Don Jeffries

Steve,

I think the whole "left" and "right" designations represent a phony paradigm. The "left" has always been able to ignore scandals and corruption when they are connected to Bill Clinton, Al Gore or other Democratic party favorites. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are two of the foremost examples of this kind of narrow thinking; they can expose the flaws of Bush and other Republicans with great zeal, but they simply ignore the same kind of stuff when the offending person is a member of "their" party.

I understand that Chomsky, in particular, is wonderful on most subjects, but his failure to deal reasonably with the JFK assassination is something I can't get past. Michael Moore has produced some great work, but I think he represents what many of us would call a "phony alternative" to the established order. His 911 documentary didn't really question the official story, and when he appeared on Bill Maher's notoriously mistitled old t.v. show Politically Incorrect, he agreed with fellow guest Gerald Posner that Oswald acted alone.

Both of our "competing" political parties have agreed to adopt a bipartisan foreign policy. Think about that; they are telling you, from the outset, that there will be no debate about our disastrous global misadventures. Why anyone is shocked that Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama would launch more military strikes and occupations than Bush did is beyond me. JFK is the only true anti-war President this country has ever had. A truly "oppositional" political party would target the horrific and unconstitutional nature of our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. We can't even get a viable Third Party in this country, let alone a truly diverse national debate about substantive issues.

The "left" in this country exists now primarily to argue for more governmenal interference in the marketplace, which is of coure a winning argument only because the mega corporations that control the marketplace are utterly corrupt. We are ruled in reality by Republicrats, none of whom will acknowledge the existence of any conspiracies.

Pat,

I can certainly understand how you (or anyone else) could be an LNer if your first real introduction to the subject was "Case Closed" or "Reclaiming History." However, someone who has read even one of the really good conspiracy books would realize instantly how intellectually dishonest all Warren Report apologists are.

To accept the LN line of thought, one has to dismiss the vast majority of eyewitness testimony. One has to innocently accept the gravest errors in legal procedure, from chain-of-possession of virtually all evidence to the destruction of the crime scene (limousine) to lost or mutilated evidence. One has to swallow that normal procedures were somehow, in this case, just routinely avoided by officials at all levels. One has to accept that the brightest legal minds in the country just happened to not identify crucial witnesses like TUM or the Babushka Lady, failed to obtain an untold amount of film from eyewitnesses, neglected to take the testimony of the most important witnesses imaginable (like Admiral Burkley), yet tracked down and deposed irrelevant people like the infant Oswald's babysitter. This was not a benign coverup. Powerful people don't do those sorts of things to protect some minimum wage earning "lone nut."

So I don't respect any lone nutter who has truly looked at the evidence, because the evidence leads any rational person to conclude that the official story is impossible. Of course, I'll defend their right to believe any fairy tale they want, but I certainly won't give such nonsense any credence. As Cliff Varnell points out constantly on this forum, the holes in JFK's clothing alone prove that Oswald, or anyone else, couldn't have done it. There is no reasonable doubt here, and it troubles me when CTers act like there is. Your average preschool class could figure out that Oswald was innocent. What Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher and others demonstrated so vividly was that the official record, in contradiction of its conclusions, proves that Oswald was not the assassin. The coverup was transparent and meant to be exposed, as Vincent Salandria stated many years ago. This isn't rocket science, and CTers shouldn't be acting as if the case is more complex than it is.

The evidence demonstrates that JFK was hit from both the front and the rear, and that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The evidence shows that the Secret Service agents sworn to protect JFK inexplicably failed to do so. There has been a tremendously powerful coverup of the facts surrounding the assassination, which continues to this day. All organs of the mainstream media are party to this coverup. No one who studies the facts and knows all this can honestly be converted to a lone nutter, or fail to believe in conspiracy.

This is a very simple matter for some of us. Josiah Thompson is one of the very few people in the JFK assassination research community who have access to a director like Errol Morris or a public platform like The New York Times. As such, whatever he says on this subject is obviously going to be analyzed and scrutinized by those of us who are still so intrigued by it.

I suspect that Morris must have made his feelings on the subject known to Tink at some point during their lengthy interview. Tink didn't tell us what Morris's beliefs are, but I'm venturing a very strong guess that he's a lone nutter. Tink must know by now that the Times has a clear pro-lone nutter bias, so he was in effect being interviewed about the JFK assassination by an LNer, who subsequently saw that a selected portion of the interview was published in a newspaper that has never been friendly to any CTer. Perception is everything here, and regardless of what Tink's overall beliefs are regarding the JFK assassination, anyone reading that interview would assume that he (and Morris) are lone nutters, like all the other "respectable" people who speak about the subject in the msm.

We've been around and around before here on the subject of any supposed litmus test for CTers. I'm certainly not suggesting there be any such test, but I do question why so many CTers have backed off from perfectly reasonable indications of conspiracy, when no real evidence has ever emerged to cast doubt upon them. Have we ever heard of a single lone nutter backing away from some previously held LN belief? In the same vein, while we've seen a plethora of miraculous conversions from CTer to LNer over the past few decades, there has never been a notable example, to my knowledge, of an LNer suddenly believing in conspiracy. Every time a CTer gives ground without cause on some of these points, imho, it fuels the feeling among casual observers that the overall case for conspiracy isn't as strong.

I do thank Tink for participating in this thread, and reasserting his belief in conspiracy. However, I'm curious as to why a firm LNer would point him towards testimony indicating smoke behind the fence. To most reasonable people, that would suggest gunfire from that area, especially when considered in conjunction with eyewitness testimony and other evidence. Who knows- maybe this will cause this anonymous researcher to examine his own views and become the first known convert to the cause of conspiracy.

I feel as strange as Cliff does about our disagreeing on this subject. I thank him kindly for including me with such distinguished company, although I have a feeling we'd probably all be "ball hogs" on the court.

Penn Jones was far from perfect, and was certainly subject to being duped, but if any mainstream journalist had been half as curious about the truth as he was, this case would have been solved long ago. Whatever Jones may have thought initially about Witt, after he appeared before the HSCA, his testimony was lambasted thoroughly in the pages of his newsletter, The Continuing Inquiry.

I find Josiah Thompson's reference to being "delighted" with his interview baffling. Am I the only one who gets the impression that he is more concerned with discrediting CTers he considers "wingnuts" than in exposing the impossible nature of the official story? I think that's a problem with the CT community at large; too many are now so vested in their own personal theories and squabbles that it may be important in their minds to be "right" about specific details than it is for the truth about the JFK assassination to ever be publicly revealed.

David Lifton- are you saying that you never found TUM to be suspicious? And if you (and perhaps others) knew about Witt so long ago, why was this information never circulated throughout the research community at large? By the time I started delving into this subject in the mid-1970s, TUM was considered mysterious and connected in some way to the conspiracy by virtually every Warren Commission critic. But then again, at that time, they all felt there were numerous mysterious deaths connected to the case, that Oswald was quite possibly the figure in the TSBD doorway captured in the Altgens photo, that the Secret Service was negligent, etc. Now. we find an increasing number of alleged believers in conspiracy, including some formerly hardcore CTers, who no longer question these things and call those of us who do "wingnuts" and such.

This thread has taken an unfortunate turn, but not a surprising one. If we can get back to Thompson's interview with the New York Times....

What is significant here is that this interview will leave impressionable readers (and viewers) with the notion that a suspicious character they may or may not have heard of-TUM-was in fact just an innocent bystander. Conclusion on the part of those unfamiliar with the data- those dastardly "conspiracy theorists" are wrong again! That's the only important point here; public perception is everything, and each time public voices like Gary Mack or Josiah Thompson laugh off something CTers have long suspected, then a few more sheeple become convinced that Oswald did it.

While CTers continue to quibble over minutae that few if any Americans can hope to understand, television shows and interviews in large newspapers like this relentlessly push the lone nutter conclusion. We argue, call each other names, and become hopelessly fragmented into warring factions. Meanwhile, the establishment is laughing at us. All lone nutters are laughing at us. We just can't set aside our egos long enough to realize how imporant a large coalition can be.

If Josiah Thompson still believes there was a conspiracy, I'd request that next time he tell the Times, or any other msm organ that wants to interview him, that this is his belief. After trashing TUM or some other aspect of the case that most CTers find relevant and suspect, maybe he could just close with, "But this doesn't change the simple reality that there WAS a conspiracy."

This is hardly a surprise. The Times, like all organs of the mainstream media, has been steadily chipping away at JFK's legacy since at least the mid-1970s. Again like all the msm, they have consistently distorted the truth about the assassination, and propped up the indefensible lone assassin nonsense.

The JFK assassination is one of those truly significant issues whereby all establishment forces-whether we label them "left" or "right"-have to always toe the lone nutter line. Virtually anyone with a voice in America today publicly proclaims that Oswald acted alone. Bill Maher believes Oswald did it. Favored "progressives" like Alexander Cockburn and Chomsky swallow the Warren Report. So do Douglas Brinkley and every other highly visible mainstream historian. So do Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So do "shock jocks" like Howard Stern. Stephen King bases his new novel on the lone nutter fairy tale. They are all part of the phony "left" that in reality supports our corrupt ruling order on all truly important issues.

I am not part of any Kennedy cult, but I recognize that he (and his brother Robert) were different, and that they were truly trying to do good things. There has been a clear agenda within the msm for decades now to diminish the significance of JFK's death, by mindlessly accepting the ridiculous tales of Judith Campbell Exner, and thereby portraying JFK as a reckless, uncaring serial adulterer who deserved what he got. They ignore nsm memos and piles of anecdotal testimony to the effect that JFK was in the midst of starting a withdrawal of all troops from Viet Nam at the time of his death. Like the court historians who wind up writing the history that Napoleon defined as "a fable agreed upon," they have little affinity for real data.

The Times and the rest of the establishment press represent their corrupt masters who misrule us all. They are their voices, and thus will never tell the truth about crucial issues like the JFK assassination. Fortunately, alternative sources in the media are popping up everywhere, and are providing more and more people with reporting that isn't tinged by connections to global corporate and banking interests. They are our greatest hope.

I share Larry Hancock's desire that all CTers present a united front for the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination. I've pleaded for that myself here many times. However, anyone who reads the threads on this forum with regularity must realize how unlikely it is that the research community will ever be united. The fact that my posts about this subject are invariably met with silence from everyone is a good indicator of how little support there is for this.

Many of us have objected to what Gary Mack has said on the television programs he's appeared in over the past few years. Despite his private assertions that he remains a CTer, every word he says on these programs is in defense of the official story, and each program is clearly positing the lone nutter premise. We have the same kind of problem with this interview Josiah Thompson gave- his criticism is directed exclusively at CTers who maintain the Umbrella Man was connected in some way to the assassination. If he wanted to impart some truly important information, he might have pointed out a few strong indications of conspiracy, considering he had the chance to reach a lot more readers than any of us have on this or any other internet forum. Instead, he chose to ridicule those dastardly "conspiracy theorists" again, calling one of them a "wingnut" in the process.

Very few of us have access to public forums like the Discovery Channel or the New York Times. Thus, when people like Mack or Thompson are granted this kind of wide platform, and they use it to promote the official, lone nutter fairy tale, it's pretty reasonable to expect CTers to be upset about that. It doesn't matter that there are some irresponsible CTers; the powerful forces that covered up the assassination and continue to distort the truth about it to this day were and are far more irresponsible than the biggest "wacko" or "wingnut" Mack or Thompson can produce.

Another question I've asked several times, which has also gone unanwered here, is this: to those of you who claim to still be a CTer, but now believe TUM was Witt, that there were no mysterious deaths of witnesses, that the back wound was higher than the clothing holes indicate, that there was no huge hole in the back of JFK's head, that the Secret Service was not negligent that day, that there was no hole in the windshield, etc.- exactly what leads you to believe there was a conspiracy?

Cliff, we respectfully disagree about this. As you note, we share the same views about the most important aspects of this case.

Ultimately, the Umbrella Man is pretty small stuff, when looking at the big picture of the JFK assassination. However, as I've stated many times on this forum, I don't get the willingness on the part of so many CTers to abandon what most of us have long believed are strong indications of conspiracy, without due cause. Witt's story makes little sense, imho, and he appeared at a very opportune moment for Blakey and the HSCA. It falls into a familiar pattern of fanciful explanations to long held suspicions that appear dubious to those of us who've studied the record.

Despite the fact that Pat and perhaps others could distinguish a connection between an umbrella being opened on a sunny day, in front of a President of the United States about to be assassinated, and the appeasement views of Neville Chamberlain and/or Joe Kennedy, I don't think very many Americans, in or out of Dealey Plaza at the time, could have done so. Witt's story makes as much sense, imho, as David Ferrie's tale about going duck hunting or Ruby's supposed overwhelming urge to spare Jackie Kennedy from having to testify at Oswald's trial. And again, they are all part of a clear pattern, at least to me.

What I most object to, however, is the certainty with which so many CTers seem to declare that Witt was the Umbrella Man. Now I admit that I've been just as emphatic about stating that he wasn't TUM. At the very least, I would think that everyone ought to acknowledge there is reasonable doubt here. Some of us seem so concerned about a collective image of the CT community, that can't be painted as "wacko" by those who aren't remotely interested in the truth about this subject, that we've ceded ground on numerous issues that once formed the basis for disbelieving the official story.

David,

So you recognized the obviously staged nature of Witt's HSCA testimony, which Blakey used to discredit yet another CT tenet, but you somehow think the guy who played the main role was legitimate?

Again, how is Witt's protest, which even Joe Kennedy and Neville Chamberlain wouldn't have comprehended if they'd been in Dealey Plaza, to be believed? Why is it likely that this "just crazy enough to be true" nonsense is more credible than the notion CTers had for years, that the guy holding and pumping an umbrella on a sunny day, in front of a limousine while a U.S. president is being assassinated, was suspicious and probably connected in some way to the crime? How are the actions of the Umbrella Man afterwards, in conjunction with a male companion, consistent with this incomprehensible protest of his? Maybe he was further protesting against Old Joe's WWII views by refusing to react normally, like everyone else in the crowd, to the events unfolding before him?

If we discount the obviously suspicious nature of the Umbrella Man, the string of mysterious deaths of those connected to the case, and the clear negligence of the Secret Service agents, for example, then we're discounting some of the best indicators of conspiracy, imho. What's more important, there is no rational reason to discount these kinds of suspicions. No credible evidence has been produced by LNers to discount them, yet "just crazy enough" seems to be enough for some of you to temper your views.

CTers should be able to recognize obvious indications of conspiracy.

It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man. His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.

I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"

Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.

This interview was published in the New York Times. What kind of interview about the JFK assassination would one expect to appear there? All mainstream media outlets adhere to the lone assassin mantra at all times. No information about this subject that didn't lead the reader or viewer to conclude that Oswald acted alone is going to appear on major American television networks on in newspapers like the Times.

Regardless of what Josiah Thompson's beliefs regarding this subject currently are, this interview is indistinguishable from any ever given, or to be given, by LNers like Bugliosi or Posner. "Crazy enough to be true?" That's the criteria used by the guy who loves to ridicule flim aterationists and other CTers who are too "extreme?" Why aren't any of their theories just "crazy enough" to be true? Gary Mack still claims privately to believe in conspiracy, but every appearance he's ever made on television (since he's been with the Sixth Floor Museum) features him mouthing lone nutter talking points exclusively. If Josiah is fortunate enough to appear on any forthcoming t.v. documentaries, my guess is that he will also adhere to lone nutter talking points.

RCD pointed out beautifully just how ridiculous the notion is that Witt was conducting some kind of protest against Joe Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. For a protest to be productive, the audience has to understand what it is you're protesting. But in this case, such illogic abounds everywhere. As more and more Americans become trapped in the idiocracy that has been created, this kind of irrationality will prevail and be accepted by the unthinking masses.

So let's keep score here, for Thompson and many other alleged CTers; the Umbrella Man was the innocent Witt, there were no mysterious deaths of witnesses, the hole in the back was higher than the real evidence indicates, there was no frontal throat wound, there was no hole in the windshield, the limo didn't stop or almost stop, the medical witnesses were mistaken about there being a huge hole in the back of JFK's head, all the films are genuine, witnesses like Craig, Carr and Worrell were not creditable, the Secret Service was not negligent, and on and on and on. The obvious question at this point is- for those of you who have discarded all these once crucial tenets of CT belief, exactly what is it at this point that leads you to believe there WAS a conspiracy?

I have lost all hope of the research community ever coming together. I don't really know how those of you that have studied this case for decades can swallow such nonsense. I don't know why you've lost your skepticism about much of the obviously suspicious stuff that led many of us to be interested in this case in the first place, and believe so strongly that we were being lied to. I don't know why so many of you have simultaneously become so skeptical about the most "extreme" CTers, and are so willing to call them "wingnuts" and other names, yet can have far more patience with the Gary Macks and John McAdams of the world.

Sometimes I wonder why I still care. It's been wonderful to be able to communicate with other researchers and students of the JFK assassination on this forum, but it's also been disillusioning. As a whole, the research community has become more centrist and vanilla, rejecting many of the canons of the early critics. This is in spite of the clear political corruption which has abounded in our society since November 22, 1963, and increased rapidly during the past ten years or so. I continue to take a radical view of this subject, and on political corruption in general. There is no reason for any sane, informed person not to believe that the JFK assassination was the result of a massive and powerful conspiracy.

First of all, anything associated with the JFK assassination that appears in the New York Times is going to be 100% disnfo. If researchers don't know that by now, they know nothing. The mainstream media has never aired or published the truth about the assassination, and it still won't, 48 years after the fact.

I think that Jim Fetzer's prediction about Josiah Thompson coming out publicly as an LNer in time for the 50th anniversary is looking more and more likely. That interview could have been given by Bugliosi, Posner or Gary Mack. The "wingnut" reference was ridiculous, and reveals again where Thompson's true sympathies lie. I'm betting we'll never hear him refer to Bugliosi or any other LNer in such a disparaging way, on television or in misleading interviews with mainstream outlets like this.

Witt was not the Umbrella Man. Period. All knowledgable researchers knew this at the time he belatedly appeared on the scene, and gave his laughable HSCA testimony. As I've noted many times on this forum, those of us who care about this case have given way too much ground on issues like this. The suspicious nature of the Umbrella Man hasn't changed over the years. No evidence has come forth to dispel any conspiratorial notions about his curious actions that day. If you accept that Witt was holding that open umbrella in a protest against JFK's father that few, if any, people on the face of the earth would have comprehended, then you might as well believe that Oswald shot JFK because he was sexually inadequate. You might as well believe that JFK's head went backwards because of some heretofore unknown neuro-muscular reaction that defies the laws of physics. And you may as well accept that JFK's shirt and coat both bunched up several inches, matching each other perfectly, which explains a shot from six stories above exiting from a point higher than the entry wound.

I have no faith in the truth ever being exposed about thie case, or any of the other myriad political crimes which have transpired since that day. The corruption in our society is so pervasive, and the idiocracy that has been created in its wake so extensive, that it is doubtful at this point, imho, whether most Americans would even care if the real facts could somehow be explained to them. The 50th anniversary will be a lone nutter celebration, filled with more Sixth Floor Museum-associated t.v. programs, and more assurances from "journalists" who distort the truth for a living, that Oswald definitely acted alone. There won't even be the usual gathering in Dealy Plaza, since the Sixth Floor Museum has somehow been allowed to "reserve" that public area for the day. At this point, it's very hard to be optimistic.

Thanks so much for your insight, Jean. It's very interesting to hear how this works in other parts of the world.

I meant to expand on what I said about social hierarchy, and address the colleges. Here in the U.S., there is a long tradition of exclusive male fraternities and, to a lesser extent, sororities for girls. Those who join the most popular of these frat clubs stay connected throughout their lives, in much the same manner that some alums become powerful athletic boosters and place an incomprehensible emphasis on the success of their old university's football and basketball teams. All this spills over into initiation rituals and hazing, which are at least tangentially related to bullying.

To Jean, and/or (hopefully) other educators who will care to address this topic, are there prestigious fraternities in your colleges, which earn their members a distinction that lasts their entire lives? Do they have initiation or hazing rituals that border on being sadistic? Are there any athletic boosters that support the athletic programs with an extremely generous amount of money? Is there a fanatical core of students and alums that live and die with the soccer teams, or whatever sport is popular in your part of the world, the way American students and alums do with college football and basketball teams? I haven't really experienced it personally, but I've been told by many who have that you have to see it to believe it, especially in southern states here like Alabama or Texas.

I really think this issue needs to be discussed openly in America. We've never considered just what kind of impact the social tiering in high schools, and further class distinctions in colleges have on society at large. Do "Gifted and Talented" designations, which begin as early as first grade, and "Honors" or "Advanced Placement" classes in high schools lead to a different kind of fragmentation, which is more akin to the "Alphas" and "Betas" which Aldous Huxley described in Brave New World? Anyhow, all your comments are welcomed.

In the interview quoted above, King puts the liklihood of Oswald being a lone assassin at 98%. Do you really have any interest in anything that he has to say further on the subject? If he read any of the essential works, he has to know how impossible his premise is. And yet, he proceeds with it. I understand aspiring writers being dishonest in order to get a lucrative publishing deal, but how gutless can King be? He's rich beyond imagination, and certainly could get anything published at this point. In this manner, he is akin to the mega wealthy Tom Hanks, who is nevertheless selling out historical truth with the miniseries based on Bugliosi's absurd book.

King decided to write a book about the JFK assassination, and used fictional characters to make the points he wanted to make. As a fiction writer, I understand what he's doing, and I don't like it. His overall point clearly is that Oswald acted alone. Shockingly, this is the same point everyone with a forum in the mainstream media has made for nearly fifty years, and continues to make. Except Oliver Stone- which is why I think he's a true profile in courage.

To those of you who want to make this guy even more money by breathlessly buying his disinfo, enjoy living in a literal fantasy world. If you have to read this for whatever reason, at least wait until it gets to the library, so you don't directly contribute to his ill gained profits. All fiction has a purpose, and anything dealing with an actual historical event, especially THIS seminal event of the twentieth century, has to be scrutinized by those of us who know the facts. I can't excuse his irrational conclusion because he's writing fiction. Unless he's presenting an alternate reality, and changing the nature of the event (which he clearly isn't here), then devoting a book to the subject and coming down firmly in the impossible lone nutter camp, certainly leaves him open to criticism from those who've researched the case.

Usually, I bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer people read books now. In this case, however, I'm glad that King isn't likely to get the have the impact he hopes with this LN propaganda. Most of his loyal fan base is growing older, and hopefully know better than swallow this stuff. Perhaps a few will even become disillusioned with him.

Thanks for sharing your own experiences, Greg. I'm glad it doesn't appear to have had a negative impact on you. I was a fat kid, but fortunately survived what could have been a real ordeal, because I was still good at all sports and always managed to make people laugh. I'm not sure why this issue intrigues me so much, because I wasn't popular or unpopular, wasn't bullied and didn't bully anyone. I guess the egalitarian in me is offended by the way students are categorized and perceived by seemingly everyone in every school. There is just such a blatant inequity to it. Popularity and athletic ability shouldn't cause a few fortunate kids to be lauded so extravagently and a few unfortunate kids to be emotionally battered.

John, I share your disappointment- it would very interesting to hear the thoughts of educators on this subject. We'd all love to have the input of those who deal with these issues directly on a daily basis.

I've raised the issue of the social hierarchy in schools before, on other forums, and received the same lack of response. I can't believe I'm the only one who sees the problem here. Are we okay as a society with teenagers (and sometimes preteens) killing themselves because of the way their peers make them feel? Is it any wonder that so mamy adults are shallow and have their priorities confused, considering that each and every one of them is told, during their most impressionable years, that the most important things in life are physical looks, athletic ability, clothes and money?

Educators, please share your perspectives on this subject.

As an American, I've grown all too accustomed in recent years to news of tragic school shootings. The most obvious common demoninator in all these incidents is the fact that all students who were led to acts of violence were "outsiders," and had been picked on by their classmates. While I don't think this is the sole reason for such horrific events, and it certainly wouldn't excuse anything even if it were, I do think it's an important contributing factor and needs to be acknowledged by those who adminster our school systems.

In America, we also have a terrific problem with bullying in the schools. This is happening all over the world, as was witnessed by the wildly popular, viral you tube video earlier this year of an overweight Australian boy who finally had enough and retaliated against his tormentor. Bullying is related to school shootings, in that once again we have a sect of students who persist in harrassing those who are vulnerable (weight, some kind of perceived physical abnormality, sexual orientation, etc.), and victims who, in the case of bullying, too often now are driven to suicide. So, in a rather direct way, the social hierarchy that exists in every one of our middle and high schools is responsible for driving some of those who are at the very bottom of that hierarchy into violence, either by harming themselves or, in rare instances, opening fire on others.

Anti-bullying campaigns have been trumpeted for several years, and most school systems boast about having a "zero tolerance" for it. Nevertheless, bullying seems to be increasing dramatically. What is never mentioned, however, is the role the social hierarcy-the dividing of students into cliques and groups-plays in all this. In all schools, there is a "popular" crowd, and every student is aware of who belongs to it. The teachers unconsciously participate by showering attention and awards on many in this group, while neglecting to note the impact that has on those at the other end of the social spectrum, whose school days are usually spent in misery. To the vast majority of students, high school is pretty boring and they attend because they have to. They are basically the "audience" that effectively permits the bullying, harrassment and social hierarchy to exist. Without them, the precious few at the top could not be literal celebrities in their little environment, and the small numbers of those being harrassed wouldn't be enduring a living hell.

I've long advocated that our schools stop devoting so much money and attention to sports like football and basketball, and instead devote their resources to things that would benefit all students (more computers, for instance). I seem to be in a distinct minority on this issue, however. The social hierarchy is emopowered by long traditions (the same ones existed when I was in high school in the 1970s) like sports "pep" rallies, encouraging the football players to wear their jerseys to school on Fridays, allowing the cheerleaders to wear their uniforms on Fridays and on game days during basketball season. These practices surely promote self-esteem to those who play football and basketball and make the cheerleading team, but it also sets them up on a pedestal, contributes to their youthful arrogance and is a crucial factor in the "success" of the social hierarchy. The "Letterman" jacket has long been a symbol of power and popularity for high school boys, and it serves to differentiate them from their less popular peers.

Our educators, like our political leaders, seem incapable of thinking outside the box on these issues. How many more young children will take their own lives because they feel inadequate, or because the school administration didn't respond to their complaints about being bullied and harrassed? The story is always the same- the bereaved parents report that the school was made aware of the problem, on multiple occasions, yet for some unfathomable reason didn't confront and punish the tormentors. Why the consistent failure to react logically, especially when these same school officials routinely overreact to minor trangressions with severe penalties? In many school systems now, for instance, a child can be expelled for bringing an aspirin to school! What kind of thinking goes into these decisions?

I'm curious as to how high schools around the world are structured socially. I'd love some input from those in the U.K. and other areas; are students divided into easily indentifable groups, as they are in the U.S.? Do boys that play football (what we call soccer here) or some other sport thereby achieve a special standing among the student body? Are there cheerleaders, to distinguish the most popular girls? Are the most academically advanced students popular, unlike in America, where they are often scorned as "nerds?" I'm wondering if this is a worldwide phenomenon, or merely an American issue. Thanks for any and all comments.

I really don't understand why so many knowledgable researchers waste their time with Tom Purvis. How can you discuss this case with someone who believes the Warren Commission was correct in all their major conclusions (Oswald shot JFK alone, with THAT rifle, from the TSBD sixth floor window) but simultaneously maintains they were engaged in a huge cover up? For good measure, throw in the fact he is evidently a film alterationist. His perplexing theories make Ray Carroll's campaign to defame all of us who strongly believe Oswald wasn't the assassin into "Oswald accusers" something perfectly reasonable.

Please, Tom, just one more time- let me ask you to concisely (I know, I know- that's an impossible request) explain the incredible contradictions in your hypothesis. You confidently state your conclusions, which echo the official story across the board, and dismiss your critics in an abrupt manner. Thus, you should have little trouble in illuminating us on the specifics here. Explain WHAT the Warren Commission covered up, since you agree that Oswald alone assassinated JFK? Also, please humor us as the rationale behind your attraction to the film alteration theory. Since there were no "nonexistent conspirators" you are always accusing us of chasing in vain, WHO would have altered the film record? WHY would they have done that?

We all await your concise replies.

Tom Purvis always is cryptic. I've been able to glean the following over the years, regarding his curious theories:

- He thinks that Oswald fired all the shots, with that rifle, from the sixth floor TSBD.

- He thinks the Warren Commission was a joke and covered things up.

- Not 100% sure, but I believe he thinks the Zapruder film was altered.

Beyond that, it's hard to figure out anything about his seemingly conflicting set of beliefs. What is most amazing of all is that so many here continue to pay attention to his posts.

Bill,

For an increasing number of Americans (especially the young), that kind of globalist thinking is obsolete. American society is decaying- our economy is probably beyond all repair. Joblessness is rampant, and reporting ridiculous false figures like sub-10% unemployment rates are fooling no one any longer. Health care is a disgrace, as are wages in general for some 80% of working Americans. So...in light of all that, Arab revolutions and the like are simply not anywere on the priority list at this stage.

We can certainly feel empathy for those in other countries who are suffering under tyrannical rule. We can no longer afford the cost of becoming involved- in terms of human life or just literally, since we simply don't have the money. The idea that this so-called "peace" president, who has already bombed and occupied more countries than Dubya dreamed of, would find the time to worry about an American citizen living abroad is mind boggling. You can cite all the establishment sources about this guy; how bad he was, how much he hated America, etc. We aren't buying that any more. The sources are all tainted. The biggest threats to America are our corrupt and incompetent leaders. They are either failing to take the kind of action necessary to try and quell this monstrous economic crisis, or hatching "solutions" that, defying belief, will actually make things worse. I'm a lot more worried about my local representative than I am about some bogeyman that Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, etc. tell me is so bad he deserved to be assassinated by our own government.

As recently as the 1970s, most Americans would morally have objected to the assassination of even the most despicable foreign tyrants. We couldn't have sold the idea of assassinating Hitler, for instance, to the public during WWII. Now why have we lost our moral compass in such a way that today a large chunk of the people (and all of the msm) support the assassination of an American citizen residing in a foreign land? I think it's a certainty that JFK would have objected strongly to this. Recall how he asked journalist Tad Szulc about the policy of the American government sanctioning assassination, and how he clearly opposed it.

We have no right to criticize the policies of other governments, when we openly murder our own citizens without any due process of law.

America has become such an idiocracy that, at this point, I think you could probably get 35% of the people to support the president's right to randomly track down American citizen "terrorists" in their own American homes and assassinate them. Nothing surprises me about the American police state now. The same television networks and big newspapers that have lied repeatedly about the JFK assassination and countless other issues should have zero crediblity with any knowledgable American. Thus, it's meaningless for us to hear talking heads describe someone as a "bad guy" or part of Al Queda or whatever. We don't trust these people about anything. To me, it's akin to trusting the likes of Chris Matthews on the JFK assassination.

If someone had suggested a scenario such as this as recently as the mid-1970s, when virtually the entire Democratic party, at least, was firmly oppposed to assassinating even the worst foreign leaders, they'd have been ignored, ridiculed and promptly gone back into the shadows. No self-respecting politician would have dared to support the killing of an American citizen in a foreign land, no matter what he was alleged to have done. Now, we have "liberals" revelling in this atrocious, unconstitutional, immoral act of the Obama administration. Where have all the civil libertarians gone? Is there no one left in this country who knows the simple difference between right

and wrong?

Thankfully, more and more young people are seeing through the false left-right paradigm. They don't get their news from television, and just the basic usage of a truly free medium like the internet has opened up many, many minds to what is really going on. The Wall Street protesters are just the beginning- you will see more of these kinds of protests until either the police state ups the ante, and just starts murderering people in cold blood, or enough Americans jump start their sleeping consciences and realize just how awful those who lead us have become.

I agree completely with Tom Scully, of course, on this issue. It's mind boggling to me how anyone can support what the Obama administration did. Murder by the state, without any writ of habeous corpus, is about as immoral as something can get in this world. And we have the nerve to call leaders of other countries war criminals and dictators.

I've never understood the popularity of Stephen King. I think he's a great deal like Isaac Asimov- producing proflic pablum with no redeeming quality. His stuff is McLiterature, imho. Years ago, he offended many aspiring writers when he pulled off a publicity stunt and was published under his real name by a major publisher. To those of us who spent years piling up the rejection notices, and who realize that most queries are not even read by the big publishers, this was a complete joke. King actually poured salt in our wounds by publicly lambasting the hordes of unpublished authors, claiming that the publishing world is a meritocracy, and that if one has talent, it will be discovered. Yes, I'm quite sure no one knew your real name, Stephen....

So it doesn't surprise me one bit that this conventional liberal Democrat, like all his political peers, swallows the impossible lone assassin myth. King is a Baby Boomer, loves the Red Sox, and almost certainly must have been a huge fan of JFK. If he set out to write a story centered around the Kennedy assassination, it's inconceivable that he wouldn't have done some homework on the issue. It's also inconceivable that he wouldn't be fully aware of all the controversy surrounding the subject, and the countless pro-conspiracy books written about it. Somehow, he must have neglected to read any of them. Maybe he contacted Tom Hanks, who directed him to Bugliosi's ridiculous book.

It's fortunate, at least in this case, that most people don't read books any more. Thus, there won't be quite as many hapless readers swayed over to the dark side by King's new book. It's sad, however, to think that some will. King still has a loyal cadre of fans, who unquestionably will perceive this issue as he does after reading their hero's take on it.

Needless to say, I won't be reading this book.

When I heard Stephen King was writing a book about the assassination, I immediately assumed it would follow the official, lone nut line. Virtually no one in public life is permitted to state the obvious truth- that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Left and Right are irrelevant on this issue, as they are with all significant issues. Thus, "shock" jocks like Howard Stern will declare that Oswald did it just as boldly as Rush Limbaugh will.

While some youngsters will be swayed by King's thesis, most won't. However, this should remind us, once again, just how powerful this conspiracy was, and how important the coverup still is. Tom Hanks obviously knows that Oswald didn't do it, as does Bugliosi. Stephen King, as a Baby Boomer and probable fan of JFK's, has to have read enough critical JFK assassination books to know how ludicrous the official fairy tale is. And yet, here he is, peddling it himself.

Please remember this kind of stuff, when we're lectured about this not being a huge conspiracy.

I couldn't imagine an American television network EVER playing a tape of Jackie Kennedy talking about her husband's assassination being a conspiracy, especially if she was directly accusing LBJ. So it's hardly surprising that the initial reports about the content on the tapes was "mistaken." Those of us who've been following this case for decades are used to those kinds of "mistakes," which always contradict the official story.

As Dawn noted, this entire thing is completely out of character for the super secretive Caroline. I suspect that her motivation was to get back, indirectly, at those who smeared her and derailed her appointment to the U.S.

Senate.

Too bad- this looked like a really interesting story.

Thanks for the kind words, Mike. I respect everything you write and usually agree with you, too.

Not only does Caroline Kennedy permitting interviews like this to be publicized during her lifetime contradict her extremely private personality, it flies in the face of all we know about Jackie Kennedy. Jackie was a calculating, political animal herself (as referenced by the phone call with LBJ that Kathy mentioned), and it seems out of character for her to put her thoughts about the assassination on tape so soon after the event. It seems even more unbelievable that she would admit her own affair to anyone, let alone a future audience of millions. But then again, she did have a keen sense of history, so who knows?

If Jackie really voiced such doubts, it makes it that much more disappointing that she never expressed them in public. Imagine the impact that kind of statement could have had, during the mid 1970s, especially right before Congress was finally pressured to form the House Assassinations Committee. Instead, the topic of the assassination remained off limits in her presence, even decades afterwards. Her daughter has always had the same curious attitude, which makes her involvement in this all the more puzzling.

Again, I will be flabbergasted if ABC, or any other television network, allows Americans to hear the former first lady asserting her belief that LBJ and others were involved in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

This goes against everything we know about Caroline Kennedy's personality. It certainly isn't like her to disclose any private matters even one second before she would be legally obligated to. But who knows- maybe she's really ticked off about the hatchet job the msm did on her, which raliroaded her appointment to the U.S. Senate. Perhaps she's finally going to become a profile in courage.

Whatever turns out to be in those tapes, I just can't envision a prime time television program, hosted by Dianne Sawyer, in which we get to hear Jackie Kennedy say Oswald was a patsy, and to accuse LBJ and others of being behind a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. If anything remotely like that is broadcast, it will be absolutely stunning and will have a real impact on the public.