Don Jeffries

The fact that we are still debating something like the single-bullet theory exemplifies just how hard it is going to be to ever get at the truth about the JFK assassination. This is basic stuff, and like Cliff says, any 10 year old child can see that such a "theory" is impossible. -The holes in JFK's coat and shirt, combined with the back wound location noted in the original autopsy face sheet and by Admiral Burkley on the death certificate, alone disprove the SBT. -The condition of identical aummunition, test fired into various substances, as revealed in the Warren Commission's Hearings & Exhibits, alone disprove the SBT. -Even without the test fired ammunition, common sense should tell anyone that an essentially pristine bullet like CE399 could not possibly, under any circumstances, have caused 7 wounds in 2 people, including the shattering of a human wrist, one of the thickest bones in the human body. We are really overthinking things here. As Cyril Wecht has said so often, "Show me one bullet, in the history of the world, that has done what this bullet is supposed to have done." It is an entirely different matter as to whether or not a particular bullet could possibly cause 7 wounds in 2 people. If any bullet could do that, it would be visibly deformed to a great degree (as the test fired bullets in the government's own record show), and it would have to conform to the laws of physics. In other words, it would have to enter the first victim on a downward, slight right to left angle, and it would have to exit at a lower, slightly to the left point on that victim's body in order for the shot to have come from the 6th floor TSBD window.

Mike, Thanks for the detailed response. On the subject of film alteration in this case, I'm an agnostic. While I don't necessarily believe that the Zapruder film or any other film was altered, I think that Jack White, Jim Fetzer, etc. have raised some intriguing questions. Ultimately, I think that it really matters little whether or not those films were altered. There is an abundance of other evidence to indicate there was a conspiracy. As for Tom Purvis, I certainly don't mean to sound pompous. I simply don't see how any rational person can follow his long, repetitive posts and understand what he's saying. If I comprehend his overall theory about the assassination, he thinks that all the shots were fired by Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano, from the sixth floor window of the TSBD, but he also claims that the Warren Commission engaged in a massive coverup. Which begs the question; since they spent all their efforts trying to establish the extremely flimsy case against Oswald, what kind of coverup is he referring to? He also, I think, agrees with the alterationists. He maintains that Oswald was a crack shot, when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. He seems to have impressed a few people on this forum, which is astonishing to me. However, my hat's off to you if you can decipher what he's saying, because I must not be perceptive (or patient) enough to do so. On the subject of this thread, I'm certainly no expert, but I am impressed by the testimony of those who adamantly maintained they saw a hole in the windshield. Doug Weldon is a true expert on this subject- maybe you could contact him.

Mike, One of the strongest reasons to suspect that photos and/or film of the assassination were altered is because of the extensive eyewitness testimony that seems to contradict what we see in them. There are the numerous witnesses who, independently of each other, reported that the motorcade had stopped or nearly stopped. While eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, when that many people mention the same point (without being prompted), it's extremly unlikely they are all identically mistaken. Reasonable investigators would pay attention to what they were saying. There is strong eyewitness testimony about the bullet hole in the windshield. Reporter Richard Dudman described being shoved by a Secret Service agent when he tried to examine the hole more closely. Doug Weldon did some great work on this- study his research. Do you also believe that the autopsy photos are genuine? What we see in these photos contradicts the professional opinions of every doctor and nurse who saw the back of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital. People do not see huge, gaping wounds where they don't exist. Certainly, a large number of medical personnel could not have made the same egregious error in describing what they saw. Thus, the autospy photos are clearly and unequivocally altered. So alteration is not a myth. Witnesses like Richard Dudman had no reason to invent a story about seeing a bullet hole in the windshield. Those who were already starting to cover up the truth about the assassination had very obvious reasons for claiming that there was no hole in the windshield. Agreeing with Tom Purvis's incomprehensible and rambling theories doesn't exactly lend credibility to your position, although I must grudgingly admire anyone who can halfway understand them. Quick question- do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy?

Stephen, I'm interested!

Blaming Papa Joe now, are we? Is that from your novel? You're misunderstanding things again. As a matter of fact, I think Joe Kennedy has been treated unfairly, and that, if he engaged in any shady activities at all, he was far less corrupt than any other man I can think of who amassed a comparable fortune (keeping in mind the old adage "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.") I certainly don't blame him for anything, other than ruffling the feathers of some powerful people.

I really have become more disenchanted with the Kennedy family after reading "Brothers." I certainly don't think it was Talbot's intention to put the family (or JFK's ex-aides) in a bad light, but the book does so, nevertheless. As Jim Garrison told Mort Sahl, "If my brother was killed, I'd be waiting for the guys that did it with a knife in an alley." (essential quote- might not be verbatim). Sahl agreed. While Bobby, Jackie, Teddy, etc., were glaring down anyone who dared even broach the subject, Mort Sahl was destroying his career by boldly speaking out about the JFK assassination conspiracy. No one killed him. No one killed any of the critics who dared to pore through all that meaningless stuff in the official record and expose the lies and cover up, either. Even Penn Jones lived to be an old man, and his specialty was in pointing out all the mysterious deaths. This doesn't mean that I don't believe the conspirators knocked off any witnesses- indeed, I do think they were responsible for the deaths of far too many people. However, clearly speaking out and writing books that were conspiracy-oriented was not some kind of automatic death sentence. That's my biggest problem with the "fear" theory of why the Kennedys accepted such an obviously bogus verdict on their loved ones' deaths. I have a family, so I can certainly understand such concerns. I certainly wouldn't want to put my wife or children in any danger, and perhaps I wouldn't be brave enough to still seek the truth. However, I really do think that, while most of us might maintain a public silence for a while, few of us would still be afraid to discuss the subject over 45 years later. What is Ted Kennedy afraid of at this point? Even before the sad news about his brain tumor, Kennedy was a man in his mid-70s, with his children obviously fully grown. What does he think they could do to him? I do think that JFK, Jr. was about to "turn" and, much like RFK, plan to look into his father's death once he had achieved power. It's too bad Caroline doesn't seem to have any curiosity about the assassination, whatsoever. It's also shameful, imho. I would certainly hope that my children cared enough about me to want to know the truth about my death, especially if there was such controversy swirling around it. If most families don't care about such things, why are autopsies even performed? How many of us have had a loved one murdered? I can't imagine how horrible that would be, but I do know that I wouldn't rest until I knew who had done it. I think the Kennedys have, collectively, given us a tragedy worthy of the ancient Greeks. I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for, and astonishment over, all the untimely tragedies they've had to endure. Like Ted Sorensen, I think talk of a Kennedy "curse" is nonsense. Unlike him, I believe they offended some very powerful forces a long time ago (starting with Papa Joe), and that most of their unnatural deaths are a result of that. Bottom line- if Ted, Bobby, Jr. and Caroline all came out together and expressed their dissatisfaction with the official explanations behind the assassinations, and demanded a real independent investigation, such a move would gain instant credibility.

quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jul 18 2008, 03:33 AM' post='149990'] That's because no other family in human history has had over 800 books and God alone knows how many billion stupid words printed and broadcast about the crime. Not to mention the stuff written by people like you who expect them to bercome vigilantes. Most of the books written about the assassinations have not been "stupid." I agree that almost everything broadcast on television about the subject has been "stupid" because the networks have been covering up since November 22, 1963. /b]Now that's just a BIG FAT LIE, if you are INSINUATING that the Kennedy family has ever tried to block inquiry into the JFK assassination. I am not insinuating any such thing. I am simply stating that refusing to talk about the death of a loved one that occurred almost 45 years ago is very strange. Sounds like another BIG FAT ONE, if this thread is anything to go by. If I didn't admire and respect the Kennedys, I wouldn't be frequenting forums like this, or have spent so much time reading and writing about them for the past 35 years. Look where it got Coretta Scott King. What do you mean? Coretta Scott King died an elderly woman. She didn't suffer from her courageous efforts to assist James Earl Ray in getting a new trial. The Kennedys, on the other hand, continued to die unnatural deaths while keeping their silence. Hasn't anyone told you that RFK was MURDERED? So please don't blame him if the case was not re-opened in the 1960's. Which proves my point- he kept silent and was still assassinated. See comment above. Again, for the record, only CIA stooges would make an argument like this, since everyone knows RFK was murdered. So noiw I'm a CIA stooge? How do you arrive at a ridiculous conclusion like that? The CIA's advice in that memo was certainly heeded by almost everyone in the mainstream media, and the fact that RFK didn't speak out publicly about the subject is still used by lone nutters as an argument. At any rate, calling names is not an impressive debating technique. Only a very uncivilized person would harass a Kennedy family member about this subject. I'm sure Kennedy family members have to deal with more than their fair share of Axxholes. What "harrassment" has the Kennedy family faced from assassination researchers? Everyone is afraid to even mention the subject around them! From writers with an agenda to push the Exner/Mafia nonsense, yes. But certainly it isn't harrassment to broach the topic of JFK's (or RFK's) assassination with them. Leave Ted Sorensen alone. He has earned that right in his venerable years. Leave him alone? Look, I loved Sorensen's lofty rhetoric as much as anyone. He helped make JFK's speeches great. But I think it's laughable for any man to claim that the subject of his boss's death is still painful after almost 45 years.

For the record, those that attempted to blame the Kennedys (Bobby in particular) for the shoddy, incomplete autopsy were not interested in the trurh. RFK signed the autopsy permission form and placed no restrictions upon it. I also find Judith Campbell Exner's tales to be dubious. I would urge everyone to read Jim DiEugenio's "The Posthumous Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" for an enlightening, detailed look at this topic. The Kennedy family's attitude towards the subject of the assassination in general, and their seeming disinterest in the questions so many researchers have raised about the official findings, is a completely different subject.

I've gone through this before too -- and it bears repeating -- that there is absolutely nothing unnatural about the behaviour of the Kennedy family. However there is something unnatural about people who insist on denigrating the family of a crime victim, as though somehow it is the fault of the victim's family that the crime remains unsolved. I have never known of another family that refused to discuss the death of a loved over forty years after it happened. Perhaps you can provide some notable examples. I have never known of another man whose death was still "too painful" for those who worked for him to discuss, over forty years later. Perhaps you can provide some notable examples. Prithee tell us about your EXPERTISE in dealing with the families of crime victims. I am just as much an "expert" as you or anyone else here. You tell us. There are thousands of unsolved murders in America EVERY YEAR. Would you care to tell us how many thousands of families are out there trying to solve these crimes, as opposed to those who behave in a civilized manner and leave crime detection and punishment to the proper authorities? So those who insist on investigating the deaths of their loved ones are not civilized? In my own state, there was a tragic case of a young college kid who was found shot to death in his home. The police claimed it was suicide, but all signs pointed to murder. His parents exposed the police cover up, formed the group Parents Against Police Corruption, and conducted their own thorough investigation, which included the exhumation of their son's body and a second autopsy. I guess they were being "uncivilized" in wanting to find out why their son died. Considering that lots of courageous private citizens did the investigating for them, I think it's reasonable to expect that at least a few Kennedy relatives might show some interest in what they found. At the very least, could they stop acting as if the mere mention of the subject was some kind of crime? Who told you they do not? Who told me? Uh, over forty years of their incomprehensible behavior told me. The only sensible statement in your post. Of course it contradicts everything else you say. I don't think you are entitled to expect anything whatsoever. The Kennedy family doesn't owe you one damn thing. The Kennedy family doesn't owe any individual citizen like me anything. They do, however, have an obligation to history. At least that's what JFK and RFK believed. No one admires the overall legacy of the Kennedy family more than I do. And, like Talbot says, it isn't up to them to solve the murders of JFK and RFK. However, there is no question that if Jackie had behaved more like Coretta Scott King, and publicly expressed her own doubts, or RFK had revealed in public what he was apparently expressing in private, then an honest re- investigation into the JFK assassination might have been possible in the mid-1960s. How many times did the lone nutters make the argument, "if there had been a conspiracy, no one would have investigated it more than Bobby Kennedy." Even the CIA's notorious memo about how to "handle" the assassination critics mentions this specifically. What I am speaking about now, when I say their group behavior is inexplicable, is the fact that we are nearly 45 years removed from the first assassination. That's a very long time for a daughter, let alone nephews and nieces, to still glare at anyone daring to mention the subject. That's a very long time for a speech writer like Ted Sorensen to still find JFK's death "too painful" to discuss. Maybe they all need to re-read "Profiles In Courage."

The problem with ascribing the Kennedy family's apparent disinterest in the subject to fear is that, if that was/is indeed the reason for their silence, it hasn't worked at all. Bobby kept his silence publicly, and was assassinated himself. Teddy kept his silence and was (imho) framed and politically assassinated (at least in terms of any presidential aspirations) at Chappaquidick. Two of Bobby's kids- all of them remaining dutifully silent about the assassinations- died unnatural deaths (David and Michael). Finally, John F. Kennedy, Jr. was killed in a suspicious plane crash. So the string of unnatural Kennedy deaths has continued, amidst all the silence. If they were afraid to speak out, maybe they ought to rethink their strategy. * Btw, I'm not suggesting that either David or Michael Kennedy was murdered, although I believe Penn Jones, Jr. thought David's alleged drug overdose had questionable elements about it.* One would think that, in a family that large, there would be at least a few renegade members interested in the subject.

Bill, You are exactly right- that is the real question. After reading "Brothers" by David Talbot, I am even more perplexed than I was before about the incomprehensible attitude of the entire Kennedy family on this subject. Talbot reported that, when he set up the interview with Ted Kennedy, he was warned that if the assassination was mentioned, the interview would be terminated immediately. Huh? Remember, Teddy was JFK's much younger brother, with almost enough years seperating them that he could have been his son. They couldn't have been that close, with that kind of age difference. And yet, over FORTY years after the death of this much older brother, he threatens to end an interview if the subject is even mentioned? At least Bobby, Jr. will allow the subject to be broached- as lame as his response was, among his family members, he appears to be comparatively reasonable. Talbot also mentions the assassination still being a touchy subject with JFK's surviving aides, such as Ted Sorensen. That is really ridiculous- how could a man who merely worked for someone else, four decades ago, still be so upset over his death that it's painful for him to discuss it? I've gone through this before, but it bears repeating. The Kennedy family's refusal to address the unnatural deaths of JFK and RFK (not to mention JFK, Jr.) represents one of the most curious group behaviors imaginable. We all lose loved ones- how many of us glare at someone (as apparently Caroline will do, if anyone dared to mention "it") or refuse to comment, if someone brings up the subject of ANY relative that died over FORTY years ago? Their total lack of interest in the violent murders of their father/husband/brother, especially when so much controversy about them has raged in public, truly contradicts all we know about human behavior. Most people naturally WANT to know the reassons behind the deaths of their loved ones. How many families spend years investigating the deaths of their loved ones, desperately trying to seek closure? Why doesn't the Kennedy family want closure on this subject? As Talbot says, we can't expect the Kennedys to solve the mysteries behind the assassinations. We can, however, expect them to want to know the trurh and at least have some interest in the subject.

To those who dismiss all "conspiracy theories" out of hand, what innocent explanation is there for this annual gathering? Why only males? Why the whispers about homosexuality? Why the 40 foot stone owl? Who would expend the effort to carve such a large owl? Many of these men wear their religion proudly on their public sleeves; don't such occult activities severely conflict with their supposedly sincere beliefs? This bizarre get-together revolves around ancient druid ceremonies, and worship of the god Moloch. In the Old Testament, Moloch is referred to in connection with child sacrifice (thus, the "cremation of care" ceremony, which depicts a "mock" child sacrifice). Btw, it is rumored that Walter Cronkite has provided the voice of the owl, during this charming ritual, for many years. At the very least, the fact that so many powerful men elect to engage in such practices should frighten all those they purport to lead. Of course, many of us think they are guilty of far more than just immaturity and/or ignorance. Thanks, Jack, for posting this.

America's economy is probably in the worst shape it's ever been. Gas prices, food prices, depressed housing market (including a record number of foreclosures), plummeting stock market- these are tangible concerns which effect all voters. Combined with the disastrous, very unpopular war (I think it's a misnomer to call it that- war requires at least two combatants), how could the supposedly "opposing" political party fail to sweep to a resounding electoral victory? The only Democrat to be strongly anti-war was Dennis Kucinich (along with Republican Ron Paul). Predictably, he was ignored by the mainstream media, which early on concentrated 99% of their attention on Obama and Hillary. This election, more than any other I can think of, should demonstrate clearly that there is no "opposing" party- the Democrats and Republicans essentially agree on all significant points. Both are in favor of a globalist, meddling foreign policy which ensures that there will be perpetual "wars" and conflicts all over the world, as we try to police other countries into accepting "freedom." Both completely ignore the fact that so much wealth is in the hands of so few. Both do nothing about corporate welfare. Both do nothing to stop the massive influx of immigrants, many of them illegal, which has destroyed the ability of many nonskilled laborers to make a living, since these immigrants will work for so much less. If Obama were truly an "opposing" candidate, the disaster in Iraq would be his #1 issue, and he'd use it to hammer home just how big a failure it's been, how morally wrong it is, and how insane McCainiac is to support it. My prediction is he'll do the opposite, and try to prove how macho and patrotic he is. Perhaps he'll threaten to work over Afghanistan again (like that is any better than what we're doing in Iraq). He should be blasting the oil companies in every speech, for their sinful profits, which come at the expense of every working American. At the very least, he ought to propose a huge windfall profits tax on them. He won't. In reality, there is a huge elephant in the room here, which no one on the political scene will acknowledge. The tremendous greed which has always existed among the rich, has finally made it nearly impossible for the vast majority of Americans (at least 75%) to keep up with the cost of living. With prices rising so dramatically over the past year, and the two most conventional forms of investment available to the working class (real estate, stock market) slumping so badly, there can be only one solution- a dramatic increase in income for most workers. Is anyone proposing that? Uh, no. That's the sad reality; unless the rich agree to finally start sharing some of the wealth, the whole system they've created is going to collapse upon the shoulders of the workers who've been supporting it for so long. If the Democrats were truly an "opposition" party, they'd be demanding a minumum wage that was tied to a maximum wage. They'd be strongly anti-war and strongly against the U.S. acting like a global policeman. They'd be harshly criticizing the corporate greed that is profiting from the gas crisis and created the alarming number of foreclosures. Instead, their candidate is issuing the stale, standard rhetoric about "change we can believe it." Cute slogans mean nothing. Why not bring up some golden oldies, like "strong leadership," "getting the country moving again," "the right man for the right time," etc.? I truly believe that, in the very near future, there is a good chance of America either sinking into a third-world status, or being overturned by a violent revolution.

As Pat noted, Bugliosi was responsible for a great deal of important research into the RFK assassination. That is what makes his absurd stance on the JFK assassination that much harder to understand. As for "Helter Skelter," Bugliosi came up with a theory much wilder than anything ever postulated by the most extreme JFK assassination critic.

As usual, we have no good choice in this year's presidential election. While I can certainly agree more with Obama in general, I'm afraid that the media will focus exclusively on the historic nature of his election, with lots of feel-good stories, but completely ignore his policy decisions, which are almost certain to be more of the same garbage. As for McCainiac, I think he's about the only person on the American political scene who could actually be a worse president than Dubya. I could vote for McKinney easily- she's got a lot of courage and was one of the few members of Congress I liked. Since I'm used to "throwing my vote away" anyhow on third party candidates....

This thread is interesting, but predictable. I readily admit to disbelieving the official story of 911 almost from the beginning. Just as some of us are predisposed to scoff at "conspiracy theories," and ascribe altruistic motives to our leaders, others (like me) are naturally inclined to suspect that the powerful are usually up to no good. I think the history of the last 50 years or so ought to make us all very skeptical about our fearless leaders. We can argue about which way the wind is blowing (I keep hearing Dylan's "Subtereanean Blues" in my mind), in different photographs, but the big picture is far more important. On September 11, 2001, we are asked to believe that all the following just happened, and that no one other than a relative handful of "terrorists" were the cause: Four seperate planes were hijacked, with significant amounts of time in between, without a single authority at any level realizing what was going on. These hijackers were able to take over each plane, armed with nothing more than box cutters. Until the Hollywoodish "Let's Roll" group brought down Flight 93, none of the passengers on these planes apparently did anything to fight back against these men, who were armed only with these less than deadly weapons. President Bush sat reading a story about a goat to a group of grade school students. He continued reading that story, even after being notified that a second plane had hit the WTC. Then, against all logic and seurity protocol, Air Force One took off and remained in the air, where those in charge should have considered it quite a vulnerable target to the hijacked planes that were, for all they knew, still being hijacked and eagerly looking for such an inviting target. Kind of like the way the Secret Service sat there and did nothing for six seconds while gunfire raged in Dallas. Two of the largest buildings ever constructed collapsed, pancake style, after airplanes hit the top floors. We have nothing to compare this to, but common sense suggests that this is preposterous. The whole thing looked like a Hollywood production- an implosion by demolision. There is no other example of a high-rise building, in the history of the world, imploding so perfectly like that, into literal smitereens, yet we are supposed to believe that THREE huge buildings did so that day. Since that time, buildings have evidently reverted back to their previous capabilities, as no other ones have been reported to have collapsed from fire since then. Finally, if the official story maintains that jet fuel, somehow maintaining the incredibly high temperatures needed to melt steel for a very long time, alone caused the collapse of both WTC towers, then how do we explain the fact that the second tower hit was the first one to collapse? That makes absolutely no sense. The Pentagon was allegedly hit by a plane that was far larger than the hole caused by the impact, but there was almost no debris at all left outside. This part of 911 has been analyzed in great detail all over the internet, including by Jack White. I'd urge everyone to study what is supposed to have happened in light of all the inconsistencies, and also in conjunction with the bizarre, unprecedented events taking place elsewhere that day. Despite spending untold trillions of dollars over the decades, for what is supposed to be an impregnable national defense system, no one utilized it on a day when a couple of airliners, who were known to have been hijacked, were flying around directly overheard Washington, D.C. The same government that did nothing in this unparalleled case of national emergency (unitl they most probably shot down Flight 93 over Pennslvania and lied about it), had, a few years earlier, sent up two fighter planes, within 20 minutes of being notified that the plane carrying golfer Payne Stewart was not responding to radio and flying out of control. It is obvious, therefore, that the system could respond quickly if it wanted to. Why didn't it want to on 911? There are so many other things I could mention, from the curious cell phone calls allegedly made from the doomed airliners to the seemingly shabby flying prowess of the alleged hijackers (much like the shabby shooting abilities of Lee Harvey Oswald), but I think I've ranted enough. Looking at 911 with an all encompassing view, I think there are more than enough significant questions about what happened that day to cause a reasonable person to distrust those who were in charge then, and are in charge now. We could never even have a discussion like this anywhere in the mainstream media, who have ignored or ridiculed the 911 Truth Movement much like they ignore or ridicule all those who question the most significant historical events of our time. If we only had one powerful political figure who would raise this issue in public, or one powerful television network that would give airtime to critics of the official story, we might be able to demand a real investigation into what actually happened on 911. Until then, we will have to be content to debate things on the only places we can- internet forums. Note- I tried re-editing this post, but despite looking normal in the "preview," some of it comes out looking strange on the actual post to the forum.

Christopher, I agree completely. One point of clarification; the phone call that triggered this entire fiasco actually came from a 33 year old woman, who was totally unconnected to the group and appears to be emotionally disturbed. The young girl couldn't be located because she never existed. As you noted, once the "child abuse" bogeyman is raised, most people lose all their reason and perspective. Anything to "save the children," I guess. What has been partcularly bad, but sadly not surprising, is the lack of a single voice in the mainstream media speaking out against this blatantly police-state-type action when it occurred. Instead, we heard about 13 year old brides, young males being forced to leave the "compound" (a buzz word always used to dehumanize the Branch Davidians or other outcast religious groups) because they were competition for the old men who wanted these young girls for themselves, a large number of broken bones in the children (which was completely ridiculous, and even the number cited was not out of proportion with any random group of kids anywhere in the world), and other equally uncredible and almost certainly untrue tales, from the foaming mouths of media parasites like Nancy Grace and Geraldo. Child Protective Services probably abuses more children in one week than the entire Mormon religion has in its history. The authorities do not like to admit making mistakes; they will fight this with every ounce of energy they have. I hope that the members of this group get together and file a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit.

Vince, I will always appreciate the excellent work you did on the Secret Service, but your conversion sounds all too identical to the conversions of former conspiracy believers like Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc. If you understood the evidence in this case (which I think you obviously did), and were suddenly swayed by Bugliosi's book, you ought to be able to cite a few important examples of evidence that pushed you over the edge. "The totality" of his work isn't specific enough to satisfy anyone; if you are going to brand Oswald guilty in the court of public opinion, you should be able to come up with the same kind of evidence that you'd need to provide in an actual courtroom. As you must know, as far back as 1965, citizen researchers like Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg had cast strong doubts about every piece of the "evidence" against Oswald. Every bit of it is tainted beyond any reasonable doubt, to put it nicely- what did Bugliosi come up with to explain the following: - Bullet holes (that align with each other perfectly) in JFK's coat and shirt, app. 5-6 inches down on his back. This is the exact location where the back wound was shown in Dr. Boswell's original autopsy face sheet and where it was located by Dr. Burkley, JFK's personal physician, and FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. "Bunched coat" theories don't explain that. How did Bugliosi persuade you that this strongly documented back location was actually high enough to permit a shot from six floors above (and thus on a downward angle) to exit through JFK's neck? - CE 399, the so-called "magic bullet," was found in nearly pristine condition. Identical ammunition was test fired into a few different substances, including cotton wadding and the wrist of a human cadaver. These tests were done at the behest of the official "investigation" and the results were published in the Warren Commission's Hearings and Exhibits. Have you seen those photos? How does Bugliosi explain the condition of the bullet fired into the wrist bone, which is damaged to a far more substantial degree than CE 399, which shattered a human wrist during its magical journey? - How did Bugliosi demonstrate that all of the medical personnel in Dallas were wrong, in the exact same way, about describing a huge gaping wound, in the exact same location, on the back of JFK's head? - Why did the FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Warren Commission, Dallas Police, etc. engage in an obvious cover up, and why was any evidence ever withheld from public view, if this crime was the result of one demented individual, with no rational motive, acting on his own? I could go on and on, but I'll just ask you one question about your own important research, and how you reconcile it with your improbable position that there were "conspiracies" out there, but Oswald simply "beat them to the punch." To sum it up in a nutshell; if your work still holds up, why do you think the Secret Service would have, for all intents and purposes, stood down on November 22, 1963, unless they were acting at the behest of conspirators? Did Emory Roberts order Henry Rybka to stay at Love Field, and later order the agents to stay on the running board of the follow up car, instead of rushing to JFK's aid, because he was trying to assist a "lone nut" in assassinating his boss? If you actually believe JFK was shot by a lone nut, then you owe Roberts, Bill Greer and all the others an apology for casting aspersions on their demonstrably unusual and suspicious behavior on the day of the assassination. They would have no motive for slowing the car down, or failing to react whatsoever to the sound of gunfire, under your new premise. In that case, all your research was for naught, and does not hold up any longer, contrary to what you say. If I sound disappointed, I am. So are a lot of others who deeply respected your work.

Don't expect Palamara to ever cite the "evidence" that converted him. I asked Gary Mack (yes, I know, he still claims to believe in a conspiracy, but he is for all intents and purposes a lone nutter) several times on the old JFK Research Forum to explain exactly what had caused him to suddenly change his views on so many aspects of this case. He was never able to come up with a single example, other than to vaguely charge "critics" with "sloppy research," and "errors." Apparently, he is now comfortable with the morass of easily cited official errors and sloppy research. Todd Vaughn was unable to give me any examples, either. Among the most notable of these former believers in conspiracy, abruptly converted to lone nutterism, are; Bugliosi (at least as far as the RFK assassination), Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, Dale Myers, Gus Russo, Dan Moldea (again, primarily the RFK assassination), David Perry, Greg Jaynes and now Palamara. Their stories are virtually identical; most of them provided some solid research years ago (particularly Bugliosi, Moldea, Reitzes and Palamara), and all were converted as mysteriously and suddenly as Palamara just was. They remind me of the speakers at virtually any "no money down" real estate seminar (yes, I attended a few in my day)- without exception, every one of them started out almost destitute, having declared bankruptcy, etc., before they discovered the wonderful secret they want to sell you. Just like none of those newly wealthy real estate investors ever started out middle-class, or even slightly wealthy to begin with, none of the most notable lone nutters were always that way; each was "converted" by the same magical means. My contention is that anyone with the knowledge of this case that Bugliosi, Vaughn, Reitzes, Palamara, etc., possess cannot possibly be persuaded that Oswald acted alone. Period. I can accept that a novice who has only read Posner or Bugliosi, or perhaps a die hard Kennedy hater, can feel adamantly that the official fairy tale is accurate, but anyone who has read "Accessories After The Fact" or "Whitewash" or "Crossfire" cannot disregard their clear and powerful arguments for the pablum produced by Bugliosi, if they are intellectually honest.

Another curious thing is that Palamara originally said, in his online version of "Survivor's Guilt," that he actually believed Oswald had shot Tippit. However, in an earlier post on this forum, while giving a pretty kind review to Bugliosi's book, he mentioned that Bugliosi had convinced him that Oswald shot Tippit. How could that be, if he already allegedly believed that? One thing about that early review here- Palamara was clearly impressed with the way Bugliosi seemed to single his work out for commendation. Palamara's ego was definitely massaged by this treatment, as is evident in the way he fondly quoted each reference to him in Bugliosi's book. Palamara's work on the Secret Service was very important, and will remain a great resource for researchers. That said, I have lost all respect for him with his "conversion."

There is no honest way anyone who has studied this case in depth, and thus logically come to the conclusion the official story is impossible, can be "converted" to lone nutterism by Bugliosi or anyone else. As Vincent Salandria has said, the cover up was purposefully amateurish. That is why I refuse to believe in the legitimacy of any of these "conversions" to lone nutterism, which are apparently all the rage now. Unless Bugliosi or anyone else can demonstrate that: the clothing purportedly worn by JFK during the shooting was bogus, and thus explain away the incontrovertible evidence of the bullet holes in them; the "magic bullet" was actually damaged to a degree that any other bullet ever fired into human bone has been, and thus CE399 is not the real piece of "evidence" we've treated it as; the test results, using more favorable conditions in every way, for all the expert riflemen the government employed to "prove" Oswald could have got off 3 shots, with 2 hits, in the alloted time, were recorded incorrectly, and actually proved that this "easy shot" could be accomplished; Palamara himself was wrong, and his exhaustive investigation into the Secret Service performance during the assassination, as well as all film from that day, actually reveals that the agents behaved in a normal, competent way; every one of the doctors and nurses in Dallas who described an identical, massive wound in the same area on the back of JFK's head actually meant to describe the wounds as shown in the pictures and x-rays and were all misunderstood; all the witnesses who heard gunfire from the knoll/railroad track area and ran there afterwards, were actually responding to shots from the TSBD and were all fooled by "echoes" (although the ones who reported shots came from the TSBD were not fooled by these "echoes"); the Warren Commission called totally irrelevant witnesses, and somehow overlooked some of the most important ones, and questioned every witness about totally irrelevant matters, while often overlooking crucial points, because that is how the best and brightest legal minds are taught to run investigations; the unconnected witnesses who reported being threatened by the police, FBI or other government authorities, or claimed their Warren Commission testimony didn't accurately reflect what they'd said, or died unnatural deaths in great numbers, were all lying, didn't actually die or had their stories misrepresented by Mark Lane. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Charles Drago had a quote about all this- I'm sure you all remember it. Vince Palamara knows full well that there was a conspiracy.

Michael, You just beat me to it. I must be on the same mailing list as you.... This is really sad. I truly respected Vince's fine work, which established the Secret Service's culpability beyond any doubt. Maybe he'll end up at the Sixth Floor Museum, or perhaps now the large publishers will ask him to write a book. The bottom line is... there is no way that Vince Palamara actually believes Oswald shot JFK. Neither does Bugliosi, or Gary Mack, or Todd Vaughn, or Dale Myers, or any other "former conspiracy theorist" who has gone over to the dark side in recent years. I doubt that Vince will show up again on the forum to defend his alleged new view on the assassination. I'm still waiting for that first former lone nutter to be converted to a belief in conspiracy.

John, I think John Kelin may have decided to stop participating in the forum after his "Blow Up #5 Man" thread. During that thread, practically no one agreed with him, and I think some of the posts were worded pretty strongly. Nothing wrong with any of the replies, but I'm just guessing that maybe it wasn't the response he was expecting. Of course, this is all just a hunch on my part- it could just as easily be that Mr. Kelin is too busy to participate on the forum now. At any rate, I really hope John Kelin will start posting again in the near future. I have a great deal of respect for his work and think the forum really benefited from his presence.

Tim, I'll address your points briefly. First, Rowland did testify that he saw two men- the other man was an "elderly negro" in the window at the opposite end of the floor. He tried to tell the FBI about this second man, in his original report, but they told him it wasn't important. As Rowland described it, "they just as soon as told me to forget it." Second, while Barbara Rowland told the Commission she didn't see a man in the window, she clearly believed Arnold (why would she have any reason to doubt him?) I'd like to see the exact quotes from the books you are talking about, where they claim that she testified she'd actually seen the man/men in question. Really, this is a minor, insignificant detail. Do you think that it would matter, either way, if she had said she'd seen exactly what he did? Do you think it would have changed any minds, or provoked the Warren Commission to actually investigate anything, if they'd had their neighborhood bridge club members with them that day, and all of them agreed on what they saw? As for Groden's 42 second figure, I don't know how he arrived at such a precise number. He may, however, have been talking about Barbara Reid's sighting of Oswald, walking with a soft drink in hand, which was only a very brief time after the shots were fired. He also might have been cutting down on the 90 second estimate the Warren Commission dubiously calculated, following some of their extremely "creative" reconstructions. I do not like shoddy research, and certainly don't support those who deliberately publish information they know is inaccurate. However, as I've said before, this whole notion of "cleaning our own house" by pointing out alleged errors made by pro-conspiracy writers, has been pushed for some time now by those I call the new neo-cons (neo-conspiracy believers). Gary Mack was one of the first to push this line of thinking. Others have followed in his wake, and we see the neo-con mindset most clearly in the threads on this (or other forums) revolving around allegations that the Zapruder film was altered. The passionate opposition to any notion that the film was altered is in stark contrast to the friendly, patient responses these same individuals grant to the latest lone nutter, posting a thread about why the single-bullet theory is actually valid or other similar nonsense. If you have zero tolerance for researchers like Jack White or Jim Fetzer, who have been working on this case for many years, because they claim a home movie was altered, how can you patiently tolerate the absurdity of the single-bullet theory and the like from the latest new lone nutter on the forum? Nothing that Jim Marrs, Robert Groden or all the other pro-conspiracy writers combined has ever written is half as deceptive as a single chapter of the Warren Report. We ought to be concentrating on pointing out significant errors in the official record, which actually matter and have resulted in a mockery of justice and a distortion of history.

The whole idea of uncovering "errors" in the works by critics is misguided. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, why leave out the Warren Report and Posner, Bugliosi, etc.? Most of the critics who published books on this subject were average citizens, not professional writers or investigators. They certainly didn't have subpeona power or access to classified information. If they made mistakes, that is only to be expected, considering the conditions they were working under. However, if you take the research of the most sensational "conspiracy theorist" you can find, and compare it to the official story, it is still far more believable and will have far fewer errors in it. It was only because the official "investigations" failed us completely, and the mainstream media refused to do any independent reporting on this subject, that Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, Vince Salandria, etc., had to step in and fill the void. Harold Weisberg, for instance, financed his books completely out of his own pocket, and his wife typed his manuscripts. He was a retired chicken farmer, and spent the last few decades of his life traveling into Washington, D.C. (from a Maryland suburb about an hour away) almost every day, in order to file various Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. We are forever indebted to him for this courageous, selfless act, and the idea of nitpicking over his hand typed manuscripts for minor errors is ridiculous. Sylvia Meagher was an employee with the World Health Organization. Again, she put countless hours into sifting through the official record, and eventually produced an invaluable index to the Warren Commission's Hearings & Exhibits. Her classic "Accessories After The Fact" is based exclusively on the conclusions of the Warren Report, and how those conclusions match up against the supporting evidence in the official record. Again, any minor error found in her work is completely inconsequencial, when compared with the consistent innaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Warren Report, and the works by apologists like Posner and Bugliosi.