Don Jeffries

Myra,

Why are you leaving the forum?

I really don't understand why so many good people stop posting here. You have confidence in your beliefs, and are knowledgable about the subjects you post on, so the worst that can happen is that others will disagree with you. I don't find it difficult at all to make my points, and I think there are fair and reasonable rules here which help maintain some order.

I was very sad to see Charles go, and I'll be very sad if you leave. I always enjoy your posts and this place will not be the same without you.

Alaric,

I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions.

Dale Myers was posting regularly for a brief period of time a few years back on another forum. I found him to be completely full of himself, arrogant and unwilling to address other posters with anything other than "buy my book." I kept trying to pin him down on a very simple point; how did he determine what time Oswald left the TSBD? As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions. He refused to answer me, because he couldn't.

The truth is, we have no idea what time Oswald really left the TSBD. His alleged post-assassination journey makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what his role was. Lone nut or Patsy, no one walks away from the scene of a crime he's just commited, then takes a bus back towards it moments later, then gets off the bus and hails a taxi back in the opposite direction again, only to have the driver drop him off past his rooming house, so he will have to unnecessarily walk back to it.

Everything about the official story of Oswald's post-shooting movements is unbelievable. Every witness he supposedly encountered was absurd and would have been torn to shreds on cross examination by a competent public defender. One of the most absurd, William Whaley, even acknowledged this during his side-splitting testimony before the Warren Commission. Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters and Helen Markham are hardly an impressive array of witnesses. The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired. This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything. These reports represent the best evidence, and really the only evidence, that exists regarding Oswald's possible exit from the TSBD.

When we try to analyize what happened immediately after the assassination, and whether or not Oswald could have shot Tippit, we are asked to trust a group of uncredible witnesses, as well as Captain Fritz's "notes" from all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. I don't think any of the witnesses are believable, and I don't think the official story of what Oswald is supposed to have done during that time is believable. I also don't trust the veracity of Fritz's "notes." For instance, why would Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) have answered the question about getting his gun from his rooming house with the ridiculous reply "you know how boys are, they get their gun." Huh? This is the response from the disgusted prisoner was was persisently maintaining his innocence every chance he got? Sorry, I cannot believe that Oswald said anything like that.

We are also asked to believe that the president of the Dallas Bar Association, Louis Nichols, was satisifed that Oswald was not being denied representation, after visiting him in jail. Huh? That's just about all Oswald was talking about, during his brief snippets before the cameras. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the same figure who was complaiing constantly about "being denied legal representation" and requesting that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance" could possibly have told Nichols that everything was fine.

I am skeptical about everything Oswald is alleged to have done on November 22, 1963. This includes whether he carried anything into the TSBD that morning ("curtain rods" or lunch), whether he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD during the shooting (now generally accepted to be Lovelady, in the famous Altgens photo), or whether he even encountered Roy Truly and Marion Baker in the second floor lunchroom (I've never undestood why Baker found anything suspcious about this one guy, who was buying a soda, when there were plenty of other people still inside the building).

This thread has, like so many others, been turned into an attack upon Jack White and the whole pro-alteration view in general.

As I've said before, I'm an agnostic on the issue of film alteration. However, Jack's posts are usually thought provoking and always interesting. In this particular case, he was simply pointing out that there was some kind of stuffed animal in the limousine and that therefore Jean Hill's initial description of "a dog" in the car-which was used (and is still used) to discredit her as a witness-was not as ridiculous as it seemed.

I was once, not that long ago, one of those who tended to doubt all of Jean Hill's testimony because of the "dog" in the limo claim. Thanks to Jack and others, I now realize she could easily have seen something that resembled a real dog in that car. Bill, the reason Jean plays down the "dog" story in her book-which I read-is because by that point she was undoubtedly weary of having it thrown in her face to ridicule the rest of her testimony. She also didn't realize, I don't believe, that any film had been discovered that tended to support her on this. Considering all she'd been through, it was a perfectly natural human reaction.

Jack's claims on this thread are not outlandish at all. The constant attacks upon anything he posts are tiresome and contribute nothing to this case. The most controversial thing he's ever said cannot hold a candle to the single-bullet theory, for instance. Yet despite the obvious scientific impossibility of the single-bullet theory, anyone who wanders onto this forum still promoting it is not attacked the way Jack White is on nearly everything he posts.

I don't think it's entirely correct to say that the critics all used to work together. From my own personal experience, I can tell you that Harold Weisberg, for instance, held almost all the other critics in low regard. I recall him bitterly ranting about virtually every well-known name in the field during a dinner at his home back in the early 1980s. Indeed, it was hard to get him off the subject. I think he considered Mark Lane almost an enemy, and didn't even like to mention his name.

The Lane-Weisberg feud went back at least to the mid-1970s. When I was a teenage volunteer with Lane's Citizens Committee Of Inquiry, everyone in that group considered Weisberg a joke or a crank because Mark Lane did. I'm not sure why they felt that way about each other, but Weisberg took Lane to task early on in his "Whitewash" books. I remember one criticism he constantly leveled at Lane was that he didn't use the actual Warren Commission counsel names in "Rush To Judgment" when excerpting bits of testimony. It was a valid point, but I honestly think Weisberg was jealous of Lane's success.

Penn Jones eventually came to have suspicions about many of the critics. I remember him publishing something about the Mark Lane-Wesley Liebeler debates back in the 1960s, wherein it was alleged that they were staged (something about each of them leaping up and acting outraged, the exact same way each time-word for word). When David Lifton treated Wesley Liebeler with such kid gloves in his "Best Evidence," I know that aroused a lot of suspicions about him.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that unfortunate infighting and competing egos have always been, to some extent, a part of the JFK assassination research community.

Michael/David,

I just found this thread. Since I am the "utter clot" you referred to again (more than once), I feel the need to respond.

First, I wasn't responsible for you being put on moderation. I had never seen your name on the forum until you launched that ridiculous, nearly incomprehensible attack on me. It was so unwarranted, and mean-spirited, that I complained to the moderators about it. In all my years of posting on various forums, I've never done that. So consider that some kind of an accomplishment, I guess.

I am no expert at all on the McCann case, and never claimed to be. I simply stated that those parents were incredibly neglectful to leave children that young unattended. As a parent, I recoil at that kind of negligence. Now, if they didn't leave those small children unattended for that length of time, please correct me. If I understand that most basic of facts about the case, then I certainly stand by my view. I think any responsible parent would.

As for your complex theory about what really happened, your way of explaining it reminds me of the way Tom Purvis posts; far too many words, way too complicated for most rational people to understand.

Kathy,

You're right, as usual. I shouldn't have insinuated something about Josiah that I don't know.

Whenever Gary used to email me, it would always be to contradict some statement I'd made on a forum. Every time, his position was the official one.

I was just thinking about one of the debates we used to have with Gary when he posted regularly on the JFK Research Forum. Many of us used to wonder why the Sixth Floor Museum couldn't put a simple "alleged" in front of Oswald's name. That's hardly an extreme position, and it certainly would seem reasonable and legally correct to at least acknowledge that he never had the opportunity to go to trial, so thus was not convicted of the crime. Gary danced and dodged, but we couldn't even get him to broach the subject.

Charles, it is a shame you are deciding to stop contributing here. There is no reason for you to do this- not only do we value your thoughts, you are giving others the satisfaction of thinking they chased you away. You won the debates with them, because you had reason on your side, but if you aren't around, during the next debate there will be a real void on our side.

I have come to the conclusion that the research community is being slowly taken over by a new kind of "neo-con." While the neo-conservatives in the Republican Party (and some Democrats) all but run our foreign policy now, neo-conspiracists are increasingly becoming the majority voice in our little JFK assassination research world. By neo-conspiracists, I mean those who spend far more time atacking "lunatic fringe" CTers than the official version of events. Gary Mack would be a perfect example of this new "neo-con."

When I first started studying this case back in the early 1970s, critics were insinuating the involvement of the CIA, big oil, the mob, LBJ and powerful forces in the Pentagon, but they focused their attention on the obvious indicators of conspiracy. These would include: the single-bullet theory; the backwards movement of JFK's head after impact; the incomplete, secretive and shoddy autopsy; the numerous unnatural deaths of those connected in some way to this case; Oswald's mysterious background; Oswald's inferior shooting ability, as reflected in his Marine Corps record; the shoddy and defective nature of the alleged murder weapon; the fact that no one has ever, even under favorable circumstances and with expert shooting skills Oswald never possessed, duplicated his alleged feat; the suspicious dereliction of duty on the part of every Secret Service agent in JFK's detail during the shooting; the suspicious dereliction of duty on the part of every Dallas police officer during the unnecessary transfer of Oswald and many, many more.

Now, we see less attention paid to these red flags of conspiracy, and the inference is that many of these "theories" have been laid to rest. We don't hear any more about the Umbrella Man, for instance. At one time, the strange, unidentified man pumping an open umbrella in the air on a sunny day was fascinating to people. After Steven Witt testified before the HSCA that he'd been the Umbrella Man, despite a totally unbelievable story, most researchers seemingly accepted it. The Umbrella Man is now pretty much forgotten, and the Gary Macks of the world will simply nod their heads when you mention the subject and indicate Witt "was" the man in question. The strange deaths of witnesses is another area that has been discarded into the dustbin of history by most critics. While I think that some of the deaths were not related to the JFK assassination, there were far too many unnatural deaths of those who were associated in some manner to the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 for it to be entirely coincidental. As I am fond of asking those who claim that these deaths were not related to the case; how many people do you know who have died an unnatural death? How many have died in car crashes? Suicides? Murders? Falls out of windows? Accidental gun shots in police stations? I think the answer is obvious, and the same for most everyone; few if any. While the neo-cons wil poo-poo the notion that there was any significance behind these deaths, consider what they did to Jim Garrison's fledgling investigation. I think it's interesting to note that Josiah Thompson recently referred to Richard Randolph Carr's "unfortunate self-destruction." I might ask Josiah what he meant by that? Carr was a strong witness who stuck to his story, even though he was told by authorities to keep quiet and was the victim of a couple of attempts upon his life. The fact that he didn't become a mysterious death doesn't detract from the fact that someone was threatening him and trying to silence him. I don't know whether Josiah fits into the "neo-con" category, but declaring someone like Carr to have "self destructed" sounds like something out of the neo-con playbook.

Some CTers now seem to think that Oswald killed Tippit. This is unfathomable to me, but it has become a real "neo-con" position in my estimation. Most of us used to believe that since it was highly unlikely that Oswald could even have arrived at the scene of the Tippit murder in time to commit it, then he couldn't have done it. This doesn't even factor in the conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony. Even one of my favorite researchers-Vince Palamara-who has done such a great job of documenting the duplicity of the Secret Service, has written that believes Oswald shot Tippit. Vince didn't go into any details, but it's just incomprehensible to me that a top-flight, clear headed researcher like Vince could accept such an integral part of the official fairy tale.

Another neo-con view is that there was a coverup, but it was all with good intentions. They invariably refer to this as a benign coverup. There is a real reluctance among neo-cons to pointing out the specific culpability of J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Emory Roberts, William Greer, Arlen Specter, etc. Instead we are invariably directed towards mostly dead anti-Castro elements, with the notion that there was nothing more powerful, except perhaps some equally dead mobsters, behind them. We need to refocus on the absurdity of the official "investigation," as the original critics did. Real people, with identifiable names, failed to follow up legitimate leads and did the covering up. They ought to be identified over and over, so that posterity knows who was responsible for this now probably unsolvable mystery.

I know I've strayed far from the subject of Charles's imminent departure from this forum. Charles, stay and fight with us. The neo-con forces can only win if we let them. They can't debate us, because the evidence is on our side. You know that better than just about any of us. We've already lost too many good people here- we need your voice of reason.

Kathy,

I didn't think if including your name; Stephen and Roy seemed to feel more strongly about this. I'm not used to being on the opposite side of you- we have to make sure this doesn't happen often.

I'm not claiming that any poster here who doesn't beileve there was defintely a conspiracy is a disinfo agent. I'm not alleging that Gary Mack is one. For all I know, Stephen is the nicest guy in the world. Gary Mack, while infuriating me with his apologist emails, was always very civil and reasonable in tone. I know he has also been very helpful in assisting researchers with generic information. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm personally atatcking anyone.

That being said, the state of the evidence is beyond dispute in the most important regard; the official version of events is impossible. Period. The condition of the "magic bullet" shows this. The bullet holes in the clothing show this. The backwards head snap shows this. There are a myriad of facts and theories that can be debated, and certainly Oswald's role can be, but to maintain that there is the slightest chance that this assassination was merely the act of a lone assassin is not an intellectually honest position to take. Now, I have no way of knowing why anyone woudl take such a position. I suspect that those who proclaim to be "on the fence" haven't read the essential critical works on the subject, or examined the Hearings And Exhibits for themselves.

I have a neighbor who is strident in his view that Oswald acted alone. It took me a long time to get him to admit that the only book he'd read on the subject was "Case Closed." I have a hunch that a lot of people who are unsure about whether there was a conspiracy started out by reading this thoroughly discredited book. They might possibly have read a few of the newer pro-conspiracy books, but unless you have read some of the classics, you have no real idea of just how impossible the offical story is. Those early works concentrated on picking apart the 26 volumes of Hearings And Exhibits, and comparing the conclusions stated in the Warren Report to their alleged supporting evidence in the actual record.

I don't mean to doubt anyone's word, but it just defies belief to think that having read "Accessories After The Fact," for instance, a person could have the slightest doubt about there being some kind of a conspiracy.

Jim asked Charles to name the specifics of the conspiracy. Obviously, it isn't our obligation to prove who killed JFk. The fact is, it has been shown beyond any doubt that the crime could not have been committed by any one individual. Thus, as Charles says, that means conspiracy. This murder took place over 44 years ago, and was never investigated at the time. So it would be pretty difficult for any forum poster-even one as clear-headed as Charles-to identify the shooters now. That would be just a bit beyond the means of any individual citizen.

Frank,

Glad to see a news reporter interested in this case. The mainstream media has been the biggest obstacle to finding out the truth about the JFK assassination.

Ruth and Michael Paine are both still alive. At last report, Ruth lived in Florida. I think hunting them down and getting an in-depth interview would be one of the most productive things any journalist could do. Imho, they were involved at the ground level of the conspiracy in framing Oswald; with all the dead witnesses in this case, it's really astounding to think these truly crucial witnesses are still around. In any real investigation, they (along with probably FBI agent James Hosty) would be the first witnesses called to testify.

Of course, the Paines have been extremely reluctant to talk to researchers, so I don't know how feasible my idea is. But, it's a suggestion.

Stephen/Jim, et al,

No one is suggesting you don't have a right to any opinion you arrive at. However, when you claim to have studied this case for years and are still acting as if it's an open question whether or not there was a conspiracy, don't expect others to respect that.

For most of us, this is a very emotional issue. I can only speak for myself, but my overriding interest in the JFK assassination cost me friends (especially girls) in my youth, and it didn't exactly endear me to my employers. Once I found out exactly how clear and obvious this conspiracy was, I naively went on a crusade to try to enlighten people. This included local news reporters and members of Congress. I spent a few years as a teenager lobbying Congress for Mark Lane's group The Citizens Committee Of Inquiry. I've been in so many debates about this subject over the years, in bars and at parties, and on various job sites, that it has unfortunately become pretty tiresome to hear this "fence sitting" mantra from people who claim to have studied the evidence.

Charles has his own line about this, and I pretty much agree with that. I'll rephrase it to say: anyone who was interested enough in this case to have read the early classic works like "Accessories After The Fact," the "Whitewash" books by Weisberg or "Rush To Judgment" and then maintains that there is the slightest chance that Oswald acted alone is simply not credible.

Bill,

I tried to ask Gary a simple question several times on the JFK Research Forum. It was simply this; given your previous writings, what evidence convinced you to change your mind so drastically and find validity in so much of the official story you used to believe was bogus? He never really answered, beyond saying that he had seen critics doing sloppy work and misrepresenting evidence. I pointed out, as I have many times, that the most irresponsible "conspiracy theorist" you can find doesn't hold a candle to the lies and distortions that fill up the official record.

To cite just a few specifics for you, Gary and I had an email exchange about the Babushka Lady a few years back. He was pushing some new ridiculous theory that she never even took a moving film of the assassination, but was in fact someone who took snapshots and was questioned by a representative of Kodak on the afternoon of the assassination. I won't belabor how absurd this theory is, but clearly Gary once accepted that a woman who was never identified by the authorities can be seen in other film footage taking a home movie of the assassination from close range. Whether or not this is Beverly Oliver, we know her as the Babushka Lady. Also, Gary is now pushing the impossible "bunched" theory to explain the holes in JFK's clothing. I don't think he can honestly say that he ever accepted such nonsense in the past.

If you haven't done so, try to locate some old issues of "The Continuing Inquiry." I know they're hard to find, but if you read some of Gary's writings there, you will understand what I'm saying.

Back in 1999 or so, when Rich Dellarosa's JFK Research Forum was really hot, Gary Mack did post, more than just about anyone else. He practically lived on that forum, and he was already working for the Sixth Floor Museum. I don't see how his job can be the reason why he doesn't post here.

Stephen, Duncan, Bill and anyone else who is defending Gary Mack,

If you understood what Gary Mack used to believe, not so long ago, about the JFK assassination, you might also question his motives for spouting the nonsense he does now on a regular basis. Jack White could provide the details much better than I, but for those of you who were familiar with Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" (I was a subscriber from the first issue to the last), then you would be familiar with the kind of research Mack once did. I think Jack and Gary Shaw were the main ones responsible for editing TCI, but Mack wrote many articles and some of them were pretty "extreme" in nature. I recall in particular some stuff he wrote about the shooting of Reagan, which addressed the claim that some witnesses had seen a second shooter there besides Hinckley. I may be confusing Mack with Shaw on that one, but I'm pretty sure it was Mack.

As Charles reminds us so often, the evidence in this case is quite clear. Most of us realized that Oswald couldn't have done it within weeks (if not days) of first examining the "evidence" that the official case was built on. Cliff is right to focus on the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat; they are about as solid as evidence can get. When you combine that with Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, which locates the back wound in the exact same location, and Admiral Burkley's report that located it there as well, then no one without an agenda can seriously contest the fact that the back wound was far too low to exit from JFK's neck.

In response to hard evidence like bullet holes in clothing, backed by other independent sources like the autopsy face sheet and the president's personal physician's own identification, we are given the "bunching" theory. While perhaps not as ridiculous and impossible as the single-bullet theory, or the "jet effect" theory (which "explains" why JFK's head broke the laws of physics by going back towards the shooter), it is pretty lame.

The reality, Mr. Mack, is that had Oswald gone to trial, and had a competent defense attorney, any honest judge would have thrown out all the "evidence" against him. The chain-of-possession on the rifle, "magic bullet," and anything allegedly found in the limousine was hopelessly tainted and this would have been the first thing any real defense counsel pointed out to the court. In other words, none of the "hard evidence" that Mack refers to could have even been introduced into the record at trial. It would have been pretty hard to convict anyone, even a supposed commie in 1963 Dallas, without a weapon in the record.

Okay, Gary- please give us some specifics about this "hard evidence."

Charles,

You and I are in complete agreement about the conspirators' shoddy "coverup" on all levels. I think you're exactly right about the amateurish splice in the Zapruder film. That garnered the attention of critics early on, and was bound to lead to more detalied analysis of the entire film.

The more I study this case, the more I am in total accord with Vincent Salandria. I think those who killed JFK constructed a ridiculous case against Oswald that was about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. I've said this before, but to cite just one example; why plant a pristine bullet, when your objective is to make people think it caused seven wounds? Salandria was right; they wanted us to know what they did, and are probably still relishing the attention and all the debates.

I don't understand how anyone can trust Gary Mack about anything related to the JFK assassination at this point. He clearly has an agenda, and it isn't an agenda for getting to the truth. He used to email me regularly, in response to various posts I made here or on other forums, but has stopped doing so. I think he understands that I see through his little charade. Mack has been a lone assassin propagandist since he started working for the Sixth Floor Museum. He still maintains that he accepts the acoustics evidence, and also the "Badge Man" figure he discovered with Jack White, but every thing he says on all those t.v. specials he appears on props up the official story.

Gary Mack was once a fine researcher, and he obviously knows more about the assassination than most of us. So there is absolutely no innocent explanation for his sudden affinity for all that shoddy work the Warren Commission did. He definitely knows better.

Myra,

FYI, Olbermann has made it known on his show that he accepts the lone assassin fairy tale. Imho, he is just another example of "fake opposition." He reminds me of the Saturday Night Live writers, or Michael Moore; their mantra is that the Democrats are the good guys and we only need to elect enough of them to solve our problems. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between our carbon-copy two mainstream parties.

Too bad no American comedian will ask that question.

The thing I find most interesting here is Marie Muchmore's supposed belief that she didn't film the motorcade during the assassination. That simply is not believable, imho. This had to have been the most memorable home movie this woman ever took, or ever would take. How could she possibly have been mistaken about something so basic?

Although he isn't mentioned by name in the story, this alleged conversation is obviously connected to the testimony of attorney Carroll Jarnagin. While it is stated here that the FBI investigated this story and found it to be a fake, I certainly don't believe that to be the case. Penn Jones covered the Jarnagin story in great depth in his first "Forgive My Grief" book.

I'm an agnostic on the alteration question. I do think both sides make good arguments. However, I think it is foolish to maintain an absolute belief in the sanctity of the Zapruder film, given all we know about the misuse and destruction of other evidence in this case. If a powerful group is willing to attempt an assassination of the sitting President of the United States, then they would certainly not be beyond altering photographic evidence to suit their needs.

I liken the whole alteration question to the debate about exactly which rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. I have argued that, legally speaking, the best evidence is that a German Mauser was found there, because two deputies (Boone and Weitzman) signed sworn affidavits to that effect. Thus, because of this, there is no legally admissable start to the chain-of-possession for the Mannlicher Carcano. A competent defense attorney, given an honest judge, would have had all the Carcano evidence declared inadmissable due to this. However, I recognize the problems, from a conspiracy point of view, with another weapon actually being found there. It certainly makes little sense to leave a Mauser there, and then later turn that into the post-office weapon that you are going to try to tie (in a very incompetent way, imho) to Oswald. Maybe an actual shooter left the Mauser due to sloppiness- who knows? My point is, it's hard for me to believe the two men who swore out the identification for the weapon both made the same mistake. That was certainly the most important identification either of them had ever made, or ever would make. One would think they'd be extra careful about getting things right when they looked at the rifle.

In a simliar sense, all those witnesses who reported the limousine stopping or almost stopping do present a problem for those who claim the Zapruder film is pristine and authentic. Jack White, Jim Fetzer and John Costella have made many interesting observations about the crowd in the Zapruder film. I'm intrigued by that, and certainly open to the possibility that it was tampered with. However, as in the case of the Mauser-Carcano debate, altering the Zapruder film into its present state makes little sense from a conspiratorial point of view. The Zapruder film, in its present condition, is what swayed most of us over to the conspiracy side. The backwards head snap alone is one of the strongest pieces of evidence, imho, that a shot was fired from the front. So....I'm on the fence here, and those of you who know how opinionated I am will understand how rare it is for me to be undecided about anything.

I do find this debate very interesting, but ultimately unimportant in the big picture of Who Really Killed JFK? There is more than enough evidence that a lone assassin couldn't possibly have fired all the shots. I think we ought to concentrate on that ironclad, incontrovertible evidence (the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat, the utter impossibility of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions, the complete non- response of the Secret Service, the sham "investigation" by the Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission, the purposeful inclusion of hard-to-find and totally irrelevant witnesses by the WC, the purposeful exclusion of totally crucial witnesses like Admiral Burkley by the WC, and many, many others), instead of arguing over whether or not the Zapruder film was altered, or whether JFK's body was altered, for that matter. In this respect, although I admire John Armstrong's work, and he has certainly discovered something amiss about Oswald's background, I don't think we're going to sway many newcomers over to our side with the "Harvey and Lee" theory.

I know it's a dream, but we could be so much more effective if we stopped the petty squablling and concentrated on arguing the impossibility of the official case. We also need to stress that the government, and apologists like Bugliosi, need to prove the case against Oswald. It is not up to anyone to prove that Oswald didn't do it (although that certainly was done, far beyond a reasonable doubt, decades ago by the original band of citizen critics).

Welcome John! I have the greatest respect for your work; "Fair Play" and "Probe" are both indispensable resources for assassination researchers. I plan on reading your book asap; it's about time someone paid homage to the original band of critics who started it all. This forum will be enhanced by your presence.

One quick question- Jim DiEugenio is listed as a member of this forum, but doesn't post. Assuming you have regular contact with him, any chance you could persuade him to start posting?

The "Two Men In Dallas" 5-part video was great. For those who claim that the initial identification of the rifle found on the 6th floor as a Mauser was just an innocent mistake, look at the affidavit that Seymour Weitzman swore out- it's full of detail, and obviously was made by someone who was positive about what he was identifying. Throw in Boone's simultaneous identification of the rifle as a Mauser, and then look at that CIA memo, written on 11/25/63, that listed the 6th floor weapon as a Mauser, and a reasonable person would have to assume that the rifle found there was a Mauser.

I have no idea why a Mauser was apparently found on the 6th floor, or when and where the Mannlicher-Carcano was substituted for it, but it seems pretty clear that it happened that way.

I know that not all researchers believe in Roger Craig's credibility. Imho, he was one of the few members of Dallas law enforcement who actually tried to do his job that day. He unquestionably suffered tremendously because he told the truth and refused to change his story. In my mind, he was a true hero.

Peter,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but you seem to be implying that JFK was so hopped up on drugs that he was unfit to serve as President. Like all the Mafia-womanizer stories, the "Dr. Feelgood" nonsense can always be traced back to the same, unreliable sources.

When you're speculating about exactly who was behind the assassination of JFK, I think it's a mistake to assume that they were motivated by rational reasons. Any theory that mentions "unfit for office," or that JFK was executed because some powerful forces thought he was a communist and/or a traitor, is seriously flawed, imho.

If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend that you (and everyone else, for that matter), read Jim DiEugenio's excellent online article "The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." He does a great job of exposing the bogus nature of all the Judith Campbell Exner allegations, and documents the smear campaign against the memory of John F. Kennedy.

Deleted doubled post.