Don Jeffries

For those of you who haven't read Moldea's book on the RFK assassination, you should do so. It's one of the oddest books ever written; it kind of parallels the HSCA investigation into JFK's death, in reverse. In the HSCA investigation, as we all know, Blakey and co. made certain that nothing was truly investigated and they supported every single ridiculous conclusion of the Warren Commission. Then, due to the last minute introduction of the acoustics evidence, they inexplicably concluded that there had been a "probable conspiracy." This conclusion contradicted all of their "investigation." In Moldea's book, he proved conclusively, as many others have, that Sirhan could not have fired all the shots in the pantry. However, like the HSCA, at the last minute he suddenly switched gears completely and concluded that Sirhan was the lone assassin. If I recall, his mysterious epiphany occured during one of his many meetings in prison with Sirhan. Moldea suddenly knew that Sirhan had been lying to him all the time. Yeah, really a convincing explanation. It's almost as if the intent all along had been to write a decent book about the case, but someone or something at the last minute changed direction, without going back and editing any of the book. I tried to confront Moldea about this on another forum years ago. He ignored my post.

Tom, Now that you've reluctantly credited me with actually understanding your confusing standpoint on the assassination, I'll try one more time to ask you a question. If the Warren Commission claimed Oswald fired all the shots, with the Carcano, from the sixth floor window, why would they cover up or distort anything about when each shot was fired? Why would they care, since according to your theory, it would change nothing about the basic facts? Furthermore, why would they then go to the trouble of altering film of the assassination, just to hide evidence that the final shot was fired at a later time? If I'm missing something else you think they covered up, please let me know what that was. I know I'm a glutton for punishment, but just for the record....

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter. There is no doubt that the vitriol comes from both sides- it is always an uncivil exchange and I can't imagine too many lurkers are impressed or hang around long enough to sift through all the posts. At this point, I think that Josiah's dramatic "farewell" to the forum (at least that's what it sounded like to me) indicates a need on his part to hear others say "you won!" I'm sure Jim and Jack would enjoy hearing that, too. The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner.

Josiah, Just curious- do you believe that the backyard photos were genuine? I know it's not directly related to the question of assassination film alteration, but it does involve assassination-related film alteration. Also, I'm sure you're familiar with John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" hypothesis. Do you think his research and/or theory is credible? The reason I mention both the backyard photos and Armstrong is because Jack White performed groundbreaking research, in my opinion, in analyzing the backyard photos as well as the numerous photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm not taking sides, but wonder if you'd acknowledge Jack's excellent work.

I'm really confused. Starting with the eariest critical books written about the assassination, the Umbrella Man has consistently been referred to as "pumping up and down." Just google this and see how many results you get. I found an article by our very own Ron Ecker describing this motion as seen in the Zapruder film. So, in my estimation, the Zapruder film we know and love, regardless of its validity, does show something like this, and has been described as showing something like this by many, many people for many, many years. If I'm wrong, a great many other people have been wrong about the exact same thing.

Don, no one will waste a second with you except Wild Bill Miller who is Gary Mack second here.... he of course is trying to paint a good face on everything here for the Dallas City Father's. In so far as Tom Purvis, I suspect he's forgot more concerning this case than you'll ever know.... so, when it comes to lunacy, I'd keep myself under wraps for a while if I were you. At least till the real *in the know* CT's finally leave this forum. Then you Lone Nut wunderkinds can have your justly deserved lovefest.... btw, Josiah doesn't do autographs.... rumor has it, Miller does! LMAO David, Reading this post has convinced me that you're only slightly less of an embarrassment than Purvis is. Do you realize how you discredit anything lucid you might ever say with your absurd labels of "lone nut wunderkinds" directed at people like me? I can somewhat understand your acute paranoia about Bill Miller- you are an avid believer in film alteration so you simply claim anyone who opposes you on that issue is a "lone nutter." I didn't say that such paranoia makes any sense, but at least I can see where it's coming from in his case. As for myself, I don't dismiss the possibility of alteration, but have tried to point out that arguing about it endlessly does nothing but further fracture the critical community. Furthermore, I am a strong supporter of Jack White and Jim Fetzer on most issues. I don't think there is a more passionate believer in conspiracy than myself on this forum. Now, let's turn to your inexplicable support of Tom Purvis. You castigate Thompson, Miller and now me (who isn't even an anti-alterationist) as "lone nut wunderkinds," when we all believe in conspiracy (at least I think Josiah still does). Yet, in the same breath, you express support for someone who believes Oswald fired all the shots from that sixth floor window. Are you so enthralled with the idea of film alteration that it has taken on a greater importance to you than the identites and locations of the shooters? If you can't forgive Bill Miller and Josiah Thompson for opposing you on this issue, how can you forgive Purvis for accepting every conclusion of the Warren Report? If you support the incomprehensible ravings of Tom Purvis, you are far closer to a "lone nut wunderkind" than myself, Thompson, Miller or even Craig Lamson. As far as Purvis forgetting more about the assassination than I'll ever know, he has apparently forgotten the basic evidence, so you're at least partially right. I've been researching this case for about 35 years now. I know that what Purvis is saying is absolute nonsense. Assuming you know anything about the evidence yourself, why would you support someone like him? Can you understand why people might just very well suspect you of the same things you accuse others of?

I have tried, more than a few times, to point out the lunacy in the posts of Tom Purvis. Each time, I've waited in vain for somone on this forum to back me up. What does this guy have, that otherwise intelligent people can't see through his nonsense? Why do any of you think he has the least bit of credibility? Consider what he's saying; the Warren Commission "covered up" but all their essential conclusions were right. Oswald did all the shooting, but the films of the assassination were altered. The Carcano was a good weapon, and Oswald was a good shooter. His "research" is absurd, and flies in the face of all the evidence. Why will none of you post a simple "yeah, I totally agree?" I can't be the only one on this forum who feels this way. Purvis fills up entire threads with nonsensical answers to his own incomprehensble ramblings. That alone should annoy everyone. Josiah, Bill, Barb and other non-alterationists- if you consider Jim Fetzer and Jack White uncredible and embarrassing, what do you think of Purvis? Why don't you blast his ridiculous theories on this forum, the way you blast Fetzer and White? Josiah, aren't you bothered in the least by someone who thnks Oswald did all the shooting (and was a crack shot to boot), but maintains that the Warren Commission was "covering up" nonetheless and also believes the films were altered? Unless I've missed something, no one else on this forum has really taken Purvis to task for his numerous illogical and confusing posts. No one seems to mind his arrogance or his overwhelming air of self-imortance, which comes through in every word he writes. It honestly amazes me that he commands the least bit of respect here. I'm starting to feel like the little child in "The Emperor's New Clothes."

As I've stated, I'm an agnostic on the alteration question. However, I'd like to add my two cents, which any or all of you are free to reject and/or scoff at. To the alterationists, I'd like to state that I think you are placing too much emphasis, and expending too much time, on what is obviously a contentious issue, even among believers in conspiracy. As has been noted, there is abundance evidence that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963, and the clear indications of a massive cover up are everywhere throughout the official record. I acknowledge that you've raised some interesting points, and I do think there may quite well be something there. That being said, I don't think at this point that the continuing arguments are helping to heal what was already a bitterly divided critical community. To the non-alterationists, I'd like to state that the vitriol you expend on Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co. is often transparently personal. It's also baffling, in that you seem to consider their claims to be more objectionable than lone nutterism itself. Why do you think it's impossible that those who killed a sitting U.S. president and launched a cover up so extensive that it is still being promoted consistently by every organ of the mainstream media today, would alter film footage of the crime? I'm familiar with your interpretations and counterarguments, but do you acknowledge that such a thing was possible? On both sides, the animosity is ugly. Can Jim Fetzer and Jack White acknowledge the contrbution made by Josiah Thompson, in his important book "Six Seconds In Dallas?" Can Josiah Thompson acknowledge the crucial early studies Jack White did on the backyard photos, as well as the fact he was (I think) the first critic to study all the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, and theorize about his "many faces?" Can Josiah Thompson credit Jim Fetzer for putting together the important book "Assassination Science?" I readily admit that I'm a bit biased here; I tend to believe the worst about our corrupt leaders, and thus have an instinctive attraction for most conspiracy theories. Thus, I am bound to find myself agreeing with White and Fetzer more often than I would with Thompson (I think- because Josiah doesn't post much about anything besides the alteration issue, I'm not completely sure about his other beliefs, except that he did argue against a 911 conspiracy). I can see both sides of this question, in spite of that. I simply think that the debate over the credibility of the films is taking up way too much time and attention on this forum. Those are the thoughts of someone who is just observing this debate, and is not one of the heated participants. Can all of you remember the crucial points you do agree upon (at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right? Isn't that more imporant than whether the Zapruder film is legitimate? Of course, I'm not referring to Craig, who is plainly a lone nutter. He is almost certainly in disagreement with all of you about the essential facts of this case. Okay, I'm not used to being the voice of moderation. Let me get back to being a radical....

Well, the normally predictable alteration debate takes a turn into the Twilight Zone with the appearance of Tom Purvis. This guy is as long winded as he is incomprehensible. Really, folks, how do you take seriously someone who believes Oswald fired all the shots with the defective Carcano, dismisses the notion of a missed shot, claims the last shot was fired at Z350!, claims the Warren Commission engaged in a "cover up" that apparently was limited to his precious and bizarre shot sequence theory and.... believes in film alteration! Tell us, Tom, in 10,000 words or less- why would anyone have altered film of the assassination, if Oswald did all the shooting? Who altered it? Surely not those "mythological" figures you criticize true reseeachers from "chasing?" What do you think was altered, if you accept the impossible fairy tale of three shots from behind by Oswald? Oh wait, I know.... they edited out your brilliant shot sequence hypothesis. According to you, there is nothing else they could have edited out. Apparently the most important point of the whole assassination, in your eyes, is that the Warren Commission purposefully misidentified a missed shot, and further "covered up" a later third shot because..... Well, there is no rational "because," is there? Why, to make James Tague a bit player in the drama? For Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co., I ask- do you really want this guy on your side in the alterationist debate? To Josiah Thompson, Bill Miller and co., I ask- can you acknowledge that the postings of Purvis bring more embarrassment to legitimate researchers than the wildest alterationist claim? Can alterationists and non-alterationists alike come together at least on this, and call Puvis's ravings what they are- bogus and ridiculous?

I don't understand how anyone can believe that the most powerful forces in our society conspired to kill a sitting president of the United States in 1963, but other than that, have remained pretty well behaved since then (and apparently before that as well). Why would you place any trust in a mainstream media that has never told the truth about this event, and is still actively lying about it 45 years afterwards? I readily admit to being predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories. Not every theory, but many. This is for a very logical reason; I believe that power corrupts people, and that the political leadership we've had in my lifetime has left a lot to be desired, to put it kindly. I don't trust the motives of any politician, or any corporate executive, or anyone else with a great deal of money and influence. This is not out of ignorant prejudice, but based on a lifetime of observation and personal experience. Just as people like Len and Craig tend to instinctively accept the "official" story behind significant political events, I tend to instinctively doubt them. There is virtually nothing that I would put past our corrupt leaders. I believe them to be almost completely unprincipled and immoral. Yes, Virginia, there are conspiracies.

More long threads about the same subject, with more predictable disagreements between the usual suspects. As I've noted before, I'm an agnostic on the subject of film alteration. That being said, I think that discussions like this do little to further the cause we all (I think) are primarily here for. Can all of you who are debating this subject agree on one thing- that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy, and that therefore his death was the result of a conspiracy?

Craig makes the typical Rupublican-Rush Limbaugh argument; the rich pay a wildly disproportionate share of income taxes already. The problem is, under our illogical system, the rich also receive, as Tom noted, a wildly disproportionate share of income. How else can revenue fairly be raised, without those making most of the income paying more taxes? We are all ignoring the large and ugly elephant that is in the room; most workers aren't being paid enough to meet the rising costs of living. Instead of addressing this most crucial problem, our fearless leaders choose to reward the most powerful corporations in America by bailing out their failures with hundreds of billiions of (if not more than a trillion) dollars, courtesy of the taxpayers. I'm still waiting for the first failed small, or even medium sized business, to be invited to Congress so that they can be "bailed out" in the same manner. The idea, of course, of any of the struggling families and individuals in America asking Congress for a "bail out" would be scoffed at by Republicans and Democrats alike. We were assured, of course, that unless we rescued the banks from their own ineptitude and greed, our economy would collapse. Since we gave nearly a trillion dollars to these inhuman scum, the economy has grown much worse and it has been learned that (shockingly!) some of these elitist plutocrats treated themselves to some of that "bail out" money. Wow- who could have predicted that? If we had truely honest leaders, who were concerned with the welfare of all citizens, those bail outs would have come, if they came at all, with some huge contingencies. To the bankers, our Congress should have demanded they drastically slash management salaries, and lower interest rates, and give all those in trouble with their loans a "bail out" of their own, before receiving any taxpayer money. Instead, they demanded nothing and then acted surprised when these immoral banksters did what comes naturally to them. You might as well have dangled red meat before a hungry lion. In the case of our large American auto manufacturers, the situation is just as ridiculous. Why doesn't Congress demand that these incompetent clowns slash the prices of their products? Isn't that how the vaunted marketplace is supposed to work? If you have a product that is not selling- in this case because of decades of unreliability and far better alternatives available for nearly the same price- you have to consider cutting the price of your product. Congress, even after the recent debacle with those banksters taking some of the "bail out" funds for themselves, still will not demand that these auto executives slash their own salaries, elminate bonuses and cut the prices of their cars, which cannot compete in quality with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. What horrible "leadership!" Obama is taking baby steps in the right direction, but decades of propaganda have caused most middle class Americans to think that any "redistribution" of wealth will involve taking something from them. Of course, in any fair system, the sinfully wealthy- Gates, Buffet, etc.- could themselves provide a great stimulus package and still be multi-multi millionaires. Unfortunately, we have become a nation filled with people who simply don't care about others. This attitude was summed up nicely in Craig's comment about "allowing the weak to fail." This cold, clinical Darwinian view of society fits in nicely with the philosophy of an Ayn Rand. It certainly contradicts everything Jesus speaks of in the New Testament, but this doesn't stop many "Christians" from subscribing to it. Our economy is failing miserably, and even our corrupt leaders now must realize that there is simply no more blood in the turnip- they can't continue to ask those who can't financially survive now to "sacrifice" more, just so that glorious 1% can continue to live in clueless splendor.

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one. For him to say "so what?" to Ron's question about the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head defies credulity. Tell us, Tom, exactly why all those Dallas medical personnel were "mistaken" to such an unbelievable degree, all about the same "nonexistent" wound on the head of the most famous patient they had ever had, or ever would have. Like the Warren Commission, which you incomprehensibly castigate for "covering up" what is essentially your own position on the subject, you simply ignore evidence that contradicts your preordained conclusion (which unfortunately for you consists of virtually all evidence in the official record). From your gratuitous, incorrect use of exclamation points (maybe you ought to seek out a career as a comic book writer) to your dismissive attitude towards well documented facts (the unreliability of the carcano alleged to belong to Oswald, Oswald's mediocre shooting record, etc.), you offer little more than comic relief. You ought to thank everyone here for being so inexplicably patient with you.

Duke, It's shocking to learn that Gary Mack supports your position. Peter, Great post. I agree 100%. Carr was hardly the only witness to claim that their FBI report/WC testimony didn't accurately reflect what they'd stated. None of these witnesses knew each other, so there hardly can be an innocent explanation for all of them stating that the official record didn't accurately reflect their testimony. There were also reports from disparate witnesses about being intimidated in some way (told to "be quiet" or stick to the official story, etc.) by FBI agents. Maybe they were all, like Carr, lying for unknown reasons. Really, what is the motivation here for Carr to lie about what he'd seen? Did he profit at all from the experience? Btw, if he really was attacked and killed one of the attackers in the process, shouldn't there be some record of that? If so, at least we know he was telling the truth about that (plus, someone chose to attack him for some reason). As for the idea that "conspiracy theorists" are somehow part of a lucrative "industry," I'd like to know which pro-conspiracy critic has made any real money EVER from their assassination work. Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Jim Marrs and David Lifton all had books that sold well. I think all except Lane are members of this forum; perhaps they'd like to give us an idea of how "lucrative" their books turned out to be. My guess is that no conspiracy writer has ever made, or is ever likely to make, the kind of money that Posner and Bugliosi made from their apologist works. As I've said before, I don't understand why Duke is going to such lengths as investigating Carr's military service in such detail, in order to discredit him as an assassination witness. The quibbling over the color of the Rambler, for instance, is ridiculous. One said green, the other gray. Some shades of green and gray are very similar. Besides, the important thing is that he reported seeing a Rambler, in the same place, and at the same time that several other witnesses, all unknown to each other, reported it. That's much more significant, in my view, than his exact description of the driver or the exact color of the car.

Bill, Yes, Tom Purvis and DVP do agree essentially on the basic facts of the assassination; three shots by Lee Harvey Oswald, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, with that ridiculous Mannlicher Carcano. I also cannot imagine why Tom would not consider Von Pein a comrade on this subject.

Duke, Perhaps you don't realize it, but you often come off as abrasive in your posts, especially when someone disagrees with you. Perhaps this is your style, or perhaps you don't care. This is one of the things that drives people away from these forums. No one has stronger opinions than I do, but I feel that it's possible to debate and disagree without being arrogant or dismissive. I've been studying this case for about 35 years now. Many here have at least that much experience, if not more. I think you're scrutinizing Carr, and now Worrell, to a degree that defies logic. If you succeed in converting a majority of people on this forum to your view that Carr could not have seen what he said he saw, and neither could Worrell, what have you accomplished? As Antti has pointed out, the best you possibly have shown is that Carr might have been inconsistent. You also seem to ignore the fact that several witnesses claimed that their FBI reports and/or Warren Commission testimony had been altered and did not accurately reflect what they'd said. Bernice did a good job in questioning the credibility of Romeck and Rackley, the witnesses you used to discredit Worrell. In my opinion, she cast as much doubt on their word as you did on Worrell's. I also agree with Bernice's view that talking to Worrell's relatives is meaningless, at least in terms of trying to prove anything conclusively. I've seen the interview Mark Oakes conducted with Worrell's mother some years ago. In my view, she had really nothing substantial to offer. Mark never brought up the fact that her son had long been included in the list of strange deaths related to the assassination. Maybe he felt uncomfortable bringing this up, but I didn't even sense that she realized her son was the source of any real interest. I stand by what I said regarding referring to Worrell as Dickey. Regardless of whether or not his family called him that, what other witness has been referred to on this forum, by you or anyone else, by their first name? Especially a nickname like Dickey? Considering the effort you're expending in an attempt to discredit him as a witness, it's only logical to assume that the unusual use of such a familiar nickname is meant to further demean him. I'm not suggesting you're doing that, I'm only saying that it's a reasonable assumpton to make. Btw, have you shown any of his family members the posts you've written about him?

Daniel, I wanted to comment on your earlier post, a response to Bill Kelly that revealed some personal information about your present situation. I think it's a sad commentary on the state of our society that an articulate, thoughtful person like you is forced, by economic necessity, to only communicate with others on the internet through a free 30 day AOL deal. I don't know why so many idiots and dishonest clowns have the high-paying jobs they do, and possess such undeserved influence over the lives of others. Meanwhile, others like you somehow slip through the cracks and wind up doing real work for less money. I feel for you and hope that your situation improves soon and someone gives you an opportunity to showcase your considerable knowledge.

Duke, I think you're a thorough researcher, and usually admire your work. However, I don't understand why you are spending so much time on trying to discredit the likes of Carr and Worrell. Seems like a lot of energy to expend on something that is ultimately pretty insignificant. Neither Carr nor Worrell are around to defend themselves. I think Bernice did a fine job in pointing out your selective use of witnesses who may be no more believable than the two you are so passionately trying to discredit. I don't think you even addressed what she was saying, let alone attempted to refute her points. I also have to say that I find your persistent referral to Worrell as "Dickey" to be a bit disquieting. I don't really know why, it just sounds demeaning and is, imo, unnecessary. I'm assuming this is what his family called him, but obviously you didn't know him personally. Why keep using this rather childish nickname when referring to him? I don't know, it just sounds disrespectful to me. The early critics demolished the credibility of many witnesses in Dealey Plaza. If the lives of Craig, Carr and Worrell are going to be examined under a microscope by researchers like you, at some point we're going to run out of any credible witnesses to the assassination. I certainly don't mean to offend you with my comments; on the contrary, I hope you take it as constructive criticism. I respect you and find your posts informative, but I do think you're a bit off base here.

I am constantly amazed that anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously. Really, folks, you have to stop encouraging him. Look at him now- having the gall to lecture and belittle Jack White, who's forgotten more about the assassination than this guy will ever know. Once more, for those of you who continue to play along with him; Purvis believes Oswald fired all the shots. He thinks they all came from the "sniper's nest" in the sixth floor TSBD window. He thinks the Carcano was a good choice as weapon. He thinks Oswald was a crack shot. Yet, despite all this, he claims the Warren Report was a giant lie. He also, I thought, somehow believed in film alteration at the same time, almost a kind of Orwellian doublethink, but after reading some of his posts in this thread, perhaps now he doesn't. Regardless, I'm sure he'll explain himself clearly and concisely. Why am I apparently the only here who thinks his posts are ridiculous?

Duke, There is no doubt you're a thorough researcher, and I commend you for that. Richard Carr is fast becoming the new Roger Craig, in the eyes of some researchers. I've defended Craig on this forum and on Lancer, from what I consider to unfair attacks on his character. What I question now is whether or not any witness in or around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 can survive the kind of scrutiny you've subjected Carr to. Carr certainly wouldn't be the first man to exaggerate his war record. If he did indeed lie about that, it doesn't necessarily follow that he lied about what he saw in the moments after the assassination. I don't know what he saw that day, but I don't find him less believable than the witnesses the Warren Commission used to buttress their official fairy tale. The original band of critics raked the likes of Howard Brennan, Helen Markham and William Whaley over the coals. In my view, they completely discredited them as witnesses. Several newer generation researchers now consider Jean Hill to be an untrustworthy witness. Assuming Roger Craig has now also been discredited, along with Richard Carr, exactly what witness are we left with whose account can be trusted? Keeping in mind that so many researchers now reject all the witnesses who testified that the limousine either stopped or slowed down considerably during the shooting, what point is there in quoting eyewitness testimony any longer? We have filmed evidence that almost all attention, from bystanders and police, was drawn to the grassy knoll area just after the shots were fired. No amount of discreditation can change that. That's a good thing, because otherwise I expect we'd be having researchers suggesting that no one actually thought shots were being fired from that area. Carr, like Craig and Hill and several others, was a fallible human being. I find his account of what he saw to be in line with what others reported that day, and am not quite willing yet to throw him in with all the ridiculous apologist witnesses for the Warren Commission.

Don, Keep posting this stuff- some of us appreciate it. We certainly need to give Obama a chance; after all, he hasn't even taken office yet. That being said, I have the same kind of reservations about him that I had about Clinton. I expect to see more of these allegations from right-wing sources in the next four years, much as they came nonstop during the Clinton administration. The left-wing sources that produced the same kinds of allegations against Bush during his administration will now adopt a much more tolerant posture towards Obama, much as the right-wing sources adopted a much more tolerant posture towards Bush after Clinton left office. And so the bogus "two party" game continues.

Religious and ethnic warfare in the Middle East has been ongoing for centuries. It is typical of the United States to believe it can "solve" these problems with our great collective virtue. All we've accomplished by our slavish devotion to Israel is to create intense hatred in almost the entire Arabic world. During the eight years of Dubya's administration, our one-sided, meddlesome foreign policy has undoubtedly created countless new terrorists in Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. In my view, the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis has been deplorable. That being said, the best thing the U.S. can do at this point is to adopt an even-handed policy in the Middle East (and elsewhere around the world). We have more than enough problems in our own country- we should work on solving them before we start to "reform" the rest of the world.

Al, It's great to have you here. We do appreciate your participation. A few quick questions. First, who do you think killed President Kennedy? Second, what did David Ferrie have to say about the assassination? Did he think there was a conspiracy? Thanks.

Thomas, Paul beat me to the punch; I was also going to mention Vincent Salandria's theory, which I now subscribe to. The backyard photos, much like the nearly pristine "magic" bullet, the witnesses from Oswald's infancy and early childhood tracked down and deposed by the Warren Commission and so many other things, point clearly towards a coverup that was intentionally inept. Many of us believe that very powerful and sophisticated forces conspired to kill JFK. It is beyond belief that they couldn't, and wouldn't, have covered up their deed in a much more intelligent manner. For instance, if they planted a bullet at Parkland in order to implicate Oswald, why wouldn't they have fired it into something first, so that it at least appeared like a bullet that had caused seven wounds? Even a small child would know better than to plant a bullet that looked practically new. The same thing goes for Viola Peterman and other totally irrelevant witnesses, who were tracked down and questioned by the same Warren Commission that couldn't figure out it should interview Admiral Burkley, for instance. No group of bright young legal minds, like those who comprised the staff of the Commission, would have thought for an instant about questioning witnesses whose only connection to the assassination was a minor relationship with an extremely young Oswald. The reason why Salandria's theory is relevant here is because the backyard photos are so obviously unnatural and faked. It doesn't take a photo expert to see that, as you point out, neither Oswald nor anyone else, even if they could physically do it, would be likely to stand at such an angle. Logically, of course, no assassin who would constantly deny the crimes attributed to him would ever pose for a picture with the weapon(s) he was going to use, as well as provide a motive (commie newspapers) all in one awfully convenient set of pictures. An intelligent group of conspirators-as these undoubtedly were-would have constructed photographs that looked a lot more natural. At the very least, they wouldn't have set the body at such an impossible angle. They also would have aligned the size of Oswald's head correctly and been more careful with the shadows. But that's all own news. The important thing is, imho, the conspirators did it in such a sloppy way because they wanted it to be discovered and become a source of controversy. I can't provide an ultimate answer as to why any conspirators would want to advertise what they'd done, but I believe it's pretty clear that's what they did. The simplest explanation is that it's a sort of boasting; kind of a "yeah, we killed him- so what are you going to do about it?" Just my two cents worth.

Although I think we really can't know exactly who was behind the assassinaton at this point, if I were to speculate.... I would say that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy, involving the most powerful forces in our society. There was no one man who okayed the idea, rather it was a consortium of elite individuals and groups arriving at a consensus. I think Oliver Stone portrayed it pretty accurately in "JFK." I would include J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, McGeorge Bundy, Emory Roberts, William Greer and Roy Kellerman, as the most visible individuals whose actions reveal they had prior knowledge of the assassination. I tend to agree with Jim Garrison, and think that Oswald was probably some kind of undercover agent who was told to infiltrate a group that was plotting to assssinate the president. This "ground level" of conspirators would have included Jack Ruby, Guy Bannister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. The true masterminds behind it were probably attached to a shadowy international group, perhaps something like Permindex. As for motives, I believe there were many. The primary motive would have been JFK's decision to start withdrawing troops from Vietnam. Add to this his animosity towards the old guard in the CIA, which apparently went so far as to cause him to question whether the agency ought to be abolished; his war against the Mafia (the only administration to ever really go after them); his American University "peace" speech, which threatened to undermine the Cold War mindset completely; his even more dangerous speech about openess in government and against censorship and secret societies; his apparent disputes with David Ben Gurion over Israel's development of nuclear weapons. JFK had more powerful enemies than any president in American history. That's my two cents worth. Speculation aside, I believe that the demonstrably massive and ongoing coverup proves that there were extremely powerful forces behind the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.