Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

Members
  • Content Count

    1,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. I'm shocked that knowledgeable researchers weren't aware of this document, which is not new. In fact, I quoted it in my book Hidden History. It does, of course, provide definitive proof that the mainstream media were willing participants in the cover up.
  2. You are probably referring to Weitzman's niece. He had no children.
  3. In a community full of huge egos and difficult personalities, Bernice Moore was a beacon of light. She was unfailingly helpful and polite. The research community will not be the same without her. My condolences to her family.
  4. I recounted a very strange phone conversation I had with Weitzman's nephew in my book Hidden History. The fear was obvious in his voice as he kept saying, "I don't know nothing!" That's some conspiracy, that can still frighten the nephew of a police officer who was associated with an assassination some fifty years earlier. As both the HSCA report and Michael Canfield noted, Weitzman's mental illness, such as it was, was directly connected to the events on November 22, 1963. He was a crucial witness, and it's a real shame that he wasn't thoroughly interviewed by researchers, especially b
  5. Cliff, you are indeed my old friend. Maybe you and the other good people who are supporting Hillary Clinton can change the Democrats into something that I could return to- something Dennis Kucinich-Cynthia McKinney-like. I've voted too many times for the McKinneys, Naders, Perots and Steins of the world. They probably don't even count any of the votes, but they sure aren't counting the Third Party votes honestly. I've never voted Republican before, but Trump isn't really a Republican- he just chose them because the super delegates couldn't screw him there, like they screwed Bernie. I don't
  6. By the estimates of extreme "conspiracy theorists," whom I trust more than the court historians, America has been at war for virtually its entire existence- some 93% of the time. This figure may be a bit a of a stretch, but however you cut it, the United States has been at war far more often than it has been at peace. I was born in 1956, and other than a brief interlude after the Vietnam War, this country has been at war somewhere my entire life. The last time we had a constitutional war- one where it was declared by Congress- was World War II. Our leaders don't bother with such niceties, an
  7. Very interesting. I had no idea that Rothbard was so knowledgeable about the assassination. Few people remember that Larry Flynt was JFK, Jr.'s guest for a soiree at the White House not long before he died. Or that he was associated with Ruth Carter Stapleton, the sister of President Carter and, like Flynt, quite the assassination "buff" herself. Thanks for sharing, Douglas!
  8. John Armstrong’s “Harvey and Lee” From my blog at http://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com John Armstrong’s massive Harvey and Lee is an impressive work, and every JFK assassination researcher owes Armstrong a debt of gratitude for his countless hours of research, which included extensive travelling in order to personally interview witnesses, many of them never interviewed before. According to the late Jack White, John Armstrong sunk some $100,000 of his own money into the self-publication of his book. Despite the fact that Armstrong expended such time and resources on his investigation, h
  9. I echo what Vince and Douglas said. Those of us who aren't published by Simon and Schuster or Random House have a limited public platform. It's important for any author to deliver your message to the largest number of people you can. Even those of us who have publicists still have to do most of our own promotion. I've rarely turned down an offer for an interview, no matter who it is. I didn't accept one from an anarchist host, but that was only because he demanded I swear an oath to anarchism first. I've seen "Coast to Coast" criticized here, for instance. They get anywhere from 5-7 million
  10. Looks like they landed two more great people. Sounds like a very intriguing conference.
  11. Larry, My point was that there could be something for people to quibble about in regards to the Lancer Conference as well, or most conferences that I can remember. I have no problem with the speakers at any conference. I was responding to criticism of the New Orleans conference, based upon some of the speakers. I suspect most of this is Judyth-based, of course. Or more specifically, I was trying to note that it featured William Law, whom I consider one of the most underappreciated of all researchers.
  12. Pat, that's an excuse even I've never heard before; that we really can't blame the FBI for not pursuing leads, since they were distracted by "conspiracy theorists" and actual crazies. In every high profile crime, the authorities are accustomed to "crazies" confessing, or fingering their relatives. They really should be trained to recognize that for what it is. I don't think that had anything to do with them altering the testimony of witnesses, for instance. Hoover and the FBI orchestrated the cover up. Their performance was inexcusable. I could certainly question some of the upcoming speak
  13. I love William Law- he's perhaps the most underrated and underappreciated JFK assassination researcher. Some other good people, too, but Law alone makes it a worthwhile conference.
  14. The mantra that "conspiracy theorists" simply can't accept that a great man could be taken down by a simple lone nut is almost as prevalent as the "someone would have talked" line; the "that many people couldn't keep a secret" came directly from the infamous 1967 CIA memo "Countering the Critics of the Warren Report." King's central thesis, which mirrors the central thesis of the corrupt leaders which continue to misrule us, is that Oswald wanted to "be somebody," in King's updated parlance- a "fame junkie." As Denny points out, this hypothesis is contradicted by his protestations of innocen
  15. Thanks, Tom, for providing King's complete Afterword. The names he trusted leap out at the reader; Gary Mack, Posner, Bugliosi, Thomas Mallon, Mailer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, even William Manchester. King, like Bugliosi and every other lone-nutter who has researched this case, knows perfectly well that he is peddling disinformation. It is impossible to study the evidence and believe the Warren Report, to paraphrase Penn Jones. King's audience is huge and impressionable. I am proud not to have read anything by this schlock artist. Judging by the Afterword, he is hardly a master literary craftsm
  16. King fans may use the excuse that this is mere science fiction, but his incendiary comments about the case reveal just how committed he is to the official fairy tale. 98-99% certain that Oswald was guilty? King has called the long dead Oswald childish names in public, like the authoritarian social justice warrior he undoubtedly is. He even passed along some psychological nonsense about Marguerite examining young Oswald's genitals every night to see if he was developing normally. The little bit about the surviving JFK putting people in camps was just an extension of King's antipathy for the K
  17. Boy, it sure is hard to tell just who this "unbiased" journalist supports for president, isn't it? On the contrary, Dan- it is virtually impossible to find a positive personal anecdote about Hillary Clinton. She appears to have a Madonna-like diva personality, and to treat people with consistent disdain. Kind of like LBJ. You almost have to feel sorry for dying and decaying dinosaurs like Rather. The professional journalists and high-profile historians are never going to admit just how inaccurate their reporting and analysis was and is, on the JFK assassination. Walter Cronkite went down swi
  18. Mark Lane was the individual who most inspired me to become involved in researching the JFK assassination. I joined his Citizens Committee of Inquiry as a teenager, and the afternoon I spent in his office in late 1976, which included a long conversation with him that revolved around one of the most popular entertainers of the time, young Freddie Prinze, is recounted in full in my book. Mark Lane was one of the last of the original band of critics. I think Vincent Salandria may well be the last surviving one. I'm sure he couldn't have been too happy with the state of the critical community in
  19. I don't have any problem registering as a member, as I said. But I don't understand not giving the public access to the material. Is there an extra cost involved in making the information visible to everyone?
  20. For once, I completely agree with DVP. Limiting the reading of posts to members only will certainly shrink the audience. I guess I understand if the intent is to create a research database, but you indicated that there will also be a new forum. Was this Debra's decision? If not, whose idea was it? Lancer had a nice period there, with lots of solid contributions. I have no problem registering, but if the goal is to share knowledge and information, then the posts should be available to everyone.
  21. For me, the curious thing about Baker is that he appears to have been the only law enforcement officer in Dealey Plaza whose attention was immediately drawn to the TSBD. Remember, a number of witnesses inside or directly outside the TSBD thought the shots were coming from the knoll area. The Baker story is odd, but much like the Zapruder film, it has been used for decades to buttress the critics' argument that Oswald could not have fired the shots, hidden the rifle, and appeared where Baker allegedly confronted him, calm and, at least as originally reported, with his trusty Coke in hand. As
  22. This is the kind of discussion that makes these forums worthwhile. Thanks especially to Joseph McBride, for sharing from his impressive book, and to Paul Rigby for his typical out-of-the-box thinking. There are so many of these aspects to the assassination that have simply been attributed to faulty eyewitness perceptions. As David Lifton pointed out; way, way too many disparate witnesses, independently of one another, mentioned the limousine stopping or almost stopping. Were they all "mistaken" in an identical manner, just as all the Parkland medical personnel was "mistaken" identically abou
  23. The performance of CBS and the other mainstream media of the day foretold what is now common practice. There is no skepticism among professional "journalists," unless it's directed towards those who are skeptical of all these impossible official narratives. They have been trained to smear the whistleblower, instead of exposing the wrongdoers. Even when we examine much older history, such as the Lincoln assassination, or even the death of Meriweather Lewis, we find the same closed-mindedness, the same reluctance to abandon "official" history. These journalists have a great stake in all our fa
  24. This is just the latest in an ongoing campaign- a relentless onslaught against the characters of those, like JFK and RFK, who were threats to the corrupt oligarchy that started really taking control on November 22, 1963. The mainstream media treats no other president as disrespectfully as John F. Kennedy, not even Nixon. I've recognized this for years, from the beginning of the Judith Campbell Exner nonsense, and how it was so unquestioningly accepted by the same "journalists" who refused to investigate JFK's assassination. When Jim DiEugenio wrote "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK," he w
×
×
  • Create New...