Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. 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." (Damne
  2. Peter, The Secret Service is key here. Without their complete lack of response that day, the assassination would not have happened. Period. I think that many present day researchers are reluctant the call the conspiracy what it was; a gigantic plot by some of the most powerful people in America to murder a sitting U.S. president. I guess the logic is that if we scale down the number of persons involved, or even the power of the forces they represented, then the conspiracy is somehow made more acceptable to those who regularly decry "conspiracy theories." It would take a very large conspiracy
  3. How can anyone take seriously a theory that has a group of conspirators assassinating a president because he is insufficiently anti-Castro, when he has okayed the future overthrow of Castro within days of his assassination? What, they couldn't wait nine days? Then, of course, the most ridiculous aspect of this theory; they followed up the assassination of JFK by doing nothing about Castro. The whole Cuban connection to the assassination is, imho, just another smokescreen to divert attention away from the very real, powerful forces who conspired to kill JFK.
  4. The JFK assassination was the seminal event of my generation (the "Baby Boomers" who are now ruling, or misruling the world). A political crime of such magnitude, that is inadequately explained, will have ramifications forever afterwards. Certainly there were high crimes and conspiracies prior to November 22, 1963, and there have obviously been many since then, but that day in Dallas effected the American people, and their political system, like no other in modern times. Every election since then has been tainted by what happened in Dealey Plaza. Like a complicated math formula, where an early
  5. Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba. Okay, I'm really missing something here. The latest theory has it that JFK had authorized a coup attempt against Castro for December 1, 1963. If they already had JFK's approval, why did they assassinate him? I understand that this may not be your belief, so forgive me if it's not. Oswald's capture deprived the plotters of the "irrevocable evidence" required to justify the in
  6. I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK. Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again. If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro? How about Nixon, who would have r
  7. America's incompetent and corrupt leaders continue to amaze me. In the face of a disaster that threatens to dwarf even our Vietnam fiasco, Bush & co. now want to extend the carnage into yet another country that has done absolutely nothing to us. My sister lived in Iran for nearly 20 years, and she just shakes her head at the notion that this third-world nation is some kind of a threat to Israel, let alone the U.S. We are creating new terrorists every day, and causing more and more of the Arab world to despise us. What's truly sad is that our leaders don't seem to care about that. They'd ra
  8. Len, You refer to "non-authoritative sources," which is the usual way that non-governmental or non- mainstream media sources are referred to. Most of us "conspiracy theorists" believe that very powerful forces were behind the events of 9/11. Thus, we are not likely to trust any source that the establishment has decreed is "authoritative." I realize this puts the conspiracy theorist in the advantageous position of being able to deflect the views of various "experts" by claiming it's just another part of the coverup. You touch on this when you note that I'd likely not trust the results of a con
  9. The 9/11 debate, like so many other issues, is determined in large measure by the faith of those who are debating. In the case of those who defend the government's official story of what happened, this faith is grounded in establishment bulwarks like the 9/11 Commission, the journalists at Popular Mechanics and other mainstream media debunkers, scientists cited as experts by the government, etc. In the case of conspiracy theorists like myself, we are predisposed to distrust those same establishment forces, and thus will usually place more credence in alternative sources like the internet. I fr
  10. "Loose Change" is more credible than the official account of what happened on 9/11, no matter how many alleged "mistakes" are in it. What is undeniable is the fact that our state-of-the-art defense system stood silent and didn't react at all for over an hour while hijacked planes were flying into the WTC and even directly over Washington, D.C. If our defense system isn't triggered to react when a known hijacked plane is flying directly towards the Pentagon-the heart of the our defense system-then the taxpayers certainly have a right to demand an accounting of where the trillions they've spent
  11. Gil, Good to see a name from the past. I hope you will start posting regularly again- I respect your views a great deal. Vincent Bugliosi is a truly odd character. His book on the O.J. case was really excellent, imho, but was marred by a final chapter devoted exclusively to his dogmatic atheism, which really had no connection at all to the book he was writing. To those who haven't read it, you should do so. It provides some insight into the workings of his mind. Bugliosi was once the darling of RFK assassination critics. He conducted some solid research into the RFK case during the '70s, an
  12. It is my opinion that Ted is not speaking out because of death threats against members of the Kennedy family. What do you think of the death of John Kennedy Jr? It's just pure evil against that family. I think Ted has done a great job for his constituents and the United States as Senator all these years. Kathy ____________________________ "What do you think of the death of John Kennedy Jr? It's just pure evil against that family." Hi Kathy. I agree with your premises. I would like to ask for any references, other than what has been provided on this thread so far, you can list re
  13. My interest in this subject is personal. My now 17 year old son was diagnosed with a "nonspecific learning disability" during preschool, which was eventually classified as an extremely minor autism or aspergers's syndrome when he entered middle school. We still don't know exactly what kind of learning disability he has, but he just doesn't "get" much of the information he should. From the viewpoint of a parent, this is an extremely frustrating thing to deal with. We are always uncertain just how much better our son could do in school (and socially), as opposed to how much is related to his unc
  14. John, Sorry for such a late reply to this post, but I've just re-registered and am trying to get caught up. I read Patricia Cornwell's book "Portrait Of A Killer" a while back and was thoroughly unimpressed by it. I will admit that my opinion is perhaps tainted by my personal impressions of the writer. In her televised remarks on a special about her upcoming book, and in the tone of the book itself, there is an unmistakable arrogance that really turns me off. Cornwell has a cock-sure attitude about her theory that is not in accord with the "facts" she has uncovered to back it up. In the fir
  15. I wrote the above comments about Marina and her lack of credibility. I think we should realize just how much of the official "legend" about Lee Harvey Oswald came from Marina. When she converted to a pro-conspiracy position in the mid-1980s, she did so without letting go of nonsense like the Walker shooting and the backyard photos, among other things. While she was certainly bullied into telling the authorities what they wanted to hear back in 1963/1964, she has nothing to fear now by telling the truth. I don't think she can be charged with perjury for her testimony before the Warren Commissio
  16. Myra, I agree that this theory makes absolutely no sense, but the whole anti-Castro/mob thing never made sense to me, either. I think it's just another smokescreen. Why would anti-Castro forces assassinate someone who was planning on killing the object of their disdain (Castro)? So, the premise is that JFK was planning on having Castro killed on December 1, 1963? If the reason behind the conspiracy to kill JFK was the fact he was insufficiently anti-Castro, how come those who eliminated JFK didn't go on to eliminate Castro, on December 1, 1963 or anytime since then? Cuba as an issue effectiv
  17. I've been researching the JFK assassination since the mid-1970s, when I was a student volunteer with Mark Lane's group The Citizens Commission of Inquiry. I corresponded with and met legendary critic Harold Weisberg (dinner at his home was a very memorable evening for me), and wrote a front page article for Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" in 1984. I believe research should focus on the inactions of the Secret Service and think that the Cuban/Mafia connection is a smokescreen designed to take our attention away from the clear governmental involvement in this case.
  18. John, I was a young child when JFK was assassinated, but I remember clearly that nearly everyone in our large Catholic family suspected that LBJ was involved. His demeanor that day and evening, even the speech he gave at the airport, was just unconvincing. He really seemed to be acting, and not very well at that. We've all seen the infamous photo of LBJ turning around just after being sworn in on Air Force One with the corner of his mouth curled up in what appears to be a grin as Rep. Albert Thomas clearly winks at him. Lady Bird also seems pretty happy in this photo, standing next to LBJ.
  19. I think you must be talking about Elizabeth Stride. Conventional wisdom has had it that the Ripper was interrupted just after he'd begun his grisly work, and thus didn't finish the job according to his usual standards. This murder was the only one with a reliable witness who reported seeing the victim in a suspicious interaction with someone (in this case, a physical altercation with two men) just prior to being killed. Of course, the fact that the witness reported seeing two men together has led some to speculate that this is evidence of more than one person being involved in the murders. Who
  20. I do feel that there was some kind of Royal involvement in the Ripper murders, though I am unsure about the exact nature of that involvement. I think that either the Duke of Clarence (Prince Eddy) himself may have been the Ripper (as postulated in "Prince Jack"), or he may have been connected via his tutor James Stephen, who was a strange and interestting character (his poetry was laced with really obscene and violent passages about females). I tend more towards the Stephen Knight thesis, however, which theorized that Freemasonry played a hand in the killings, and maintained there were a trio
  21. Francis, Fascinating stuff. Thanks so much for posting it. In America, the likes of Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK) were bitterly opposed to the U.S. entering the war, at least prior to Pearl Harbor (which saved them from the "facsist" label). The great poet Ezra Pound, who made wartime speeches from Italy supporting Mussolini and condemning Roosevelt and the allies in scathing terms, was sent to a Washington, D.C. mental institution after the war, and kept there for a decade. His only "illness" was his violent opposition to WWII, and his generally obsessive preoccupatio
  22. Stephen, Yes, I've read Cornwell's book. I wasn't very impressed with her Sickert theory, not the least of which because she never even mentioned Stephen Knight, who first mentioned Sickert in connection with the Ripper murders. I also saw her on t.v a few times promoting her book, and wasn't taken by her personality, either.
  23. Stephen, Great idea; Jack the Ripper has fascinated me for many years as well. As befits my conspiratorially inclined nature, I am intrigued by the possibility of Royal involvement, either via the Duke of Clarence himself, or the freemasonic connection (with Sir William Gull as the actual murderer), as postulated by the late Stephen Knight in his "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" and the recent film "From Hell." I realize most of the respectable researchers into the case have dismissed such theories, but they make a lot of sense to me. An unsolved mystery is always the best kind!
  24. John, I think this is an overly broad attack on Penn Jones. He was an eccentric character, and some of his information later turned out to be exaggerated or untrue, but he also published a lot of important, truthful information. If nothing else, Penn Jones deserves our respect for being the first journalist to point out all the mysterious deaths connected to the assassination. "The Continuing Inquiry"-the monthly periodical he published for almost a decade, provided a wealth of material for researchers. I count myself as fortunate to have been a long-time subscriber.
  25. Pat, I think Vincent Salandria's perspective on this is right on. I don't know how else to explain the childish, inept nature of the coverup, except that it was done on purpose. If we assume (I certainly do) that the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination and the subsequent coverup, then certainly they would have been able to come up with a more sophisticated cover story. Conspirators of this caliber would not have come up with anything as ridiculous as the single-bullet theory, if they desired that the public never know the truth. They would have known that the bul
  • Create New...