Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. Dawn, Bernie supports this nonsensical "war on terror," as does Elizabeth Warren. This is why real pro-peace Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, are always mired at 1-2% in those phony, manipulative, totally unnecessary pre-election polls.
  2. Jim, I think this is another reason Trump appeals to a lot of Americans. They are fed up with globalization, jobs being outsourced, factories leaving our shores. While the msm parrots a pro-globalist slant 24/7, the vast majority of the public wants their roads and bridges repaired, and jobs created in their communities. Ross Perot rode an anti-NAFTA wave of support back in 1992, when this "America First" sentiment was even stronger among the public. Now, I believe Trump is, in fact, a committed globalist/free trader/warmonger like the rest of them. But he's thrown the public enough meat to
  3. I would be shocked to see anything out of Hollywood that doesn't strictly adhere to the official narrative, or at best only deviates slightly (and inaccurately), in the manner of a Lamar Waldron. The more times goes on, the more I appreciate the courage it took for Oliver Stone to make JFK.
  4. Cliff, I doubt either Trump or Bernie get nominated. And as I noted in my blog article, while I agree with a lot of Bernie's rhetoric, he loves the military and our perpetual wars way too much for my liking. We never have any true pro-peace candidates.
  5. Trump saying Oswald acted alone was about as predictable as it gets. No candidate is going to be allowed to say otherwise, or to express doubt over the official story of 9/11 or any other event. Like Jim D., I suspect Trump knows there was a conspiracy. After all, Roger Stone was running his campaign and Jesse Ventura is a long time friend who said he'd be proud to be Trump's V.P. As I wrote recently on my blog https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/our-bipartisan-foreign-policy-is-all-war-no-peace/ once the concept of a "bipartisan foreign policy" was sold to the sheeple, any pro
  6. Thanks for the kind words, Douglas. I really appreciate your support.
  7. Pat, of course the back wound on the Fox photo is lower than the throat wound, but the location best supported by the evidence is even lower, and thus demolishes the official shooting scenario more effectively. The only evidence for the higher back location is highly suspect, because it also shows the intact back of JFK's head. I know you discount all the medical people who reported seeing a huge blowout in the back of JFK's head, but not that many researchers (outside of LNers) do.
  8. There is no logical reason for researchers to abandon the most obvious indicators of conspiracy. We have already seen how so many pro-conspiracy witnesses have been dismissed by those who claim to doubt the official story. If we place misguided trust in the autopsy photos and x-rays, while ignoring the testimony of so many witnesses, we are discarding some of the strongest evidence that there was a conspiracy. Why are we trusting these tainted sources? Nothing about JFK's autopsy was legitimate. Harold Weisberg wrote Post Mortum on this theme alone, and David Lifton devised his body alterati
  9. Mark's point is well taken. The original Tea Party was inspired by the Libertarians who supported Ron Paul. Once the Sarah Palins and Scott Walker-types climbed on board, it was obviously not for the same purposes. In my view, a legitimate Leftist would be a Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, rather than a Bernie Sanders (who has supported our foreign escapades far too often) or Elizabeth Warren (big banking "foe" who voted against auditing the Federal Reserve). A Ron Paul would be a legitimate Right-Winger, rather than any of the neo-cons fighting it out among the Republican presidential
  10. I think there are varying degrees of "extremism," on both the Left and Right. As I describe in my book, much of these movements have been infiltrated and effectively controlled by government agencies like the FBI for a very long time. Certainly, there were legitimate zealots in the counterculture movement of the '60s, for instance, but the fact that Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem, among other Leftist leaders, were connected to the CIA ought to give us pause for thought. My point is that groups on both the Left and Right are used for the typical nefarious purposes by the powers-that-be. An
  11. The notion that radical right-wing groups, anti-Castro Cubans, or "rogue" CIA elements were behind the JFK assassination is contradicted by everything that followed it. We live in a politically correct society now; the msm and our pathetic politicians would love to be able to pin JFK's assassination on out of touch, racist elements. I don't think the ghost of Edwin Walker inspired Peter Jennings and ABC, for instance, to produce that monstrosity of disinformation 40 years after the event. I don't think the extreme right-wing is influencing typical liberal celebrities like Tom Hanks and James
  12. Maybe it was just semantics, Pat, but I have a hard time accepting any qualifier less than "impossible" in regards to the SBT. We have indeed debated the location of the back wound before. And I still have a hard time understanding why you think the HSCA's T-1 location is more credible than the T-3 location, which is supported by the holes in both JFK's shirt and his coat, the death certificate signed by Burkley, and the original autopsy face sheet. Sure, T-1 is still too low for the SBT to work (setting aside the impossible nature of the theory due to the condition of CE399), but T-3 is w
  13. Pat thinks it is "highly unlikely" that CE399 caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally? Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did. The evidence in the Exhibits, consisting of identical test ammunition fired into various substances, completely contradicts their own untenable conclusion. It is not highly unlikely, it is scientifically impossible. For whatever reason, good researchers want to ignore or downplay some of the best evidence; the hole
  14. Thanks for sharing this important article, Jim. I recent years, there has been a willingness on the part of many supposedly pro-conspiracy researchers to accept these obviously forged photos as legitimate. This epitomizes what I refer to as "neo-con" belief. Oswald's posture alone, the problems with the shadows, and the impossible overkill of posing with both alleged murder weapons and commie literature to boot, should have discredited these fakes a long time ago in the eyes of any credible researcher. To quote from my book: In 1970, researcher Jim Marrs interviewed Robert and Patricia He
  15. One cannot imagine any other president delivering this kind of speech.
  16. Jim D. has done great work on showing how JFK's record has been misrepresented by the media, establishment historians, and politicians of both major parties. As Jim has also noted, JFK's record even on Civil Rights has been distorted. His televised speech on this subject is still stirring to listen to, but the establishment continues to chant the mantra that he was too pragmatic, too timid to move on the issue. As I revealed in my book, JFK has been attacked relentlessly not only by the Right, but by most of the Left as well. Few people misrepresent his Vietnam policy more passionately than N
  17. Not after any prizes or recognition. I do like things to be kept honest and factual and I have an inbuilt distaste for plagiarists. I did ask Jim to post a link to his essay which he said proved his claim. He hasn't done it yet. How about you? Can you post link showing YOU or ANYONE else denied the 2nd floor encounter ever happened that is dated pre-2001? Can you give a citation from a book published prior to 2001 where the alleged encounter is denied to have taken place? See... now it's more about you guys insinuating I'm trying to take credit for something I shouldn't and not being able t
  18. Greg, This is getting ridiculous. I know better than you or anyone else just what I was questioning about the Baker story. I realized, as we all did upon reading the first books on the subject, that the timing of the incident was always a plank in the critic's platform, as Oswald could not have fled from the sixth floor and appeared calm and collected, and probably drinking a coke, four floors below the sniper's nest barely ninety seconds after the shooting. I had doubts about everything associated with this case by the 1990s, including the alleged Baker/Oswald encounter. It wasn't based ex
  19. It sure doesn't sound like anything David Healy has ever written, does it, Jim?
  20. Greg, Again your responses have the unique ability to ignore what the person you're responding to actually said. My doubts about the Baker encounter obviously do center around it never happening, as indicated by my 1990s-era questioning of why Baker would stop a decidedly non-suspicious-acting Oswald, or why he happened to be the only police officer concentrating initially on the TSBD, while everyone else was rushing to the knoll area. I never mentioned anything about timing. It's laughable that someone welded so firmly to his own beliefs, and his own curious mission to destroy someone else
  21. Greg, My doubts about the Baker story had nothing to do with timing. As I said, I always found it strange that he would have seen something in Oswald's very innocuous behavior to cause him to pull his gun and confront him. Baker also appeared to be the only law enforcement officer in Dealey Plaza to concentrate on the TSBD initially, while everyone else was focusing on the knoll. You should be credited for your research- I assure you that I would credit you in such cases. We have steered this thread off-course, as was mentioned earlier. And I agree that Greg Paker rattles a lot more cages t
  22. Weisberg and Meagher the only worthwhile early critics? That's ignoring a lot of important people. Without Mark Lane's WC testimony, early support from the likes of Bertrand Russell, and his best-selling book, it's doubtful that the critical community would have received much attention from the mainstream media. Vincent Salandria, without writing a book, remains the dean of the research community in my view. Do you cavalierly dismiss him, too? Shirley Martin, as a simple housewife, devoted untold hours to sifting through the morass that is the official record, and clearing the way for the rest
  23. I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way. The original band of critics missed some things, but overall they did a remarkable job of exposing the impossible nature of the official story.
  24. Gary used to email me regularly some years ago. These emails were always responses to my forum posts, and invariably attempted to "correct" me on whatever aspect of the case I'd commented on. Without fail, Gary's "corrections" were of an anti-conspiracy nature. I told him to stop emailing me after he tried to persuade me that the Babushka Lady had not even been filming the motorcade, but merely taking still pictures. Jack White, who was at the time very close friends with Gary, alleged that he and Dave Perry combined to really disrupt Jim Marrs' class on the assassination back in the early '
  • Create New...