Don Jeffries

Ray Carroll is once again playing with words, and persists in espousing a theory only he understands.

Mark Lane was the very first public advocate Oswald had in America (other than Marguerite). To maintain that he was "against" Oswald in any way, shape or form is even more ridiculous than claiming Garrison was.

Since both Lane and Garrison thought Oswald fired no shots at JFK (and didn't kill Tippit, either), and most every other CTer I can think of reflects those views, I'd be interested in knowing just who Ray thinks DID believe Oswald was innocent?

What CTers do you think are FOR Oswald?

Thanks, Monk, for sharing the great news. Jack is a real warrior for truth and an invaluable asset to this forum.

Our leaders have become very amateurish in the way they attempt to cover up their misdeeds. What a ridiculous story this is; a crack team of Navy Seals assassinates the unarmed, #1 boogie man in the world, then disposes of his body at sea. Look at the opportunity that was lost; here we had the guy behind 911, and would have easily been able to bring him to trial, so that we could grill him mercilessly about the details of the attacks, thereby ending all this nasty controversy.

Kind of ironic, isn't it, that a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace prize is now being lauded for ordering an assassination. The same lover of "peace" who, if they decide to attack Pakistan too, can bring the record number of countries we are at "war" with to an incredible four at one time. When Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are singing Obama's praises, it ought to be obvious to even the most brain dead American that our "two" party system is a joke.

What kind of credibility do our leaders have, that anyone would believe them about this? Remember, just the day before Obama was allegedly killed, the mainstream news was breathlessly reporting about Quaddafi's new squad of super rapists, armed with viagra. It was so absurd that they quickly denied the reports, but that kind of unbelievable allegation is now par for the course for them. Look at the photshopped picture of a supposedly dead Bin Laden that was initially released. It was discredited almost instantly. They can't even do a half adequate job of covering their tracks. That's why the ever trusty John McCainiac was quoted today as advising the authorities not to release any photos of the dead Bin Laden.

At this point, our leaders have to realize that trust has to be earned.

This "conspiracy theory," like all of them, has gained momentum over the years for a number of reasons. First, anyone with common sense questions the absence of film footage from the Pentagon. At a time (even in 2001), where security cameras were regular features at most workplaces, it stetches credulity to the breaking point to imagine that the complex housing the heart of our national defense wouldn't have captured whatever hit the building from a myriad of different angles. The official impulse on the part of goverment officials to conceal and classify information, seemingly all the time, is a huge part of the problem here. Who knows- if they were forthcoming immediately, then maybe fewer of us would be so suspicious of them.

A lot of questions could have been answered early on, by simply releasing all that videotape. There is no national security issue involved whatsoever. But, just at the government withheld countless documents pertaining to the JFK assassination, even though they claimed it was the work of a lone nut, they have withheld this footage, even though the claim is that 19 nutty terrorists were responsible. But even the gas station across the street, whose security camera would have caught the incident on tape, had their equipment confiscated. Why?

There is the simple, basic question of how this could have happened. How did the world's supposedly most advanced "defense" system permit planes to fly around like that, for all that time, and then not defend itself when one of them crashed directly into the center of our military command center? That just isn't believable. If our defense doesn't work any better than that, then every taxpayer has a right to demand their trillions of dollars back. Obviously, it wasn't money well spent.

America has become increasingly divided into two camps; those who generally trust the government and the mainstream media, and those who don't. I think it's obvious where I stand.

There are many ways to look at this event. For a lot of us, the entire story is ridiculous. The "burial at sea" was the icing on the cake. I have muslims in my family- that is certainly not in their traditions. The Deputy Secretary of State, who served under Kissinger, Vance and Baker, was interviewed back in 2002, and told reporter Alex Jones that Bin Laden had been dead "for months" at that point, and that they would keep him "on ice" until he was needed at a later time.

Even if one accepts the death at face value, there are a few dicey moral dilemmas to contend with. First, as has been pointed out by some critics, is it right to celebrate the death of anyone to this degree? Seems ghoulish, at the very least. If they had presented the body, is there any doubt that many Americans would have relished seeing it carted through the streets as some kind of ghastly booty prize? Second, how would this killing differ from mandated assassination? Bin Laden may not have been a head of state in technical terms, but he was a "leader" by any definition and was targeted for death by our government.

I will not be waving my flag or chanting "USA! USA!" over this, needless to say.

Cliff, I admire your patience and tenacity. The SBT is impossible. Period. The condition of the bullet (CE399) alone proves this. There is no bullet anywhere, in the history of the world, that caused seven wounds and came out in that kind of nearly perfect conditon. The WC's own "evidence" proves this; look at the test rounds from the same ammunition, fired into cotton watting, the wrist of a cadaver, a human goat, etc., and see their condition. Only the bullet fired into cotton wadding is anywhere nearly as pristine at CE399.

As Cliff has posted regularly, the bullet holes in JFK's clothing, which match precisely the location where Boswell orginally placed the back wound in his autopsy face sheet, as well as where Burkely reported it in the death certificate, and where FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill described it as being, clearly prove the entrance wound was far too low to have exited from JFK's throat, no matter how far he was bent over. No need to argue over the fantastic trajectory- the condition of the bullet and the abundant evidence for the lower location of the entrance wound closes this issue, for all who do not have an ulterior motive in arguing for it.

Further discussion of the SBT at this point is ridiculous.

In the film Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane certainly inferred that Nix changed his story (about shots coming from in front) under pressure from the authorities and/or a desire to cooperate, since they must "know best."

Thanks, Lee, for posting your always valuable thoughts. My congratulations on sitting through that. It couldn't have been easy.

On another thread, Josiah Thompson noted that no historians will touch the subject of the JFK assassination. Unfortunately, this kind of completely inaccurate production demonstrates what happens when establishment historians DO become involved. The problem is not the purported irresponsibility of the "conspiracy theorists," no matter how extreme they may be, the problem is the fact that mainstream historians are not, and never have been, willing to look at this subject honestly.

The most "renowned" historians, just like all mainstream journalists and virtually all politicians, have always swallowed the lone assassin lie, and refuse to consider even the best work of independent researchers.

Okay, Josiah, we're quibbling over semantics at this point. You obviously know what you had in mind, and I don't want to badger you.

I would ask, however, how any of us can draw the evidence together to form a more coherent picture of what happened. Much of that evidence is missing, most witnesses are dead, and the previous "investigations" were not honest attempts to discern the truth. There are reasonable questions about the validity of some of the most important evidence we do have- the autopsy photos and x-rays and the films of the assassination (especially Zapruder). We all know how you stand on the alteration issue, but the fact that many harbor strong doubts about this most crucial evidence speaks volumes about the inability of the critical community to form a consensus on even the most basic elements of this case. Thus, can we do any better than speculate? Reasonable speculation hopefully, but speculation nonetheless.

The early books dissecting the official case, including yours, demonstrated how impossible the lone assassin thesis was. I guess the sticking point for me is what else anyone can reasonably expect to do now. I would argue that the discussions we have on this forum, minus all the name calling and juvenile behavior, is probably as close as we can come to bringing the evidence together and determining the nature of the conspiracy.

Josiah,

If you weren't asking people to speculate, what were you asking? Speaking for myself, I "made sense" of the evidence more than 35 years ago. It proves conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, and that there had to have been some sort of conspiracy. What more could you expect average citizens, with no authority, budget or subpoena power, to do? I can guess that you'd call anyone speculating about the size and nature of the conspiracy to be irresponsible in doing so.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Rachel Maddow is a LNer. She's a typical msm shill, who is enamored with Democrats, much like Keith Olbermann or Matthews, as opposed to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who are enamored with Republicans. All of them agree on quite a few things, first and foremost being a powerful hostility to any and all "conspiracy theories." I don't believe one can become any kind of mainstream "journalist" without at least publicly proclaiming a belief in the lone assassin fairy tale.

Instead of chastising me for being "fuzzy headed," why don't you simply elaborate on what you were saying in the quote this thread is based on? Please tell us how you've "made sense" of the evidence.

Great work, as usual, on the book review, Jim.

Thanks, Barry, for writing this important book.

Jackie was climbing out onto the back of the limousine in search of a fragment blown out of the back of JFK's skull. There is also the Harper fragment to consider. Even if one accepts the lame contention that Hargis was "driving through" the debris, there is solid evidence of debris blown backwards.

It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy. The official, lone assassin story was completely demolished well over 40 years ago. Few people who aren't elected officials or mainstream journalists believe it. I'm not sure what Josiah was looking for here; I have the distinct impression that he now dislikes speculation of any kind. Evidently he felt differently then, and was encouraging speculation.

All critics have ever been able to do is analzye the official "investigation," locate ignored witnesses and interview them, pore over film, and try to make as much sense as possible of the mess the authorities left in the record. None of them, and none of us, will be given subpeona power or any kind of budget. With few figures connected to the events in Dallas still living, obviously any investigation at this point would be difficult, and there would have to be at least some speculation and theorizing involved.

Hopefully Josiah will share his present perspective on this with us.

Jesse obviously isn't as much of an "expert" as most of us think we are on this subject, but he knows a lot more than the average American does about the assassination of JFK. More importantly, he is willing to publicly state the only thing that ultimately matters at this point; that there WAS a conspiracy and the U.S. government has been covering up the truth about it since that day in Dallas.

Like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura is a charismatic and controversial figure. Both of them have a public forum, and Ventura is a bonafide national figure. No other JFK assassination researcher has access to the stage Jones has on a daily basis. None have a television show like Ventura, or offers to appear on mainstream t.v. shows like Piers Morgan Live or The View. I think they are both great assets to the cause of truth, because they can command an audience no other Warren Commission critic could ever hope to.

Yes, I'd prefer that Jesse didn't come with the pro wrestling/sensationalist baggage, and that Jones would be a bit less entertainer than researcher, but they are both drawing young people to the subject of the Kennedy assassination and conspiracies in general. Along with other voices on the internet, they are opening minds and creating skepticism towards the establishment and official media sources. I think that's a great thing.

As time goes by, the disastrous effect Reagan had on all but the wealthiest citizens in America becomes clearer. Even from the standpoint of conservative/liberarians, he was a failure. He didn't cut "gubbmint" at all. He didn't even eliminate the Dept. of Energy, which had just been created by Carter. His huge tax cuts only benefited the richest Americans. Everyone else actually had their taxes raised under Reagan. He was especially awful regarding Social Security; he ignored the long term problems for the quick fix of raising S.S. taxes, which again primarily effected lower-middle class workers. The unions really began to crumble under Reagan, and his pro-corporate/anti-blue collar stance paved the way for NAFTA, which just opened the doors to massive layoffs, lowering of wages, etc. It became somewhat shameful to admit to being "liberal" during the Reagan era. Reagan's administration was also the first to be riddled with what have come to be known as "neo-cons."

Reagan achieved the seemingly impossible, when he actually made our federal tax system more complicated and unfair with his tax "reform" act of 1986. The only "loopholes" Reagan eliminated were valuable deductions for consumer interest loans (car notes, credit cards, student loans) and the raising of the percentage allowed for deduction of medical costs and charity donations. In the same year, he ensured that the explosive illegal immigration issue would never be contained. His ridiculous anmesty proposal, which permitted any family member of an illegal immigrant then in the USA to legally enter the country, resulted in untold millions of new immigrants. Reagan's "reform" act assured that the country would never be able to adequately resolve this crisis. We see the results now, as the conservatives who originally opposed illegal immigration are its biggest boosters, inasmuch as it provides business with an unlmited supply of very cheap labor, who work the jobs "Americans won't do."

Reagan ushered in the era of greed, the "Me" generation, the newly glamorous image of Wall Street. He was personally a bumbling stooge who probably undestood almost none of the agenda he is credited for. His wife was a vain, shallow woman whose attitude was best expressed in her efforts to get Press Secretary James Brady fired (prior to his wounding in the assassination attempt on Reagan) for being too fat and unattractive. She also was addicted to astrology, and advised Reagan on decisions of state based on zodiac readings. He was hardly a family man; estranged from his children, he never even saw his grandchildren until they were a few years old. Like the oft-married (with no children) Rush Limbaugh, Reagan epitomized the hypocricy of "family values" style Republicans.

Because of the attitudes Reagan fostered in a sizable percentage of the public, the top 400 richest Americans now have more combined wealth than the bottom 50% of the people combined. That incredible selfishness, which results in the kind of proposals we see from Rep. Ryan and the Republicans, where cutting Medicaid and Medicare while leaving untouched the military, intelligence agencies and the massive "war" costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the official doctrine of the Republicans now. Meanwhile, the Democrats grow wimpier and more defensive all the time. We absolutely have to stop voting for these Republicrats. Go selectively independent, or like Ron, stop voting.

Mike,

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.

The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.

It's always been more likely that a politician in another country will speak about the JFK assassination, before any U.S. congressional representative does.

We have a really pathetic group of "leaders."

Pat,

I think Jim's question was a good one. You seem to have a different take on the nature of JFK's wounds than many of us do. I would also be interested in knowing where you think his wounds were. Also, where do you think each shot came from?

I'm surprised this hasn't received more attention here. This IS the most important issue we face- in America and around the world. Here's a link to a new article, which details the appalling concentration of wealth in the hands of a few in the United States:

http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

To highlight- the richest 400 people in the U.S. now have more aggregate wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans combined. That's right- 400 people have more money than half of the entire population- 150 million- do.

We really, really need to share the wealth.

Josiah,

While Jim Fetzer is criticized for perhaps being too eager to give an opinion on every aspect of this case, I think it can be fairly stated that you are just as reluctant to voice an opinion on certain aspects. In this case, the back wound is not a minor issue; in fact, its significance cannot be overstated.

I understand that the back wound is not the primary topic of this thread, but it has already strayed (as many threads do), and I don't think it would be harmful for you to simply state if you believe the back wound was in the approximate location where the holes in JFK's coat and shirt are, which corresponds with the original location on Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Admiral Burkley's death certificate and the testimony of Sibert & O'Neill.

I don't think there is any legitimate controversy about this subject.

I don't know why you insist on jumping to the conclusions you jump to. What you call my "reasonably expressed view" stands. Just because the Zapruder film and Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of JFK's head does not mean there was no such hole.

JT

Josiah,

I apologize for misreading what you wrote. I now see that I muat have misinterpreted your sentence, "The fact that no avulsive injury to the back of JFK's head shows in the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film in any way means that the Parkland witnesses were wrong." I think you must have meant to say "doesn't in any way mean." I think if you re-read it yourself, you might understand how I could come to the conclusion I did.

However, I am now curious about your reply to Cliff Varnell's simple question about your views regarding the back wound to JFK. Why would you be getting involved in a "controversy" by stating an opinion about one of the true salient points in this case?

"...because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered..."

Mary Moorman's photo was taken at Z315 from the left rear and much closer in than the Zapruder film. Neither the Moorman photo nor the Zapruder film shows "a massive blowout" to the back of JFK's head. If the Zapruder film was altered to not show this, then the Moorman photo was also altered to show this. This has been pointed out to you twice before on this thread and you ducked it each time. Why do you continue to duck this obvious point? Is it because the Moorman photo was copied within an hour or so of the assassination and put on the wire hence making altering of it absurd.

The fact that no avulsive injury to the back of JFK's head shows in the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film in any way means that the Parkland witnesses were wrong. They observed what they observed and their observations are to be credited. All this means is that the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film show what they show and you'll have to get used to it.

JT

I'm having a hard time reconciling this definitive declaration that there was not a hole in the back of the head, with your earlier, reasonably expressed view that just because the Zapruder film doesn't show a massive blow out to the back of the head, that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I believe you also said you found the Parkland medical testimony, regarding this huge hole in the back of JFK's head, to be compelling.

So, within the space of a day, apparently on the strength of Pat Speer's post expressing his well known views on this issue, you are now completely certain there wasn't a hole in the back of the head?

I think Pat expresses himself well, and I respect his opinions, but is he really that impressive?

I don't know what is more odious about this conversation; LBJ's overt flirting or Jackie's annoying coyness, wherein she actually seems to be flirting back. In view of the fact she allegedly loathed LBJ in private, I simply don't understand her theatrics. Says a lot about her character, imho.

Jim,

I guess that was a bit simplistic of me. Let me elaborate a bit. I think that the debate about film alteration centers around what we can see, in terms of JFK's head wounds, versus what the medical personnel in Dallas reported, and what the photos and x-rays show. I know that was one of my early questions; why does it appear, to the naked eye, that the side of JFK's face was blown off, yet witnesses reported no real damage in that area?

I understand the skull flap argument. In my view, it's not a very good explanation. And the fact we have such debates about whether or not a blowout in the back of the head is visible in the Zapruder film or not is indicative that the wounds are certainly not clear. It then becomes a battle of the "experts" and one ultimately sees what one wants to see, to quote Paul Simon. That's why I generally stay out of the alteration threads, although I have noted that they invariably serve to bring Josiah Thompson into the fray, which I think is a good thing.

I agree with you that film alteraton is not one of the most crucial issues at hand. I think there are far more provable areas of conspiracy. And, as you observed, this has become the most contentious aspect of JFK assassination research. On the other hand, while Jim Fetzer's zeal for alteration has been roundly criticized, what I'm amazed at is the passion so many have for debunking any notion that the films are not legitimate. I can understand the Zapruder family feeling this way, but does anyone else really have such a vested interest in its inviolability?

I believe that much of the opposition to the notion of film alteration is fueled by Jim Fetzer's unfortunate tendency to "lead with his chin," as Josiah noted earlier. As I have told him before, he loses debates that he shouldn't, because neutral observers object to his style. On substance, I believe he makes some great points, and he almost always wins my support. He's raised some great questions, and has a wonderful way of thinking outside the box. Now, if he'd only start counting to 100 before hitting enter....

Thank you, Josiah, for detailing your views for us. However, the question I asked was very simple, and you didn't quite address it directly in your post.

Simply put; how do you reconcile the photo/film/x-ray record with your belief that the head shot came from the right front? Without that massive blowout in the back, where did such a shot exit?

I humbly suggest that this is really the issue that defines the whole film alteration debate.