Don Jeffries

The phony Left-Right paradigm is crumbling. All the young people who are supporting Bernie Sanders, and the independents who have gravitated to Trump are understanding more each day just how corrupt those who run this system are. Try explaining "super" delegates to a starry-eyed Sanders supporter. All they know is when their guy wins, the establishment choice still gets more delegates. As Dawn pointed out, most liberals blanch at "conspiracy theories." And as I noted in my book, the establishment Left was never enamored of JFK, and continues to hold the Kennedys in general in an unfavorable light. Yes, most of the well-known Warren Commission critics were left-wingers, and most of those who post regularly here probably are. But in general, the majority of "liberals" tend to roll their eyes at the notion of "conspiracy" in the JFK assassination or anything else. JFK is hardly considered a hero by even many of those in our dysfunctional research community. Jim DiEugenio was the first to correct the distortions of the media about the Kennedy legacy, in his "Posthumous Assassination of JFK" article. That is the way I've always felt, and I try to incorporate that into my own writings. There are few modern political heroes. In my view, JFK and RFK were genuine heroes. To answer your question directly; no, I don't think political ideology influences many JFK assassination researchers. Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and others have written extensively about the assassination, pointing out how impossible the official narrative is, while being on the opposite end of the spectrum politically. Hopefully, most of us continue to be interested in this issue because we care about truth, and justice, and history.

I won't case dispersion on Pat Speer's motivations, and there is no question he's put a great deal of effort into researching this case. However, he is wedded to a contrarian theory on the head wound(s) and source of shots. Milicent Cranor has done a thorough job of demonstrating this. No matter how many times Pat denies it, those of us who have been studying the evidence for decades are perfectly aware of what the Dallas medical personnel said. They described the same kind of massive blow-out to the back of the head, and this is something that is contradicted by the autopsy photos and x-rays. Either all those professionals were identically wrong, or the photos and x-rays are illegitimate. Given what we know regarding the destruction of evidence, distortion of evidence, lost evidence, mishandling of evidence, and the nature of the bogus autopsy itself, it is extremely naive to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays. If I understand correctly, Pat believes all the shots came from behind. This again contradicts everything we see in the films (JFK's reaction, witnesses flooding the knoll area, etc.) and most of the eyewitness testimony. Warren Commission critics have always relied to a great extent on the eyewitness testimony. This is in large measure due to the fact that all of the "evidence" used against Oswald was hopelessly tainted, by chain-of-possession problems alone. There was nothing normal, nothing proper, about the autopsy at Bethesda. This makes the initial descriptions from the Parkland doctors all the more important. Without their testimony, there is no massive hole in the back of JFK's head, and no entrance wound to the throat. Their testimony was absolutely crucial, and far more credible than anything that came out of Bethesda. Trusting in the validity of the medical evidence leaves a great deal of powerful arguments out of the critical arsenal. So does accepting the HSCA's higher location for the back wound. There is no need to backtrack here. The mainstream media is not going to admit there was a conspiracy just because we swallow some of their bogus "evidence." Why senselessly dilute the debate? The evidence is overwhelming that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye, the best-seller written by O'Donnell and Powers, painted a very unflattering portrait of LBJ, especially his conduct following the assassination. Both O'Donnell and Powers each worked for LBJ only until 1965, and the book reflects how reluctant they were to do so. As was noted earlier, the rationale seemed to be that some Kennedy loyalists needed to stay on, to ensure his policies were continued. If O'Donnell was an inside man, who knew JFK was going to be assassinated, it would astound me. As someone mentioned, he blamed himself for the assassination for the rest of his life. He drank heavily and died young. His role in getting the body out of Dallas was troubling, but I think it sprang from the clear anti-Dallas view which is reflected in their book. Their first thought, which is addressed in the book, was to get away from the city. Maybe it wasn't misguided naivete but genuine culpability on the part of O'Donnell. Like the rest of them, he should have known the law. Again, if they got to O'Donnell, they got to JFK's real inner circle. Among his close aides, only RFK, O'Donnell and Powers were not establishment types that every president is seemingly forced so be surrounded with.

Thanks, Jim and Douglas. I truly appreciate the support. I will try and attempt to be thorough enough for the newbies, while still throwing enough new and lesser known information out to keep seasoned researchers interested.

Starting in February, I will be teaching a class on the JFK assassination for my county's adult education program. I'm working on a syllabus and any suggestions will be welcomed.

I actually had the sound enhanced- the first version was even lower. But if it's too low to hear clearly, you can just go into your own settings on you tube and make it louder.

I spoke at the Alexandria, Va. public library a few months back. C-SPAN was supposed to be there, but it was videotaped anyhow. I discuss my book and politics in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Q7LyyH7lM

Purvis was more complex than that. He thought all shots came from the sixth floor TSBD window, and that Oswald fired them. But he also accused the Warren Commission of covering up, and thought that the Zapruder film was altered. I tried to engage him on his thoroughly confusing perspective, but was never able to understand him clearly.

The best evidence is that the throat wound was one of entrance. The best evidence is that at least some shots were fired from in front. There is no need to pigeonhole data in order to accept any of the fatally flawed conclusions of the authorities. They lied. The cover up was not benign. It was designed to conceal the truth, and we need to stop making excuses for our criminally corrupt leaders.

All of these events are connected. As one of the all-time great conspirators, FDR, once said, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." That was the underlying theme of my book- that the past fifty years, starting with the JFK assassination, have constituted an uninterrupted timeline of official corruption. I don't believe Nixon was behind any of these crimes. If Watergate proved anything, it proved that he was not in the inner circle. There are a multitude of memorable quotes, from Benjamin Disraeli to Teddy Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson (all of whom should certainly have known) about the real power being "behind the scenes." Glenn, I would argue that all of these crimes- JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11, etc.- are transparent; the attempts to cover them up were childish, and as Vincent Salandria suggested long ago about the JFK assassination cover-up, it was done on purpose. It's incredibly easy to disprove these official narratives. The hard part is getting the vast majority of people to accept that they're being lied to continuously.

Glenn, JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts. JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

Tom, Right off the top of my head, "Christine" was based on a TZ episode. I'll have to think of some others. I just don't think King is terribly creative, and he's way too predictable and politically correct for my tastes. I loved TZ and it deeply influenced my own fiction. Every novel or short story of mine eventually winds up somewhere in the Twilight Zone. But I'm talking about a feeling, an atmosphere; not copying one of TZ's scripts.

Yes, King has no agenda. Neither does Tom Hanks, or James Franco, or any other celebrity who just happens to accept the impossible lone assassin fairy tale. I would go further than Tom, and suggest that much of what King has written was lifted from old Twilight Zone episodes. King's armchair psychological diagnosis of Oswald was even more contrived than Don DeLilo's in Libra. He even said, in one interview, that Marguerite used to inspect Oswald's genitals regularly, to see how he was developing. This is pure fabrication, not even based on Renatus Hartogs' type of "evidence." And like so many other liberals, King has admitted that he was never a fan of the Kennedys. The disconnect between the general public and those who have achieved notoriety in this society, on this issue alone, should be enough to convince anyone we're being lied to. As Richard Belzer so astutely once said, "90% of the public believes there was a conspiracy. The other 10% work for the government or the media."

It must have irked JFK to know that Lemay and other military officials not only despised him, but had no respect for him or his office.

Looks like a strong lineup. I'm especially interested in hearing what William Walter has to say. Congrats to Trine Day, and thanks to Douglas for sharing.

Cliff is right- this is the essential point of the entire controversy. All logic, and every early account, pointed to the throat wound being one of entrance. Obviously, this presented a huge problem for those constructing the official fairy tale. The bullet holes in JFK's clothing alone disprove the SBT. The throat wound is icing on the cake.

Harold Weisberg mentioned Fletcher Knebel at length in one of his books- I want to say it was Post Mortum. If I recall correctly, Knebel was tasked to write an article generally smearing Warren Commission critics, and intimated that Edward Epstein's lightweight, decidedly neo-con Inquest was the most impressive of the bunch. Which, of course, rankled Weisberg. Really, the first JFK assassination "conspiracy theorist" was Marguerite Oswald.

The significance of Carolyn Arnold's testimony relates to Oswald being in the sixth floor window in time to have been the assassin. If she saw him at 12:15, floors below the alleged sniper's lair, when the motorcade was actually scheduled to arrive earlier than 12:30, then it begs credulity to imagine him not being in position at that time. If it was closer to 12:25, it become impossible for him to have been firing shots from the sixth floor. Prayer Man aside, Arnold is a strong witness for conspiracy.

The reason I chose to write a book about all the important events that have happened since November 22, 1963 is because I believe they're all connected. We can't look at the JFK assassination in a vacuum. To try and determine why he was killed, we need to look at what changed, and what didn't change, after his death. If Castro was the impetus for the assassination of JFK, then the plotters failed miserably. Castro wasn't overthrown, the attempts on his life stopped, and in fact Cuba itself basically disappeared as a political issue, even for the far right-wing. If JFK's efforts to obtain Civil Rights for black Americans was a deciding factor, again the plotters failed miserably, because LBJ was able to get that legislation passed. Our involvement in Vietnam, however, most decidedly did change after the events of November 22, 1963. NSAM 263 detailed JFK's plans to begin an immediate withdrawal, with all Americans out by 1965. NSAM 273, written by probable plotter McGeorge Bundy before the assassination, when he had to have known JFK would never have approved it, totally contradicted JFK's new policy directive and paved the way for the rest of the tumultuous 1960s. While JFK and RFK became sworn enemies of both the CIA and FBI Director Hoover, after the assassination the power of the intelligence agencies continued to grow, even after the revelations of the Church Committee in the mid-1970s. Remember, even at the height of seeming opposition to our clandestine activities, Jimmy Carter was unable to get Ted Sorensen approved as CIA Director, because of his Kennedy ties and his perceived animosity towards the agency. JFK was locked in a battle behind the scenes with David Ben-Gurion and Israel over their development of nuclear weapons. Certainly, upon his death, our foreign policy became increasingly entangled with Israeli interests, especially with the election of Reagan and the birth of the neo-cons. There are also indications that, inspired by his father's distrust of the banking system, that JFK distrusted the Federal Reserve and might very well have audited or abolished it. Lyndon Johnson's behavior after the assassination rightly earned him the enmity of RFK and most of Kennedy's advisers. He couldn't hide his happiness. I don't believe he was the primary force behind the assassination, but there is little doubt that he knew in advance and certainly approved. We also know from the slew of bodies accumulated during his political career that LBJ would not have hesitated to order a hit on anyone. In a nutshell, JFK had discarded his Cold War mindset by 1963, as is evident by his American University speech, which is probably the most dangerous speech ever delivered by an American president. The Military Industrial Complex must have despised him at that point, as did J. Edgar Hoover and the most powerful people in the CIA. if Abraham Bolden is correct, then some of those Secret Service agents sworn to protect him hated JFK. We all know how miserably JFK's Secret Service detail performed in Dallas that day. If there had been an honest investigation of the assassination, then every one of those men would have been grilled mercilessly and their behavior considered suspect. We can't name the gunmen at this point, but it should be pretty obvious just who had the power and motivation to kill JFK. It wasn't anti-Castro or pro-Castro Cubans, and it wasn't the Mafia. It obviously wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald. It was an aggregation of very powerful forces that conspired together to remove a common enemy. The fact that the crime continues to be covered up by an ensuing generation demonstrates that all these crimes remain important to those who misrule us. In Hidden History, I delineated this pattern; an uninterrupted timeline of corruption on the part of our leaders, starting with the assassination of President Kennedy. Conspiracies and cover-ups are standard operating procedure for our leaders. The JFK assassination remains especially important because it heralded a new era, new extremes of crime and corruption.

You are some piece of "respectable" work, Greg. I would take the most delusional "tin foil hat" adherent over the vile band of preschool-level "researchers" who populate your forum. You even feel the need to defame God, whom I assume you don't believe in, with the "Great Elvis Impersonator" smear. Why smear a nonexistent thing? Do you ridicule Santa Claus, too? You dodged yet another bullet when the moderators reacted to your attack on Duncan MacRae's deceased relative by closing the thread and advising everyone to calm down. This is generally the reaction here to your childish behavior- to lump the objects of your ridicule in with you, much as bullied victims are almost always punished as severely, or more severely, than those who bully them. This is the same theme we see with whistleblowers as well; kill messengers like Manning and Snowden. But in your world, it is you who is being targeted here, not those you attack persistently. I really don't know why you hold back here at all. "Bwian" was a cute, kindergarten-level effort at name calling, but I don't think anyone here will reign you in if you just express yourself as profanely as you like, in the style of ROKC's most valued posters. This place has clearly adopted a "hands off" policy towards you.

The Warren Commission had very little interest overall in the film record of the assassination. Harold Weisberg's least known work, Photographic Whitewash, detailed the numerous missing film and photos taken by witnesses, and the lack of effort on the part of those "investigating" this crime to obtain them, or even identify those who took them. Weisberg published documents that revealed a local Dallas television station literally begging the Commission to take their footage, because otherwise it was going to be recorded over in the standard procedure of the day. In spite of this, Arlen Spector (who was in charge of this area of the "investigation") told the Commission members that he'd been unable to find any additional film. And, of course, they really never even attempted to track down the Babusha Woman, whose film would almost certainly have been even more important than Zapruder's.

I shouldn't have implied that you believe Joe Kennedy butchered his daughter purposefully, Kenneth. But I think that's the prevailing view within the establishment, and now within a large portion of the public. They have vilified Joe Kennedy as a corrupt "bootlegger" associated with the mob, and regardless of the tainted sources for this, if it's repeated enough it becomes "fact." I don't believe any mainstream, "respectable" historian would write anything nearly as negative about the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, the Churchills, or any other celebrated "liberal" family. Of course, they have been criticized a great deal, but almost all of this criticism has come from those outside the mainstream, who can conveniently be labeled as "extremists."

You have to consider how differently society looked at those with developmental difficulties back then. While we understand frontal lobotomies now as something hideous, at the time it was a new procedure, and something which the doctors told Joe Kennedy could potentially dramatically improve Rose's "slow" condition. Especially in a wealthy, competitive family like the Kennedys, it was crucial for the children to be "normal" in every way. I'm not sure what your sources are regarding Rosemary's relations with boys. However, that was certainly a valid concern; Rosemary was a beautiful girl, and it was a different era. I am skeptical of all sources regarding negative information about the Kennedys, as I detail in my book. There has been a clear agenda for some time now, to smear and demean the reputations of the entire Kennedy family, starting with Papa Joe. It's sheer speculation either way about what Joe Kennedy's motivations were, but while there are anecdotal accounts portraying Rose as a cold and distant mother, no one denies that Joe cared deeply about his children. I prefer to believe that he honestly wanted to "improve" his beautiful, "slow" daughter, and must have been mortified when it backfired so tragically. I can't accept that his rationale was to destroy her critical faculties in an effort to stop her from sleeping around. These books are like all books about the Kennedys published since the 1970s or so; more vicious attempts to manipulate the public's image of the family in a negative manner, with the ultimate goal probably to erase them down the memory hole. Can we imagine such attacks on the Rockefeller family? The Roosevelts? Joe Kennedy lost four children to separate, premature, unnatural deaths. If you include Rosemary as "lost," which she certainly was, that's over half of his family. No man should have to endure such heartbreak. As a hands-on parent, I suspect that Joe thought he could "fix" his daughter with this new, unproven procedure. I have a niece who was born with Downs Syndrome in the late 1960s. Even at that time, the advice was to put them away, lock them up where the world couldn't see them. We were Catholics, like the Kennedys, and there was still a thought that such things were curses, and the affected individuals were unfit to interact with the "normal" world. Thank goodness my sister didn't take listen to them, and today we're a more enlightened society in this regard. I think the Kennedys, through Eunice Kennedy Shriver, should receive much of the credit for this. Although far too many comedians and alleged mature adults still use the word "retard" and make fun of the "short bus," overall those who have developmental disorders aren't quite shunned as they used to be. We know from Kennedy family friend Lem Billings and others that the family had a great deal of trouble with Rosemary, who would sometimes become violent, and was known to wander the streets and engage in verbal arguments with people. Rose Kennedy expressed the valid fear that her daughter might be easily duped into something, or become a victim of kidnapping. There was an uncharacteristically fair article in the May 24, 1987 Palm Beach Post, titled "Decision to Lobotomize Rosemary Haunted Joseph Kennedy to Grave," in which the lobotomy was more accurately described as a "pioneering operation," which is the way it was viewed at the time. The article goes on to state, "In the early 1940s, the operation was considered a miracle treatment..." The article points out that Joe's secrecy was motivated by a desire to "protect Rose from the heartbreak, to see her daughter that way..." Certainly, the Kennedys had their flaws, but Rosemary's sad story is just one aspect of their lives that I believe has been reported on dishonestly, as part of the ongoing effort to diminish their reputation. No other celebrated family engenders the kind of hatred the Kennedys do. They weren't perfect, but they stand out in stark contrast to their greedy, self-serving, corrupt fellow one-percenters.

Rosemary's tragic story is often cited as an example of Joe Kennedy's poor parenting. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the time, lobotomy was considered a new, potentially "miracle" cure. He had nothing but her best interests at heart, and certainly must have been devastated when it backfired. If anything, Joe Kennedy was an exceptional parent who experienced more tragedy than anyone should ever have to endure. Rosemary inspired Eunice Kennedy Shriver to start the Special Olympics, and lobby on behalf of all those who had been (and continue to be by all too many insensitive people) disparaged as "retards." Her crusading really opened the doors for inclusion, and is something she isn't regularly credited for.

Dawn, Bernie supports this nonsensical "war on terror," as does Elizabeth Warren. This is why real pro-peace Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, are always mired at 1-2% in those phony, manipulative, totally unnecessary pre-election polls.