Don Jeffries

Charlie, I think you might have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I definitely do not think that all those witnesses were mistaken. I brought up the examples I did in order to sarcastically ridicule some of the conventional explanations for all that attention centering on the knoll area, all those witnesses reporting that the shots came from there and that the limousine stopped and all those Dallas medical people reporting the huge wound in the back of the head. I guess sometimes my sarcasm isn't as clever as I think it is. Anyway, I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

Charlie, Apparently, the witnesses in Dealey Plaza were a very confused bunch. Many of them, including every police officer except Marion Baker, immediately ran up the grassy knoll after the assassination. They would also report that they believed the shots came from that area. All of this, according to the "experts," was due to the "echo effect" of the Dealey Plaza area that is apparently well-known (at least to these "experts"). Vince Palamara has tabulated the testimony of all those confused witnesses who reported that the presidential limousine stopped or slowed almost to a standstill. They too were evidently fooled by the forces swirling around Dealey Plaza that day, perhaps an unforeseen residual byproduct of the "echo effect." This confusion continued at Parkland Hospital, where all those medical people described a huge, gaping wound in the back of the president's head. This wound is not seen on autopsy photos, however, and doesn't appear to be reflected in the extant films of the assassination. So, we must assume that these medical personnel were all mistaken in the exact same way. Despite Pat Speer's comforting theory, I for one would be pretty reluctant to ever seek treatment at a hospital where many, many doctors and nurses were under the misimpression that the back of my head held a huge, gaping wound. That kind of "mistake" would be pretty unbelievable if a class of kindergartners made it. Before Jack White and others ever publicly postulated that the Zapruder film was altered, I couldn't understand why it appears to show the right side of JFK's face being blown away, while all the Dallas medical people reported the face as being intact. I still am an agnostic on the subject of alteration, primarily because the Zapruder film does still clearly contain evidence of conspiracy, but I've never understood the hostility of some CTers towards alterationists. This case has been filled with lies, distortions, convenient deaths and unforeseen conversions of opinion (always from one that questioned the official account to one that supported it) from the very beginning. It has never been filled with curious journalists, crusading politicians, interested friends of the Kennedys or any type of real investigation. Keep on being skeptical.

Arthur Schlesinger was one of the former Kennedy aides who was on record, at least in the 1970s, as supporting a new investigation into the assassination. In his huge book about Robert F. Kennedy, written in the late 1970s, Schlesinger related an account about Jackie Kennedy warning Teddy not to run for president, because "they got Jack and Bobby and they'll get him, too" or something like that (sorry don't remember the exact quote). Like Ted Sorenson, Schlesinger was, imho, a real cut above the typical presidential aide. He might even have been among "the best and brightest."

You can access the full manuscript of "When They Kill A President" at: When They Kill A President

Pip, I just joined the forum, so hope this reply isn't too late in coming. I've coached boys and girls youth basketball (and also youth soccer) for a number of years. I've really come to rely on the internet for drills and games to use in practice. Just Google "youth basketball drills" and you'll find lots of good stuff. My favorite shooting game is "knockout." It's a simple game that most all kids know and love to play. If you don't know it, you could probably ask your players and they will know how to play it, or just search for it in Google. Good luck!

Charles, I share your frustration. I have been frequenting JFK assassination message boards for a long time, and I've never seen a poster like Tom Purvis. He is so utterly secure in his beliefs; the problem is, none of us can understand exactly what he's saying. When pressed on this, he adopts a mysterious, know-it-all posture, and questions our knowledge. I've been researching this case for over 30 years, but this guy is one of a kind. An LNer who thinks the Warren Commission was a travesty and the Zapruder film is a fake! Of course, I think that's what he believes- he can correct me if I'm wrong. It's not easy wading through all the excess verbiage to find the point he's trying to make. I'd never advocate stopping him from expressing his beliefs; it's just that he does post a lot, and it's more difficult to sift through his lengthy messages than it is for other posters. I would like to humbly suggest to Tom and some other posters that they reply to a thread without leaving the entire previous post (and others before it) in the body of their message. This makes it tedious to keep scrolling down throuh previous messages to find the new comment. You can quote the parts you want to respond to, but leaving the entire previous message (especially if it's long, like Tom Purvis's almost always are) is unnecessary. It's just a suggestion.

The best book ever written about Chappaquidick, imho, is R.B. Cutler's "In Re: Chappaquidick." There is little speculation in the book, as it consists primarily of the official testimony of those who were on the island. I think we have three choices as to what happened at Chappaquidick that night. First, we accept the official account, which most of us believe is impossible. If we believe that, we must accept that Ted Kennedy was not only an uncaring clod, but also an amazing, agile athlete who was able to somehow escape underwater from the car and then swim across the ferry. We must also accept that his lack or morality was such that he could, under those circumstances, go to his motel room and sleep, and appear perfectly normal to the few people who saw him that night and the next morning. Second, we can accept the "Teddy Bare" theories of those who hate the Kennedys and think them capable of anything. To accept this, we must believe that Ted Kennedy either purposefully caused Mary Jo Kopechne's death, or was at least so reckless and irresponsible that he inadvertently caused it. Again, we must believe that he is morally capable of such acts. Third, for those of us who don't believe Ted's ridiculous story, or think him to be an immoral (or even criminal) monster, there is the theory that the accident was staged somehow by the same forces who assassinated his brothers, in order to stop his future presidential aspirations. The same mainstream media that has covered up the assassinations of the 1960s for decades also has confined itself, when reporting at all about Chappaquidick, to the first two theories I outlined above. The third alternative is never mentioned in polite company. Ted's story was basically accepted by the media (but not his right- wing opponents, and certainly not by much of the public at large), and buried for years thereafter. But when Ted decided to challenge Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination in 1980, suddenly the Chappaquidick story burst back into the headlines. Roger Mudd of CBS News conducted a real hatchet job on Ted, which was edited to make him look like a bumbling idiot, and his campaign (which was flying high until that point) never recovered. After that, Chappaquidick faded away again as an issue. For those of us who don't accept Ted's absurd explanation, but also cannot believe that he is capable of such despicable behavior, this is just another conspiracy.

That is one of the best comments ever Don. I'd make it my sig line if President Kennedy wasn't so darn quotable. Thanks, Myra. I enjoy reading your posts, too.

John, Thanks for remembering the line in "Sympathy For The Devil." How could I forget that? Can't agree with that there's anything positive about Hells Angels, however; in my book they're one of the scourges of modern society. Even more dangerous urban gangs like the Bloods and Crips derived much of their nonsensical "code" and behavior from the Hells Angels. Myra, I tend to agree with you here. I once worked with a guy, some years ago, who had been a session drummer with some big names in the music industry (but worked primarily with Link Wray). He told me some great behind the scenes stories. One of them was that it was common knowledge in the industry that Mick Jagger had Brian Jones "offed" (his term) because he was basically jealous of him. I like much of the Stones' music (including "Sympathy For The Devil," which is probably my favorite song by them), but found the whole incident at Altamont unsettling. Regardless of how they acted at the time, or whether Mick kept dancing after the guy had been stabbed, they really didn't display any remorse over the loss of life afterwards. Btw, I believe that prior to hitting it big with the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger studied at the London School of Economics. At the very least, that is very interesting.

Tom, Okay, cool- you've answered some of my questions. Now, please, in brief but clear language, explain how Oswald was the lone assassin, shooting from where the Warren Commission said he did, with the ridiculous weapon they claim he used, yet the Warren Report was a lie? From what I can determine so far, your main contention with the Warren Report is their insistence that the head shot was the third shot. I really don't understand how being wrong about that, but right about the obvious lone assassin fairy tale, makes their report a fraud. Please tell us what the government has been bothering to coverup, if all the shots were fired by Oswald?

I loved the Byrds, and particularly Roger McGuinn, back when I was a teenager. The song "He Was A Friend Of Mine," was disappointing to me, however. As a fledgling assassination researcher, I couldn't believe that line about the sixth floor window and a "gunner" (not "gunners"). The song was not written originally about JFK, but McGuinn adapted it, and added the lyrics (unfortunately) about the sixth floor window. Another of my favorite groups, the Kinks, similarly disappointed me when Ray Davies wrote the line "When Oswald killed the president he was insane, and yet we watch the reruns again and again," in the song "Give The People What They Want." To my knowledge, no major musical artist has ever recorded a pro-conspiracy song about the JFK assassination. Well, at least not until now. Obnoxious though he may be to many, Eminem has released a new song called "Public Enemy Number 1," in which he rails against Bush and the 911 official story, and also talked about JFK being assassinated with shots from the grassy knoll.

Tom, It's a well-known fact that Oswald barely qualified for the lowest category of ranked shooters in the Marine Corps., by a single point, the last time he was tested. That's what I'm using as my evidence. Long before you or I thought of researching this case, critic Mark Lane got the Marine Corps. to asknowledge, in a widely published letter to him, that Oswald's score indicated "a rather poor shot." It doesn't get any clearer than that. What "records" are you talking about? If someone barely making the lowest grade of marksmen during his Marine Corps. duty was capable of a shooting feat that some of the country's highest-ranked sharpshooters never could duplicate, then imagine how skilled the marksmen in the middle ranking of Oswald's unit must have been! The testimony you quoted was easily offset by Oswald's fellow marine Nelson Delgado's WC testimony, in which he expressed his opinion that Oswald was a terrible shot, and was the subject of much ridicule among his buddies because of his constant "maggie's drawers." I suppose next you'll tell us all what a wonderful weapon the Mannlicher Carcano was. BTW, in as brief a post as possible, please explain your conspiracy theory/Oswald as lone assassin theory about the JFK assassination. I can't be the only one who's interested.

Tom, Your long, rambling posts can't hide the fact that you know nothing about the basic facts of this case. Oswald "totally possessed the ability" as a shooter? You can make any statement you want, but expect others to take you to task when you say something as absurd as that. Oswald barely qualified, by one point, for the lowest of the three categories the Marines use to assess shooting skills. That was his last known assessment, and as there is no reason (or evidence) to suggest he practiced shooting regularly and thus became a much better shot by November of 1963, our best guess has to be that he was, in the words the Marine Corps. officially used to describe his ability in a letter to Mark Lane, "a rather poor shot." That is the state of the evidence.

Jack, I agree completely. Charles Fort's books are full of hilarious explanations from various disciples of modern science when they were confronted with things that are "scientifically impossible." Things like blood, frogs, fish and rocks falling from the sky. Things like comets not behaving in the way astronomers had predicted they would (his "New Lands" is almost all about astronomers and their incredibly bad track record). In more recent times, these same scientists have explained away the thousands of sightings of UFOs with magic-bullet type nonsense like "swamp gas" (actually quoted as an explanation for a UFO sighting by then Congressman Gerald Ford) and the ever-present, extremely versatile planet Venus. The primary tenet of modern science is a total unwillingness to accept that there are unexplainable things in this world, or that there is a supernatural realm. This is as strong a part of their dogma as faith is to religion. Remember that the scientists of their day rejected Coopernicus and Gallileo. When Immanuel Velikosky first published his "Worlds In Collison," his theories were widely ridiculed by the priests of modern science. Some fifty years later, they are now pretty much accepted by established science. When Erik Von Daniken published his "Chariots Of The Gods," he was widely ridiculed by those same priests of modern science. He is still ridiculed, but if his theories are eventually accepted like Velikosky's were, scientists will never act as though they were ever in question. If modern science weren't a racket, and were run by altruistic, detached seekers of the truth, then we would have had a cure for cancer a long time ago, and human life spans would have been significantly extended. There are certainly dedicated scientific researchers out there who are only committed to the truth, but they are overshadowed by the huge, dogmatic collossus of organized science, much as a humble parish priest is dwarfed by the power and interests of organized religion. Science should be simply a process of obtaining knowledge through research and expermentation, but more scientists today are concerned with obtaining research grants and peer recognition.

Tom, I vaguely recall reading your posts over at Lancer a few years back. Your theories confused me then, and confuse me now. If I understand what you're saying (and that's no sure thing), you think that Oswald fired all the shots from the TSBD, but the Warren Report was a complete fraud. Okay....How can you think something is a total fraud while believing that their most important (and really only significant) conclusion is correct? You can't be serious about the witnesses seeing the shots being fired from the TSBD. Those who reportedly saw someone in the sixth floor window saw more than one person, and neither looked like Oswald. Only youngster Amos Euins and Howard Brennan reported seeing a single man there. Brennan is the only witness who "idenfitied" Oswald but his testimony is ridiculous, and Ian Griggs has shown very clearly that he never made any such identification. This is old, old stuff, but the majority of witnesses reported shots from the Grassy Knoll area. It's obvious in all the photos and films taken right after the assassination, when witnesses and police officers are rushing up the knoll. Only Marion Baker, apparently, initially went to the TSBD. As for the shooting itself, again- old, old stuff. Oswald was never more than a mediocre marksman, and there was no credible evidence that he spent any time firing weapons as a civilian. His supposedly easy feat has never been duplicated, even by some of the top sharpshooters in the country. But then again, now Max Holland is claiming that Oswald had 11 seconds to fire his shots, so who knows? Maybe Oswald started firing at JFK when the motorcade was on Houston Street.

It is truly amazing how we have the "bunched up" theory to explain the inconvenient location of bullet holes, the "magic bullet" theory to explain the total lack of damage on a missile that supposedly caused 7 wounds and the "neuromuscular jet effect" to explain the head shot's violation of the laws of physics. Yet the conspiracy theorists are the "wackos." JFK was one of the most immaculately dressed politicians of modern times. His expensive clothes were personally tailored to fit his frame perfectly. It's an insult to the intelligence to think that he'd wear something in public that fit so poorly it could ride up 5-6 inches from his waving motion to the crowd. I guess that Dr. Boswell's mind was "bunched up" when he placed the back wound in the exact same spot as the holes in JFK's clothes on his original autopsy face sheet and Dr. Burkley's mind was also "bunched up" when he described the rear back wound as being in the exact same spot. That was some "bunching up!"

I don't believe Oliver Stone has publicly stated his support of the official 9/11 story. He simply chose to tell the story of individual bravery that day, instead of speculating on what might have really happened. Stone filmed a documentary on the possible shooting down of TWA flight 800 a few years ago, for ABC-TV (I think, might have been the Discovery Channel), but it was pulled at the last second and never aired. To my knowledge, the documentary isn't out there on youtube or Google video, unlike "Conspiracy of Silence," about the elder Bush and his Republican pals dallying into the world of child sex/slavery, which was also pulled from airing at the last minute but is widely available online (everyone should watch it). So, I think that Oliver Stone may still be competing with the best of us in searching for conspiracies.

I just wondered what any of you thought about the movie "From Hell" starring Johhny Depp as detective Abberline. I really love this film; it's beautifully filmed and the performances, especially Depp's, are first-rate. I realize that theories involving the Royal family and/or freemasons are not popular among most Ripperologists, but I think the film does a good job of painting a plausible theory about what happened. It's based largely, but not totally, on Stephen Knight's original postulation, set forth in his "Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution." Imho, at this point, we'll never know who the Ripper really was, and I don't believe that much real evidence exists against any of the usual suspects (Druitt, Koslovski, Chapman, Tumblety, etc.). It's become just an interesting and probably unsolvable parlor game, and all we can really do is speculate. Something keeps drawing me back to Knight's theory, but then again I do really love conspiracies....

Sid, I agree with you- the treatment of Hess was shameful. If he truly was on a peace mission, then the Allies should have thought of him as a "good" nazi, instead of punishing him in a vicious, unprecedented manner. What other prisoner (outside perhaps the "man in the iron mask") has ever had a prison to himself for several decades, as Hess did at Spandau? As I understand it, the authorities only permitted him a token family visit once per month, and the same person couldn't come twice in a row. They also rotated the guards constantly, who all spoke different languages, in an attempt to limit his ability to form a relationship with anyone. That is cruel and unusual punishment, indeed. Considering that Hess lived to be over 90, it is very, very strange that no one wanted to interview him in depth during all that time. Historians lost a golden opportunity to record the thoughts of one of Hitler's top aides, still alive decades after the end of WWII. What were they afraid he might say? Or were they just ashamed to publicize their disgraceful treatment of this pathetic old man? It's a sad but fascinating story.

I can't agree with you that it was suspicious. I haven't actually read the Coroner's report but I do know it was ruled as a suicide. Perhaps a term we would use today is a murder / suicide? I'm unsure, but I have not read anything that suggested that his wife knew that this was going to happen. I'll see what I can find out on the circumstances. I know that some people claim that he was murdered by or on behalf of NASA or perhaps NAA. In that theory you'd have to ask why. His reports had already been presented to NASA and accepted as an exhibit before the House Sub-Committee, and he had already given testimony. Surely the damage had been done? Killing him would have simply drawn further attention to what he had said I'm not going to speculate as to him being murdered or not, but I think when you have an entire family die together like that, at the very least it's suspcious. If there was no evidence that he drugged his wife and child, or knocked them out, then they willingly died with him. I think that's totally bizarre, if not unprecedented. IMO, no, not really. The effort and technical challenge to fake the landings would have been as great - if not greater - than the landings themselves. The documentation, the science, the moon rocks... it all supports the verisimilitude of the Apollo programme. I can go into further detail on this if you like. That has been discussed extensively in this thread. The persons name is Bart Sibrel. I would certainly question whether the sound bite of the son is real or not; I would not put it past Mr Sibrel to 'create' material to help support his opinion. Mr Sibrel has stalked various astronauts, used false premises to gain interviews, made veiled threats to the astronauts families, claimed publicly available footage as being 'secret, unreleased' film, and IMO is generally not a very nice person. He lacks any credibility (IMO). His "fifteen minutes of fame" came when he lured Buzz Aldrin to a meeting at a hotel, claiming to be from a well-known Japanese educational network. When Buzz found out who it was, he turned and walked out, accompanied by his grand-daughter (? IIRC). Mr Sibrel, with his film crew, stalked him out of the building demanding that he swear on the Bible. Mr Sibrel then called him "...a coward, a xxxx, and a thief..." whereupon Buzz finally decided enough was enough and hit him. Mr Sibrel's actions would seem to have been directed towards this very response, because he immediately asked "Did you get that?". The footage of that incident can be seen here. Mr Sibrel tried to bring assault charges against Buzz, but the LA prosecutor decline to press charges saying that Buzz had been provoked by Mr Sibrel. (Edit: Removed reference to Mr Sibrel not showing astronauts who had sworn on the Bible) Thanks for refreshing my memory about his name. I did see the Aldrin footage, which is part of the video. Yes, you are correct- Sibrel was undoubtedly trying to provoke Aldrin and got what he was looking for. I don't really admire Sibrel's style or tactics, and frankly from what little I know of this issue, he could have concentrated on stronger indications of fakery than the window scene in the capsule. Also, trying to demand that each astronaut swear on the bible was tabloid-like and probably designed to capture the attention of young viewers with its sensationalism. I don't know that Sibrel did fake the audio with the astronaut's son, but it's certainly possible. You would have to acknowlege, however, that if the son actually said that, it provides fodder for some compelling speculation. I thought that the end of the video, which suddenly turns into some sort of attempted music video or something, where Sibrel is being chased by presumably some CIA agents, is a bit ridiculous and doesn't fit in with the rest of the video. All in all, I thought Sibrel did a pretty mediocre job with this subject, which was fascinating in nature (and that was what compelled me to watch it). You have to admire his courage, however, in confronting some powerful and still intimidating men with his charges of fraud. It reminded me of Stuttering John's interviews on the Howard Stern show.

John, The hospitals in the health care system I work for don't turn people away from the emergency room. This is true, curously enough, even for illegal immigrants, and is one of the many contentious issues in that debate. However, for non-emergencies like a knee replacement, you would have to be insured or somehow agree to pay for it yourself (which no one outside of the most wealthy citizens could ever hope to do). Cancer is something that would not be covered as an "emergency," and usually those without insurance would have to hope that Social Services or some other government agency would cover the expenses of treating them. I have heard varying estimates about the number of non-insured Americans. I believe that virtually all full-time workers have some form of health insurance. However, the problem is with those who are in the lowest paying jobs, like retail and the restaurant business. They often are given less than 40 hour work weeks, and thus do not qualify as full-time workers. Their insurance in those situations is weak and watered down, when they have it at all. The lowest paid workers in our society are often immigrants, many of them illegals, and they will often be uninsured. Since most private hospitals have a policy of treating any one who needs emergency services even if they don't have insurance, businesses know this and further exploit those immigrants (who are already being paid less than minimum wage in some cases) because they know that medical services will be there if they absolutely need it. It's a huge problem, because doctors make so much money under the present system, as do administrators and other health care executives, and thus they have no reason to want to see such dramatic changes. Nurses are paid very well, too, as are those with special skills like respiratory therapists, radiologists and orthopedic therapists. Factor in the absurd cost of precriptions, and you have a lot of powerful forces, who profit greatly from the present system, who would strongly resist any movement towards socialized medicine or any other kind of meaningful reform.

Vincent Salandria once wrote that he now believed that the plotters purposefully left obvious evidence of conspiracy in the record. Why would they do that? Well, maybe for nothing more than to amuse themselves. Certainly, they could have come up with a more believeable scenario than the single-bullet theory, and they obvously could have planted a bullet that was more damaged than CE399. Is this why the Warren Commission interviewed completely irrelevant witnesses like Viola Peterman, who hadn't seen Oswald since he was an infant? Is this why they included all those ridiculous exhibits in the record, which critics like Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher exposed so thoroughly? Is this why they didn't interview crucial witnesses like Admiral Burkley? Is this why they chose such an old, unreliable mannlicher carcano as the "official" murder weapon? Is this why they had the alleged assassin tied to anti-Castro groups, pro-Castro groups, the FBI and the CIA? Sophisticated and powerful people would not have conducted such a sloppy and transparent coverup. Personally, I think that those who misrule us just like to toy with us, and prove to themselves how stupid and gullible we are. For instance, a few years back, an obviously orchestrated media campaign to portray veteran hack Republican party Senator John McCain as a "maverick" and a "reformer" was instituted. When talking heads like Tim Russert say McCain's name, it is with a reverance reserved for few mortal figures. You couldn't find a politician in the Senate who was less maverick or reform-minded than McCain, who built his whole political career on being a POW, left his loyal first wife to marry a much younger beer heiress, and was a member of the Keating Five. I think that they picked him for his new role precisely because it was so obvious that he wasn't what they were claiming him to be, just as the conspirators who killed JFK have their apologists in the government and the media defending transparent lies and impossibilities. It could be their demented way of having fun.

I think you have to acknowledge that Baron's death was suspicious, to say the least. Husband and wife suicides are extremely rare, and I've never heard of a case where a child agreed to end his/her life as well in a family suicide. I'm an agnostic on the issue of whether or not the Apollo flights were a hoax. I certainly think that's it's possible they were. I would ask the debunkers here that question; do you believe it would be possible for moon flights to be faked? I'd also ask why they think that Gus Grissom's family believes he was murdered. There is an interesting video out there, called "Astronauts Gone Wild." This filmmaker (can't recall his name off the top of my head) went around and questioned a bunch of the Apollo astronauts, and his gimmick was to try and get them to swear on the bible that they had gone to the moon. The most interesting part, I thought, was the last astronaut he interviewed (sorry, don't remember his name). This guy kicked him (literally) out of his house and, not realizing the filmmaker had left his microphone on, his grown son was heard to say, "think I should call the CIA and have him whacked?" Seriously, that's exactly what the son said, and he talking only to his father, not trying to make the filmmaker paranoid. It was like something out of a bad movie script.

John, My sympathies to you and your wife. It must be a very difficult time for both of you. In America, we are often bombarded with propaganda about the socialized medical systems in Britain and Canada. The most frequent drawback in these socialized systems, we are told, is that patients have to "wait" for a very long time for procedures that don't require such a long wait in our wonderful capitalist medical system. Is there any truth to that? I work for a health care system, and the amount of money made by doctors, pharmaceutical companies and health care executives is unbelievable. Reforming such a powerful and entrenched bureaucracy is probably impossible at this point, much like it would be impossible for a true alternative form of energy to be permitted to eliminate the gigantic profits of the big oil companies.

Jack, As usual, you are not afraid to go against the grain. At least one other poster here is in your corner; imho, evolution is a complete fraud. The wonderful iconoclastic writer Charles Fort best summed up evolution in the following definition from his "The Book Of The Damned:" "The fittest survive. What is meant by the fittest? Not the strongest; not the cleverest-- Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive. "Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival." Darwinism: That survivors survive." (Damned, pp. 23-24) Most educated and successful people today respond to naysayers doubting the divinity of evolution in, ironically, much the same way that educated and successful people first reacted to the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century. Evolution is a totally incomplete theory, with a missing link that has never been found, but somehow doesn't matter. Modern science is as dogmatic and unyielding as organized religion; from time to time, we've all read reports of ancient batteries being discovered, or bullet holes found in the skulls of dinosaurs or cavemen, for instance. Science resolves these incongruities by ignoring them, which is what they've always done to data they can't explain. They also ignore the numerous accounts of phenomena like fish, blood, rocks, frogs and other nonsensical objects falling from the sky, which Fort documented in his writings. This is much the same way that organized religion first reacted to the discovery of dinosaur fossils. All the sciences, from medical science to astronomy, are dominated now by entrenched, dogmatic true believers, who will not brook any dissent and are just the kinds of people who persecuted Gallileo and Coopernicus. I would urge everyone here who is interested in this subject matter, or who just wants to read a superbly original, extremely witty writer, to go to their local library and check out "The Books of Charles Fort." At the very least, you will be entertained.