Don Jeffries

Joan,

I'm not suggesting RFK was a saint, but imho he and his brother were far more honest and principled than most politicians. My one question to you is; what evidence is there regarding RFK's supposed knowledge of the plots against Castro that doesn't originate from the CIA?

David,

It's great to know that at least one journalist doesn't buy these lies about the Kennedys. The mainstream media was quick to publish and accept Judith Campbell Exner's claims, while at the same time dismissing any and all information contrary to the lone-assassin myth as just more dreaded "conspiracy theories." The underlying theme of all this is that "the Kennedys were no different from all other politicians, JFK would not have gotten us out of Vietnam, the old man was a corrupt bastard who stole the election and JFK/Bobby was actually responsible for the assassination and probably deserved it anyway." The saddest part of this is that the so-called "left" is just as guilty of this anti-Kennedy rhetoric as the most conservative elements on the right. You don't see supposed "leftists" like Christopher Hitchens or Alexander Cockburn castigating the memory of FDR or Truman, but it's always open season on the Kennedys. If you haven't already done so, you might be interested in reading Jim DiEugenio's excellent two-part article that touches on this subject. It was published in Probe magazine, and was available online quite recently, so it should still be so. It was called "The Posthumous Assassination Of John F. Kennedy," and you could probably find it via a simple Google search.

I realize that any theories regarding the involvement of either Prince Eddy or Sir William Gull are not looked upon favorably by many Ripperologists, but I think they answer most of your questions. Does any other theory adequately answer as many? Stephen Knight's original theory (basically the one related in the movie "From Hell") explained why prostitutes were targeted. It explained why they were killed in the horrific manner they were. It explained why they were killed in Whitechapel. It explained why the level of violence increased (due to frustration at not locating the intended victim). It explained the Goulston Street grafitti ("juwes" being a freemasonic term, and probably nothing to do with jews). It explained why organs were removed from victims (freemasonic meaning, same as the general question about why they were killed so horrifically). It also is the only theory, to my knowledge, that logically explains why the killing stopped with Mary Kelly. The only ones this theory doesn't answer would be; the double-event (although the conventional explanation about a witness approaching, causing them to panic and leave probably explains this for all theories), the mocking letters to police (although some Riperologists believe that few if any of the letters were genuinely written by the actual killer(s)) and the fact that the pattern was broken when Mary Kelly was killed inside (although one could argue that they finally realized for certain that this was their intended victim, and thus took their time inside- also remember that Kelly was the only one of the victims to have an actual residence, so the others may have been killed outside because there was nowhere else more convenient to kill them).

I know there are holes in the freemasonic/royal theories, but imho they also explain the coverup of information about the murders of prostitutes far better than any other. Why else would there be a need to cover up anything about the deaths of some of the poorest citizens of London?

I find the CIA release to be timed suspiciously as well. All of these "blame Bobby" for the assassination attempts against Castro reports can be traced back to the same source; the CIA (usually Richard Helms). As for Kissinger's views on this- what a joke. Does anyone find Kissinger credible about anything?

David- thanks for the info. regarding your family. I am indeed an afficianado of "Leave It To Beaver." I've heard that Stephen is not interested in appearing with the other cast members for reunions, and reluctant to speak about his role on the show. Tell him that he should be very, very proud to have been associated with one of the greatest sitcoms in the history of television. Thanks for the tidbits about your dad. It's great to picture him attending "JFK." I know he lived to a ripe old age, so he must have been about 90 when he saw it. You are very lucky to have had such a colorful father in your life for so many years. Congratulatons again on a great book.

Mr. Talbot,

Just a few questions for you. I think your book is great, and want to commend you for taking a courageous stance on this issue. I tend to agree with Myra's view that LBJ had advance knowledge of the assassination. I think that there was an undercurrent of belief among several Kennedy loyalists that LBJ was behind the whole thing. If you read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye," by O'Donnell and Powers, there are several hints at this during their recounting of the events afer the assassination. I believe Evelyn Lincoln was the most outspoken Kennedy loyalist about this. Don't know if she ever directly accused LBJ of anything, but she was bitter about the way he acted after the assassination, and claimed that the last thing JFK told her was that LBJ was going to be replaced on the ticket in 1964. Unfortunatly, O'Donnell, Powers and Lincoln are all dead, and thus you couldn't have interviewed them. I'm wondering if you sensed anything like this from the people you did interview.

On another point, I was watching your fine speech from the San Francisco book store on C-SPAN recently, and wondered if the man who asked a question near the end was your real-life brother, Stephen. Hope you don't mind me mentioning this, but as a trivia buff, I'm well aware that Stephen Talbot played Gilbert Bates on "Leave It To Beaver" for several years. I'm curious as to whether Stephen shares your views on the JFK assassination. In the same vein, did your father, Lyle (for those of you who don't know, Lyle Talbot enjoyed a long career in Hollywood, playing Ozzie's best friend on "Ozzie and Harriet" and appearing in the cult classic "Plan 9 From Outer Space," among many other things) have any views on this subject? I know he was politically active in union affairs, but did he think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Thanks in advance, and again- congratulations on a fine book.

Charles/Tom,

I don't believe JFK was negligent in the PT 109 incident, but even if he was, that would hardly have been the first time a young military man made a reckless or irresponsible decision. Ever hear of "friendly fire?" My point was that no one can deny what happened afterwards. JFK tugged another human being, with his TEETH, for miles in the water, and SAVED the man's life. Do you deny that? How much more heroic can you get than that? Can you imagine, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton or either Bush doing something like that? Has any American politician ever done anything more personally heroic?

Tom, it's laughable to hear your pretentious lectures about others not having knowledge of the subject matter at hand. It's mind-boggling to me that there is anyone on this forum that takes you seriously. You believe in the single-bullet theory. That alone disqualifies you from any serious discussion of the JFK assassination. You also have a convoluted theory that, while the Warren Commission and the FBI were right about Oswald firing all three shots from the TSBD, they also engaged in a massive coverup. Throw into this perplexing mix the fact that you think the Zapruder film was altered and you have...well, nothing comprehensible. I've asked you before to succinctly and logically explain how the official story that Oswald was a lone assassin could be correct, yet the investigation be a coverup, but you have refrained from doing so. In a few simple paragraphs, please enlighten us about the truth, as it is known to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armstrong_Custer

Last time that I checked, JFK was made a "Hero" due to PT 109, when in fact, as the Commander of the boat, he most probably should have been court martialed.

Now, in addition to some mythological giant conspiracy to assassinate JFK on the part of the US Government, we now have a somewhat similiar claim as regards to Custer and his demise.

I have no real knowledge of General Custer and his career. However, considering that Tom Purvis seems to be smitten with his own long-winded posts that are often incomprehensible, and Charles Drago seems to a be reasonable, well-informed researcher that I respect, I think I'll just assume Charles is right on this one. As for your comment about JFK and Pt 109, you're just echoing the anti-Kennedy party line. JFK was a more legitimate war hero than any politician of the twentieth century. Even if you blame him for causing his boat to be torpedoed, no one can deny his incredible bravery afterwards. Tugging an injured man by holding the string from his life jacket in his mouth, as he swam for miles, was a fantastic act of heroism. JFK unquestionably SAVED that man's life. How many people can say that?

I agree with James; I've always felt the figure in the doorway was probably Oswald. I also agree with Jack, that even if it isn't Oswald, it probably isn't Lovelady. Thanks, Duke, for citing Weisberg's work on this. I was greatly influenced by his arguments and research, and it seemed that he made a pretty compelling case that the figure couldn't have been Lovelady. I don't think researchers should automatically accept that this is a closed case, and that the figure in the doorway has been definitively established as Lovelady. There is still a lot of room for doubt, imho.

Welcome, Vince! I echo John's comments. You have indeed produced some of the most important research in recent years. Join the discussions and keep up the good work!

As long as the corrupt mainstream media persists in their constant pre-election polls, in which candidates like Kucinich are invariably reported at 1-2%, the people are being effectively disenfranchised. The ONLY rationale for pre-election polls is if someone wants to limit choices.

I agree with Duke Lane's sentiments. I get so tired of debating things like the single-bullet theory. What are we debating at this point? We KNOW where the holes in the clothing are, where the wound was located by Boswell and Burkley. We KNOW that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned that the wound was shallow and had no exit in their report. We KNOW that CE399's condition was such that it could never have caused even the wrist wound to Connally and come out looking like that. We KNOW the path a bullet will take if it travels from point A to point B without deflecting off of anything. As for the fatal head shot, we KNOW that the laws of physics say that an object struck from one direction will be repelled away in the opposite direction. We can see this on film. We can also see on film that practically everyone ran up the knoll after the shots were fired. We KNOW that most of the witnesses thought the shots came from there. Really, how much more evidence could any intelligent being need in order to see that the official explanation is nonsense?

Bugliosi isn't stupid. He knows the state of the evidence. He knows perfectly well that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK. So does Gerald Posner. They made a business decision, which turned out quite well for them. There is far more money in being a lone nutter than in being a "conspiracy theorist." If I were to make a suggestion for those who might be allowed to debate Bugliosi in future television appearances, it would be that they start off by saying what I did here; Mr. Bugliosi knows full well that Oswald wasn't the assassin. Stress the bullet holes in the clothing, and all the supporting evidence for that wound location. Stress the condition of CE399, versus the condition of duplicate bullets, in the Commission's own Exhibits, which were fired into cotton wadding and the wrist of a cadaver. That's indisputable stuff. Ask him to explain why any bright legal minds would spend time and money to locate completely irrelevant witnesses like Viola Peterman, yet fail to call crucial ones like Admiral Burkley. There is no innocent explanation for that, and Bugliosi would be left speechless if any debater brought it up. Bugliosi would run crying from the stage if someone were to approach a debate like that.

Bugliosi cannot make the single-bullet theory, or the backwards head snap, or the bulk of eyewitness testimony, change; they all support more than one assassin, and he knows that. As Duke said, point by point critques of his work will only prove something to those who are already familiar with the evidence and know that any lone assassin scenario is impossible. Gerald Posner's work was torn to shreds on the internet. Harold Weisberg, at nearly 90 years of age, wrote a scathing book in response called "Case Open." Even though we KNOW that he did things like quote from interviews that he never conducted, what happened to Posner as a result of all this attention? Nothing. No news reports about the controversy on television. No "journalist" mentioning these things in all his appearances as a talking head. He is still universally respected by the mainstream media, because the mainstream media is still actively engaged in covering up the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy. About all we can do is to hope the internet continues to grow in influence with the younger generation, and that eventually they come to trust alternative sources of information for their news instead of the television networks. Just my two cents worth.

Unfortunately, this ridiculous piece of propaganda could very well do for the LN position what Oliver Stone's "JFK" did for the conspiracy position. While the vast majority of people have always seen through the absurd, official version of events, a new generation is out there, and they watch a lot ot TV. Tom Hanks is a huge star, and we should never underestimate the effects of "star" power. Imho, the fact that so many big stars were willing to be a part of Oliver Stone's "JFK" defintely helped the movie become such a smashing success. What I don't understand is the involvement of Bill Paxton. Didn't we just have a discussion here recently about Paxton making his own pro- conspiracy film on the assassination? How then could he participate in an odious production like this?

As for Hanks, he now joins the long list of celebrities whose work I will boycott.

While I strongly disagree with the efforts of many over the years to, in effect, "blame" JFK for his own assassination (a great expose on this was by Jim DiEugenio, in his wonderful "Posthumous Assassination of JFK" in Probe magazine), I do find plenty to criticize in the way the Kennedy family has approached this subject.

From the very start, Jackie set the tone, not only for the rest of the Kennedy family, but for the entire country. A powerful "don't ask, don't tell" aura surrounded her and her children for the rest of her life, in regards to the subject of the assassination. What other widow, in human history, could instill such fear in everyone about mentioning her husband's death, even thirty years afterwards? Caroline Kennedy's attitude is even more incomprehensible; even now, as a woman almost 50 years of age, she will not address the subject of her father's death 44 years ago, and no reporter has the courage to ask her, anyway. Compare the attitudes of Jackie and Caroline (John, Jr. was a bit more open on the subject, especially in the few years prior to his own untimely death) to those of Corretta Scott King and her son Dexter. Mrs. King, as an elderly woman, traveled a great distance in order to testify for James Earl Ray in his quest to get a real trial. Dexter met with Ray numerous times, publicly spoke out in support of his receiving a new trial, and generally worked hard in the pursuit of justice. The Kings appeared to be interested in knowing the circumstances behind their loved one's murder. The Kennedys, unfortunately, have never appeared to have the slightest interest in why JFK (or RFK) were murdered.

Having said all this, I don't share the view that the reason the Kennedys haven't spoken out is due to a fear of their own family skeletons falling out of the closet. As DiEugenio points out in his excellent Probe article, the allegations against JFK of womanizing, mafia connections, etc. really have little substance behind them. I still believe that the Kennedy clan is one of the most honest, upright families in that rarified class of the super wealthy, that the world has ever seen. So, because I believe that, I have to assume that they have a pretty good reason for the strange, detached attitude they have collectively maintained about the assassinations. I can't figure out what that vaild reason could be, since so many of them have died unnatural deaths through the years, in spite of the wall of silence they've constructed about the subject, presumably out of fear that more of them might be killed by the same forces that killed JFK and RFK.

I used to fantasize about locking Teddy, Caroline and John, Jr. in a room and forcing them to confront the clear and obvious evidence of conspiracy. In my naive mind, I assumed that all they needed was to be enlightened about the subject. I'd sure love to know what they really talk about behind closed doors at huge family gatherings. Does the subject come up? Who knows?

Jim,

I've been a fan of Phil Ochs for a long time. I had no idea he was interested in the JFK assassination, despite the nature of his music, which was pretty much strictly social commentary. Was he a real critic of the Warren Report? Also, please enlighten us on the pictures in Dealey Plaza that may be of Phil. Why do you suppose he would have been there? Did you ever ask him about it? If so, what did he say? Anyhow, interesting stuff. Please continue to share.

Terry,

Thanks so much for the kind words. I hope you like the book!

Evan,

Thanks! Brief synopsis: Young man's eccentirc grandfather mysteriously disappears, leaving only a cryptic note behind. He embarks upon a wild, surreal journey in search of his grandfather, accompanied by some eccentric characters, including a trio of radical doo-wop protest singers. They encounter one bizarre experience after another on the way, including fake highway signs and exits, numerous names and places that are associated in some manner with the JFK assassination and finally arrive at a magical Iowa farm, which features a time-traveling cornfield. There are conspiracy theories galore and Baby Boomer cultural references throughout. Hope you like it!

Thanks, John!

Kathy,

Thanks SO much! I hope it's as good as you think it will be.

Myra,

Yes, it's the first one I wrote. I've finished another novel, but will probably revise the last half significantly before submitting it for publication. I've also written a couple of childrens' books, but that field is even more difficult to get published in. I've had a hard time even getting someone to read them.

Kathy,

Keep plugging away. I wrote the first version of "The Unreals" over 20 years ago. Despite being rejected by many, many publishers (and agents), I didn't give up on my dream completely. Believe in what you're writing, and you never know...

John,

My book isn't on the bookshelves of any store that I know of (although that may happen down the road), but you can order it, they tell me, from virtually any major book store. The easiest way is through the internet, imho (Amazon, Barnes and Noble and others).

Thanks to all of you!

I hope you all don't mind me tooting my own horn a bit here, but I wanted to get the word out that my novel "The Unreals" has been published and is available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other smaller venues. It's a work of fiction, but the JFK assassination and other conspiracies play a prominent role. If you are interested in reading it, I would really appreciate your support. The direct link to the page for my book at Amazon is:

"The Unreals" by Donald Jeffries

Bernice,

Great stuff you posted. Thanks!

I have never understood why so many bright, honest conspiracy believers have such a strong desire to pardon JFK's Secret Service detail for what, to many of us, seems a clear and obvious dereliction of duty. I don't think for a second that Bill Greer or Emory Roberts was one of the masterminds behind the plot to kill the president, but their actions that day were unusual enough to arouse anyone's suspicion. Secret Service agents are trained to follow orders. Since Greer and Roberts, at least, appear to have bypassed normal procedures on November 22, 1963, it is reasonable to suppose they had been given other orders prior to the assassination. When he waved agent Henry Rybka away from the limousine at Love Field, Roberts was exhibiting behavior that became extremely suspicious in light of what happened shortly afterwards. When he ordered agent John Ready to stay on the Secret Service car just as he was about to rush towards the limousine (actually do his job), Roberts exhibited even more curious behavior, which was instantly suspicious since agent Ready was attempting to react as trained to the sound of gunfire. Against all logic, Roberts stopped him from doing his job. As was shown by Bernice in her previous post, Roberts also lied in his report. In any real investigation, Roberts would have been grilled relentlessly by those conducting the inquiry. That goes for all the Secret Service agents, whose total lack of response was never criticized by anyone until citizen activists like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and Sylvia Meagher started writing books that questioned the official story.

As for Greer, I understand the idea that you don't drive into the line of fire. As Ron and others have pointed out, however, Greer never stated that he thought he WAS driving into the line of fire. If he actually thought that the shots were coming from behind him, it is inexcusable that he did not instantly hit the accelerator. I agree that his "advanced age" is a lame rationale here; I'm getting closer to 54 every day, and it seems younger to me all the time. Greer is important because, as the driver of the limousine, he was the one person in Dealey Plaza (other than perhaps Jackie) who could have almost certainly saved the president's life with quicker reflexes. The fact that we can all see him look back at JFK twice, while actually slowing the car down, just feeds the inescapable notion that he must have been ordered to slow down until JFK was mortally wounded. We can all understand how there might have been a few individual agents who failed to react as trained to the sound of gunfire, but ALL of them standing idly by, as some of them (including the actual driver) stared at him and must have obviously known he had been hit by gunfire, is incomprehensible unless they were told to.

I think that it is possible that the Secret Service was told ahead of time that a "mock" assassination attempt was going to happen in Dallas. Whether the rationale was to "teach JFK a lesson" about his the dangerous chances he was taking with his security, or something else, that is the only possible explanation, other than at least Roberts and Greer having advance notice of the assassination, for their curious actons and lack of response, imho. Just my two cents worth.

I used to regularly watch CSPAN's old morning program "Washington Journal" back in the 1990s. They would feature three establishment reporters each day, who would discuss the issues and field phone calls from viewers. Whenever the subject of the JFK assassination (which was mentioned quite a bit during the Oliver Stone-Posner era) came up, or any other "conspiracy theory," each and every reporter, "conservative" or "liberal," would have the same reaction; smile knowingly and instantly poo-poo the whole conspiratorial mindset. I mention that CSPAN program, because these were often less-known print reporters from the midwest, and they still had the same biases and willingness to be moutnpieces for the government that all the high-priced talking heads on television do.

I used to watch each and every "debate" on the JFK assassination on the rare instances that television stations aired them. Without a single exception, the supposedly impartial reporter was clearly, unequivocally on the side of the lone-nut apologist. That has not changed with a newer generation of reporters. Thus, I have no desire to see odious, establishment parasites like Matthews continue to lie about this subject. We will never win over these "journalists." I agree completely with Charles Drago; if they have studied the assassination at all, they have to know that Oswald couldn't have done it. Whether they are too lazy to have independently studied the issue, or they are consciously covering up to protect their lucrative, cushy careers, doesn't really matter. They are all unworthy of our respect, and while David Talbot seems to be an honest journalist, there are very few other real investigative reporters in the establishment press.

O'Reilly used to believe that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. When he hosted the syndicated show "Inside Edition," back in the 1980s, he had several shows devoted to the subject. I once heard him interviewed on a radio program during this time, and he stated publicly that he thought there had been a conspiracy.

Mr. Talbot,

I look forward to reading your book very soon. I admire your hard work and research and willingness to tackle a subject that so many have consigned to the trash bin of history. Regarding Walter Sheridan, I have a hard time reconciling his efforts to smear Garrison with someone who wanted to find out the truth about the assassination. Of course, I'm still a passionate admirer of Garrison's, so perhaps I'm a bit starry-eyed on the matter. Garrison claimed to have recorded Sheridan threatening Perry Russo and offering to set him up anywhere in the country, if he turned against the prosecution. I've never been able to learn whether or not this recording actually took place, and if a tape of it exists. If such a conversation was recorded, it seems to me that Sheridan cannot claim to be anything other than an agent of those who were out to wreck the Garrison investigation. I can't believe someone would threaten a witness if they were honestly trying to determine the truth about the assassination. It certainly would be difficult to understand how RFK, Teddy and the rest of the Kennedys would trust such a man so closely. Maybe your book touches on this; if so, I apologize for not having read it yet. Also, is there any indication that Sheridan was a "reporter" for anyone other than his stint during the Garrison investigation for NBC? Thanks.

I really don't understand why anyone with any knowledge of the JFK assassination would buy Vince Bugliosi's book. Just wait and check it out from your local public library, if you absolutely have to read it. I won't be reading it, just like I didn't read Posner's "Case Closed." I don't think you have to read those kinds of books to know what's in them, and how impossible their conclusions are.

As time goes on, I find myself agreeing more and more with Vince Salandria. He postulated that the coverup was so transparent because the conspirators wanted people to know the lone assassin nonsense was impossible. Really, do we think that high-level government and intelligence officials couldn't come up with better, more believable stuff than the single-bullet theory? Why wouldn't they at least have planted a bullet that looked as if it had caused some damage, for instance? Despite this, I still don't think they would have left any written document that says anything about them planning to assassinate John F. Kennedy (although that wouldn't be too much more ludicrous than planting CE 399 in its pristine condition). Thus, while I certainly agree that everything related to the JFK assassination should have been released to the public (without redactions) a long time ago, I really don't think any "smoking gun" is out there in the still unreleased files.

I don't find Bugliosi the least bit credible, and when he smears someone like Mark Lane, none of us should allow him to get away with that. I don't care if it's Mark Lane, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer, Sylvia Meagher or any other critic who is now, for some reason, distrusted by many researchers; none of them have the credibility problems that Bugliosi or Posner have. Why is Lane now criticized by so many in the research community? He was one of my early heroes. "Rush To Judgment" was a seminal work, bringing to light many of the inconsistencies of the official non-investigation and the accompanying film of the same name included important interviews with several witnesses ignored by the authorities. If someone can prove Lane made a few mistakes, that still leaves him well ahead of the FBI, the Dallas Police, the Warren Commission and their official apologists in the media, with their countless errors, distortions and lies, still ongoing over forty years after the assassination. Whether it's body alteration, film alteration, Harvey and Lee, shots from the sewer, the Umbrella Man shooting poision darts, even Greer shooting JFK, none of these oft-criticized theories are as flawed and impossible as the official version of events.

I don't think we should give Bugliosi credit for anything except continuing the lie. No one who produces a book of this size, even if he copied much of it from the Warren Report/"Case Closed," can claim ignorance about the subject matter. Bugliosi knows very well that Oswald shot no one that day. He knows this was a high-level conspiracy. But, it is more profitable, since the big publishing houses, like the rest of the establishment press, are controlled by those who push the lone assassin nonsense as a constant mantra, to support the official story. Bottom line- if Bugliosi, or anyone else, is saying Oswald shot JFK, then we should be lining up together in opposition against him, despite our petty differences. Why do so many of us continue to humor these parasites who profit from a massive historical lie? Can Bugliosi make the holes in JFK's coat and shirt move up? Can he change the almost perfect condition of CE399? Can he change the almost universal reaction of witnesses and police, who ran towards the grassy knoll/railroad area right after the shots, because that's where they all thought the shots had come from? Does he/can he explain why the Warren Commission called irrelevant witnesses like Viola Peterman, who knew Oswald only as an infant and hadn't seen the family for over 20 years? What innocent explanation could there be for something like that? Can he explain why the same intrepid "investigators" failed to call crucial witnesses like Admiral Burkley and some of the closest witnesses to the limousine? Can there be an intelligent soul that accepts an "investigation" that can somehow locate an irrelevant, forgotten footnote to the Oswald family like Viola Peterman, but not locate the president's personal physician? We need to take off the gloves and bring up this kinds of stuff, in the infrequent opportunities we have in the media to debate gold diggers like Bugliosi and Posner. They can attack "conspiracy theorists" all they want, but they can't debate points like the ones I cited above. Of course, they usually don't have to, because the CTers that are permitted to debate them invariably play into their hands, instead of citing things that cannot, under any circumstances, be defended. Just my long and rambling two cents worth.