Don Jeffries

Just for the edification of those who are unfamiliar with the way WE are vilified at Greg Parker's forum, here is their latest attempt to lampoon me: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13171680-open-letter-to-the-fez-?page=2 I'm sorry, but you can't expect researchers to take you seriously, or any human being to respect you, when you permit this kind of thing on your forum.

Vanessa, You, like Greg Parker, are confusing opinion, and interpretation of data, as "fact based research," and the opposition to that interpretation as irresponsible and something that shouldn't be tolerated on this forum. Some of us strongly object to the way Greg has interpreted the evidence regarding multiple Oswalds, and have debated him about it on this forum. That clearly wouldn't be permitted on Greg's forum. I certainly hope that such debate is always permitted here. While I think James has been more than accommodating to the ROKCers who have appeared on this forum, it's only human to react a certain way when your forum, as well as its individual members, are attacked and ridiculed openly on another forum. What can you expect him to think when he sees himself vilified on ROKC, and then reads posts like the ones from you on this thread? My disagreements with Greg Parker go back several years. I readily confess that what I see as his passive-aggressive style grates me the wrong way, and is clearly responsible for my continuing to interact with him, when normally I would realize I was at an impasse with another poster and move on to other things. He obviously feels as you do, that his "research" has resolved these questions, and those of us who don't agree should move aside and let "serious" investigators take the stage. I personally agree that you posted nothing, at least that I saw, that warranted moderation. James has acknowledged this. However, you must realize that you still managed to drop the word "xxxxe" into a post on this thread. As John Dolva pointed out so cogently, you should be able to make your points without personal attacks and certainly without profanity or name calling. And if you're interpreting data in a particular way, as Greg does in regards to what most critics feel were attempts to impersonate Oswald, and to John Armstrong's research in particular, you must be able to deal with dissent. In my role as a moderator, this was my primary issue with Greg. He simply has a great deal of difficulty accepting that someone doesn't agree with him. This is evident by his posts where he claims, definitively, that he has "proven" something, or that what he says is "fact," when in reality it is only his interpretation of the data we have, which others may interpret differently. In an interview I had with Ed Opperman a few nights ago, we discussed the way the JFK research community has always engaged in infighting. I won't issue my millionth plea for harmony here, but I will say that, if you truly believe in unfettered debate, with no moderation, then you shouldn't be making multiple complaints to the moderators about the behavior of others. This has been the case with Greg Parker and Lee Farley, especially. It becomes a juvenile exercise in "Yeah, but look what he did." You mention Thomas Graves- he continues to issue snide, sarcastic replies which often include a derisive nickname for someone. Just yesterday, I believe he referred to Paul Trejo as "Garibaldi." I don't think it was meant as a compliment. This may all be an exercise in futility, of course, as Greg Parker has seemingly issued one of those dramatic farewells to the forum on another thread. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is welcome here. But you should at least be able to not call names or use profanity while posting.

I just want to clarify that what I said about Greg Parker on a DPF thread is no different from what I've said here directly to him. The inference is that I went to a comfortable setting and talked behind his back. I hope that anyone who has read our previous discussions realizes that this is simply not the case. I commend James for trying to keep civility here. We've battled over this issue many times in the past. It is a fine line between what Mark reasonably calls the give-and-take that is necessary for all good debate, and more heated discussions that turn ugly and aren't productive. We ought to be able to discuss anything without resorting to juvenile behavior.

Sorry, Greg, it's hard to keep up with you. After all, you've now apparently abandoned your previously passionate belief that the Bogard incident could be explained away with one Louis Oswalt. Now, you're even further out on the limb and are actually claiming it was LHO himself. Does it really seem credible to you that Oswald would incriminate himself by talking about "coming into some money" in the near future? Without some sort of anticipated assassination payoff, exactly where did Oswald think any money was coming from? His minimum wage job? And where does Bogard's alleged "depression" fit in here? Down the same memory hole with Oswalt? It's a shame, really- Bogard should have gotten together with Ralph Yates and Syvia Odio for some kind of discount therapy sessions. Your desperation to prove there was only one Oswald is worthy of the most narrow-minded apologist for the official story.

Your theory seems to be, the more unlikely something is to have happened, the greater the chance it did happen. You mean like someone's tonsils growing back?

I'm glad you liked it, Brian. Like I tell everyone, Amazon reviews are always appreciated. Thanks for reading.

Greg Parker wrote: Please show me the "numerous visits in between" to the medical clinic at Atsugi that you claim he had. Nothing indicating it in the evidence you provided. Once again... you simply don't seem to able to understand the records. The record shows that there were four dates "in between" to the clinic. We can quibble about what constitutes "numerous," but there were multiple visits. But you will surely suggest that I am also unable to "understand the records" like you can. After all, you explain away the tonsillectomy issue with a magic bullet-bunched up coat-like theory that Oswald's tonsils grew back. You really have to resort to Warren Commission-style logic in order to explain away all the witnesses, photographs and documents that strongly suggest there was more than one person playing the part of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Thanks for sharing this, Brian. That's certainly one I missed in my book.

Greg, Obviously, I feel that the "crazy" ex-Marine who visited Sylvia Odio was an impostor,a look-a-like designed to incriminate the patsy beforehand. This was a view that virtually all reputable researchers held until recent years. The reason Sylvia and her sister thought they recognized him was because..."Leon" looked a lot like Oswald. I imagine that was a primary requirement for the job. I don't think it's an out of the box situation here. The phone call about "Leon" Oswald calling the Cubans cowards for not killing Kennedy was either what it appears on the surface to be- an effort to portray this ex-Marine as a potential assassin of JFK, or it was an especially remarkable coincidence, even for apologists of the official story. As anyone can read from Sylvia Odio's WC testimony, which I posted earlier on this thread, she did state that Leon was introduced to her as "Oswald" when the three comrades arrived at her door. It was only during the ensuing phone call that he was only referred to as "Leon." But, as the always accurate Gerald Posner noted, Sylvia Odio had a history of mental problems. As a few others on this forum have claimed, so did Ralph Yates. Now, you have informed us that Albert Bogard was unfortunately also a victim of this curious mental illness, which unduly struck those who crossed paths with someone who looked like Oswald, was referred to as Oswald, and whose behavior was memorable enough to stick in their unbalanced minds, and yet could not have been the real LHO since reputable information had him in other locales at those times. It seems to be a pretty clear cut case of conspiratorial shenanigans. Espionage 101, if you will. But you'll have none of it, because you have decided that there was only one Oswald, no matter what I or any other "clown," or "disgraceful" researcher says.

David, I've been over this before, but perhaps not with you. Steven Witt came along at a perfect moment, as the HSCA was concentrating on the more sensational aspects of critical research (for instance, the three tramps). The televised hearings with Witt were a circus. The most memorable moment came when the umbrella "accidentally" opened and Chairman Louis Stokes could joke about not pointing it at him, in a clear derisive reference to theories that had suggested the Umbrella Man had fired a dart-like weapon. Witt's rationale for being in Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella was about as believable as any other element of the official story, I suppose. I doubt that many citizens of Dallas, or Americans in general, would have caught his obscure "protest" against Neville Chamberlain's politics a quarter century earlier. It's even less likely that JFK would have recognized an open umbrella as something connecting him to a long-dead British politician. If you ever read The Continuing Inquiry you know that little monthly periodical covered Witt's story in depth. As the internet wasn't born yet, and the mainstream media wasn't about to do anything other than regurgitate the official story, TCI was about the only independent source of regular information about the assassination at that time. Witt's testimony didn't match the filmed actions of TUM. And there is no innocent explanation- with or without Neville Chamberlain- that explains TUM's casual attitude after the shooting, and we still don't know just who his dark-complexioned companion was. The Umbrella Man stood out like a sore thumb that day, and I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't there to stage a political protest that even surviving members of Neville Chamberlan's family would fail to understand. I don't know about the dentist you refer to, but TUM and his companion should have been among the first witnesses questioned by the authorities. The fact that they weren't even identified is just another indictment of the "investigation" into this case.

David, I hope others appreciate your efforts here, but I suspect that Thomas will merely review old MASH reruns and the work of Groucho Marx, in the hopes it will inspire another of his endless short, sarcastic responses.

Tommy, As I've said on any number of occasions, I haven't read Harvey and Lee. I do know enough of Armstrong's research to recognize its importance. Greg has taken his obsession over Armstrong into the possibly, but not necessarily, connected area of the seeming attempts to impersonate Oswald in an effort to frame him.

Greg, So let me get this straight. Sylvia Odio was visited by three people. One of them was named "Leon," and never said his last name, even though she told the Warren Commission that he had said "Oswald." Whoever this guy was, his friend described him as a "crazy" ex-Marine who had called the Cuban people cowards for not killing Kennedy. But this had nothing to do with the ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald, who would in short order be blamed for killing the very same Kennedy. Or, alternatively, the "crazy" ex-Marine was the real Lee Harvey Oswald. Or Sylvia Odio was suffering from emotional problems. Like Ralph Yates, Or Albert Bogard. Maybe it was something in the water.

Greg, You continue to attack the messenger and not address the bulk of the message, in the best tradition of Warren Commission apologists. I never said that Bogard was definitely beaten up- if you recall I stated that the source for this was apparently Penn Jones, and I recognize that his accuracy wasn't perfect. He still had a better track record than any mainstream journalist, and given what we know of other witnesses who were intimated, threatened, etc., it's perfectly believable to me that he was beaten up. You've also referred more than once to Bogard's alleged mental issues, in an identical manner to the way Ralph Yates was denigrated on this and other forums. And we know that Gerald Posner, like Wesley Liebeler and others defending the official story, claimed that Syliva Odio had suffered from mental problems as well. Maybe everyone who claimed to encounter an Oswald impostor just happened to have mental issues. But that's what Posner and other lone nutters believe. So you're in good company there. You just cavalierly say that the Warren Commission had already discredited Bogard's story. That's your opinion, not a fact. Most of us, I think, would disagree about that. In the same way, you are perfectly fine in using the dubious testimony of Ruth Paine, when it suits your purposes. You ask us to explain the rationale of conspirators; why would they plant a nearly pristine bullet, instead of one that at least looked like it had hit something? There are lots of obvious bread crumbs out there, which led Vince Salandria and others (like me) to believe that whoever killed JFK wanted the flaws in the official story to be easily uncovered, and the controversy to explode. We find these bad B-movie like elements to all significant political events, as I document in my book. One of the most overt was the comment by the computer programmer in charge of Dade County, Florida's election forecast software, who told the Collier brothers during their Votescam investigation, "You'll never prove a thing." Just because they're powerful, doesn't mean they're clever. Maybe they just like beating up unfriendly witnesses. I've been investigating this case since the mid-1970s, longer than most researchers. I am confident that I'm well versed on all aspects of the JFK assassination. I am not a "clown," and by accepting there was an attempt to impersonate Oswald- something recognized very early on by Richard Popkin in his book The Second Oswald, and referenced by all the early critics, I am not being "disgraceful" to the memory of anyone, nor to the research community. You, on the other hand, have a seemingly obsessive compulsion to destroy the Harvey and Lee thesis, and this has led you to discount all the very credible incidents involving Oswald impersonators, which represent strong indications of conspiracy. And you've thrown the good name of Maynard G. Krebs into this discussion for no clear reason.

Why does it unnecessarily need to be diminished?

Greg, I doubt that the irony was lost on Paul when your support for having serious exchanges without unnecessary put-downs was rationalized by calling those you disagree with "clowns." Believing that all those disparate encounters with a seeming Oswald impersonator indicated an effort to frame Oswald prior to the assassination isn't "disgraceful." It's based on a logical reading of testimony by credible witnesses. The incidents reported by Odio, Bogard and others only strengthen the case for conspiracy.

It's instructive for all irresponsible "conspiracy theorists" to take note of Greg Parker's sane, reasonable style of debate. A particularly astute way of starting off a powerful response is to write, "Are you on meds?" You can finish by calling your opponent's argument "idiocy" and, secure in your own forum's safe haven, probably use more colorful language in proving your point. It's nice for those of us who have been "disgraceful" in our work to know that Greg Parker is out there, lending us credibility.

Greg, It is exceedingly difficult to take you seriously. You ask me how I can know that the "Oswaldo" who visited Sylvia Odio with two others was trying to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination? I don't know- maybe the references to the "crazy marine," and the stuff about Cubans not having any guts, and how they should have killed Kennedy? Maybe the name of the "crazy marine?" You seriously ask why a witness offering unwanted information in this case would have been beaten up? You think it's "disgraceful" to say that a man who reported encountering a fake Oswald died suspiciously when he was found dead in a car parked in a cemetery, with a trunk full of JFK assassination-related newspapers? Like every other "neo-con" I have encountered on these forums, you are far more concerned with the "conspiracy theorists" whom you think are obstructing sane, reasonable researchers like yourself from exposing the truth, than you are with the corrupt officials and "journalists" who never investigated the assassination, and continue to lie about it.

Or, Greg, to be totally outrageous, maybe a completely credible witness like Sylvia Odio was telling the truth, and describing a situation where someone was obviously trying to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination BEFORE the assassination. Maybe Ralph Yates was telling the truth, too. Maybe Albert Bogard and the others who saw someone purporting to be Oswald, acting in a manner sure to garner the right kind of "patsy" attention, were accurate in what they reported, too. If you don't think that someone who reported seeing a man who has been pretty universally seen as one of the most renowned Oswald impersonators, was quite possibly beaten up after testifying to the Warren Commission, and then allegedly committed suicide in a cemetery, with a trunk full of JFK assassination-related newspapers, was a suspicious death, what deaths connected to this case were suspicious? I've asked you this before- give me an example of an Oswald impersonation that WAS an impersonation. If you don't think any of them were legitimate, then you find yourself in the WC apologist category; forced to lump all those disparate witnesses together, who all just happened to "mistakenly" run into someone named Oswald, who couldn't have been the real Oswald, in the weeks leading up to the assassination. That's not logical or reasonable. Again, your antagonism against the Harvey and Lee hypothesis is compelling you to make irrational arguments. The slew of Oswald impersonations represent classic conspiratorial behavior. There is no logical reason for discarding them, or trying to discredit those who reported them (talk about doing damage to the lives of innocent people). Your efforts to debunk these sightings are no more impressive than similar efforts by government officials or what I call "neo-con" researchers.

Greg, The FBI claimed to have received a letter from the Salvation Army, which apparently cannot be located, to the effect that there was an individual named Louis Oswalt who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald? I admit that it is exceedingly curious that someone with that close a name would also be a supposed physical look-a-like, but such apparent coincidences are par for this case. The tip from Tanner to the FBI seems inconsistent with the Bogard incident, which took place just prior to the assassination, whereas the other tip investigated by the FBI obviously occurred much earlier, if the car was repossessed from Louis Oswalt at the end of September. And again, we are asked to rely on the FBI here, Given what we know of how they "investigated" everything in this case, it looks to me like they were trying to debunk the Oswald impersonator sightings with their typical ineptitude. I think you're so invested in proving Armstrong's Harvey and Lee wrong, that you are carrying that bias with you when you scrutinize these Oswald impersonations, which could be true examples of conspirators setting up Oswald in advance to be the patsy, entirely independent of Armstrong's theory. You've connected some interesting square pegs here, but are doggedly trying to stuff them into a round hole, imho. One thing neither you nor the FBI can deny is that Albert Bogard, whoever he encountered that day, was one of the numerous unnatural deaths connected to this case. He was found dead in his car, supposedly a suicide, at a cemetery. Not the way most people exit this world. And for extra added drama, there was a stack of newspapers in the trunk of his car, all with headlines about the JFK assassination. Now whether he was actually severely beaten after testifying before the Warren Commission, who knows? That story, like so many of the details about these witness deaths, can be traced to Penn Jones. Some people are dubious about his credibility. I think he was a lot more credible than the FBI, or any other "official" source.

John Toland was a well-respected establishment historian, a Pulitzer Prize winner. Then, late in life, he made the mistake of demonstrating how FDR had foreknowledge of the "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor. Needless to say, his book about the subject, Infamy, won no prized establishment awards. For his sins, Toland was called a "Nazi" by Barbara Tuchman and shunned by "respectable" historians. This is the way the establishment inevitably responds to unwelcome information.

Vanessa, The fact we can still be discussing shadowy figures on the doorstep of the TSBD, over fifty years later, is another indication of just how bad the "investigation" was. I'm not great at analyzing figures in photographs, which is why I think most film alteration threads inevitably become debates that are impossible to resolve one way or the other. I don't think Oswald's head, or Lovelady's head, was painted on anywhere. Obviously, Oswald can't be both the figure with his head poking out and "Prayer Man." If Oswald can be shown anywhere in that doorway, there is no more need to debate magic bullets or head wounds, at least in terms of connecting the shooting to Oswald. I'll let others debate the details of what they see in these photos. I just wanted to reiterate that Sean Murphy's "Prayer Man" research was valuable, and to point out that witnesses not reporting Oswald was on the steps could easily be the result of fear or intimidation, and not necessarily because Oswald wasn't there.

Vanessa, I don't believe Lovelady could be Prayer Man. What I meant is that I think there is still doubt about the figure in the Altgens photograph which is now generally accepted by most critics to be Lovelady. I think it could be Oswald, although I grant that it's more likely that "Prayer Man" is Oswald.

I think it's naive to expect that, if Oswald had been on the steps and was indeed "Prayer Man," others would naturally have come forward and reported this to the authorities. Picture how frightened someone might have been, especially circa 1963, to possess such damning information, which would single-handedly have demolished the government's case against the alleged assassin. Oswald's supposed responses during those unrecorded interrogation sessions must be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the very fact that they were unrecorded. Whether we are trusting his "I was out front" comment, or "I was on the first floor" comment, we are forced to accept the words of those who were in on these unrecorded sessions, and have dubious credibility imho. Sean Murphy's research is impressive. I am one of the few who refuses to rule out the possibility that Oswald was the figure in the TSBD doorway, captured by Altgens and assumed by most to be Billy Lovelady. Sean has pointed us toward something, in the same area, which could be even more likely and, if true, proves conclusively that Oswald didn't shoot JFK. No more arguments about minutiae. One picture could indeed be worth a thousand words....

Thanks for correcting my typo, Thomas. I meant to type "Spanish," as indicated by noting that the American didn't understand the conversation.