Don Jeffries

Bill, With all due respect, anyone reading that old Lancer thread from 2003, and comparing it with your tentative comments about the same subject on this thread, would naturally think that your views have changed dramatically in the past six years. What has happened to cause you to temper your strong opinion that the backyard photos are fake?

Thanks for clarifying, Bill. My main point was that witnesses did see an actual hole in the windshield, regardless of when a bullet struck it. I may have misunderstood Josiah's position- does he accept, then, that witnesses did see an actual hole in the windshield? Also, does he accept that there was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as described by all those medical personnel? If so, does he think the autopsy x-rays and photos are fraudulent? I realize you may not know how he feels about all this, but Josiah hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and I'm curious.

Jim, I too am struck by Josiah Thompson's disregard for the witnesses who claimed to have seen a hole in the windshield of the limousine. I fear that his strong stance against film alteration is effecting his common sense here; if he thinks the Altgens photo doesn't show a hole, then all those witnesses must have been mistaken. I am noticing a disturbing trend here. Numerous doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital all describe a huge gaping wound in the same area on the back of JFK's head. Since the x-rays and photos show no such gaping hole in the back, those witnesses were all mistaken in the exact same way for no logical reason. Several different witnesses described a hole in the windshield of the presidential limousine, one you could "put a pencil through," yet because the Altgens photo supposedly shows no such hole, these witnesses were all mistaken in the exact same way for no logical reason. Many, many different witnesses described the limousine coming to a stop or dramatically slowing down just before the shots were fired. Since the film footage of the assassination appears to show no such dramatic slowing down or stopping, then all those unconnected witnesses were all mistaken in the same way for no logical reason. Let's be reasonable here. I understand eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. However, it defies common sense to think that all of these people could be so glaringly wrong in the exact same way. To me, this is the strongest argument in favor of the films being altered. I haven't heard a logical answer regarding why all these people were mistaken, in the exact same way, about these crucial details. In particular, how can we accept that all those doctors reported seeing a huge hole in the back of the most famous patient any of them had ever had, if it really wasn't there? I'd like to think that trained medical professionals were a little more competent than that. Finally, those of us who believe in conspiracy can find quite logical reasons why the authorities would claim these witnesses were "mistaken." After all, some of us think these authorities were involved in the crime and coverup, so this would be expected. However, what is the logical explanation as to why so many of these witneses-including professional medical personnel-made so many glaring errors in observation that day? The exact same glaring errors. While I don't have the greatest faith in the intelligence and competence of my fellow human beings, that defies all logic.

Craig, I understand your innate prejudice against Jack White, but what about Bill Miller? The old JFK Lancer thread features good arguments that the photos are fake, from Miller, whom you presumably respect. This is an old issue, and the arguments that the photos are fake haven't changed. They've never been answered satisfactorily, which is why I was so amazed that Josiah Thompson-who was in the center of all this when the backyard photos were first being analyzed by critics-could now state that they are "probably genuine." I'd like to hear some more from Josiah about this. I'd also like to hear from Bill Miller, regarding his own astute analyis of the photos from 2003. If his strong beliefs on this subject have changed or been tempered in the past six years, I'd like to know what caused that. To my knowledge, nothing has been produced from the lone nutter side during that time to counter the old classic arguments that the photos are fraudulent. You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say something like "what is there to be suspicious about in the first place?" Stating that there is nothing strikingly strange about these photos is completely ridiculous. In the old days, it was conspiracy believers vs. apologists for the official story. Now we have self- proclaimed "fence sitters" and what I call the new "neo-cons," whose beliefs are less clear and often confusing. I don't think everything is black and white (as my agnosticism on Zapruder film alteration shows), but not everything can be a gray area, either.

Craig, What tests would you have me perform? I'm not a photo expert, but some things are glaringly obvious to the layman. The backyard photos fall into this category. I'm also not a ballistics expert, but feel confident in statnig that an almost completely pristine bullet (CE399) cannot cause 7 wounds without significant visible damage. I am also not a medical professional, but feel qualifited in stating that if numerous professional medical people describe a bullet wound in the exact same way, and the x-rays and photos of the head where the wound is located don't show it, then either all those professional medical people were lying for inexplicable reasons or the x-rays and photos are not genuine. While I may sometimes lack common sense, I have enough to know that no aspiring lone assassin would pose for such gratuitously incriminating photos and then vehemently declare his innocence once he was apprehended. Why would he pose in such an absurdly egotistical manner and then deny everything afterwards? I understand why you would maintain the photos are genuine, as you appear to believe Oswald was the assassin. However, as I've stated before, these photos are unfathomable if Oswald was not shooting at anyone on November 22, 1963. If he was innocent, what was he doing posing for such pictures? This question, plus the cartoonish overkill of including the commie literature for good measure, was what immediately drew the suspicions of so many of us years ago. Jack White-in great detail-and Bill Miller have both provided sound reasons why these photos cannot be genuine. There really has been nothing credible to refute their arguments, thus I can't understand why any conspiracy believer would have new doubts about this issue. If you're a lone nutter, you discount the backyard photos, second Oswald sightings and all other indications that he was being set up in advance as the patsy. If you doubt the official story, however, the backyard photos, especially in conjunction with all the witness encounters with apparent Oswald imposters, provide strong circumstantial evidence of conspiracy.

Bill, Through a search on the JFK Lancer forums, I was able to find the old thread about the backyard photos I mentioned. Here is the link for those interested: Bill Miller On The Backyard Photos- 2003 As is very evident, you have a thorough knowledge of this subject. Maybe you ought to enlighten Josiah Thompson; I'm sure he'll agree with you (and ironically, Jack White) that the photos are defiinitely not "probably genuine" after reading your comments on that old thread. I'm also confident that Barb can change her contention that she "hasn't seen any evidence that they aren't real" after considering your work.

Denis, I'm familiar with Marina Oswald's belated views on the assassination. That makes her refusal to explain the most ridiculous parts of her Warren Commission testimony all the more incredible. Those of us that believe the backyard photos are obvious fakes are naturally going to be suspicious that Marina still claims to have taken them. Those of us who are living in the real world find such things as her tale about locking her husband in the bathroom so he wouldn't shoot Nixon to be outlandish fabrications. Harold Weisberg did a great job of analyzing her testimony in great detail in his "Whitewash" books. I've stated before that I understand completely what kind of pressure Marina must have been under to cooperate with the authorities in 1964. Since she's felt comfortable in publicly stating there was a conspiracy for at least 25 years now, she apparently doesn't fear speaking out any longer. It's long past time for her to explain the curious relationship she enjoyed with Ruth Paine, and to acknowledge that much of her testimony was fabricated in an effort to convict her husband in the public eye. Remember that most of the negative things we "know" about Oswald come directly from the testimony of Marina or Ruth Paine, neither of whom are credible, imho. Until she admits lying about things like the Nixon/bathroom incident, I will doubt everything she says about the subject.

Marina Oswald's testimony portrayed her husband in a terrible light, and is full of inconsistiencies and obvious lies. She is the sole source for Oswald taking a shot at General Walker, for instance. Those I call "neo-cons" now accept this as true, for no logical reason. Then there is her totally absurd story of keeping Oswald locked in the bathroom so he couldn't take a shot at Nixon. Her testimony is laughable. The fact that she claims to believe in conspiracy now, but still clings to the backyard photos cover story, and has never retracted even the most ridiculous parts of her testimony, destroys any credibility she has, imho. Bill, I'm glad you're commenting on this thread. Would you please re-post some of the fine arguments you made in the past for the backyard photos being faked. Thanks.

Pat, Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them. No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him.

Barb, I must not have stated things clearly. My point was about consistency; if Jim Fetzer is held to one standard, why isn't Josiah Thompson held to the same standard? If issues unrelated to the alteration debate (other conspiracy theories, for instance) are allowed to taint his credibility in general, then what someone like myself would consider a remarkable stance on the backyard photos issue will naturally taint his credibility in general in my eyes. I don't believe in a litmus test, and don't think that those who disagree with me are disinfo agents. That being said, this is a discussion forum and I'm free to speculate as much as you are. Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination? Isn't that a litmus test for you? This works both ways- you can't demand that someone agree with you that the Zapruder film is authentic, or instantly label them as unknowledgable or uncredible, and in the same breath protest when they affix the same label on you for not agreeing with them on some other aspect of the case (for instance, the backyard photos).

Wow, so many believers in conspiracy who accept the backyard photos as legitimate....No one would have believed this thirty years ago. The question is- what has occured during that time to make Josiah think they are "probably genuine," to make Barb state that she has not seen any evidence that they are fake, and to make John Dolva say that it can be easily shown that Oswald posed for the photos and that they are genuine? Even Bill Miller is not as certain as he was not so long ago, when he eloquently pointed out the many obvious indications that the photos are forgeries. What is going on here? Did I miss some kind of actual unbiased inquiry into this subject? I'm not talking about the predictable, HSCA "investigation" whose only goal was to agree with the untenable official version of events. The backyard photos are like the single-bullet theory. Any child can glance at them, for a moment, and realize they aren't normal pictures. Overanalyzing this is counterproductive- just as the government can find an "expert" to help convict anyone they want to convict, they can certainly find "experts" to claim that the single bullet theory is possible or even likely, and that these fraudulent photos are genuine. That's one of the perks of power. While it may have been common, as Barb suggests, for youngsters to dress up as cowboys and be photographed as such back then, it wasn't common for grown men to do so. Especially when the weapons they brandished in such photographs would later allegedly be used to murder the President of the United States and a police officer. The backyard photos, Oswald shooting Tippit, the Umbrella Man, the mysterious deaths of witnesses, the identity of the man in the doorway of the Altgens photo, the entrance wound to the throat, the culpability of the Secret Service- I could go on and on. Why are so many of you yielding ground on so many aspects of this case, for no apparent reason? What has happened to cause this crucial shift in critical opinion? The backyard photos are one of the clearest indicators of an effort to frame Oswald for the assassination. They go hand in glove with all the "second Oswald" encounters prior to the assassination. Do some of you now reject them as well? What next- a Gary Mack-like denial of all hard conspiracy evidence while clinging to a belief in conspiracy solely on the basis of the accoustics evidence and Badgeman- actually two of the weakest pieces of evidence?

Barb, If it's fair to bring up Jim Fetzer's views on other subjects (911, Wellstone plane crash, etc.), when debating whether JFK assassination film was altered, it seems to me to be appropriate to link Josiah Thompson, or anyone else's, opinions about things like the backyard photos to the larger general issue of conspiracy. If some on this forum think Jim Fetzer or Jack White have questionable credibility about unrelated aspects of the assssination, because they believe in film alteration and other assorted conspiracy theories, why should Josiah's apparent faith in the backyard photos not taint his overall credibility with the more fervent believers in conspiracy here? I don't bother to debate with lone nutters much, unless they play the ever popular "I used to believe in conspiracy" card. Then I ask them what specifically caused them to change their mind. They never can answer that simple question. Those whose perspectives on this subject have dramatically changed, like Gary Mack, intrigue me, however. I don't accuse Josiah of being another Gary Mack. I'm just curious. I'm not saying Josiah or anyone else is a lone nutter, but I would like to hear more about this "tangled mess," as he defines the evidence regarding the backyard photos. I'd also like to have him answer the other questions I asked in an earlier post.

The bullet hole in JFK's coat, matching up exactly with the hole in his shirt, which is in the exact same location where Dr. Boswell "mistakenly" placed it on the original autopsy face sheet, and the exact same location where Dr. Burkley described it on the death certificate. Along with the pristine "magic" bullet, this alone disproves the single bullet theory, and demolishes the official story.

Josiah, I can certainly understand why you, or anyone else, would pick particular areas of interest in this case. However, the questions I asked you are fundamental in nature. I'm curious as to how you feel about these aspects of the case, because it appears to me that you don't fully believe that a conspiracy took the life of John F. Kennedy. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's just a suspicion I have, and I could easily be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm very sensitive about this subject because so many former believers in conspiracy appear to have become what I call "neo-cons" or even outright lone nutters. Among these would be Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes. All these individuals are very knowledgable and once did good work on the subject. Their transformation into lone nutters or neo-cons is mysterious and unexplained. I attempted to ask some of them about this on forums in the past, and none was able to give me any kind of logical answer. My guess is that you once thought, as nearly everyone associated with this case did, that the backyard photos were amateurish and obvious forgeries. Now you say that they are "probably genuine." What makes you believe this? You wrote one of the early essential books on this subject. You regularly frequent this forum and Lancer (don't know about any others). Thus, surely you must be interested in something else besides film alteration and/or Jim Fetzer. I do respect your work, and value your opinion. Please share your views with us.

Bill, Thanks for responding. I do detect, however a slight backing off on your formerly strongly held conviction that the backyard photos are fake. I recall being very impressed with your detailed arguments about this issue some years ago (can't recall whether it was on here or on Lancer). Still, it's nice to know that you don't agree that they're "probably genuine."

Bill Miller, Have you changed your views about the backyard photos?

Josiah, You may not know me, but you know my name. I'm the one who asked you the question (and please call me Don- there's no need to be formal). With all due respect, I don't see the backyard photos as a "transparent mess." On the contrary, they seem to be clear and obvious fakes. You must know all the old arguments; shadow problems, the heads are the same size on bodies that were different sizes, etc. Then there is the question of why anyone-aspiring lone nut assassin or not-would pose for such pictures. Do you agree that it is impossible to reasonably maintain a belief in conspiracy if the pictures are genuine? If you disagree, how would you explain an innocent man posing for such photos? Also, I'd really like a response to my other questions. Do you think Oswald killed Tippit? Do you think that any witness deaths were connected to the assassination? Do you think that the Umbrella Man was a harmless guy named Steven Witt? Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are genuine? I apologize if it seems I'd badgering you for answers. I'd simply like to know your opinion on some aspect of this case other than film alteration and Jim Fetzer.

Josiah, Once again, it is painfully obvious that you relish doing this. I can perhaps understand why you might thoroughly enjoy puncturing a truly huge ego lke Bugliosi's, but this is clearly personal, imho.

Kathy, The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald. Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement? I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt? Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos.

I echo Pat Speer's initial comments on this thread. Josiah, Bill Miller, Barb- in terms of credibility, how do you feel Jim Fetzer and Jack White stand in comparison to Dale Myers, for instance? Do you agree that a dishonest effort to prop up scientifically impossible things like the single-bullet theory is a greater sin than the notion that the Zapruder film is altered? Just curious. Or perhaps now some (or all) of you are willing to state that it is possible for CE 399 to have caused all the non-fatal wounds in Kennedy and Connally. If that's the case, it is your credibility, and not Fetzer or White's, which is destroyed, imo. I know I'm being an unrealistic idealist here, but the level of vitriol on this subject just astonishes me. There are no long threads taking Tom Purvis to task for all the nonsense he posts. I know that Bill agrees with me on this issue, but why doesn't Josiah Thompson feel the need to destroy Purvis's absurd notions in long, excruciating detail, as he relishes doing with the alterationist claims? I know it is very hard to figure out exactly what Purvis is claiming, but consider it a healthy challenge. Is it just because Purvis hasn't published books? Certainly Dale Myers-with his new found role of advisor on television documentaries-must be considered important enough to demolish in thread after thread. I must have missed all those threads.... Josiah, Bill, Barb- what did you think of the "Inside The Target Car" documentary? As Pat noted, Gary Mack played an important role in that very distorted program. What do you all think of that? Do you agree that the program was at least as misleading as any of the "wildest" alteration claims? Where are the long, detailed posts from you on that subject? Josiah, with all due respect, I think this has become a personal issue with Fetzer for you. You acknowledged this yourself, in stating that you received some pleasure in puncturing his "ego." If you've ever traded posts with Dale Myers on a forum, you know how arrogant and egotistic hs comes off as. Fetzer hasn't been given a chance to promulgate his theories on widely broadcast television shows, as Myers has. Why don't you feel the need to puncture his ego and bring him down to size? If you're concerned about Fetzer disemminating incorrect information, what must you think of Myers, who has been permitted to peddle his single-bullet nonsense to millions of t.v. viewers? I'm not declaring this to be a one-sided thing; Jim and Jack often come off in a less than sterling light during these debates. Certainly David Healy's contributions add nothing constructive. That, however, doesn't change the reality that Josiah Thompson seems to only post on these forums to respond to Jim Fetzer. To my knowledge, Josiah's only real involvement on this forum was in the film alteration or 911 conspiracy threads. In both cases, his motivation appears to have been to discredit Jim Fetzer's theories on those two subjects. He didn't, for instance, jump into any of the threads debating Jack White's Apollo hoax theories. Thus, it seems clear to me that he has a personal issue with Fetzer, but not Jack White, since Jack's Apollo claims revolve around the same sort of film alteration that these threads do, and the same kind of massive conspiracy claims that the 911 threads did. I respect Josiah Thompson for his "Six Seconds In Dallas." It was an important book, and I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm attacking him. I also think, though, that "Assassination Science," at least, was an important book, as well. I don't know any of the people involved in this debate, except through their posts on this forum (and less frequently on Lancer), so I do consider myself unbiased. Take it or leave it- that's my two cents worth.

This may have been covered before in all the long threads about alteration, but would both sides please give me a simple answer to a few questions? First, what has Mary Moorman had to say to any of you regarding this whole issue, since the alteration theory was first proposed? Has her position on the subject changed, and if so, how?

The backyard photos are an obvious attempt to make the man look guilty, which seems to part of a process of framing the man for murder. A lot of work has been done on this aspect of the matter. However, I don’t know how anyone can take even a quick glance at those pictures and not conclude that they are doctored photos. The heads do not match, but mostly common sense tells you nobody would produce pictures like those of themselves. I certainly do not care what Marina said at the time, and there is no chain of custody, like so many pieces of so called evidence in this case. Thanks, Peter, for stating the simple truth. Those photos, like the single bullet theory, are so obviously fake that it insults the intelligence when one claims otherwise. As you note, why would anyone pose for such pictures? With all that commie literature thrown in for good measure? Talk about overkill! It is disturbing to know that Josiah Thompson feels these photos are "probably genuine." Bill Miller certainly didn't feel this way the last time I saw him post on the subject; I hope he will acknowledge this here, which would put him in the interesting position of agreeing with Jack White and opposing Josiah. The fact that alleged "experts" have declared them genuine is meaningless. Since when does any conspiracy believer worth his salt believe such officially approved "experts?" The government has always been able to summon up supposedly renowned "experts" to support whatever case they're prosecuting. There are lots of "experts" that believe in the single bullet theory, the bunched up coat theory and the neuro-muscular "jet effect" to explain the backwards head snap, too. I noted on this forum a while back that many credible researchers have now turned into a new kind of "neo-con"- the neo-conspiracy believer. Gary Mack would now probably be the king of this type of neo-con. On this forum, and certainly at Lancer, there has been a tendency over the past few years for believers in conspiracy to dismiss things like the backyard photos, the mysterious deaths of witnesses, the Umbrella Man and even Oswald's innocence in the Tippit murder. There is no rational reason to do this; why give ground on these fundamental indications of conspiracy? Could there be a more visibly flawed piece of incriminating "evidence" than these ridiculous photos? Will more neo-cons start following Gary Mack's lead on the Basbushka Woman, and postulate that she wasn't even taking motion pictures that day, but a simple photograph, which she turned over to some convenient representative of Kodak and showed nothing? The strong indication that the motorcade stopped, or at least slowed down dramatically just before the shooting, is now poo-pooed by non-alterationists because it a strong plank in the atlerationist platform. Again, no reason to give ground on this issue- either every one of those unconnected witnesses lied or imagined the same thing, or something like that happened. I was watching some of Mark Oakes' fine interview DVDs the other night, and even Bobby Hargis (who steadfastly maintains Oswald acted alone) was adamant about the motorcade stopping (can't remember if he said stopped or almost stopped, but he brought the subject up himself). Will all the medical testimony about the huge hole in the back of JFK's head gradually go the same way? Witness testimony has always been an important part of the conspiracy quotient in this case; that's probably one of the reasons I reacted so strongly to Duke Lane's attempted discreditation of Richard Carr and James Worrell. I don't care what neo-cons believe; in my opinion, the backyard photos were childishly faked, a lot of inconvenient witnesses did die under questionable circumstances, Oswald didn't kill Tippit, the Umbrella Man was clearly acting suspiciously and did pump his umbrella up and down, officers Boone and Weitzman were not likely to be mistaken in the exact same way about finding a mauser on the sixth floor, Oswald does look like a different person in different photgraphs, Roger Craig's initial testimony was important and credible and he was in Capt. Fritz's office as he claimed, it has not been proven conclusively that Lovelady is the man in the doorway in the Altgens photograph and it may very well have been Oswald and it was not an "easy shot" as no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged feat under truly simulated conditions. There- I've said it. Now I feel better.

Len, Thanks- there are a few exceptions out there, as you noted. However, they are all hardly powerful voices. Rosie is a celebrity, and I never said there weren't celebrities that believe in conspiracies (Oliver Stone, Charlie Sheen and many others). Most people don't take them seriously. Seymour Hersh has done some good work, but seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the JFK assassination. It's also notable to think about what happened to the few politicians who gingerly questioned the official version of the JFK assassination. Gary Hart was targeted for his womanizing (compared to Clinton and many others whose political careers were not ended by their own numerous flings), and his promising presidential aspirations were ended forever as a result. Frank Church was a high profile politician who mysteriously vanished from the national scene after a failed presidential run, and died not long afterwards. Hart's fellow Senator Richard Schweiker, who was even more vocal about doubting the Warren Commission's findings, is still alive but disappeared completely from the public eye about thirty years ago. Your examples of Dobbs and Salinger are good ones, although I don't think that Dobbs really talks much about conspiracies per se. Salinger was widely ridiculed for his views about TWA 800, and I think it ended his longtime career as an ABC Paris correspondent. Glenn Beck is totally partisan, kind of like a more extreme version of O'Reilly. I'm sure he sees lots of shady doings where Democrats are concerned. I don't know who you're speaking of regarding the Liberty incident; it's been my impression that the mainstream press and politicians have been mostly silent about that, and that the exposure has come almost exclusively from right wing sources outside the mainstream. As for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy," it was the only pro-conspiracy program broadcast widely and often on any network. However, since the controversy over the LBJ segment, it has not been shown again (and that was several years ago.) I stand (slightly) corrected.

Ian, I apologize- it looks like I misinterpreted your post. And once I start ranting.... Sorry about that!

Ian, I think your view of our fearless leaders is very naive. There are definitely not "widely divergent worldviews" found within any powerful institution, be it Congress, the Supreme Court or the board of any major corporation (including any mainstream media organization). If you believe these "diverse" views exist, please present some examples of members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court, present or ex-CEOs of any large corporation, present or ex-presidents of any large union, or any reporter, past or present, for a television network, major newspaper or magazine that has publicly expressed a beilef in any major conspiracy theory. Also try to find a single example anywhere of a person in a similar position of power ever espousing the Huey Long view about "sharing the wealth." The recent example of the AIG banksters taking off with their millions of "bonuses" culled from their taxpayer "bailout" is a perfect illustration of this. The economic system is collapsing, millions are struggling financially, yet these clueless plutocrats grab more millions of taxpayer "bailout" funds for their own benefit. And then the unprincipled politicians strut and crow about how horrible this is, when they approved the whole sordid mess, without ever placing any restrictions upon these impoverished multi-millionaires. My point is, our financial problems revolve around the giant elephant in the room which is the tremendous disparity of wealth in our society. Anyone who has had direct experience with Congress, the mainstream press, our court system, etc. will disagree with your rather rosy assessment of our society's leadership. They are not diverse in opinion, even when they are diverse in appearance. They are very good at keeping secrets and covering up for each other, as any would be whistleblower could tell you. This was exactly why Kennedy was so dangerous to so many powerful forces; he was "different" enough to frighten them into thinking that perhaps he could produce at least some change for the better. There is the conventional view of history, which you share with the majority of people. Then there is the conspiracy view of history, which an increasing number of us subscribe to. I think that recent history alone should cause every thinking American to have a very dim view of our leaders, both in government and business. It's hard to escape the belief that there is corruption everywhere, and few if any truly principled and moral people in positions of authority. Conspiracy "theories" are born because of this well-founded suspicion, which grows daily thanks to the uncensored nature of the internet. However, hold on to your skepticism towards "conspiracies" and continue to remain unskeptical towards our leaders and institutions- you will make a great many friends in that "wildly divergent" crowd.