Don Jeffries

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 of us to follow, decades later. Their names and their contributions will be remembered long after you've gone. There were plenty of others.

Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your admiration of Weisberg, which I share, is fitting. Your personality seems very close to his. Of course, you haven't written lots of important books on this subject, or trudged every day into courtrooms in order to extract documents from unwilling government agencies, like he did. But you are just as enthusiastic as he was about demeaning the contributions of others, and like him yearn to claim credit for yourself where it isn't warranted.

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.

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 '90s. In fact, it seems that Gary's sudden close association with Perry was instrumental in breaking up his long time friendship with Jack, something that clearly bothered Jack and often this contention flowed out in public, on Rich Dellarosa's old JFK forum.

As Jim D. noted, Gary was an integral part of numerous misleading television documentaries, which each could have been produced by CBS News in the 1960s, and hosted by Walter Cronkite. He did indeed express his belief in conspiracy to me privately, but he never did anything on those shows but promote the Warren Commission's fairy tale.

On the other hand, as others have said, Gary was unfailingly polite and very helpful. Like many of you, I suspect his job at the Sixth Floor Museum influenced his alleged change of opinion quite significantly. Regardless, he was way too young, and my sympathy goes out to his family.

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 her while she was under a form of "house arrest/protective custody". You want to paint her as a compulsive xxxx on everything now simply because it suits your agenda.

Marina's credibility will always be suspect with me, because her testimony was so damaging to Oswald. I can understand why she cooperated with the authorities, and I'm sure she was frightened. But that doesn't explain why, even after she finally went public with her belief that there was a conspiracy, she continued to maintain that she'd taken the obviously fake backyard photos.

The Paines also lied about some things. That doesn't mean they lied about everything, and there is no discernible reason for them to lie on the matters I raised. Again - you dismiss them on this simply on the grounds that it ruins your agenda.

No reason for them to lie? Maybe you're the only researcher out there who thinks that clear indications of Oswald being impersonated aren't strong evidence of conspirators framing their patsy in advance. And the Paines weren't interested in any evidence of conspiracy.

You keep harping about Jack White. Suck it up buttercup. He gave three different stories - 2 to me and yet another to Armstrong. You want to harp about Marina changing her stories and making stuff up, yet give Jack White a free pass. Hypocrite.

I can honestly say I've never been called "Buttercup" before. This is the second time you've used that one on me, but then again you are incapable of making your points without some kind of name-calling. And White didn't give three different stories. But that won't stop you from misrepresenting him at every opportunity. You've very fortunate that he doesn't appear to have any lawsuit-happy relatives that survived him, because your attacks on him border on slander.

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.

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 is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

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.

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 and Tom Scully were banned.

My comments about Greg Parker's forum are appropriate, because they serve to explain why it's understandably hard for me to be civil with him, given how I've been attacked there. How his forum is run is his business, but would you respect someone who allows you to be ridiculed like that on his own forum?

To be honest, if Greg Parker wouldn't keep insisting on defaming the memory of Jack White, then I wouldn't continue this circular, pointless debate. Apparently, there aren't many people here who cared about Jack White.

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.

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.

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 "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't.

Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, despite all your claims of victory, the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here.

John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy.

13-6.

I'm very interested in seeing this interview, Douglas. Please leave a link when it's archived somewhere.

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.

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?

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 been on a par with so many others connected to this case. He would have fit in perfectly on the JFK assassination forums.

I read several of Livingstone's books. As someone mentioned on another forum, he would have been served well by having a good editor. His books are awkwardly written, and therefore sometimes challenging to read. But he certainly produced some valuable research. It's no surprise that he was engaged in feuds with several other researchers. This so-called community has always been more about feuding than about presenting a united front.

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.

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.

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, come as a great surprise to David, whom I have only had a few email exchanges with and really don't know at all. But it is indicative of how Greg Parker seeks to manipulate things in order to convey the message he wants.

If you think I hate Greg, I suggest you check out the forum he runs, and see just what kind of vile things have been said about me over there, including the most childish cartoon caricatures imaginable. I object to what Greg Parker is doing here- twisting information, attacking the messenger, and playing the martyr all the while, claiming it is he who is being attacked. For all I know, Greg Parker could be the nicest guy in the world. I wouldn't have a forum that attacked him, or anyone else, like that.

You''ll notice that I can disagree with Armstrong's post-assassination timeline without attacking his work overall, and without trying to brand his massive book as being worthless. I also would never accuse him of being dishonest or deceptive, as Greg continues to do, without any proof, in regards to Jack White.

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.

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 more to have it printed, for all I know, than he's made in sales. Whatever you can say about it, Harvey and Lee took a lot of time and effort on his part.

I'm sure there are mistakes in Armstrong's work- as I noted, I don't accept his post-assassination timeline and Tippit scenario, which relies heavily upon the official narrative. However, it's irresponsible for Greg or anyone else to infer that the entire theory is deceptive in nature, and especially to continue accusing the late Jack White of unethical behavior.

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 hadn't seen each other.

You also questioned how Jack could have known Kudlaty's wife better than Kudlaty. The only purpose in this desperate effort was to try to make him look inconsistent- which you didn't, and he wasn't. How would knowing his wife better discredit Armstrong's theory? One would think that Armstrong's theory destroyed your own theory, or discredited your own work. This is clearly not the case. Why is this so personal with you? Why is it so important to you?

As it is with most of your arguments against Harvey and Lee, you are stretching credulity to the breaking point here, in trying to poke holes in the theory. Not to mention, of course, making outrageous attacks upon a good man's character.

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 procedure for those who rule us.

Unfortunately, it seems that we have to wait until after high profile people like White die to learn about their real views. It's a real shame that so few with a public platform are willing to simply tell the truth. If JFK was writing Profiles in Courage today, he'd really struggle to find any recent candidates.

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 "alleged" thing that the msm never uses on Oswald and other patsies. Two, his obsession with dismantling the Harvey & Lee theory has caused him to discount all the strong indications that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination. And now three, he accused Jim Hargrove of posting dangerous links, was found to be in error about this, and not only doesn't apologize, he plays the victim and acts as if Jim was wrong to question it. If others would simply call him out on his behavior and the way he presents speculation as fact, then I could find time for hundreds of more important things than posting here.

I know that the vast majority of the research community, including most who have posted and still post here, have always found Sylvia Odio, for example, to be entirely credible. As such, her encounter with a seeming Oswald impersonator represents strong evidence of an attempt to frame him in advance for the assassination. But no one beyond myself and a few others have confronted Greg here about his contentions. Why is that? Most of you certainly have confrontational personalities.

I personally resent all this a lot more than Jim Hargrove's misunderstanding about how the p.m. system works here.

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 are perfectly fine- I tried them. Did you? When someone makes a reckless charge like that, and there appears to be no legitimate reason for doing so, then don't you think he should be confronted? I'm sorry, but someone who is so zealous to discredit John Armstrong's theory that he dismisses all the very solid evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination is not helping the cause of truth.

You're right- I'm contributing to the food fight, and I apologize for that. I'm not a disciple of Armstrong. For me, the official story is impossible, whether Harvey and Lee is valid or not. You and Bernie seem to feel that Greg has destroyed Harvey and Lee. I disagree completely, and feel that he has been reaching for straws in a desperate attempt to discredit one particular theory. David Josephs, on the other hand, in my view has argued his case extremely well.