Jump to content
The Education Forum

Don Jeffries

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Jeffries

  1. You are the one who sides with the WC on Bogard, not me. I believe the guy. The Warren Commission believed that Bogard encountered an Oswald imposter? That's what I believe. And the document that was found by Griggs was not testimony. It was from an early interview. She lied on a number of fronts to the WC, but if you are going to discount everything she ever said because of that, then she also must have lied early on when protesting her husband's innocence. Maybe she was just a compulsive xxxx - but I thought the usual take on Marina was that she lied to the WC because of threats made to
  2. Step up to the plate for what, Greg? I've rebutted your assertions over and over again. You're just going to keep making the same claims. You may not use large fonts or emoticons, but every post you write is loud, very loud. You're figuratively shouting over others, which is a timeless strategy that works on a lot of people. Please tell us how you know Albert Doyle's real name is Brian.
  3. We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it. Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard
  4. Mark, The emails I'm referring to were sent since you became a moderator. You should have received them. I realize you weren't a moderator at the time the individuals I mentioned were banned, but the same inconsistency remains in terms of how posters are moderated. I know it's a thankless job, and we all do the best we can.
  5. Mark, My comments about this forum on DPF were nothing I hadn't expressed to you and the other moderators in several emails. Did you get those? I do want this forum to flourish, and have done my best to add something of value to the discourse here. I don't know what you mean about my discussing problems I have with the administrators of this forum with Greg Parker. I think James is doing a good job- it's not easy managing all these strong personalities. I have accused the other moderators of being inconsistent in applying the rules, going back to when Jim Fetzer, Peter Lemkin, Jim DiEugenio
  6. During my recent appearance on John Barbour's BBS radio show, I was surprised to learn of his close friendship with Frank Sinatra. John explained how that friendship broke up because of his co-chairmanship of a committee to save Thomas Noguchi, who was pilloried by the establishment following his autopsy report on Robert F. Kennedy.
  7. Greg, You continue to act as if when I post on DPF that I am somehow running away from you, and saying things that I don't say on this forum, where you can directly respond. I don't say anything on other forums that I wouldn't say here. Do you really think I've been shy about confronting you? Geez, how much confrontation do you want? At this point, I think it's obvious that you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours.
  8. Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "eviden
  9. I'm very interested in seeing this interview, Douglas. Please leave a link when it's archived somewhere.
  10. Harold Weisberg is still one of my all-time heroes, despite his ornery personality. Thanks for the tip, Greg. I knew I could count on you.
  11. Thanks for sharing this, Vince. Having spent a memorable evening with Harold Weisberg back in the 1980s, I can attest to how crotchety he was, and the low opinion he held of almost all other researchers. I think it's a given that if he were posting on these forums, he'd be banned in due order. I can't figure out how to access the others chapters. Your link allows one to read the Preface, and see the Table of Contents, but I can't find a way to read those chapters. Am I missing something?
  12. Vince, I agree with you, but find it even more amazing that he died in February and we are just hearing about it now. If you hadn't reported it, would we have ever known? I guess that speaks to how many other researchers he was in contact with. The research community, such as it is, is becoming more dysfunctional by the day. Seemingly every author who writes about this subject is scrutinized and ultimately rejected by the majority of those who call themselves researchers, regardless of whether they actually have produced any original research or not. Livingstone's personality seems to have
  13. Bernie, You are woefully mistaken if you think I'm influencing anything here as a moderator. Everything I've written in these threads is as a member only.
  14. I urge interested parties to recall Paul Trejo's comment earlier in this thread, where he stated that the name "Lee" is basically unknown in Spanish, and that its closest approximation would be "Leon." Thus, it seems perfectly logical for those wishing to implicate Lee Oswald to witnesses whose primary language is Spanish, to use the name "Leon" instead.
  15. Bernie, I found the official post-assassination timeline for Oswald to be absurd long before Lee Farley arrived on the scene. In fact, on the Bledsoe-bus thread he started, I first ran afoul of both him and Greg Parker. Not realizing anything about their personalities, I merely chided them for being what I thought was aggressively disrespectful to David Lifton. The fact that I agreed with them totally and disagreed with David mattered little to them. I had taken them to task, and they would not accept that. Thus, I became, in their eyes, some kind of Lifton fan boy. This will, I'm sure, com
  16. For the record, all my comments in these threads are made as a member, not a moderator. I'm not attempting to use what little "clout" I have here to accomplish anything other than object to much of what Greg Parker is saying.
  17. Larry, David has already provided Sylvia Odio's testimony, in which she clearly states that the man was introduced as "Leon Oswald." I did this as well, some time ago, in the Sylvia Oido-Inconvenient Witnesses thread. It doesn't appear that her testimony is about to stop Greg Parker from claiming what he wants to claim. As I've stated before, I have no vested interest here- I am not an Armstrong disciple. However, there is no denying that he unearthed a huge mass of material, and that much of it is important. I can't imagine Armstrong has made much money on his book. It might have cost him
  18. Thanks for posting that old thread, Greg. It confirmed what I remembered- that there was nothing sinister or inconsistent in what Jack White said about his friendship with Kudlaty. Friends and classmates often go their separate ways, but still consider themselves "friends." Yet you jumped all over Jack's comment that he hadn't seen Kudlaty in decades, but had been friends with him all that time. I have lots of good friends that I haven't seen for many years, usually because we don't live in the same area, but we still talk and I would never consider them not to be friends just because we had
  19. White certainly sounds like quite an "extremist," perhaps even a "conspiracy theorist." I suppose that he, probably like many others, made a choice to sacrifice principle and integrity for financial security. Part of the reason I chose to focus on so many different topics in Hidden History was because I too, believe it is all "fraudulent." Our leaders didn't just suddenly become corrupt, and start withholding evidence, "losing" evidence, silencing witnesses, etc. on November 22, 1963, and they certainly didn't return to any imagined ethical behavior afterwards. This is standard operating pro
  20. Greg Parker warned others here not to open perfectly fine links, provided by Jim Hargrove. When some of us, including Jim, questioned this, Greg responded in predictably indignant fashion, and attempted to make it look as if he, as always, was being wronged. A reasonable person would have simply said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I didn't mean to infer that you were being dishonest- I just reacted to what my software was telling me." There are three primary reasons I continue to be drawn back to this topic. One, Greg Parker just keeps cavalierly accusing Jack White of fraud, without even using the "all
  21. Mark, I don't recall what thread featured that- I'm sure you must remember. Greg Burnham doesn't post here that often, I would imagine he can recall. I think it was hidden pretty quickly. I'm not baiting anyone. You swallow Greg Parker's logic- that he can attack people and their ideas with reckless abandon, utilizing dubious theories about Asbergers and tonsil regrowth, among other things, then play the innocent victim when people fight back. I really wanted to leave this subject to others, but someone has to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. The links Jim Hargrove left a
  22. Bernie, James Gordon has been more than patient with Greg Parker, and had in fact taken away David Josephs' posting privileges not that long ago. On the other hand, those in Parker's camp have been far more aggressive and offensive than David Josephs, Steven Gaal or Jim Hargrove. For instance, Mark Valenti told David bluntly, "F....You, David," and advised Greg Burnham, on another thread, to "Shove it up your a...." Thomas Graves was allowed to taunt all his opponents with childish nicknames. And now, what will happen to Greg Parker, after he warned people not to click on the links Jim Harg
  23. I would hope that David and Jim Hargrove can do a better job than I can of explaining the photo in question. I got the newspaper to send me a pdf of the version that first appeared in their paper in 1959. That's about all I can do. Jack White's relationship with Kudlaty doesn't change the fact that the FBI asked for Oswald's Stripling school records the day after the assassination. The official narrative maintains that Oswald never attended Stripling. Is it that inconceivable that Jack White would have known some of the people involved in all this, given that he lived in Texas? Kudlaty's sto
  24. Greg, You've made serious allegations against a researcher who spent decades studying the photographic record of this case. I can't believe I'm the only one on this forum who is outraged by your efforts to besmirch his reputation, especially when he is no longer able to defend himself. I contacted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they provided me with the image that is in their archives. I find the photograph to be of dubious quality, and I think it looks "Frankenstein" enough without any additional doctoring. I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong. If I had to venture a guess, I wou
  • Create New...