Don Jeffries

While Robert may be over the top in calling LBJ a serial killer, I don't think that many here would be surprised to learn that he approved of assassinating his enemies, if not ordered them directly. To those of you who haven't done so, read J.Evetts Haley's classic book from the 1960s, called "A Texan Looks At Lyndon." It was one of Penn Jones' favorite books, I believe.

Again, I don't think LBJ was the ultimate mastermind behind the assassination, but it's extremely naive to think that this crooked career politician would have opposed such an action. On the contrary, I think the evidence indicates he would have welcomed such an idea and endorsed it wholeheartedly.

LBJ was a moral cretin who reeked corruption.

This is a subject that has been raised a few times before on this forum. I've posted my thoughts about it, but basically I find the public silence of Kennedy family members about the assassinations, especially so many years removed from the events, to be totally inexplicable.

As I've noted previously, if they held their tongues out of fear for their loved ones, their strategy hasn't worked. RFK was killed. Ted's presidential chances were ruined at Chappaquidick, which I feel was his political assassination and certainly no "accident." JFK, Jr.'s plane "crashed." Other Kennedys died (David, Michael), whose deaths may have been unrelated, but they still were unnatural and untimely, and added to a tragedy that the Greeks would have found incomprehensible.

Caroline Kennedy, much like her mother, will anger at the very mention of her father's death, which took place nearly fifty years ago, when she was a small child with only vague and unformed memories of him. When David Talbot wrote his fine book "Brothers," he described being told that the topic of his brother's assassination was off limits when he scheduled an interview with Ted Kennedy. Think of that- who would demand that the subject of their brother's death not be mentioned during an interview, over forty years afterwards? That's totally ridiculous, but it exemplifies the Kennedy family's attitude towards a subject they ought to be very interested in.

I agree with Jim D. that there has been an ongoing effort, which gained steam in the 1970s with the emergence of Judith Campbell Exner in the headlines, to portray JFK as a reckless, immoral playboy who cared more about his own individual desires than anything else. This was also the beginning of an attempt to link JFK up to the mafia, when in reality his adminstration was the only one in history to actually try and act against them. Jim has done a good job in past articles in showing how empty these allegations are, and how they can all pretty much be traced back to the same few dubious sources.

No matter what court approved liberals like Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky have to say about it, there is no question that JFK was different from most politicians of his time. He would never have permitted Viet Nam to become the divisive mess it became, and the record shows that he had already begun the process of withdrawing from there shortly before his death. He was the only president, since its inception, to attempt to curtail the CIA. He dared to oppose powerful forces from all over the political arena, both national and international; he blasted the steel industry and advocated an elimination of the oil depletion allowance and he clashed with Israeli leaders over their burgeoning nuclear program.

Those who attempt to minimize his political significance, and chant that he was just another Democrat, can only do so by ignoring solid historical proof and relying on tabloid-style sources. He WAS very different. Unlike almost all his peers, he was never a member of the CFR (at least not the national organization). Robert Morrow should like that. And no, he was not a Rhodes Scholar. I feel confident that he, like all the other Kennedys, remained uninvited to any yearly Bilderberg meetings.

The Kennedys have never been trusted by those who truly run our world. Joe Kennedy, Sr. has been unfairly maligned in the press, again from some of those same dubious sources. The old man made many powerful enemies- FDR and Churchill chief among them. He paid more dearly, in a tragic sense, than any character invented by Shakespeare. FOUR of his children died seperate, unnatural deaths. That's a statistic that must defy any actuarial odds in existence. He has been unjustly accused of causing his daughter Rosemary's problems, when in reality he tried a brand new, very expensive procedure in a desperate attempt to "cure" her mental "slowness." We all know what happened, but there is no doubt his heart was in the right place. His children would all testify that he was a loving, doting father whose top priority was his family. The old credo that there "there's a great crime behind every great fortune" may well apply to the Kennedys, but in my view they have a far cleaner and honorable record than any other upper crust clan I can think of.

JFK's death remains very significant, because he was attempting real reform and that all changed on November 22, 1963. His family members should be speaking out at this point. They have nothing left to fear- how many more Kennedys can they kill? It would be nice to see at least one of them be a real profile in courage.

While I don't believe LBJ was the ultimate mastermind behind the assassination, I think it's pretty obvious that he knew it was going to happen. Many of us first suspected conspiracy because of LBJ's classless behavior in the aftermath of the assassination. Read the accounts of Kennedy insiders- especially Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye and Evelyn Lincoln's memoir. O'Donnell and Powers unsuccessfully camouflaged their rage at Johnson in their best selling book. He lied about his conversation with RFK that afternoon, which resulted in the grotestque swearing in aboard Air Force One, demanding that the shell shocked widow stand by his side. The overt "wink" from Albert Thomas, the uncontained glee on Lady Bird's face, the rumors that LBJ's people were insensitive and really partying hard on the trip back to Washington (admittedly, this last one comes from Penn Jones)- there are very good reasons that many people suspected Johnson from the outset.

I remember, as a child, that my Catholic family members were united in the belief that LBJ was behind it all. To be honest, it really looked like LBJ was trying to act like was upset, but could barely contain his glee. As I noted, I think more powerful forces ordered the assassination, but there is little question LBJ participated in the coverup and, at the very least had prior knowledge of the assassination and approved of it.

Duncan, it's hard to take your question seriously. Obviously, if one believes that powerful forces arranged to have JFK assassinated, one doesn't think that those forces would claim credit for it. The crime had to be blamed on someone, and the evidence suggests that Oswald was groomed for the role. Certainly, the public wouldn't have accepted an unsolved murder here.

Conspirators generally need a fall guy or patsy, or how else could their conspiracy succeed?

The idea of a unity movement is a great one. In fact, something like this is crucial, before the 50th anniversary and the onslaught of the Hanks HBO nonsense and what are sure to be "new" documentaries, probably with Gary Mack providing his "expertise" on the subject.

I don't hold out much hope, however, that something like this can ever be done. This thread illustrates a few of the predictable disagreements that will inevitably ensue. I agree with Bill, regarding the location for such a critic's summit. Hawaii would, I believe, transmit the image of fun and frivolity in an idyllic location. Hardly the message we would want to get out there. I think that Washington, D.C. would be the perfect location. I love the idea of a march; the nation's capital is the center of political power, and if we could get enough people involved, the mainstream media would have to pay attention. Wouldn't it be uplifting to see Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, Oliver Stone or perhaps Dexter King (which would evoke strong historical images) speaking from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, for example?

At this point, any unity movement would have to concentrate on the single issue that holds us all together; JFK was not killed by a lone assassin. We have to leave behind the fractious theories, and concentrate on demonstrating that the official story, sold to the public nearly 50 years ago, is impossible. We also need to focus on countering the upcoming Hanks production- which will unfortunately probably sway far too many people over to the dark side. Anyone from Hollywood that could participate in such a march, and be willing to speak publicly, would be an important asset to have. Like it or not, the majority of our population isn't interested in the minutiae we debate on forums like this. We need to concentrate on the most ridiculous aspects of the official thesis- the single bullet theory, the sham of an autopsy, the Secret Service's abysmal performance and the inexcusable murder of Oswald.

If we could all put aside our personal pride, and work together on this momentous issue, it can be done. Our egos have to be suppressed, and old animosities between individuals and groups have to be suspended, at least temporarily. If we can't find it in ourselves to make something like this happen, then it is a sad certainty that the steady trend from neo-conspiracy to lone nutterism will eventually prevail, resulting in the research community becoming only a distant memory and the official fairy tale firmly stamped forever in the history books.

Not only was Gary Mack once a CTer, he was a real hard liner, with views similar to Jack White, at that time his very good friend. Anyone familiar with Penn Jones' classic newsletter The Continuing Inquiry will recall that Gary wrote many fine pieces that appeared there, all of which would probably be sneered at now by the likes of Josiah Thompson (and certainly by Dave Perry).

I think that we can soundly criticize Gary without resorting to name calling, but it is impossible to express the frustration many of us feel about this issue, without our remarks seeming personal. To me, Gary represented the first in a series of mysterious CT to LN ideological shifts, that would eventually include people like Gus Russon, Dave Perry, Dave Reitzes, Todd Vaughn, Dale Myers and even Vince Palamara (for a brief time). I confronted Gary, Todd and Dale (among others) on various JFK forums years ago, asking them to please explain what caused their abrupt change of opinion. In each case, none of these reformed CTers could come up with anything other than "the critics made many mistakes" mantra.

I agree with Jim D. completely here- his own articles exposing the dishonest television specials Gary was a prominent part of are mandatory reading, imho, for all students of the JFK assassination. Gary was unfailingly polite to me in all our email exchanges, but he finally stopped contacting me when I took him to task for not using his public platform- which none of us here have- to raise questions about all the mistakes, lies and distortions of the Warren Commission and its defenders. Why does he focus exclusively on the perceived errors of conspiracy "theorists," and never on those (voluminously documented) errors of those who wrote and promoted the official fairy tale?

Gary Mack tries to portray himself as a sensible, centrist voice in the critical community. However, his public posture as spokesperson for the Sixth Floor Museum makes him almost indistinguishable from a Gerald Posner or a Vincent Bugliosi. He is defending the illegitimate "history" of November 22, 1963. His motives for doing so are known only to him. However, it is certainly reasonable to speculate that his position with the Sixth Floor Museum has impacted, and continues to impact, what he claims to believe about the subject.

Okay, I'll play along with you here, Ray.

Of course, I think Oswald was innocent- he fired no shots on November 22, 1963. I believe-much like Jim Garrison-that Oswald was where he was, when he was, because he was assigned to infiltrate what he was told was a potential plot to kill JFK. I think Oswald's much studied, extremely curious background proves conclusively that he was not a random, low paid laborer that happened to be accidentally accused of assassinating the president.

How do you think Oswald came to be charged with this crime? Someone planted evidence against him. Someone impersonated him in the weeks leading up the assassination. Someone pulled strings for him when he defected to Russia at the height of the Cold War, and then was summarily welcomed back with open arms. Someone placed him around all those anti-communist elements, while he publicly posed as a communist. Someone made a distinguished, much older man with many interesting connections like DeMohrenschildt attracted to a poverty stricken alleged leftist like Oswald. And so on. You get my point.

I'm curious as to what you think here. Do you believe Oswald was framed by anyone? Do you just believe that he was randomly picked, incorrectly, and that a weapon (however questionably) tied to him was found in the alleged sniper's nest? Surely you can't expect us to accept that the Dallas Police, FBI, Secret Service, CIA, LBJ, etc. just went "eenie meenie mighty mo" and chose a random citizen as their assassin? Obviously, there had to be a lot planning involved, and Oswald's confusing background made him the perfect "lone nut," imho. I don't know how anyone as familiar with this case as you are can, at this point, seriously doubt that Oswald was doing some kind of intelligence work.

I've criticized Marina several times on this forum. I certainly don't think she was guilty of any serious crime, and I can appreciate why she was willing to tell the Warren Commission what they wanted to hear. That she lied to them is undeniable. That she refuses to acknowledge that now, when she no longer risks deportation, is something she should be criticized for.

I'm not sure what the point of Mark Lane's initial post, since he hasn't been back to answer any of the many questions that followed.

Gerald Posner, and now Mel Gibson's estranged girlfriend? Very curious....

I admire David Lifton very much. However, the "anti semtiic" canard is being used here, as it too often is, to attack someone who is criticizing Israel. Jim Fetzer doesn't need me to defend him, but his speculation is entirely plausible, imho.

Also, the attacks on those who he is supposedly loosely affiliated with remind me very much of the old McCarthyite "fellow traveler" label. Jim Fetzer has a healthy curiosity into many of the most important political issues we face today. He is not perfect by any means (and I have criticized him here, and in private messages to him), but I think he seeks the truth and is a good man. He has my support.

Another unnecessary feud. AJ, I admire you, and am very happy to see you on the forum. I loved reading your book many years ago. I also shared your keen interest in Bob Dylan. John Judge has done great work with COPA- I don't see anything to indicate he's not completely sincere.

We don't need to hold hands and sing together, but we ought to be able to understand that our common bond- wanting to expose the lies about the official JFK assassination thesis- is much stronger than our individual differences.

The figure in the doorway is yet another issue that I feel too many CTers have given ground on, for no good reason. Of course, a conspiracy doesn't hinge on whether or not it was Oswald in the doorway, but I still don't understand the compulsion to definitively state that it was Lovelady.

In my view, serious doubts remain about who that figure was. I still think it very well could have been Oswald.

This is why the critical community cannot come together; if we cannot, at this point, understand that CE399 is not a legitimate piece of "evidence," then what can we agree on?

A ten year old child can understand that bullet could not have done what they say it did. As Cyril Wecht is fond of saying, "Just show me one bullet, in the history of the world, who did what this bullet did."

That bullet hit no one, and you don't have to study the evidence at all to know it.

Thanks, Monk. I have told you this already- but it's really great to have your voice on the forum.

Here is yet another effort to "close" an issue that is, in reality, still wide open to many of us. As Monk pointed out on another thread, these photos-like most of those argued about endlessly on film alteration threads-are subject to individual interpretation. Josiah and others can state it as emphatically as they want, but some of us don't agree that it has definitively been established that there were three shells found on the sixth floor. I'm curious- how many of you who feel this is a closed subject feel that the single bullet theory is a closed subject as well? Or, for that matter, how many think that there is any part of the official story that is impossible, and thus a subject closed for debate?

Josiah- you make a good point about ridiculous theories holding the potential to discredit the valid claims of conspiracy theorists. I've asked you this before, and you have refused to answer- what, in your view, are the valid conspiracy claims at this point? You seem certain that there was no hole in the windshield, have said that you think the backyard photos are "probably genuine," seem to dismiss the Umbrella Man, etc. In fact, I can't think of a single thread on this forum, at least in recent memory, where you presented any pro-conspiracy arguments. I'm not accusing you of anything, or trying to analyze your views, but I should think you'd be interested in being known as something other than the Guy Who Always Argues With Fetzer. I think your personal animosity towards Jim shows through in nearly everything you post here; to be honest, I don't think it's all that paranoid for him to believe you're obsessed with him.

To an unreconstructed Warren Commission critic like me, it just gets tiresome to see thread after thread on this forum, devoted to discrediting CT friendly witnesses or attacking the more radical CTers. I also find it curious that so many alleged believers in conspiracy expend such effort on demolishing various planks of the CTer platform, while those same people are conspiciously silent about truly absurd tenets of LNer thought, such as the "bunched up" coat theory, for instance. I have yet to see Josiah, for example, scan and analyze the film purporting to support this thesis, and juxtapose that against the bullet hole locations in JFK's shirt and coat, as well as the solid supporting evidence (death certificate, original autopsy face sheet, Sibert & O'Neill report, etc.)

Again, I'm not insinutating anything about anyone. I'm simply baffled that there seem to be fewer and fewer pure CT voices on this forum (and others), while neo-con thought appears to reign supreme. Mark Lane is representing Gerald Posner- what's next? Who, at this point, represents the heart and soul of the critical community? Assuming any television network would actually provide an opportunity for true debate on the subject, who could best represent critics? We are eating our own here, with too many posts featuring CTers attacking each other, or attempting to pigeon hole specific CTer claims. I don't see such vitriol directed at the more prominent LNers on this forum. Why is that? All CTers should, at this point, at least be able to agree that the official version of events is demonstrably wrong. Can we at least do that?

Pat/Bill,

Thanks for your comments- I appreciate them. Of course, you're both right on many counts- we shouldn't accept any and all conspiracy theories and the critical community has always been fractured and prone to personality conflicts. I also should have specified Dallas law enforcement in general, not just the police. Pat's points about the early critics are all good ones. While many did speculate that Oswald himself was a shooter, and that the mafia was behind it all, I think that virtually all the major ones (the ones whose works we still read today) questioned almost everything and agreed Oswald was a patsy. I'm all too aware of Weisberg's antipathy towards Lane; when I was a member of Lane's Citizens Committe of Inquiry, we all joked about the "feud" between them. Weisberg was a cranky individual who was not the most pleasant man in person (during a long evening I spent with him in the early 1980s, he spent most of the time dismissing all other critics), but he was one of the most important researchers of all, and he also made an excellent case, imho, for Oswald being the figure in the doorway. That being said....

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't necessarily believe that two shells were found on the sixth floor. You may very well be right, and there were three shells found and no mystery here. I also don't necessarily believe a Mauser, and not the Carcano, was found by Boone and Weitzman on the sixth floor. I don't necessarily think there was a hole in the windshield of the limo, either. My point was- there are legitimate doubts about all these issues, imo, but there appears to be an increasing percentage of my fellow researchers who believe they've been definitely settled.

I usually agree with Bill Kelly, and I strongly concur with his view that there is plenty of strong evidence for conspiracy, without all these tangential issues. I also like the idea of Doug Horne's line in the sand, and I'm firmly on the coup side with him there. However, at this point, I don't know how many researchers would agree with us. That's what concerns me- if we keep giving ground on so many questions that are minor in and of themselves, for no apparent reason, then before we know it, there will be precious little left to build any case for conspiracy on.

I respect both of you very much and hope I've made myself a little clearer.

With all due respect, I believe that significant doubts remain about how many shells were actually found on the sixth floor.

This issue is very similar to the Mauser/Carcano question, or the hole in the windshield debate, which has been discussed on this forum extensively. Josiah Thompson and others appear strangely anxious to dispel what were once suspicions all CTers shared, and attribute them to "mistakes" that can be innocently explained. Of course, we all realize that no one is perfect; law enforcement and journalists are only human and can certainly be expected to inadvertently err on occasion. However, in this case, those "mistakes" are far too numerous to be dismissed out of hand.

Much as the only two legal documents testifying to the weapon discovered on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser, a document that reports two shells and a live round tends to complicate things for future researchers. The fact that it was changed to three shells only makes it more suspicious to some of us, kind of like Marion Baker crossing out "drinking a coke" in his original report.

This boils down to how one interprets photos, and which witnesses one trusts, as all the film alteration threads have shown. As was the case with the windshield hole debate, I find the intense desire on the part of some critics to put this to rest to be premature and condescending. As I've noted so often before, I just don't understand the continuing desire on the part of so many researchers to shelve various doubts that most critics considered legitimate for decades. This is especially perplexing considering the fact that they offer up no new conclusive evidence in doing so. So, you're going to definitively rule out the possibility that there were only two shells found on the sixth floor because....why? The Dallas Police wouldn't have lied? Once again, more innocent "mistakes?" Because you tell us that what you see in a photo is the absolute truth?

Over the past few years, we have seen, on this forum and others, a slew of witnesses friendly to CTers bashed and discredited by those who purport to believe in conspiracy. We have also seen the growing trend, which began in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's film, of ironclad CTers suddenly and inexplicably becoming LNers. There is no question that the critical community, as a whole, has shifted towards a less extreme, more pragmatic definition of conspiracy theory in the JFK assassination. That would be all well and fine, if someone had actually destroyed long cherished CTer beliefs, or produced some compelling evidence showing that the early critics were wrong to raise questions about the suspcious deaths of witnesses, or the Umbrella Man, or the performance of the Secret Service, or the figure in the TSBD doorway captured on film by Altgens or a myriad of other examples. They haven't- unless you consider Posner and Bugliosi to have produced anything of substance.

So, at this point, what does it even mean to be a CTer? Once, that meant believing Oswald was a patsy who shot no one that day, including Tippit. It meant believing shots definitely came from in front. It meant distrusting the Dallas Police (with the exception of Roger Craig). It meant taking anything government "experts" said about anything with a huge grain of salt. It meant understanding that FBI, CIA and Secret Service personnel had lied about many things and participated in a huge coverup of the events of November 22, 1963. It meant realizing that JFK WAS different, and WAS a threat to many powerful forces at that time. It meant knowing that the record indicates JFK had definitely instituted a policy of withdrawal from Viet Nam. It meant undestanding that Oswald was a "rather poor shot," the Mannlicher Carcano was a less than reliable weapon, and that the shots attributed to him could not be duplicated, despite several attempts under more favorable circumstances.

If none of us had initially believed that all those examples I listed (and many more) represented legitimate doubts about who really killed JFK, then how many of us would even have bothered to become interested in the subject?

Thank you, Evan.

This thread is aleady more than long enough without all that extraneous old text from previous posts. Hit the "delete" button before you post- it's easy!

Len,

McVeigh was different from Oswald in that he certainly was involved in some way in the OKC bombing. However, I don't accept for one minute that he was a lone nut, or the main nut in a trio invovling Nichols and Fortier (who cooperated with the authorities and was rarely mentioned in the mainstream press).

McVeigh's trial was a travesty of justice, even worse than Bruno Richard Hauptmann's (back in the 1930s- Lindbergh kidnapping). The prosecution didn't even introduce evidence which placed him at the scene of the crime, because they didn't want to have those witnesses be cross-examined, since every one who saw McVeigh there also saw at least one "John Doe #2." McVeigh's attorney, Stephen Jones, prepared a 150 page defense brief, which outlined many of the most powerful indications of a wider conspiracy, but the judge wouldn't permit it to be allowed into the record. As Jones complained bitterly, "You have just refused to allow a defense."

McVeigh's "confession" and sudden talkativeness came very late in the game, shortly before his unusually swift execution. I have grave doubts about the validity of many of those comments, obtained and recorded (of course, in such a case, that could be anyone's voice) by a couple of writers for a subsequent book. McVeigh refused to testify in his own defense, and before those belated and uncharacteristic comments to the two authors, his few comments were cryptic in nature.

As I noted, David Hoffman's fine book The Oklahoma City Bombing And The Politics Of Terror does a much better job of exposing the flaws in the official story than I ever could. It's the essential book on the subject.

What we know about Oklahoma City is that the mainstream media, the mouthpiece for our corrupt leaders, has defined and "explained" it in the exact same way they define and "explain" all significant political events. Gross simplification, with Hollywood-like cardboard cutout "bad guys," or in this case, an Oswald-like "lone nut."

This crime, like the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations, Waco and 911, was never honestly investigated. McVeigh was convicted on nothing more than the tearful testimony of those who lost loved ones in the bombing and the prosecution's recitation in court of his political beliefs. The prosecution never even proved that McVeigh was at the scene of the crime- they purposefully avoided all the witnesses who saw him there, because each of them saw him in the company of at least one "John Doe #2." There are so many holes in the official story. I would urge all interested readers to check out The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror by David Hoffman. It's the "Rush To Judgment" of this case.

This extremely long thread exemplifies all the problems that have existed for decades, and continue to exist, within the JFK assassination research community. Good people arguing passionately over aspects of this case that don't, in all reality, alter the larger, crucial issue of exposing the fallacies of the offical version of events.

Just following the posts on this thread convinced me that, eventually, either Jack or Jim would tell the other they were no longer friends. It took quite a while, but eventually that did happen. Very sad, and unnecessary.

Jim- you should know that I almost always agree with your views on a variety of subjects (JFK assassination, 911, etc.). However, I have to tell you in the most friendly way possible that it is very hard for anyone-even someone who is in agreement with you virtually all the time-to support the style in which you post your thoughts. Just becaue someone disagrees with you on a particular point doesn't mean that they have no credibility, or are morally suspect. I think I told you a while back, in a p.m., that you were losing debates you should be winning, on the basis of your objectionable tone, even though the substance of your posts, and the evidence you cited, was solid. In plain English, the manner in which you disagree with people is bound to alienate not only them, but neutral observers who would otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.

On the other hand, I have disagreed often with Barb J. on some aspects of this case. However, in this instance, she has provided solid research which contradicted many of Judyth's claims. That doesn't mean I now agree with her about the hole in the windshield, location of the back wound or anything else. I am objective enough to admit that she's done impressive work on this thread. That doesn't make me your enemy, and I hope you will understand that.

I hope that Judyth appreciates the fervor of your support. You are certainly a strong ally for anyone to have, and I hope if I ever need defending that you'll be on my side. I tend to agree with Jack's assertion, early in this thread, that Judyth's story, even if completely true, is just not critically important to assassination research. Most of us already believe that Oswald was some kind of undercover agent, and many agree with Jim Garrison's theory that he was on an undercover assignment to infiltrate a JFK assassination plot on November 22, 1963. And, even if all of us believed in her as strongly as you do, the same forces that have obstructed justice in this case for nearly 50 years- mainstream media, government agencies- would certainly not take her seriously, even if they couldn't poke holes in her story as Barb and others here have.

Doug Weldon posted some excellent thoughts here, but you seem not to have heard them. Is total loyalty to everything Judyth has ever said worth the rupture of long time friendships and associations with Jack White and David Lifton? Do you really think that this woman is more important to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination than the author of Best Evidence ? Do you think her personal anecdotes trump the decades of research by Jack White? Do you value her input more than that of Doug Weldon- whose fine work you yourself published?

This thread has resulted in a break between you and Jack, as well as you and David Lifton. There have also been numerous criticisms of John Armstrong and his book Harvey And Lee. I haven't read his book, but have read many excerpts from Jim Hargrove, who had (may still have) a fine web site devoted to promoting Armstrong's work. I don't think that this case will rise or fall on his particular theory, but there is no denying that he produced a lot of solid research, whether he made some mistakes or not. I have a sense you feel that if you can impugn Armstrong's credibility, then that will somehow prove Judyth is the "real deal." You seem to believe that Judyth's recollections are "evidence," even though they are disputed by many (certainly a majority of) researchers.

I bear you no ill well, Jim. This is a very difficult post for me to make. It's hard to tell someone you admire and agree with that his style and tone are getting in the way of the substantive arguments he is presenting. If you could just temper your responses, maybe wait a while before posting a reply, it might make a huge difference in the way you are perceived by many in the critical community. A little humility and self-deprecation make anyone a lot more likeable. And the more likeable you are, the more apt others are to listen to the substance of what you say.

Just my long and rambling unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) input. I hope you don't respond as harshly to me as you have to others, and perhaps actually think about what I've said.

The throat wound can be questioned, inasmuch as Dr. Perry described it as an entry wound, but the trach incision obliterated it to such an extent that no one at Bethesda could be expected to have given an accurate observation about it. However, there is no reason to blindly accept that Perry was "mistaken" in his initial statement, much as all those other witnesses were "mistaken" about so many things that day.

The location of the back wound should be beyond dispute at this point. I'm sure Cliff must be tired of belaboring the point, and I'm tired of supporting him every time he does, while many here ignore the imporance of it. There is no better evidence than the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat, which line up precisely. Add to that the fact that Boswell's original autopsy face sheet placed the back wound in the same location, Burkley's death certificate located it there, and Sibert and O'Neill described it being in the same location in their FBI report, and you have perhaps the most documented fact in this entire case.

Still, you have people twisting physics by saying it was possible for the bullet to exit from JFK's throat. Was JFK's head bent over some 5 inches at that point? What would the bullet have hit, after it exited from his throat in some fantastic way- his jaw? His nose? It certainly would have had to hit some part of his face, because he'd have to be bent over that far in order for a shot that low to exit his throat.

But I'm not being serious, because there is no way that a bullet can enter 5-6 inches down on a person's back and exit from his throat, especially when the shooter is in an elevated position. The mere discussion of it is ridiculous.

Great post, Doug. You summed things up nicely.

I don't agree with every aspect of the "Harvey and Lee" theory (for instance, I can't support the bus-cab witnesses Armstrong relies on in his scenario where Lee shoots Tippit), but there is no denying that he produced a tremendous amount of important research that we can all benefit from. I don't think he has been discredited in the least, even if I accepted some of the arguments Jim/Judyth have set forth on this thread. Even if one doesn't accept a particular theory, one should be able to respect and value the data produced by individual researchers. We are all theorizing in some way, after all, since the crime was never investigated by those who had the power to do so.

Again agreeing with Doug, I think Armstrong can be likened to David Lifton. David's body alteration theory was considered very extreme, and many of us don't totally accept it. However, no one can dispute that "Best Evidence" was a crucial work that unearthed a great deal of evidence future investigators may benefit from.

This thread has been interesting, at the very least. I do hope that it hasn't caused a permanent rift in the relationships between some very fine researchers.

Seymour Weitzman was a very important witness, who was never adequately questioned by the early critics. The HSCA located him in a VA hospital, I believe, where he appeared to suffer from some sort of mental or emotional problems. They did indicate, in their report, that he was still frightened about what he saw and encountered on November 22, 1963, and believed it was all a huge conspiracy.

Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story.

With due respect Don, that's long been a fait accompli. That objective was achieved more than forty years ago.

Since then, many private citizens have done their best to expose the dark layers of an obscene conspiracy.

Maybe the foremost objective should have been to bring President Kennedy's murderers to justice, legally or historically.

Never pursued by our own government, that objective has yet to be achieved by two generations of dedicated researchers.

Of course you're right, Michael. At this point, any informed researcher should know that the official story is bogus, even if he/she knows nothing else. However, with all the backsliding we've seen from former CTers, who've either modified their positions (what I call "neo-cons") or even been transformed into LNers, I do think it's important that as many of us as possible stick together on the most basic facts.

None of us can state with certainty that we know exactly what happened in Dallas, but we all ought to be able to agree that the crime was never honestly investigated, and that the facts as we know them prove beyond a doubt that there was a conspiracy.

Jim/Pamela,

I really don't think Jack's comment about Ruth Paine indicates that he is supportive of her in any way. He can certainly clarify that, but I believe he meant that Ruth Paine is alive, and someone considered by many of us to be a crucial witness, in terms of her association with Marina, getting Oswald the job at the TSBD, her testimony presenting a negative view of Oswald, etc.