Don Jeffries

Charles,

Right on! I think you spoke the thoughts of many here with your post.

Gary Mack has emailed me several times in the past, in response to various comments I'd made on another JFK forum. Since our last email exchange, he has apparently given up trying to assuage me with his sugar-coated endorsements of the official story. Imho, Gary's present view of this case is similar to Blakey's; while accepting all the totally impossible stuff (single bullet theory, wandering back wound, head snap not reacting in equal and opposite fashion, as dicated by the laws of physics, etc.), he still clings to the "Badgeman" identification and the acoustics evidence. Again, imho, I feel that these are two of the weaker arguments for conspiracy. Gary used to write lots of interesting articles for "The Continuing Inquiry," back in the late 70s-mid 80s, the feisty little newsletter produced by Penn Jones. He clearly knows that much of what he's saying is nonsense. He's well-versed in the evidence, and how he says some of the stuff he does now with a straight face is beyond me. I've asked him more than once to explain to me how his views on the JFK assassination had changed so dramatically since those days. He always dances around this issue (as does every other ex-conspiracy believer who has been mysteriously converted to lone nutism, like Todd Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, and many more), and the only specific thing he ever cites is the Roscoe White story. While he claims to still be a CTer, everything he utters publicly (especially on television specials, where he has become a real fixture) supports the official fairy tale. I will say that he is always civil in his email exchanges, but I'd caution anyone to weigh and consider everything he says carefully.

Sid,

I believe you are referring to an unknown (at least to me) reporter who shouted out "You have been charged with that," in response to Oswald's claim that "I have not been charged with that" (the assassination of JFK). Oswald's shrug and nonresponse to this is one of the most frustrating video clips from this case, imho. You can tell that he is visibly disturbed by the fact that he has been publicly identified as someone charged with the assassination, and his expression appears to be something like "wtf- this is the first I've heard about this." Still, he kind of lets the matter drop and is quickly escorted away (why- were they afaid of what he would say next?) I would love to know what was really discussed in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

Those clips are from Mark Lane's film "Rush To Judgment." Though dated, it is still a fascinating piece of important research.

Ramsay wrote: The Commission's verdict was a lie, a deception, baloney - and insulting baloney at that. They didn't even do a good job on the deception. The politicians, the military and the intelligence services had been getting away with so much since 1945, had the major media so totally co-opted into the Cold War crusade against the Soviet Union, they didn't think it would matter that the Commission's report was nonsense: they thought the schmucks would buy whatever was served up to them.

T. Folsom: I hate to spoil the party but could you be a little more specific? Could you explain the following troubling pieces of evidence that I'm having a little trouble with:

1. What did Oswald take to work in the brown paper package that he claimed contained "curtain rods?" And, when you state what he took, please explain what happened to it.

Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle are the source for the "curtain rod" story. Oswald supposedly hotly denied this during his unrecorded interrogation sessions. TSBD employee Jack Dougherty was the only known person to see Oswald arrive at work on the morning of November 22, 1963. He testified that Oswald wasn't carrying any package with him. As for the brown paper bag itself, and what happened to it, I suggest you read Ian Griggs's excellent article "The Brown Paper Bag That Never Was." If you search for it, it should be available somewhere online. Bottom line- there is no real evidence for this story.

2. Who did Howard Brennan see with a rifle in the SE corner window moments before and during the assassination? Why did he later say it was Oswald if he feared revealing such information might jeopardize his life? And an important second point, WHO did Oswald's co-workers hear firing a bolt-action rifle directly above their heads at the time of the assassination? Remember, they identified it as a bolt-action rifle even before the rifle was found. Pretty lucky guess, huh?

You are really reaching for the bottom of the barrel when you cite Howard Brennan's testimony. Not only did Brennan not identify Oswald until after he'd seen his picture on television (thereby making his identification worthless), there is good reason to doubt whether Brennan ever even viewed Oswald in a lineup. Sorry to be monotonous, but Ian Griggs covered this in another article. Not sure if you can find that online.

3. Why did Oswald flee the building within two minutes of the shooting? Why not stay and complete his work day like the other employees did?

There is no evidence to indicate when Oswald left the TSBD. The Warren Commission just picked 12:33 p.m., because it had to have him leave by then in order for their ridiculous, impossible timeline to work. There were several other employees "missing" from the TSBD after the shooting. This is another dated bit of inaccurate information, which sprung from Will Fritz's contention that Oswald was the "only employee missing" from a post-assassination roll-call. In fact, it was later acknowledged that there was never any such "roll-call," and Oswald wouldn't have been the only one missing if there had been one. Charles Givens and Danny Arce, to name just a few, were not there because they'd been arrested. You are dealing with dated and distorted information.

4. Why didn't Oswald wait for the bus across the street from the TSBD at the corner of Houston and Elm instead of running seven blocks to catch the same bus?

Because, in all probability, he didn't take any bus. Imho, he ran to a station wagon shortly after the assassination, and who knows what happened after that, until he was apprehended in the Texas Theater. Roger Craig and at least 2 other disparate witnesses all reported seeing this. On the other hand, Oswald's absurd, walk one way/take a bus the other way/get off and take a cab back again in the other direction journey has only a series of completely uncredible witnesses (McWhorters, Bledsoe, Whaley, Markham, etc.) to verify it.

5. Why did Oswald ask the cab driver to drop him off three blocks beyond his boarding house rather than just drop him off at his boarding house after the assassination?

Again, you're asking a good question, but probably for the wrong reason. Oswald's alleged actions after the assassination make no sense at all, no matter who or what he was. Therefore, I for one do not accept any of them at face value.

6. Why didn't Oswald sit and watch the coverage of the assassination at his boarding house when he arrived there? Oswald was very politically aware and interested in current events - why rush in, grab a revolver, and rush to a movie for which he was already late?

7. Why would Oswald shoot and kill Officer Tippit if he were an innocent man wrongly accused of a crime he did not commit?

Most of us who have researched this case for many years do not believe Oswald killed Tippit or anyone else.

8. Why would Oswald duck into the Texas Theater, risking arrest for not paying admission, if he were innocent? Remember, Oswald had over $12 on him at the time of his arrest--more than enough to pay for admission.

9. When Oswald was approached in the Texas Theater and asked to stand up by a police officer, tell me why Oswald wouldn't naturally assume it was for sneaking into the movie theater without paying admission? Why would he jump up, yell, "This is it!" Strike the policeman and then attempt to shoot Officer McDonald? All for sneaking into the movie theater? (Careful with this explanation.)

You're again assuming that everything about this arrest story is accurate. The Dallas police did not exactly distinguish themselves on November 22, 1963. I don't necessarily accept anything that they claim occurred in the theater as the truth.

10. Why would Oswald lie about owning a rifle if it was clear that the weapon in question couldn't have been the one to shoot the President? If the rifle was, as Ramsay claimed, a "clapped-out, dirt-cheap, bargain-bin, piece-of-xxxx, surplus rifle with inaccurate sights." If ANY of Ramsay's claims were even marginally accurate, wouldn't Oswald have gladly admitted to owning the rifle, knowing full well it could never be linked to the assassination? Why lie about a rifle that was incapable of committing the crime?

Boy, this is very old and basic stuff. Some of us don't believe Oswald did own the rifle. It was traced to him via a post office box registered to his supposed alias A. Hidell. Again, you're asking a good question, but for the wrong reason. Of course, it makes little sense for an aspiring assassin to order his guns through an easily traceable post office box, when he could have anonymously obtained a much better weapon on any street corner. There are lots of problems with this rifle; I suggest you read one of the classic works on the assassination, which will answer all of these basic questions more thoroughly. "Accessories After The Fact" by Sylvia Meagher is one of the best ones. It should still be available at your local public library.

I have about fifty more questions, but to avoid overload I will stop at these ten. After you have responded to these innocent queries, we will discuss each of your answers in greater detail.

Good luck.

Len,

You argue your points well and are obviously an intelligent guy. However, I don't really think Mr. Rodriquez's educational level or job title is relevant to the discussion. You may have shown that he greatly embellished his story over time; if so, he'd hardly be the first person caught up on the outskirts of a big story who did so. Human beings like to imagine themselves as being more important than they really are. On the other hand, his comments might very well have been edited out by whatever networks he was interviewed by. I know for a fact that the mainstream media is capable of this, and denying it afterwards. A few years ago, a fellow researcher sent me some unedited local Massachusetts television coverage, videotaped live during the search for John F. Kennedy Jr.'s missing plane in July, 1999. Throughout this coverage (which goes on for some four hours), it is reported numerous times that JFK, Jr. communicated with the FAA at 9:39 p.m., or just seconds before plunging into the water. They even interviewed a spokesman from the Coast Guard, specifically about this 9:39 p.m. communication. Later, the FAA would deny that such a communication ever took place. When researchers obtained videotape of the local television coverage of this event in the years afterward, all the references to the 9:39 p.m. communication had been edited out (although everything else was left in). So, it is entirely possible, in my view, for CNN, Fox News, CBS or any other media organ to later edit out comments that would strongly contradict the official version of events. For what it's worth, reading his email that you quoted indicates a possible less than stellar command of the English language. Perhaps this is another reason why Rodriguez might not have been able to make himself clearly understood at first. I don't want to belabor our differences on this whole 9/11 issue; I've made my feelings about that clear. I just mainly wanted to point out that questioning a man's credibility because of his alleged lack of a college degree (even if he exaggerated things there- and he may not have to- I have known Koreans who had PHDs from their country who worked in food service here), or because he "couldn't get a better job" than a janitor is really beneath you.

Hello Don

I understand and respect your viewpoints, but I dont believe you have addressed MY Question.

The persons who ran up the grassy knoll following the sound of gunshots, I don't doubt were absolutely correct in their assessment, as the persons who turned to the TSBD may have been.

In my personal opinion, I of course concede that there were echoes at play in the Plaza. I also strongly believe that actual gunshots were in fact coming from different areas of the Plaza....some of which may have been diversionary. I also "suspect" that there is a strong likelihood that sound supressed weapons were used.

IMHO, there is nothing that should lead me to believe that all of the eyewitnesses suffered some mass hysteria and did not "see and comprehend" correctly.

Even tho military personnel are trained for combat,

there is nothing that can perepare a young man for the confusion and fear of real live combat. In most instances, these young men are cognizant enough of what they see and hear, to stay alive and return fire toward the enemy, rather than their own companions.

I feel that the Dealey Plaza eyewitness, without discussing the matter with each other, basically reported the "actual event as it happened". Not some product of their confused imaginations. These reports meshed with each other. They ONLY do not mesh with the film.

I have no reason to believe that all of these people are wrong because it has been in the best interest of "some" to ATTEMPT to make me believe what I feel to be the "Most Important Lie" being told during the 43 years of this investigation. THAT LIE, I personally feel, is the successful effort of the conspirators to convince many of you that this one particular type of film, cannot successfully be altered by "ANYONE".

I feel that someone expecting me to believe this is an "offense to me" !

Charlie Black

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

hey pip here,

just asking if there is any basketball players or coaches out there who could help me out.

i coach a under10 boys team and they have got everything right except shooting.

they are catching on, yet extremely slowly. they seem to have a problem under pressure and drop their shoulder.

if you have anything that could help me or any comments please dont be affraid to say it

thanx

pip

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.

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."

...

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.