Don Jeffries

Paul, I believe the phone call was certainly more incriminating, but when he was introduced to Odio (he was an American, and appeared not to understand much of the conversation, which was in English), "Oswald" was portrayed primarily as someone who might be willing to help overthrow Castro. It was the phone conversation from "Leopoldo" the next day, in which he was quoted as saying the Cubans "lacked guts" and that they should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. To add to what I wrote earlier, during her 1976 interview, Silvia Odio reiterated that the American had been introduced to her as "Leon Oswald," and also added that he himself had said "My name is Leon Oswald." Whoever the American was, he wasn't the real Oswald. And the primary purpose of the visit to Odio certainly seems to have been to introduce the Oswald name, and associate it with the marines, anti-communism and a hatred of President Kennedy.

Jon, I don't think Oswald was trying to incriminate himself, so I'd have to say that the Odio incident, along with several other similar encounters, was part of an orchestrated campaign to frame him.

It has become fashionable for many JFK assassination researchers to adopt revisionist postures towards once seminal pro-conspiracy witnesses. On this forum alone, much time and effort was devoted in attempting to destroy the credibility of Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell and Ralph Yates. Now it is being suggested that Silvia Odio didn't encounter an Oswald impersonator, yet somehow wasn't lying. In her Warren Commission testimony, Silvia Odio stated, in regards to her FBI interview: "...And I told them that I had not known him as Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald...." (WC Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. 11, p. 369) This is crucial, because it has been stated that Odio testified that the angry, ex-marine who hated Kennedy was only referred to as "Leon." It is technically true that she did state, later in her testimony, that in the subsequent phone call from "Leopoldo," he was referred to only as "Leon, but Odio clearly testified that, when the men first visited her residence, they introduced him as Leon Oswald. The Warren Commission couldn't discredit Odio, and even the HSCA essentially accepted her story. Sylvia Meagher called the Odio incident "the proof of the plot." Why there is an effort to discredit Odio's story, by researchers who believe there was a conspiracy, is beyond me. The series of encounters with Oswald impostors in the weeks leading up to the assassination are one of the strongest indicators we have of conspiratorial behavior. There seems to be an inordinate desire on the part of too many researchers now to scrutinize witnesses whose testimony buttressed the case for conspiracy, to the extent of dissecting their lives, in what I believe is a misguided effort to cleanse the community of "far out" theories that somehow weaken the arguments against the official story. This is an issue apart from the "Harvey and Lee" thesis, although it obviously may buttress that theory. To diminish the nature of the Oswald impersonations is to dismiss one of the most overt examples of conspiratorial behavior that we have in the record. As I've noted on this forum before, no evidence has emerged in recent years to cause this curious backsliding by researchers. The Umbrella Man was a strange figure, and he wasn't Steven Witt. There were lots of mysterious deaths associated with the assassination. There is at the very least serious doubt about the figure in the TSBD doorway (not to mention the doubts about just who "Prayer Man" is), there is again at least serious doubt about a bullet hole in the limo's windshield, and there is no rational reason to raise the bullet hole location in JFK's back, as it was documented in the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill and the clothing itself. Research that has been conducted since the first generation of critics raised these valid questions has only solidified the case for conspiracy. Nothing can rehabilitate the absurd fairy tale devised by the FBI, Dallas Police, Warren Commission and mainstream media. We should be building upon the solid foundation constructed by Lane, Weisberg, Meagher and others, not chipping away senselessly at it.

I think that Garrison got it essentially right; Oswald was a low-level intelligence agent of some sort, who was assigned to infiltrate what he was told was a potential plot to kill the president. The group he infiltrated- which I believe included Shaw, Ferrie and Ruby- were quite probably "patsies" of a sort themselves. It's even possible that they were each told the same thing; that they were spying on a group of potential assassins for the agency that employed them. I have always thought, and continue to think, that those who planned the assassination included some of the most powerful people in our society at the time. I also believe, like Vincent Salandria, that the cover up was, from the beginning, meant to be transparently obvious. Why else plant a nearly pristine bullet, to cite just one example, instead of one that actually looked the part? They wanted the controversy.

Larry, Of course, there should be give and take. Without strong debate, forums like Parker's and others become an insulated safe haven, where a clique who agrees on everything can keep congratulating themselves. This is why I was against banning basically anyone who was ever banned here. When people behave like juveniles, and attack others who are interested in the same subject matter, in a most vicious and profane manner, and then post these attacks on a public forum, they have to understand that they will be judged accordingly. I'm sorry, but I can't respect people that consistently remain at the absolute gutter level of online behavior, no matter how valid their alleged research may be. Again, I apologize for whatever part I played in escalating things here.

Thanks for the kind words, Douglas. Here is a link where you can listen to the whole show: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/coast-to-coast-am-mar-5-2015-conspiracies-mysteries-t104194.html

Jon, I believe that those who rule over us are inherently corrupt. I think "conspiracy" is a way of life with them, standard operating procedure. As such, once the decision to kill JFK was made, it was inevitable that RFK would have to go, as well, seeing as how he represented a tremendous threat. Even if they thought he honestly accepted their fairy tale explanation for his brother's death, they couldn't take a chance on him reaching the White House. Blood is thicker than water, and they know it. As for Teddy, again- they couldn't chance him being elected president, and launching investigations into both of the assassinations. If I was able to establish, through a few simple interviews for my book, that JFK, Jr., despite his seeming indifference to the subject, was actually on a crusade to find out who killed his father, then those who assassinated the Kennedys certainly knew that. The actual identities change- certainly most of those who made the decision to assassinate JFK were no longer in a position to decide to eliminate his son 36 years later. But just as corrupt business executives tend to promote only other corruptible people- those that are willing to "play the game," the ones who signed off on the deal had the same tried and true goals in mind. The Kennedys, when they were really in power from 1961-1963, demonstrated that they were not about to "play the game," to go along with the organized corruption. While most of the younger Kennedys seem like conventional establishment liberals, those who pull the strings behind the scenes cannot take a chance- thus the last-minute effort to sabotage Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the U.S. Senate. Caroline has never done anything to show she's the least bit curious about who killed her father and other Kennedys, but again they aren't going to take a chance on that. She is JFK's last surviving child, after all. I really think these things often go down much like Oliver Stone depicted it in JFK. His line about "something in the wind" seems reasonable. At the upper levels of government and business, there seems to be an unspoken agreement not to question these things. But as to who precisely plans and executes them, I just don't know.

There have always been efforts, and there continue to be efforts, to try and explain conspiracy beliefs in psychological terms. This is not far removed from the steadfast media talking point that people just can't accept that a "nobody" like Oswald was able to kill a powerful figure like JFK, and are forever in search of "complex" explanations for it. The Soviet Union used to label citizens who opposed them as "mentally ill," and sent them to Siberia. "Conspiracy theorist" has become the mainstream media's catch-all label to describe anyone, "Left" or "Right," who is questioning authority. As I hope I proved in my book Hidden History, the official narratives about everything from the JFK assassination to 9/11 to October Surprise to the plane crash that took the life of JFK, Jr. were absurd and should be doubted by any intelligent, rational person. We are fooling ourselves to continue to try and reign in the size and scope of the conspiracy and cover-up of the JFK assassination. When I heard Stephen King was writing about the Kennedy assassination, I knew he would say Oswald did it. It's not a bit surprising that actor James Franco, who will star in the movie based on King's book, is a fan of the Warren Report. This kind of universal consensus on the part of those in a position of public influence, compelled Richard Belzer to declare, "90% of the American people think there was a conspiracy. The other 10% work for the government or the media." The continuing nature of the cover-up, by persons who mostly were not even born yet in 1963, demonstrates quite effectively that it wasn't a "renegade" group within the CIA, or anti-Castro activists, or the mob, that were behind the death of Kennedy.

Jon, Mark and others- I think I demonstrated that Ted Kennedy was politically assassinated at Chappaquiddick, and that JFK, Jr. was assassinated in 1999, in Hidden History. More Kennedys have died unnaturally than most of us realize, starting with Joe Kennedy, Jr.

It amazes me that anyone accepts the official story of the Walker shooting. The sole sources for Oswald's involvement were Ruth Paine and his wife Marina, with a dash of DeMohrenschildt. Virtually all of the personal information we have about Oswald that places him in a negative light comes from Ruth Paine, or the perpetually changing testimony of Marina Oswald. Examine each aspect of this case from the original sources. If you do that, you'll see that the "evidence" for Oswald shooting at Walker consists entirely of dubious claims from Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald. Do you also believe that Marina was able to hold onto the bathroom door, to keep Oswald from shooting at Nixon? The Walker-Oswald scenario should have been rejected long ago by knowledgeable researchers.

There doesn't seem to be much interest here, but I have posted the other bonus chapter from my book Hidden History on my blog. It's a short one, on the suppression of Alternative Energy, in case anyone wants to read it. https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/

Great to see you posting here, Jerome. We've had some intense debates here and on other forums regarding the identity of the figure in the doorway. I don't think the question has been settled definitively. Sean Murphy has done some great work with his "Prayer Man" research as well. One thing is for sure- those "investigating" this crime expended a great deal of effort to "prove" that the figure was Lovelady. If they were actually correct, it was the only time they were.

I cover the tragic story of Gary Webb extensively in Hidden History. What's really incredible is the fact that Webb's family, while seeing Kill the Messenger as a redemption of his work, still maintains that he killed himself. Two shots to the head. That's not really easy to do.

I cover Chappaquiddick in Hidden History. Basically, we've always been asked to believe either Ted Kennedy's impossible story of how he emerged from the car, and managed to leave Mary Jo Kopechne behind, or the allegations from Kennedy-haters that he was responsible for her death, and invented a cold-blooded alibi to save his neck. The evidence suggests another alternative. I have always believed that Chappaquiddick represented Teddy's political assassination. It's the sole reason he was never elected president.

We had some lengthy discussions about the hole in the windshield on this forum in the past. As Greg notes, the fact that Jim Fetzer or any other individual researcher believes something doesn't automatically discredit (or substantiate) it. I agree, Jon, that it seems implausible that an assassin would fire at the limo through the windshield. But there were several credible people who described, in detail, observing a bullet hole in the windshield. And the windshield was subsequently replaced. Could they have been mistaken? Sure. So could Weitzman and Boone, who signed sworn affidavits that the rifle found on the sixth floor was a German Mauser, when the Carcano was stamped "Made in Italy" on the barrel. So could the 59 witnesses, all independent of each other, who volunteered that the limo had stopped or nearly stopped at the time of the shooting. The official narrative has always relied on countless witnesses being "mistaken" in the exact same way, on numerous different aspects of the assassination. The hole in the windshield is just one of these. The case for conspiracy doesn't reply on the limo stopping or even slowing down, and it doesn't require a hole to have been in the windshield. But there is no reason for researchers to automatically accept that the witnesses who described such things were "mistaken," or to dismiss their testimony out of hand.

Jim DiEugenio was the first to write about Exner's dubious credibility, as well as the entrenched anti-Kennedy mindset in the media, with his explosive "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK." I tried to expound upon this in my book Hidden History. Exner's stories changed dramatically over time, but very few seem to have noticed, and all the "journalists" and alleged historians that scoff at any and all "conspiracy theories" unquestioningly accepted her fanciful tales. The problem with the "JFK as serial womanizer" image is that it plays into the media mantra that the Kennedys are inherently "reckless," and at least partially responsible for their own slew of unnatural deaths. It also serves to diminish them as human beings, and in effect excuses the failure of journalists and historians to address the absurd official accounts of their assassinations, by maintaining that they weren't very good people, so hey, who really cares?

Jon, Have you read Brothers by David Talbot? He explains how RFK, while publicly endorsing the Warren Report, was a serious skeptic behind the scenes. Of course, recently RFK, Jr. acknowledged this on The Charlie Rose Show. The Kennedy family has chosen this curious strategy, which I've often criticized on these forums. I reveal in my book how JFK, Jr. was keenly interested in his father's assassination, but none of this was ever known to the public. Robert, I wouldn't go so far as to say that JFK never was unfaithful to his wife, but certainly he couldn't have been the non-stop sex maniac establishment historians now depict him as. He literally wouldn't have had time to even halfheartedly do his job. And how does all that continuous sexual activity jibe with the other portrait of him; as a sickly near-death drug addict, something the Kennedy family was also supposedly covering up? Considering all the inaccuracies that have been promulgated by the mainstream media and establishment historians concerning his assassination, it is foolish to accept anything they say about the life of John F. Kennedy.

Jon, The inference that RFK, or Jackie, or the Kennedy family in general, somehow limited the investigation into JFK's death has been trotted out by the mainstream media and establishment historians from them moment Judith Campbell Exner burst upon the scene. I delve into the entire "blame the Kennedys" campaign in my book. Despite the fact that Harold Weisberg unearthed the official autopsy document which showed that RFK, acting for the family, requested no limitations, people continue to intimate that somehow the Kennedy family sensibilities are responsible for the woefully inadequate autopsy, the missing brain, and even the non-investigation itself. The last people who should be blamed for the shameful "investigation" into the death of JFK are the Kennedys.

Thank you so much for the kind comments, Douglas. I'm sharing them wherever I can with others.

Pat, I never claimed that all the witnesses said the motorcade stopped. Vince coupled the "slow down" witnesses with them, because they were obviously describing something very similar. But that many unconnected people each sharing the same voluntary observation indicates, at least to me, that something was quite unnatural about the speed of the motorcade at the time that shots were being fired at the limo.

There were nearly 60 witnesses who reported, independently of one another, that the limousine had either dramatically slowed down or completely stopped. Vince Palamara tabulated these witnesses here: http://www.jfk-info.com/palam1.htm It defies credulity to believe that so many disparate witnesses just happened to notice this oddity, yet were all "mistaken" in an identical way. Much like the witnesses who reported other things that conflicted with the official story, and were all "mistaken" as well. There is no reason to dismiss the limo stop witnesses, any more than researchers should accept that Steven Witt was the Umbrella Man, that there was no hole in the windshield, that it definitely WAS Billy Lovelady in the TSBD doorway, that all the unnatural deaths of witnesses can be logically explained, etc. Even with so much evidence destroyed, missing or withheld, virtually everything that's in the public record regarding the assassination of President Kennedy screams conspiracy.

Steven, I posted on the JFK assassination thread about a bonus chapter from my book Hidden History, which wasn't included in the published version, about Eugenics. Interested readers can find it on my blog here: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/ The chapter discusses this obsession with "depopulation" that you describe.

The official narrative of the Boston Bombing, much like Sandy Hook, is as untenable as most other official stories. And the event resulted in a literal lockdown of a large American city, something unprecedented in our history. The sight of all those tanks, the door-to- door armed searches, the complete militarization of police in the area, should have frightened every American citizen. It didn't. In fact, a large number of Bostonians exulted in their armed-enforced, unconstitutional curfew. Recall, also, that one of the alleged suspects' friends was shot to death while being questioned by police. I think it's safe to say that this is pretty unprecedented, too. There should never be a rationale for shooting someone who is being interrogated. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to question these things, or the laughable implausibilities of what the mainstream media and government try to sell the people after seemingly every one of these events. It's being awake. It's being concerned about civil liberties and the future of this country.

Jon, To some degree. However, knowing that the official narrative of 9/11 is as full of holes as the official narrative of JFK's assassination is (which hopefully I demonstrated convincingly in my book), I'm not sure just how many of these "vicious animals" really exist. It's certainly a convenient thing to have an enemy that cannot be identified in the manner that enemies have traditionally been identified. And such an enemy is a tremendous asset to authoritarians that wish to limit personal freedom and civil liberties. Tommy, There are certainly radical, even "crazed" Muslims. But some of us doubt that there is this well-funded, gigantic organized apparatus that seems to be christened with an exciting new name every few months. On the other hand, we all should be well aware of how our own leaders have conducted themselves for the past fifty years. They haven't exactly done many things that would make the Founding Fathers proud.

Great points, Douglas and Jon. One person's "freedom fighter" is always someone else's "terrorist." I am dubious about any claims of radical Muslim "cells" and of Al-Qaeda, Isis, or whatever new alleged group is the top threat of the moment, in general. This kind of hysteria has resulted in anyone with an Arabic-sounding name being instantly viewed with suspicion. Sometimes, it seems that merely mentioning that suitably Arabic name is all that's necessary to convince the public. What always seems to happen in response to any of these events is an outcry for more restrictions on our liberties, from the usual suspects. An enemy that is anywhere or everywhere, and cannot really be defined or identified, is a difficult enemy to combat. Thus, the seemingly eternal nature of our "war" on terror. There has certainly been a corresponding war on our civil liberties. Because of the encroachments on our freedoms that have come in the wake of 9/11 and other events since then, it is more important than ever to scrutinize all those official stories.