Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

Members
  • Content Count

    1,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. This thread again exemplifies why the research community has become little more than a tiresome debating society. Martin Hay represents the most reasonable school of thought in very effectively critiquing David Von Pein's and Mel Ayton's predictably impossible Oswald-did-it book. David Lifton's curious, belated response relies on unwarranted faith in both Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald, the two witnesses who almost exclusively were responsible for painting a negative picture of Lee Harvey Oswald. David further maintains that Oswald DID carry a rifle into the TSBD that day. Is David now claimin
  2. 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
  3. 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-ray
  4. 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 o
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 (
  12. 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 a
  13. 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.
  14. 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 man
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 Civ
  21. 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 l
  22. 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 Spect
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
×
×
  • Create New...