Don Jeffries

As I'm sure you know, the sightings of "Oswald" at two different firing ranges have long been considered, by many researchers, to represent examples of an imposter posing as a future assassin. Coupled with several other incidents outside of firing ranges, this has led many of us to believe that someone was impersonating Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination. In no way, shape or form does Wood's testimony constitute credible evidence that Oswald fired a rifle after he left the Marines, fresh off his "rather poor" shooting performance. Your lengthy, convoluted doubletalk regarding the head wound(s) can't change the fact that every doctor and nurse at Parkland Hospital reported the exact same gaping hole, in the exact same spot on the back of JFK's head. Either ALL of those professional medical people were wildly mistaken, in the EXACT same manner, or all of them lied knowingly about the head wound of the most important patient they'd ever treated, or were ever likely to treat. Maybe they were all trying to distort the record to protect Lee Harvey Oswald, and blame the crime on some imaginary shooter from the front. It also can't change the fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who treated JFK's throat wound, described it as wound of "entry." Entry wound and exit wounds are easy for trained surgeons to identify. It's very unlikely that an experienced surgeon made such a sloppy error. Perhaps he, too, was covering up for that supposedly "lone" nut Oswald, and trying again to pin the blame for the crime on some patsy firing from the front. The majority of witnesses reported that shots were fired from the grassy knoll area, not the TSBD (this includes some who were actually INSIDE the TSBD, which is incredible, if shots were really being fired above them in the same building). Film footage in the immediate aftermath of the shooting shows witnesses and police swarming up the knoll area, towards the railroad tracks. Little or no attention seems to be directed at the TSBD. That makes absolutely no sense, if all shots were fired from there. No "echo chamber" effect in the world could make all those witnesses mistaken, just like the Dallas docters were, in the EXACT same way. Assassination 101- JFK's head is driven backwards violently at Zapruder frame 313. This is probably the main reason most of us became believers in conspiracy in the first place. Any 10 year old can tell you that such a reaction is not consistent with a shot entering from behind. The laws of physics trump any "jet propulsion" or "neuro muscular effect" nonsense. To believe your contention that all shots were fired from behind, one has to reject the eyewitness observations of all those trained medical staff, the physical reaction of JFK to the head shot, the eyewitness reports that shots were fired from the front and the photographic evidence that reveals virtually all attention in the first moments after the shooting was directed at the knoll area. As I stated earlier, there is no credible evidence that Oswald ever ordered any rifle. Someone ordered a rifle to a P.O. box, under the name of "Hidell." The whole "Hidell" alias is bogus, imho; the Selective Sevice card with a photo on it is enough to show that Oswald couldn't possibly have used it for any real identification purposes. Your faith in that Mannlicher Carcano is admirable; perhaps you should have been there to reassure the original expert marksmen that they needn't fear for their saftey when they refused to test fire it until it had been repaired. The weapon was old, defective and not anything that an aspiring assasin would opt for. The fact that it was ordered through an easily traceable P.O. box, under an alias, when a better weapon could have been obtained with no trouble on almost any street corner in Texas, just adds to the absurdity of the situation. Okay, I tried. I'm not going to go over the basics of this case with you again. You must know these essential facts- why do you insist on promoting a theory that is actually more ridiculous than the official story?

Mark, Unlike a lot of researchers now, I don't necessarily accept any of the official story. This includes anything about the Mannlicher Carcano. First, it hasn't been established that Oswald purchased the rifle. The whole question of "Hidell" is shrouded in mystery. I tend to think that the "Hidell" alias was concocted as part of the framing of Oswald. Peter Dale Scott was the first to point out, I believe, that the Selective Service card Oswald was allegedly carrying, with his photo and the name of "Hidell" on it, would have been of no use to anyone actually trying to use it, since real Selective Service cards had no photos on them. The early critics went into great depth on the whole question of the Klein's ad, which rifle would have been ordered, etc. They also examined the post office box, allegedly ordered by Oswald under Hidell's name, and the reasonable doubt about that (not to mention the common sense questions of why anyone would have ordered his weapons through the mail, easily traced to a p.o. box, when they could be easily bought locally). There is a lot of confusion there, to say the least. Even if Tom has a different scenario than the Warren Commission's (and it isn't much different), he is still promoting the "Oswald-did-it-alone" theory, which works against the evidence as we know it. There is abundant evidence that JFK was shot at least once, and probably twice, from the front. Honest research cannot compel one to believe all shots came from behind. We have the laws of physics, not to mention most of the eyewitness testimony, that tells us at least one shot came from somewhere around the grassy knoll. These are very old, familiar arguments, and I'm sure you've heard them all before. Still, they bear repeating, when someone so adamantly disputes them. The only thing we know for certain about Oswald's shooting ablility are his test scores as a marine. They show him to have deteriorated in ability over the course of time, with his last score being, in the words of the government itself, representative of "a rather poor shot." None of the government (or mainstream media) expert shooters, in all the "reconstructions" of the shooting (with none being really identical), have been able to match Oswald's alleged feat. Even if you throw in two extra seconds, as Tom does (this argument was started by lone nutter extraordinaire Gerald Posner, and is not credible), it is still a dubious proposition that a "rather poor shot" could do the job (remember, there is absolutely no credible evidence that Oswald ever shot a gun again after leaving the marines, fresh off his poor showing on the firing range). I bear no animosity towards Tom, and certainly not towards you. I started trying to read his posts a long time ago, but had to give up because of their length and unclarity. I think that a lot of great citizen researchers have shown, over the course of time, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot anyone on November 22, 1963. To believe otherwise is, imho, to work against truth and justice.

Thanks for posting that TCI article, Jack. I remember it well. I'd love to hear what Gary Mack thinks about that article now. As for the shooting itself, I've always had a few questions about it. First, the motive is absurd and laughingly Hollywood-like. Only in America, do assassins shoot at political figures to impress an underage actress. I guess it's irresponsible to believe that a politician could be shot at for political reasons, at the behest of political enemies. Second, why have we never seen a television interview with John Hinckley? Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't believe this guy has ever been filmed giving any kind of interview. That's really strange to me; he's a living, breathing man who attempted to assassinate the president. Why wouldn't some news organization want to interview him?

Steve, If you can figure out what Tom Purvis is saying, please let the rest of us know. From what little I can gather, he believes Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, with that old, defective weapon (Tom thinks he was actually a crack shot, and that the weapon was actually solid and reliable). He also thinks the Warren Commission engaged in a deliberate cover up, but since he supports their impossible conclusions, it is hard to determine exactly what it is he feels they were covering up. Finally, I believe he thinks the Zapruder film (maybe other films, as well) were altered. Again, since he supports the official version of the shooting, precisely why they would alter the film(s) is something only he can explain. As for all the other stuff in his countless, incredibly long posts, I couldn't tell you.

I asked Vince Palamara-whose work on the Secret Service is second to none-about Rybka back in 2005. He verified what Roy says about Rybka dying, on December 25, 1975 (according to agent Lawson). He also told me, via email, that he tried to contact Rybka's family in 1996 by email, but they never responded. In another email, Vince stated that Debra Conway had told him Rybka's family had contacted her at some point, but when he tried to follow up, he "got nothing from her." Certainly, this is fertile ground for research. If, as many of us believe, the Secret Service was in "stand down" mode that day in Dallas, then Rybka appears to have been out of the loop, from the looks of that video.

I'd almost forgotten how incomprehensible your posts inevitably are. But, in their own way, I guess they're entertaining.

I think that the distrust assassination researchers have for one another, even to the point of labeling each other as disinformation agents, has been counter productive, to say the least. That being said, Gary Mack has probably become the most visible assassination researcher of all, and as such is a public figure and fair game for our poisonous barbs, at least as far as they are related to this subject (don't support any attacks on his character). Gary Mack was a prolific poster at the old JFK Research Forum, back in the late '90s. I don't believe he was in his present position at the Sixth Floor Museum then, but I know he was affiliated with it in some capacity, because other posters frequently referred to that and one of them, who'd worked with Gary some years before that at the Museum, had a real grudge against him and basically accused him of being some kind of disinformation agent. I asked Gary on several occasions to provide some rationale for his present views about the assassination, which were obviously far different than they'd been back in the 1980s, when I'd read a number of his articles in Penn Jones' The Continuing Inquiry. Gary never gave me a straight answer, and I still don't understand that. The only reason he ever provided was along the lines of "I found that the critics had made a lot of mistakes." Anyone with his knowledge of this case, who'd felt the way he once did, should be able to point to something a lot more substantial than that. Also, as I pointed out to him, the most irresponsible critic you can name never made the kinds of "mistakes" the Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas police did. When I first discovered that forum a decade ago, I was thrilled to be able to communicate in some way with names I greatly respected, such as Jack White and Gary Mack. I don't believe I was the only one to be disillusioned to discover Mack defending the untenable official story so often. At this point, Gary has become an LNer in public, while maintaining a tepid belief in conspiracy in private. Our last email exchange centered around his participation in television shows, which are seen by millions of viewers unversed with the subject, and why he never once expressed any doubts about the lone assassin nonsense or brought up all the countless errors made by the government "investigators" (while gladly jumping on any perceived error made by private "conspiracy theorists"). I agree with those who say Gary is unfailingly polite and helpful. He is, indeed, from my limited experience. That being said, he is just about the only one of us who is ever given any kind of public forum, and thus has an obligation to tell the truth. That is inconsistent with being an accessory to the kind of distorted and dishonest fluff exemplified by the likes of "Inside The Target Car."

Pamela, Your question about why anyone would want to use a t.v. show to "prove" anything is a great one. Since it's demonstrably true that a lot of someones have used television to continually try and "prove" that JFK was killed by Oswald alone, I can only think of one reasonable answer. There was a huge conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK, and those who run the television networks-even now, 45 years later-must maintain the coverup in order to keep their lucrative positions. I remember being struck at how vast this conspiracy must have been when I watched an episode of "Quantum Leap" back in 1991 or so. Timed to respond to the furur surrounding Oliver Stone's "JFK," this episode used its sci-fi platform to fully endorse the official story, after teasing its viewers about "conspiracy" in countless promos. They didn't fool me. Just imagine a conspiracy so important that a sci-fi television program must conform to the coverup perpetuating it, nearly 30 years afterwards. I have been similarly struck over the years by "controversial" celebrities like Howard Stern and Penn Jillette, when they volunteered their strong beliefs in the lone-assassin myth. Even Kevin Costner, before he was cast as Garrison in "JFK," asked that his own opinion that Oswald acted alone be made a part of the script for his movie "Bull Durham." I read an interview with him where he stated that he felt so strongly about this that he asked that his character be allowed to state it, during a rant that has nothing to do with the subject. Presumably, he converted to the conspiracy view after being hired for "JFK," but who knows? He's an actor, after all. I do know that Stone's first choice for Garrison, Harrison Ford, refused the role because he disagreed with the conspiracy premise. I never liked him anyway.... I don't know how Nigel Turner got "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" to air so often on the History Channel. Curiously, after the now banned LBJ episode aired a single time (mentioned earlier by Bernice), TMWKK doesn't seem to be a regular part of the History Channel lineup any longer. It used to be broadcast a few times a year- I haven't seen it on television for a while. While there have been a few minor programs broadast on smaller networks in the 1980s-early 1990s (a college thesis turned into a documentary on the single bullet theory called "Reasonable Doubt" being one of the best), TMWKK really stands alone for a television documentary, just as "JFK" pretty much stands alone in Hollywood history. I think the program Michael mentioned earlier might have been part of one of the later episodes of TMWKK. The mention of Gary Mack was appropriate. He has indeed turned into THE expert on the subject, in the eyes of the mainstream press. Many people who post on this and other forums seem to feel the same way, as he is often quoted as the ultimate source on just about everything assassination related, with little recognition that he has a clear agenda and is not exactly unbiased on the subject.

Here's an insightful article about the "change" our new president is bringing us: bloomberg.com

Obama didn't wait long to make his first crucial appointment. Those of us concerned with the continuation of the nonsensical "war on terror" are not exactly comforted by his choice. Rahm Emmanuel will be Obama's chief of staff. Emmanuel is, I believe, an Israeli citizen. He voted for the invasion of Iraq and can almost certainly be expected to pressure Obama to not only continue our meddling in mid-east affairs, but to attack Iran as well. I doubt very seriously that he will be in favor of rescinding the odious Patriot Act, which ought to be one of Obama's very first "changes." If some of the other names I've heard mentioned as potential cabinet members, like Richard Rubin and Warren Buffet, actually join Obama's administration, then I think the "change" we were promised is not likely to be meaningful. Obama has an incredibly difficult job ahead of him. I certainly wish him the best, and hope he succeeds. However, when he names someone like Emmanuel as his chief of staff, the doubts I've had about him all along just grow stronger.

Anything that appears on a television network about this subject has to support the official fairy tale. Other than the wonderful "The Men Who Killed The President" series, everything that has appeared on television about the assassination, since the moment Oswald was killed, has been a clear and obvious part of the coverup. We are now 45 years removed from this event. What possible reason does someone producing a documentary about the JFK assassination have, at this point, to continue distorting the truth? For those of you who don't think there was a massive conspiracy, with the most powerful forces in the world behind it, how do you explain this continuing adherence to an account that any average first grader could see was impossible? The people writing and producing this stuff were either not born in 1963, or very small. Unlike the Tom Wickers and Dan Rathers of the journalism world, they shouldn't have an axe to grind here- they aren't merely covering up their own woefully inadequate performance in covering the crime of the century. Obviously, the powerful forces behind JFK's death still exist, or otherwise there would be no purpose behind the continuing coverup. I don't think the Discovery Channel is producing this sort of unbelievable nonsense in order to protect some long dead anti-Castro or renegade CIA elements. The tact of using "technology" in order to sway those unknowledgable about the facts in this case, began in earnest on a "NOVA" PBS special back in the late 1980s. Walter Cronkite was trotted out one more time to lie about the assassination, and we were assured that the then new computer graphics could easily prove that such things as the single-bullet theory were possible. Since then, the likes of Dale Myers have used convoluted "technology" and seemingly impressive graphics to prop up the worn out, absurd Warren Commission fairy tale. There is no independent press in this country outside of the internet. When it comes to subjects like the JFK assassination, there is no "left" or "right." Everyone with a public platform (congressmen, reporters, producers) agree that there was no conspiracy.

The fact that leading members of the so-called "opposition" party support Obama proves what I've been saying; there are no significant differences between the only two political parties we have to "choose" from. I was listening to a speech Obama gave a few days ago, and was struck by two things; what a magnificant communicator he is, and how broad and rhetorical his words were. I also was repulsed by the crowd when they started to chant "USA! USA!" in the background. That's a sure fire sign to me, anyhow, that the speaker is catering to the mob's ugliest impulses. Obama's words are wonderful, and when he speaks broadly about an America where all people must come together, "resolve their differences," it is moving. However, it also is meaningless. Neither Obama nor any other politician can make people "come together." I also hate it when politicians speak glowingily of "the American people," and Obama does this just as much as McCainiac or any other leading politician. He also stressed that "we all must sacrifice." Yeah, I've heard that many times before. We need a Huey Long to bluntly point out just who is truly capable of doing the sacrificing. I also caught a bit of a third party candidates debate on CSPAN. What a refreshing thing it was to hear important issues actually discussed. Ralph Nader was absolutely brilliant, when he pointed out that both major candidates are in total agreement on all important issues. The "war on terror" for instance, is not likely to end anytime soon under President Obama. Someone needs to point out that, in any war, one must have an identifiable enemy. The "terrorists" we are supposedly fighting are not readily identifiable, and anyone named Muhammed or Nasser is deemed suspect. We have already been sold down the river once again, with the odious bank bailout, which will have repercussions for decades to come. Obama and McCainiac both supported it. I don't know how I'm going to vote right now- what a "choice."

Duke, Once again, I commend you on your excellent analytic skills. Thanks! Raymond, I actually agree with you again here. I don't necessarily trust any part of the official story of Oswald's post assassination movements. Your hypothesis about the fleeing "Oswald" perhaps ducking into other doorways first, without getting the desired reaction, is thought provoking. Maybe indeed Brewer became an important witness because he responded the way the conspirators wanted someone to. Who knows? This continues to be a very productive discussion.

Duke, good job again of condensing things so well. I am curious about Brewer's vivid memory of Oswald buying a pair of shoes from him a month before. Would it be common for a shoe salesman to remember such detail; exact make, exact price, from a single sale a month previously? Especially from an individual who was usually described as being quiet and aloof? What would be so memorable about Oswald? One other question concerning the identities of the other movie patrions in the theater that day; has anyone ever come forth to publicize their being in attendance there, using their ticket stubs as proof? I would think that such a ticket stub would be very valuable to collectors, if not to any participants in a real investigation. Have any such stubs ever appeared, on Ebay or elsewhere? I would also agree with Raymond that the accused need not prove anything. It is up to the state to prove its case, and critics have been showing how absurd that proof is for several decades now. This discussion has been informative and enjoyable.

John, John McDonnell sounds like a candidate I'd love to vote for; too bad we don't have many American politicians like that. I've been proposing a "2-2-2-" solution, within my very limited sphere of contacts. Who knows, if I rant long enough, maybe it will eventually find its way to someone's ears who actually has a public platform. Basically, the "2-2-2" would be a watered down version of the Biblical Year of Jubilee. Every debt held by individuals (mortgages, credit cards, car loans, student loans, etc.) would have their balance cut in half, their interest rates cut in half and their terms cut in half. I feel this would greatly improve consumer confidence, although obviously it would anger all creditors. Maybe a special tax break could be given to those creditors to at least somewhat offset their profits being sliced in half. We need to do something, because the situation is growing dire. I can't imagine what people aged 65 are going through, who had planned to retire during the past few months and have seen about half of their pensions disappear while they were waiting to collect them. This pension drain, combined with the Social Security disaster that is bound to happen once the Baby Boomers really start to retire, ensures that the problems are only going to get worse unless our elected officials do something which is apparently almost impossible for them; actually act in the best interests of the people. They won't even demand means testing for Social Security, or at least tax all income. Most people are astonished when I tell them that only the first $100,000 of income is taxed for Social Security. Just imagine how much money can be brought into the system simply by taxing the entire incomes of Bill Gates, Warren Bufett, Donald Trump, etc. Talk about a backwards version of the graduated income tax! I hope you're right about Obama, because it certainly looks like he will be elected easily now. At any rate, he has to be better than Bush.

Our corrupt and incompetent leaders are seemingly clueless about how to solve this tremendous economic crisis, which is threatening to topple economies all over the world. Their incredibly stupid trillion dollar banker bailout has only made things worse. Bush and co. can try and persuade the people that "this will take some time," but that ridiculous explanation simply won't cut it. Wall Street always responds to what it perceives to be good or bad news, and rises or falls accordingly. So, when the "good news" about the trillion dollar bailout being passed by Congress arrived, the markets should have soared upwards. Instead, they crashed down and have continued to slide ever since. I've lost almost half of my 401K since the beginning of the year. With so many people in that situation, eventually even our greedy leaders are going to have to address the real issue here; far too much wealth concentrated in far too few hands.

This is all so ridiculous. Our economy is literally collapsing and all the two presidential candidates can do is try to claim the other one consorted with boogeymen in the past or is consorting with someone who used to be a boogeyman. The one overriding issue right now is the horrific state of our economy. Both of these "opposing" candidates supported the trillion dollar banker bailout, which has only made a bad situation worse. Why don't either of them admit this was a terribly wrong thing to do, and propose something else?

Len, It's true that I am usually a stickler about our leaders at least speaking English proficiently. I am also not normally offended by language, but "retarded" is one word I take offense to. If you had someone you love very much that was born with Downs Syndrome, you might be troubled by the cavalier use of that word, too. Cynthia McKinney was expressing a view that most people would find outrageous. That's one of the reasons I find her so refreshing; she doesn't shy away from those dreaded "conspiracy theories." I think there is much to investigate about what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. At the very least, the snail-like response from the government was inexcusable. If you don't think the mainstream media (outside of Fox News) is biased in favor of Democrats, what do you say to all those polls that indicate an overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democratic? If I remember correctly, I believe that about 90% of all reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. The entertainment industry is even worse. Just watch a show like "Saturday Night Live"- it will never accord any liberal public figure the kind of treatment that a Linda Tripp received back in the 1990s, or that Sarah Palin is receiving now. Al Gore has a stiff, pompous air about him that is perfect for satire; instead, he is portrayed as some kind of superhero on t.v. shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy." Remember, I am pointing this out as a total independent. I was raised as a Democrat, and I have no affinity for Republicans. Fox News is obviously biased in favor of Republicans. That being said, I am no fan of mainstream Democrats, epitomized by the likes of Gore or Joe Biden. I don't agree with everything Larouche says, but his views are original and thought provoking. He'd certainly make a better president than the ones we've had since JFK.

I usually agree with your political comments but you have completely lost me with your defence of Sarah Palin. I have no interest in her 19th century views on abortion, sex before marriage, evolution, etc. However, I am concerned with her views on foreign policy. Especially when you consider the age of John McCain which means she could become president of the US. In a recent CBS interview with Katie Couric she said the US had already won in Iraq and that the war provided a template for other conflicts. She went onto say that "a surge in Afghanistan will also lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq". In the same interview she said she fully supported Israel as they were the "good guys" in the Middle East and they should not be held back if they wanted to bomb Iran. It seems that she is even further to the right than George Bush who reportedly warned Israel's leadership recently that Washington would not support such an attack. John, I usually agree with you, too, so let me try to clarify what I'm saying. First and foremost, I think John McCain is one of the most dangerous of all the odious career politicians we have in Washington, D.C. I would hesitate to vote for him even if my political hero Huey Long was his VP candidate. That being said, I do think he made a surprisingly good choice in Palin. She is a real "outsider," who was totally unknown outside of Alaska, even to political junkies like me. She also sounds more like a populist than a neo-con, even when she's trying to support McCainiac. I get the distinct impression that she doesn't really support much of his platform, and/or believes she can "change" him with her input. Of course, I could be totally wrong; maybe she is just an empty suit that mesmerizes people with her looks and personality. It wouldn't be the first time I've been fooled by a pretty face. I watched some of the VP debate tonight, and must admit that Palin is much better in small doses. I become very irritated when average Americans, let alone political leaders, consistenly mispronounce the names of countries like Iran and Iraq. Palin uses the most ignorant pronunciation ("I-Rack), which really turned me off. Why can't these so-called leaders say "E-Rock" or "E-Ron," which are the correct pronunciations? Whenever I hear someone say "I-Rack" or "I-Ran," I immediately think of the old term "ugly American." Palin's midwestern-type accent also makes her sound more ignorant than I suspect she is (for instance, she leaves the "s" off of words like turning, saying "turnin" instead). All in all, after listening to part of that debate, I'm less smitten with her. However, I still think she's been treated very unfairly by the mainstream media, and I was hardly impressed with Biden. Watching these two "opposing" candidates "debate" was like attending meetings with upper management. Afterwards, you feel optimistic, because they really seem to agree with you, and promise to address your concerns. It takes awhile before you realize that nothing has changed, and they aren't intent on addressing any of those concerns. I'd like to have a dollar for every time Palin and Biden said "middle class" and "the American people." You'd think they were honestly slugging it out over who cares the most for ordinary folks like us. Don't forget that both Biden and Palin (via McCainiac) support the atrocious trillion dollar banker bailout. Btw, Hillary Clinton voted for it, too. More of that lovely "bipartisanship" the media salivates over so often. I don't how I will vote, frankly. Either I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama (yet again doing the "lesser of two evils" thing) or go with Nader or some other third-party candidate.

Actually Don it was sort of a trick question but not one in the vein of “who’s buried in Grant’s tomb”. You see there were four busts and not one of them was the author of the Declaration of Independence. They were of Washington, Franklin, Lafayette and John Paul Jones. He asked “Who are these people?” Admittedly he should have recognized the first two but from the video it is hard to tell how much they resembled the traditional portraits of them. Perhaps he was tired, perhaps he was referring to the latter two, I doubt I’d recognize them, would you? The story was covered by the NY Times and perhaps other outlets. In any case his inability to recognize a bust of Washington doesn’t call his ability, if the need arose, to be president. By contrast Palin never seemingly having heard of the “Bush doctrine” and McCain’s repeatedly making the same gaffs call into question their grasp of world affairs. Thanks for clearing up my faulty memory, Len. I apologize for confusing the details. You must be really on the ball to get all that information about a C-SPAN broadcast all those years ago. However, what I said still stands- while Lafayette and John Paul Jones would not be readily recognizable to most people, Washington and Franklin ought to be. Regardless, if the vice-president in question had been Dan Quayle, there is no doubt he would have been ridiculed for his stupidity. This is no endorsement of Quayle or any other Republican-I don't like them any more than most Democrats-but I just think they are treated differently by the establishment press.

I think we make a mistake in trusting ANY part of the official account regarding Oswald's post assassination movements. You can throw in his pre-assassination actions, too. While Wesley Frazier and his sister were troublesome witnesses before the WC, since they insisted the package they saw Oswald carrying couldn't have been long enough to carry the alleged murder weapon, they still are the only ones who reported him carrying such a package into work. According to notes from his unrecorded and thus unreliable interrogation sessions after the assassination, Oswald supposedly vehmently denied carrying such a package. The only person to see him enter work that day testified that he wasn't carrying anything. As far as the bus trip, I think Duke has done a great job of showing why Mary Bledsoe's testimony is uncredible. The same can be said for McWatters, Roberts, Whaley and Markham. These are the witnesses any prosecution would have relied upon to get their suspect from the TSBD to the scene of Tippit's murder. Ray points out that riding a bus is not suspicious in and of itself. That's certainly true, and neither is taking a cab or changing a jacket. However, the point is that all of these alleged actions of Oswald-which would certainly be termed strange-were utilized by the authorities to get him into position where he supposedly murdered a policeman. Thus, they are all crucial to the official case against Oswald. I've pointed it out before, but the best evidence as to what Oswald was doing in the moments after the assassination is the Rambler testimony of Roger Craig and others. A real investigation would have focused on that. Instead, they came up with a slew of ridiculous witnesses that would have been laughed out of any honest courtroom.

Len, I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but any adult with a passing knowledge of history could identify the bust as being of Jefferson. The fact that it was promiently displayed in Jefferson's home should have given Al Gore a slight clue. You'd think the guy who invented the internet would be a little sharper than that. As for the Sandra Bernhard clip, it was all over You Tube. I would imagine it still is. Watch it and judge for yourself.

Pat, I understand what you're saying. However, I think McCain is definitely "qualified" to be president, as the word is defined by the establishment. In fact, he may be the most "qualified" person to run in quite some time. That's one of his biggest problems, in my view. Biden is also definitely "qualified," but again, in my eyes that detracts from his appeal as a candidate. Both of these guys have been a part of the problem for decades. We need some truly "unqualified" people to run for public office. I think that's probably Obama's most attractive quality. The primary difference between McCain and Biden is that Biden is not mentally unstable. It is a little frightening to picture McCainiac with his hand on the button. However, Palin is a different story, imo. I believe she's the best thing he's got going for him, and those "unqualified" traits work for her, much as they work for Obama.

Just as Fox News will gloss over anything Bush and the Republicans do, you guys are dismissing Biden's very obvious flaws out of loyalty to the "opposition" Democratic Party. You know very well that if Sarah Palin (or Dan Quayle in another time and place) made such a monumental historical gaffe, you would be roasting her mercilessly for it. Any high school history teacher knows who the president was in 1929. Any fairly intelligent American should know that televisions were not in any living rooms in 1929. His comments reflect an abysmal ignorance, but the mainstream media will never portray it as such, because other than Fox News, they might as well all be members of the Democratic National Committee. This is certainly not an endorsement of Fox News, which might as well be on the Republican National Committee. Joe Biden's great area of "expertise" is said to be in foreign policy. Yes, he is an expert on supporting all of our disastrous and immoral foreign intervention. He'll make certain that Obama is "tough" and "stays the course" that his masters map out for him. Biden is the epitome of a career hack party politician; if his selection is any indication of this unspecified "change" that Obama wants us to believe in, then it is not likely to be a noticeable change. Biden, like all the clowns (including his good friend, "opponent" John McCain) who've spent decades on Capitol Hill, is incapable of supporting any true reforms. He will robotically endorse the "bipartisan" foreign policy the media loves to promote so much. In other words, there will be no debate between the two "opposing" parties about foreign policy. There are good Democrats; Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur immediately spring to mind, but Biden is part of the establishment wing of the party that supports all war and is addicted to empty rhetoric (see "change we can believe in"). Both of our political parties are a joke. Until well intentioned people understand the almost total lack of difference between them, and stop making excuses for the corruption and/or incompetence of the politicians in "their" party, we will not get anything better.

Asking taxpayers to bail out these bloated multi-millionaires is like the drowning man throwing his life preserver back to the people in the boat. What we really need is for the bankers to bail out the taxpayers. No more "trickle down" nonsense; we're long overdue for a "trickle up" theory. If Congress doesn't pass this precious bailout, it will be one of, if not the first, time in American history that they disobeyed their masters and listened to the people.