probably would have been an ineffective counsel. I also can understand the point that many CTers make, which is basically to question the purpose behind planting a weapon that couldn't be traced to Oswald. But facts are facts, and the only written documentation for the discovery of the sixth floor weapon describes it as a German Mauser.

Whatever this all means, it certainly is yet another contradiction of the official story.

61 United States Senators voted for this incredibly horrific bill, which may spell the end for what's left of our civil liberties. If this doesn't wake the sheeple up and get them to stop re-electing 98% of their monstrous "represenatives" each election, then I don't know what will.

http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/5001/