Don Jeffries

The Secret Service has one function- the protection of a specific individual they are assigned to. They are trained to constantly be on the lookout for anyone or anything suspicious. On November 22, 1963, JFK's Secret Service detail didn't react at all to the sound of gunfire. There is no innocent explanation for this. They were either all monumentally incompetent, and thus unqualified for their positions, of they were following instructions from someone to stand down and not do the job they'd been trained to do. To suggest that these highly trained agents would not move a muscle for 5-6 seconds following the sound of gunfire is absurd. Perhaps one or two of them could have had their senses dulled, and were unable to respond as quickly as they usually did due to the late night drinking the night before, but it's completely ridiculous to maintain that ALL of the agents failed to do their job at the same crucial time.

The "performance" of the Secret Service in Dealey Plaza smacked of conspiracy and in any true investigation, Roberts, Kellerman, Greer and co. would have been questioned thoroughly about their suspect behavior. We all speculate about the identities of those who were behind the assassination, but we know that Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, acted in a suspicious manner that was not consistent with doing their job properly. I think they are the most likely, and obvious, conspirators at the ground level.

Ronald Reagan was a total fraud. From a "conservative" standpoint, he did nothing to slow the growth of the federal "gubmit," which was the foundation of his campaign. Reagan didn't even attempt to abolish the then-infant Department of Energy. Reagan's much balleyhooed tax cuts went exclusively to the most wealthy Americans. Everyone else received several tex increases during his two terms. As Cliff noted, he was never "tough" with the Soviets. When the Soviets shot down an airliner with a United States congressman (Larry McDonald) on board, Reagan did nothing. I'm not suggesting that I think he should been tough with the Soviets, or that he should have cut back on the size of government and cut taxes; it's just that his entire campaign was built around these issues, and the record shows that he didn't even attempt to fulfill any of those campaign promises.

He also accelerated the immigration crisis by granting an amnesty in 1985 that permitted formerly illegal immigrants to bring in huge numbers of family members. I remember a good friend of mine at the time, who was originally from China, raging out on how stupid this idea was, and how disastrous it would be down the road for America. The lust for cheap labor really exploded during the Reagan years, and that led to deindustrialization (with untold numbers of factory workers and other unskilled laborers losing good paying jobs), the outsourcing craze and the current climate, where many upper-middle-class people hire illegals and undocumented workers to mow their lawns, landscape their yards and perform other tasks that were formerly done by the homeowners themselves.

Reagan made a bad situation worse with his tax "reform" act of 1985. It wasn't easy, but RR somehow managed to turn an already far too complicated system into something close to incomprehensible. He also took away some key benefits that were important to the poor and working class. For instance, the "reform" act did away with writing off the interest paid on consumer loans, credit cards and car notes. It also significantly increased the amount one had to pay for medical reasons until one could write them off.

Reagan ensured that what was then only a troubling future for Social Security would evolve into the impossible mess we have to deal with presently. He dramatically raised Social Security tax rates, but again this only effected the poor and working class. What many people don't realize about the Social Security system is that there is a ceiling on the amount of income taxed under it. For years, only the first $50,000 of income was texed; presently it is the first $97,000. Could there be a more ass backwards system? Talk about benefiting the rich! While Barack Obama has recently mentioned wanting to raise this ceiling, the Democrats have been all too silent about this vitally important issue. Unfortunately, the old folks are a pretty powerful lobby in this country, and thus the obvious solution to the crisis- means testing- is never mentioned by any political candiate. Ross Perot gently suggested that we try VOLUNTARY means testing, back during his first presidential run, and even this moderate suggestion was shouted down immediately by the AARP and other lobby groups.

Okay, sorry to rant like that. And Reagan isn't even my least favorite President.

Ted Kennedy's finest moment. Along with the eloquent address he gave before the 1980 Democratic convention (also undoubtedly written by Sorensen), imho they are the two greatest speeches he ever delivered.

Tim,

You have a tough opponent in Robert Charles-Dunne. I remember him well from his days as a regular poster for the JFK Research Forum, back in the late 1990s. I wish he posted more here; he is always intelligent and presents his arguments very well.

John,

Like a lot of researchers, you obviously believe that the extreme right was behind the assassination of JFK. I think this theory fails for the same reason I don't believe that anti-Castro Cubans were the driving force behind it.

In 1963, while this was a much more conservative country in general, groups like Liberty Lobby, the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, etc., were marginalized and had very little real power. It is inconceivable that they would have been able to enlist at least some members of the Secret Service (which I think had to have happened, based on the total lack of response that day). It is inconceivable that they would have been able to keep virtually all of JFK's political friends silent about the conspiracy. Do you honestly think Earl Warren would have placed his name on a report he had to have known to be bogus, for the purpose of covering up for his political enemies on the far right?

As I've mentioned before, you are playing the "six degrees of seperation" game in order to bolster your theory that those on the far right are behind everything. Kind of like the McCarthyites finding a commie behind every tree. In one of your recent posts, you actually acted as if it were suspicious that a couple of your far right bogeymen were Unitarians! Is the Unitarian religion suspect because of that? Your post certainly seemed to imply that.

As in the case of the anti-Castro theory, where I've pointed out that Castro and Cuba basically died as a political issue when JFK was killed, let's look at what the far right was lobbying for (and against) in 1963, and what happened afterwards. On virtually every issue they were concerned with, the far right "lost" after JFK was assassinated. Things did not get "better," from their point of view, with the murder of the president they thought was a commie. The dreaded Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed, the Immigration Reform act was passed, the federal government became much bigger and more involved in every facet of our lives in the ensuing years. Taxes were raised at every level, and there would be no truly powerful right wing movement until Reagan was swept into office in 1980. So, if they killed JFK, they must have been just as disappointed as the anti-Castro people at what transpired afterwards.

Finally, the biggest argument against the extreme right, or anti-Castro groups being behind the assassination is the duplicity of the entire mass media. It is an obvious fact that except for a few newspapers breathing their last gasps, the entire American establishment press would have been unsympathetic to the goals of any far right group in 1963. Over the years, our culture has titled more and more to the left, making them even less likely to support dogmatic anti-communists like Gen. Walker and company. If you think that the mainstream media today is still lying about the JFK assassination because they want to protect far right wing figures they disagreed with on every significant issue, then I think you are living in a different country than I am (but then maybe you are- not sure if you're in the U.S.)

Just a word about Liberty Lobby. I believe they changed quite a bit over the years. Like Terry Mauro, I was a subscriber to The Spotlight, the weekly newspaper they published. Once Curtis B. Dall died, I think their emphasis switched from a strict anti-communist line to a less predictable, populist tone. Yes, it is quite true that they often blamed Israel (and the Mossad) for just about every international event, but I learned to look past this and found a lot of their reporting to be very valuable. For instance, they were the first ones to run stories about widespread vote fraud, which was eventually gathered together in the excellent book "Votescam" by the late Collier brothers. We saw the fruition of what was first reported in the pages of The Spotlight back in the mid-1980s when Gore was robbed in Florida in the 2000 election. They also were well ahead of the pack in reporting on the medical benefits of vitamins and healthy eating and alternative sources of energy. In the days before the internet, The Spotlight was just about the only alternative news source we had.

When we concentrate on marginal groups with no real power, we let the truly powerful forces that I believe carried out the assassination and orchestrated the coverup (CIA, FBI, Pentagon, LBJ, etc.) off the hook. This was not an easy crime to pull off, and even if these splinter groups could have managed it, there is no way they would have been able to control the likes of LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover and the ENTIRE establishment press afterwards. Do you really think that Peter Jennings was lying for three hours on ABC television, on the 40th anniversary documentary they aired, because he didn't want to expose his "friends" on the far right? Just my two cents worth.

Ashton- I've always enjoyed reading your posts. I don't agree with a lot of what you say, but you have an entertaining way of expressing yourself.

That being said, I find these kinds of dramatic forum exits to be totally ridiculous. You see this all the time on internet forums, whether the subject is politics, superheroes or sports; a veteran poster suddenly announces that he is reluctantly leaving the forum. Without fail, this is followed by a series of posts begging the good poster to please reconsider and stay.

I think that Bevilaqua's posts are rambling and full of vitriol that turns off a lot of people. I also realize that both he and Gratz are starting up a great number of threads. I probably agree with Tim less than I do with John B., but at least he is civil to everyone and argues his points intelligently. There is nothing to stop you from ignoring them or replying and showing them the error of their ways. That being said, it's not my call to ban someone and I would almost never support that. Imho, John Simkin is a very patient man who is providing us with a marvelous forum in which to rant, rave and pontificate about a variety of issues.

On the belief that this forum is going down the tubes, while others are still providing something of value, exactly what other forums are you referring to? Just curious.

John B.,

You continue to engage in the kind of McCarthyism you claim to despise. "Prouty knew X, who was once affiliated with Y, etc., etc." You're trying to smear some good people here. Fletcher Prouty sat on the Board of Directors of Libery Lobby in the late 80s-early 90s period- not sure about the exact time period, but around then. Another member of Liberty Lobby's Board of Directors was black activist and one time well-known comedian Dick Gregory. Can you connect Gregory to Nazis, too? Mark Lane is a civil libertarian who defended Liberty Lobby against the likes of Jack Anderson, E. Howard Hunt and William F. Buckley, none of whom I imagine are in your pantheon of heroes.

Stop and think for a minute about how you sound when you make these wild connections. Don't they remind you just a bit of the kind of tactics used to label "commies," "pinkos" and "fellow travelers" during the fabulous fifities? If you continue to do this, and to maintain your consistently acerbic tone, you're going to lose the support of a lot of people who would otherwise agree with you.

Craig,

Can't believe we agree on something. Thanks for posting this- it's a travesty the way this story has been distorted by the media and idiots like John Cougar Mellencamp, who wrote a ridiculous song about the "Jena 6," as if they were the latest descendents of Emmitt Till and Medgar Evers. What has been completely lost is the simple fact that the only victim here is the kid who was viciously attacked by a group that included, as you pointed out, several with criminal backgrounds. What kind of absurd world are we living in when a group of thugs who gang up on someone and beat him almost to death are considered heroes?

Charles/Peter,

It's pointless to debate with Tom. He is addicted to producing extremely lengthy and confusing posts that leave the reader baffled. The early critics established beyond any doubt that Oswald was "a rather poor shot," in the government's own words to Mark Lane. It's just as obvious that the weapon allegedly used was defective and would not have been picked by any conspirator or any lone nut. These are just a few of the many reasons I now believe, like Vincent Salandria, that the conspirators purposefully established a childishly transparent coverup that would be easily exposed. Why they did that is something I can't figure out, although the smiple answer would be that they were simply bragging and shouting out "Yeah, we did it! So what?"

I have tried a few times to pin Tom Purvis down about exactly what it is he believes. I have been unsuccessful in doing that. From what little I understand of his many long and rambling posts, he somehow thinks that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter and that all shots were fired from there, with the Mannlicher-Carcano. However, he also believes that the Warren Commission engaged in a coverup and the Zapruder film was altered. Because he is different from an LNer, he has always interested me. However, he is just incapable of clearly and succinctly explaining himself.

Tim,

I believe that those who murdered JFK were powerful and intelligent. I understand the theory that CE399 caused JFK's back wound and fell out. However, I don't think the bullet was damaged enough even to have done that. Check out the test bullets fired into cotton wadding, the wrist of a cadaver, etc., in the Commission's own Exhibits (again, conspirators wouldn't have left such damning photos in their own record unless they wanted their coverup to be exposed). There are very good reasons to think the shot to the throat came from the front (JFK's hands clutching at that area, Dr. Perry's initial description of an entry wound, the small size of the wound, etc.)

What about the rifle? Wouldn't they have had enough sense to at least have provided their patsy with a dependable weapon that worked properly? We won't even go into the ridiculous P.O. Box problems, along with all the questions surrounding the whole Hidell "alias."

I've been studying this case for far too long, and I have become more convinced than ever that all those absurd aspects of the "official" case (single bullet theory, backwards head snap, so much evidence missing, so many dead witnesses, etc.), which instantly led me, along with countless other young people, to dismiss it as impossible, were not the work of crafty, evil villains. It was instead, I think, as Salandria has postulated, a purposefully woeful coverup, designed to be easily exposed. The rationale behind that is, as I stated earlier, not easily explained, other than pure power bragging about their work and defying us to do anything about it.

Edward Epstein should have garnered suspicion from the minute he made a name for himself with "Inquest." As Harold Weisberg pointed out, the attention paid to this slim, unimpressive volume (which was born out of a college thesis) was way out of proportion to anything inside it. Epstein was barely ever any kind of critic, and quickly metamorphasized into a born-again lone-nutter (the first of many similar transformations of "conspiracy theorists," as it turned out).

Epstein was the last known person to be with George DeMohrenschildt before he committed "suicide." For that, and many other reasons, no one should pay attention to anything he says.

I agree completely with Vincent Salandria- the whole coverup was designed to be easily exposed and purposefully made to look ridiculous. There are so many things that even first-time criminals would have been smart enough not to do. For instance:

-Why plant a pristine bullet (CE399)? If you're going to claim that it caused any wounds, let alone 7 of them, then why not fire your bullet into something hard enough to damage it beforehand, so that it at least seems plausible?

-Why choose a cheap, old weapon like the Mannlicher Carcano to frame Oswald with? If you're going

to claim he fired the shots, then at least plant a weapon that you can (however indirectly) tie to him

that is capable of doing the job. Having a defective scope, and shims that needed repairing only

enhance the unbelievability factor.

-Why plant a fake Selective Service I.D. card on Oswald, with the name "Hidell" on it, that has a photo

on it? Anyone aware enough to come up with a fake Selective Service card had to have known that

real ones didn't have photos, and would have been easily detected as fake for that reason alone.

Thus, the only purpose behind such an I.D. would be to identify Oswald (in this really amateurish

fashion) with the name Hidell, not to provide any fake identification he could have used.

-Why did the Warren Commission make their "stalling" tactics so blatantly obvious? Even a child can

read the testimony and decipher how all the counsels are wasting time, and thus adding pages to

the record, with their irrelevant questioning. The calling of witnesses totally unconnected to any

of the events supposedly under investigation, like Viola Peterman, only makes their juvenile efforts

that much more obvious. Really, there is no innocent explanation for any of this, but also no logical

explanation for why intelligent conspirators would act that way, unless they were doing it on purpose,

to draw even more attention to their coverup.

We have no way of knowing all the reasons for making the coverup so transparent and sophomoric. However, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that they were basically shouting out "Yeah, we did it, and you all know it. So what?"

Bill,

I live in the D.C. suburbs, so anything happening around here would be much easier to get to. I'll have to check back for updates about what may be going in D.C.

And Don, I hope you weren't offended by my Bozos remark, as I'm sure you book has something interesting to say. Condradulations on its publication.

BK

Bill,

I'm not easily offended, but I don't know what you're referring to. Did I miss something?

I admire and respect Jack White. His analysis of the photographic record, particularly of the many faces of Lee Harvey Oswald, constituted some very important research, and we should all be in his debt for that alone. Veteran researchers who remember Penn Jones' monthly periodical "The Continuing Inquiry" also appreciate the many fine pieces he wrote and/or edited for that publication. He has forgotten more about this case than most of us know.

When I first "found" the internet, I soon gravitated to Rich Dellarosa's JFK Research Forum, which was THE place to be back then (late 1990s) for anyone interested in the assassination. I was thrilled to see familiar names like Jack White and Gary Mack, whose work and research were well-known to all of us, as regular posters there. I believe that Jack's tendency to feel personally attacked was born during the many heated exchanges he had with Gary on that forum. For those of you who may not know, Jack and Gary were close friends for years, and were partners in assassination research. When Gary abruptly transformed into a semi-official apologist for the lone- assassin theory, it was understandable that Jack would feel befuddled and betrayed. Then Gary was hired by the Sixth Floor Museum, and we all have seen him on television specials about the assassination many times since them, portrayed as a voice of reason; always decrying some sort of "conspiracy theory," while still claiming to believe in a conspiracy. I remember Bill Miller's many similar exchanges with Jack on Rich's Forum, a few years later, after traffic and membership had already started to diminish there, and they were very similar to many I've seen here, with Len Colby, Craig Lamson and others, even though the subject matter is usually different (Moon hoax/911 conspiracy).

While I think Jack does himself no favors with the way he responds to his detractors (I'd advise him to try defusing things with humor, or ignore them once in a while), I can understand how he probably feels. Jack has been studying this case for decades, and I'm sure it's hard to be patient with anonymous names in cyberspace who question his expertise and claim to be experts themselves. I think he's earned the right to be considered an "elder statesman" here, and should probably be treated as such, even when he complains and theorizes about what a particular failure to log in means, or something like that. I thought that he had been accorded this kind of respect, and his complaints were always handled with patience and civility, at least in the responses by moderators that I have seen. So, I was surprised to hear he'd been put on moderation- I guess he must have stepped over the line. Hopefully, things can be worked out so that he can freely post here again, without restraint. I think we all benefit from his presence and his insight.

I also would like to extend my condolences to Jack on the loss of his nephew. Whether there was a 911 conspiracy or not, any death in this phony "war" is a terrible waste of a young life.

I think this is a wonderful forum, and the owners are certainly free to run it as they see fit. I don't think it would be quite the same, however, without Jack White.

Evan,

You can buy it anywhere (Amazon, B & N or Borders all cost the same, I think, and there is no difference to me in terms of royalties). You can probably get the best deal directly through the publisher, Stonegarden.net. I think they are still offering a $5 coupon off your first purchase, but not completely certain. At any rate, I do get a higher personal royalty rate on books sold directly by Stonegarden.

Evan, Michael, Terry and Kathleen,

Thanks to all of you for your kind words and support!

Bill,

I didn't see anything on the website about a D.C. conference. Will there be anything going on in D.C.?

Bill,

I respect you a great deal, but must disagree with you strongly on this.

The vast majority of people aren't interested in politics at all. They have a vague notion that it's all corrupt, and who they vote for doesn't really matter. However, getting most of them to pay any attention to an issue like this has always been difficult. They do, however, LOVE television and trust it implicitly. If they understand that one of their beloved icons, Tom Hanks, is involved, then they will not question it at all, no matter how illogical and/or well produced it is. I think that your idea about responding to this miniseries is great in theory, but in reality we all know how accessible television networks have always been to "conspiracy theorists." Certainly, a premium channel like HBO would be even worse, I'd imagine. The very fact that they are doing this ridiculous project should tell us a lot about the people who run HBO.

Anyhow, I'd love to see "fair and equal time" to respond to these many hours of lies (and yes, I agree completely with Cliff- Bugliosi is definitely a xxxx), but the question is; what network is going to give that response time? There will be many threads on this forum, and others, taking the program apart piece by piece, as well as long, well documented articles on the internet. There will probably be future books that expose it for the travesty it is. However, until an honest television network arises somewhere, those well reasoned, thoroughly footnoted counter arguments aren't going to reach a wide audience. The sad fact is, most people think that what they see on television is accurate, and they believe it. To the extent that they care at all about this subject, they will accept the Bugliosi/Hanks version of events.

Kathy,

It's a deal! Just let me know when it's published.

David,

I think you are probably referring to "Conspiracy Of Silence," which was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel back in the mid-1990ss, but was pulled at the last minute due to political pressure. I've seen it, and it is very powerful stuff. For those who are interested, type the title in on Google, and you should find someplace where it can be viewed online.

Gary/Dave,

You both make some great points. I think we are in agreement that the public and media treatment of the McCann's (other than in the tabloids) has been very sympathetic. In the U.S., we saw the same thing in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, where suspicion naturally fell upon the only logical suspects- the parents, but all the talking heads on t.v. were reluctant to point the finger at them. Even in the Natalee Holloway case, where an attractive young high school senior from an upper class suburb in Alabama, vanished without a trace during a graduation trip to Aruba, the chaperones on the trip, who certainly should have been questioned about exactly what it was they were chaperoning, were given a free pass by the media. Also, her fellow students were allowed to leave Aruba, even her best friends, and despite hardly acting grieved during their numerous t.v. interviews, and issuing conflicting statements, have not had their own motives questioned by anyone in the mainstream media. Instead, all attention has been focused on three local Aruban young men (two of them nonwhite), who were supposedly the last ones with her that night. I think the fact that all the Alabama students and chaperones were white and from a wealthy part of the country certainly effected the way the story was covered. I believe that if a group of poor inner city youths attended a graduation somewhere, and the chaperones allowed one of them to disappear without knowing a thing about it, then they would be questioned just a bit more strongly than their upper class counterparts. Certainly, any fellow students and friends in that situation, who issued conflicting statements would have their motives questioned.

Anyhow, good discussion.

Hope this doesn't sound like another sales pitch and I apologize if it's an intrusion. I just wanted to let those of you who might be interested in purchasing my novel "The Unreals" know that my publisher is now giving a portion of the profits to a worthy cause.

Starting this September 1st, my publisher, StoneGarden.net Publishing, will donate $1 to inner city baseball leagues in the Oakland, CA community for every book sold. This is an indefinite program, running as long as there are inner city baseball leagues in the area.

Specifically, StoneGarden.net Publishing will be working with MLB's RBI (Return Baseball to the Inner cities) program. Listed is the contact they'll be using.

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Norman Knowles

Boys & Girls Clubs of Oakland

P.O. Box 23203kn

Oakland, CA 94623-0203

510-654-0307 FAX: 510-839-2078

MLB RBI

Here is the link to my book's Amazon page: Amazon- "The Unreals"

Here is the Barnes and Noble page:

Barnes And Noble- "The Unreals"

Help give city kids something FABULOUS to do so they might choose NOT to join a gang !!!!

Charles,

I echo your sentiments. It becomes tedious to scroll down to the end of a previously read message (especially when that message is long, as it often is), in order to find a new reply. If you aren't really rebutting a specific point in a previous post, but are posting a general comment on the subject matter of a thread (as I often do), you can simply click on the reply button at the bottom of the page, instead of someone's previous post, and you won't even have to delete anything- you'll have a nice empty box to type into.

Michael Chapman,

What kind of asinine, inflammatory and inappropriate response is that? Why don't you be a bit more specific about why I am an "utter clot?" As an American, I'm not familiar with that term, but it doesn't sound complimentary. Are you naive enough to believe that rich and poor alike receive the same standard of justice? Finally, why is my name "notorious?"

I hope a mod looks at your post- it's totally out of line.

As Ron mentioned, this is very similar to the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I think what we have here is pretty simple; wealthy parents (the mother being very attractive doesn't hurt), who were obviously extremely negligent at the least, and most likely responsible for their daughter's death in some way. If this were a poor, uneducated couple, or a working-class couple, you can bet that they wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, or any sympathy at all by the police, the press and the public at large. In all likelihood, they'd have their other children taken away instantly by Social Services, who would immediately suspect them. They certainly wouldn't be given softball appearances on television and goodness knows there is no chance they'd be able to meet the Pope.

In the Ramsey case, there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and the absurd "ransom note" was unlike any in the history of kidnapping; what kidnapper leaves both a note and the body of the victim in the parents' home? Still, this totally unconvincing couple was given very positive press coverage (except in the tabloids and on the internet), despite a story that was simply impossible.

While I haven't followed the McCann case closely, I think the idea that any responsible parent would leave three children that young unattended, while they ate dinner with other couples, is simply not believable. Any poor or working-class parents who came up that kind of ridiculous excuse would be instantly arrested, and they would be laughed out of any courtroom. Just as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I can't imagine they intentionally plotted to murder their child, but it's pretty clear, to me at least, that they must bear the responsibility for her being missing. Once again, it is crystal clear just how uneven our systems of justice are. One system for the poor and average folks; another one entirely for those who have the financial means to hire a good attorney and seemingly are always accorded what most defendents never are- thoughtful juries, lenient judges and a true presumption of innocence.