The Present State Of The Critical Community

[Don Jeffries]

Gil,

I'm glad we're in agreement here. I respect your work very much. You've produced some great videos, which I encourage everyone to check out on You Tube.

While I strongly agree with you and Cliff Varnell on the interpretation of the evidence. I think we've debated before about the nature of the conspiracy and the identities of the forces behind the assassination. I've always argued that Cuba and Castro were red herrings, and find it untenable that the removal of Castro was any kind of motive behind the crime, since Cuba literally died as a political issue in this country after the assassination. I also don't think that right-wing extremists had the wherewithal in 1963 to enlist the most influential people in our nation in a massive ongoing coverup that is still going strong over 45 years later. I suspect more shadowy, powerful forces were involved.

That being said, I highly respect both of you, and certainly don't demand that others accept my speculations as the ultimate truth. That is where I think we can all engage in a civil debate; none of us can claim to know for certain exactly who was behind the assassination.

I bring this up to point out that I'm hardly asking for a coalition to walk in lock step on this issue. There are a variety of theories about just who was the driving force behind the crime, and all but the official one deserve our respect. The official story has been disproven completely several times over, not by investigative journalists whose job it should have been to do so, but by courageous individual citizens who spent the time, money and effort in unearthing the truth. When someone who is aware of their work suddenly rejects it, we all have a right to wonder why. That's all I'm trying to say here.

[Pamela Brown]

Interesting points. There is certainly fraction and division in the CT camps. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that there are a few who seem to have been deliberately positioned to create chaos. The analogy is to "1984" and Goldberg, who was supposedly a critic of the establishment, but in fact was positioned to lure those who criticized it into his snare.

The myth of the WCR is paramount to the establishment. The PR surrounding the last DC show should give persuasive evidence of this. The govt will stop at nothing to divide and ridicule those who dissent.

Another example is the newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk, where a few are positioned to present themselves as CTs in order to lure in the newbies, who then work to try to discredit the areas that most powerfully lead to conspiracy, such as LHO and his actions.

So, if we step back and look at the larger picture, we can see that the CT camp is indeed complicated, and some have been bought out. Some 'conversions' are simply for show. Yet within this remains a vital group of intrepid researchers who consistently manage to define areas leading to conspiracy.

[Josiah Thompson]

Thank you, Duncan, for making the obvious point. I was going to make it but ended up not thinking a reply to this kind of thing was worth it.

Josiah Thompson

Duncan,

I'm not sure which mistakes you're referring to, since you weren't specific.

As for JFK's head moving back and to the left, it undeniably does. However, there is general agreement that it moves forward first, as you said. It is pretty reasonable to speculate then, as many of us have over the years, that he was hit by almost simultaneous head shots from the rear and then the front. My point about the backwards movement is that there is no question about it, and it clearly contradicts the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots from behind.

I was just trying to come up with a list of items that are either unquestionable (i.e., the impossibility of the single bullet theory) or solid indications of conspiracy that have seemingly been abandoned by many researchers for no apparent reason.

Don,

I wasn't specific because you make so many assumptions of things which you say are undeniable facts. For example, you say that Josiah tells us that the Zapruder film does not show the umbrella man pumping the umbrella up and down, well he's 100% correct, it doesn't show any pumping movement, it shows a twirling of the umbrella from left to right, and nothing more. If you have footage which shows the pumping movement, I'd love to see it. As for researchers abandoning their positions, I don't see anything wrong or sinister about that at all, it's called evolution of their opinions based on their research and consideration of other research sources over the years.

Duncan

[Evan Marshall]

Duncan,

I'm not sure which mistakes you're referring to, since you weren't specific.

As for JFK's head moving back and to the left, it undeniably does. However, there is general agreement that it moves forward first, as you said. It is pretty reasonable to speculate then, as many of us have over the years, that he was hit by almost simultaneous head shots from the rear and then the front. My point about the backwards movement is that there is no question about it, and it clearly contradicts the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots from behind.

I was just trying to come up with a list of items that are either unquestionable (i.e., the impossibility of the single bullet theory) or solid indications of conspiracy that have seemingly been abandoned by many researchers for no apparent reason.

Don,

I wasn't specific because you make so many assumptions of things which you say are undeniable facts. For example, you say that Josiah tells us that the Zapruder film does not show the umbrella man pumping the umbrella up and down, well he's 100% correct, it doesn't show any pumping movement, it shows a twirling of the umbrella from left to right, and nothing more. If you have footage which shows the pumping movement, I'd love to see it. As for researchers abandoning their positions, I don't see anything wrong or sinister about that at all, it's called evolution of their opinions based on their research and consideration of other research sources over the years.

Duncan

could we atleast agree we have not been given the truth? Or do we spend decades argung how many lone gunman can dance on a grassy knoll?

[William Kelly]

Duncan,

I'm not sure which mistakes you're referring to, since you weren't specific.

As for JFK's head moving back and to the left, it undeniably does. However, there is general agreement that it moves forward first, as you said. It is pretty reasonable to speculate then, as many of us have over the years, that he was hit by almost simultaneous head shots from the rear and then the front. My point about the backwards movement is that there is no question about it, and it clearly contradicts the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots from behind.

I was just trying to come up with a list of items that are either unquestionable (i.e., the impossibility of the single bullet theory) or solid indications of conspiracy that have seemingly been abandoned by many researchers for no apparent reason.

Don,

I wasn't specific because you make so many assumptions of things which you say are undeniable facts. For example, you say that Josiah tells us that the Zapruder film does not show the umbrella man pumping the umbrella up and down, well he's 100% correct, it doesn't show any pumping movement, it shows a twirling of the umbrella from left to right, and nothing more. If you have footage which shows the pumping movement, I'd love to see it. As for researchers abandoning their positions, I don't see anything wrong or sinister about that at all, it's called evolution of their opinions based on their research and consideration of other research sources over the years.

Duncan

could we atleast agree we have not been given the truth? Or do we spend decades argung how many lone gunman can dance on a grassy knoll?

Evan,

Can you help me reframe the debate from one between Lone Nutes and Conspiracy Theorists, and into a legal forum where the case if pushed - forced through the legal system - and into the venue where all homicides eventually go - the grand jury - where the outstanding questions about the assassination of President Kennedy can be answered - and give us new witness testimony under oath?

That is all that is necessary to take the case of the murdered President to the next level - new, sworn witness testimony, under oath and admissible in a court of law - a grand jury is where all homicides offically go. It can also be obtained at a Congressional Hearing or a Civil court.

Regardless of whether you are a CT or a LN or a Zapruder Film alterationist or a benevolent dictator, you will agree that obtaining new sworn testimony in court or congress - would be the next logical step, and the debates could rage on, but if there is an active sitting grand jury anywhere in the United States, asking the pertinent questions about the assassinaion of President Kennedy, then the answers will answer themselves.

The best part of obtaining a grand jury investigation is that you only have to prove a homicide was committed, and that the case remains legally unresolved, and it only takes one District Attorney, out of an easy dozen who could claim jurisdiction, to begin the proceedings.

So while those who want to argue about it can carry on, those who want to take the case of the murdered president to the next level, can request that the American legal system, as dictated by the Constitution, open a grand jury and assign them the responsibility of adequately answering the outstanding questions, so help them God.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Edited April 9, 2009 by William Kelly

[Don Jeffries]

Duncan,

I never suggested that there was anything sinister behind any of the sudden conversions to lone nutterism or the temperance of formerly strong pro-conspiracy views. I do believe they are curious and often inexplicable.

They are not inexplicable, some have simply changed their views

And it is perfectly reasonable, on a discussion forum, to ask what caused them to change their views.

Vince Palamara, for instance, was one of my favorite researchers. Imho, he thoroughly documented the failure of the Secret Service to do its job in Dealey Plaza and his work would cause most intelligent people to suspect at least some agents of complicity in the crime.

You haven't done enough research Don. If you look at similar Kennedy mororcades, you will find out that similar failures by the sectret service often took place. The only difference is that someone killed Kennedy in Dallas.

That's simply not true, Duncan. There have been numerous discussions about this very issue on this and other forums. It was not typical for the motorcycles to lag behind the limousine, and while we obviously can't compare the Secret Service's performance with anything else, since there was no previous assassination attempt, it's hard to believe that anyone can innocently accept their total lack of response. In any real investigation of the crime, those Secret Service agents, in particular Emory Roberts and Bill Greer, would have been questioned relentlessly about their curious actions (or lack thereof) in Dealey Plaza.

When he filmed his abrupt conversion to lone nutterism and uploaded it on You Tube, I was hardly the only person to be totally flabbergasted. He was questioned by myself and others on this forum, as to what caused his sudden shift of opinion.

He gave honest answers and he should be applauded for doing so. I thought the treatment given to him for his change of views was disgusting. Vince is still a fine researcher, and his Secret Service work stands the test of time.

I totally agree that Vince's work on the Secret Service stands the test of time. That makes his conversion to lone nutterism all the more unfathomable. Would you please provide a single rational excuse he provided for his abrupt change of opinion? I don't recall any.

Like Gary Mack, Dale Myers, Todd Vaughn and so many others, he couldn't give us a single reason why he changed his mind. I think such mysterious conversions are irrational and certainly worthy of discussion on forums like this.

That's really utter nonsense Don, Gary Mack is not a lone nutter, he still believes in Badgeman, so how can that be? You only need to visit the Dale Myers website to find out why he changed his mind, or view any of his documentaries, theres nothing mysterious here.

Gary Mack is in effect a lone nutter. I exchanged several emails with Gary about this, and he was never able to give me a single reason for his total change of views on so many aspects of this case. He still clings to Badgeman and the acoustics evidence, which really comprise two of the weakest indications of conspiracy there are. How can someone claim that the grainy alleged figure "Badgeman" represents stronger evidence of conspiracy than the bullet holes in JFK's clothing, for instance, or the strong indications a bullet was found in the grass in Dealey Plaza? On every t.v. show Gary has appeared on, he has dismissed "conspiracy theories" and supported each untenable conclusion of the Warren Commission. Yes, he still claims to believe in conspiracy, but his actions belie his words. As for Dale Myers, I tried to engage him in conversation several years ago on another forum. He briefly appeared there, primarily to promote his book "With Malice." I kept trying to get him to tell me what time he thought Oswald had left the TSBD, and how he could have determined that, since there is no credible evidence to indicate what time that was. He kept replying by saying "buy my book." He had a consistently haughty and arrogant tone in all his posts, and he didn't last long there. I tried looking up his web site, but the JFK Files site (I assume that's the one) doesn't seem to have the information you describe. Perhaps you could provide a link for that.

As for the Umbrella Man, there is certainly some movement there. I am hardly the first person to describe this as "pumping."

Yes, and everyone else who described it as pumping is also wrong.

Spoken like someone who is truly tolerant of other views. Your numerous debates with Bill Miller over Gordon Arnold illustrate perfectly the futility of attempting to change the perceptions of others, in regards to how they interpret the photos and films.

The larger issue is why his strange behavior is not even mentioned any more by anyone.

It is mentioned. Just because it isn't mentioned here very often doesn't mean it's never mentioned elsewhere, On my own forum, it has been and still is a hot topic of debate.

Do you believe Steven Witt's ridiculous story, and accept that he was the Umbrella Man?

I'm undecided on that.

Undecided? Exactly what about Witt's ridiculous story is remotely believable?

There used to be a general consensus that he was a signal man of sorts for the shooters. This notion appears to have been dropped by nearly everyone. Why?

Because it's absolute lunacy.

Again, the voice of tolerance. It's "absolute lunacy" to suggest that a guy with an open umbrella on a sunny day, who moves it in some way just before and during the shots, and then acts like no other witness afterwards, might have had some connection with the crime?

There is nothing wrong with research evolving as new evidence comes to light. That, however, really hasn't been the case here. What evidence has arisen over the past 25-30 years that would cause knowledgable researchers to back off from a strong pro-conspiracy stance?

New evidence turns up all the time. The discovery of the Jeffries film for example shines a new light on the issue of the position of the hole in Kennedy's jacket in relation to it's entry location..

You are sounding more and more like a neo-con yourself. The alleged "bunching up" seen in the Jeffries film "throws a new light" on things, but suggesting the Umbrella Man's filmed behavior is suspcious is "absolute lunacy?" The "bunched up" theory is just as impossible at the single bullet theory. If you don't know that, you know nothing about this case. Even if you accept the improbable notion that the most immaculately dressed politician of his time somehow allowed his coat to ride up some 5 inches in public, are you going to seriously entertain the notion that his shirt rode up to such an extent that the holes matched perfectly? And what about the autopsy face sheet, the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report? Exactly how did they all become "bunched up?"

This evolution of opinions that you mention, based on research, is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Where is this research that caused so many to discard the well founded doubts that Oswald killed Tippit?

It's everywhere if you look in the right places

Thanks for a definitive and detailed reply. A converted lone nutter couldn't have said it any better.

That caused some to believe that the backyard photos are "probably genuine?"

I think the use of the word probably is fine, what's wrong with it? It means the person is undecided and is open minded..

And again, they ought to be able to tell you why they believe they are "probably genuine."

When someone changes their own well documented beliefs on a crucial aspect of this case, we are certainly entitled to question that on forums like this. The fact that they do so without giving any reasons why is bound to breed suspicion.

Suspicion of what Don?

[Pat Speer]

Bill, you may be able to get some interest from an enforcement agency if new scientific evidence is discovered. With that in mind I suggest you approach Bond, John Bond, a UK forensics chief from Northamptonshire PD. I've read where Bond has learned how to develop fingerprints off shell casings, where none could previously be found. It seems the salt from the sweaty fingerprints of a person loading a weapon can get burned into the casing when the weapon is fired, but remain invisible to the naked eye. Bond has developed a system to make these marks visible. I have no idea if there's a time limit on this test, but it seems worth a shot. I mean, can you imagine the uproar if the fingerprints on the shells at the Tippit shooting matched the unidentified (Wallace?) print found in the depository?

[William Kelly]

Bill, you may be able to get some interest from an enforcement agency if new scientific evidence is discovered. With that in mind I suggest you approach Bond, John Bond, a UK forensics chief from Northamptonshire PD. I've read where Bond has learned how to develop fingerprints off shell casings, where none could previously be found. It seems the salt from the sweaty fingerprints of a person loading a weapon can get burned into the casing when the weapon is fired, but remain invisible to the naked eye. Bond has developed a system to make these marks visible. I have no idea if there's a time limit on this test, but it seems worth a shot. I mean, can you imagine the uproar if the fingerprints on the shells at the Tippit shooting matched the unidentified (Wallace?) print found in the depository?

Hey Pat,

Thanks for the lead on John Bond and the shell casing fingerprints. I'll add that to the list.

There certainly is not a lacking of leads that could be developed.

Of course, your work on the medical evidence could help lead to a new, proper, forensic autopsy.

BK

[William Kelly]

Mary Ferrell – October 6, 1992, Dallas, Texas.

As the 30^th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy descends on us, I am much concerned that we are on the threshold of a failure from which there will be no forgiveness.

We must WIN this struggle for the truth…and do so very quickly, lest the assassination of President Kennedy flounder on some remote shoulder of the highway, in a century who's history is already on the way to the printer. In the next century, this case could be relegated to obscure questions on high school history examinations.

If tomorrow's newspapers reported having uncovered complete particulars concerning a new cast of conspirators and their motivations for assassinating President Abraham Lincoln – with John Wilkes Booth reduced to a pawn in the hands of a group of highly placed officials, would it have much of an impact? I think not. In another decade, Lee Harvey Oswald may seem as remote to the younger generation as John Wilkes Booth does to us today.

Time is our most relentless and uncompromising enemy. What happens during this conference can make a difference. Of course we will be scoffed at and demeaned by the media and the wagging fingers of Warren Commission survivors, scolding us for refusing to believe the conclusions of those honorable men. Privately they are beginning to worry.

In a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report, it was reported that seven members of the Warren Commission's staff held a meeting in Washington in early August of this year to discuss how best to defend themselves and their report.

With the help of the establishment media, our detractors will again refer to us as "conspiracy junkies" who delight in conclaves such as this; a fringe group which would be better off availing themselves of treatment for emotional disorders, instead of working to solve a case which, according to them, was solved long ago.

History teaches us that significant changes are often accomplished by small numbers of people, facing large odds. Many of them have succeeded in defiance of the government. Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Washington and their followers represented a tiny fraction of this country's population. In the early years of their protests against British Rule, they were considered by many, especially "the government", to be disloyal, malcontents, motivated by vile goals.

They were a distasteful joke in the face of King George's authority and his vast legions, including so-called "loyalists" who applauded the British for hanging a school teacher named Nathan Hale. In case King George's legions have forgotten, Washington and his followers WON that fight.

Earlier in this century, on August 23, 1927, the State of Massachusetts electrocuted Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Banzetti, Italian immigrants and anarchists, who were convicted of murdering a security guard during a robbery in East Braintree. A tremendous controversy ensued, challenging the validity of their guilt – before, during and after they were executed. Supporters of Saacco and Vanzetti were called "malcontents," "zealots," "agitators," and "bleeding hearts."

Fifty years later, on July 19, 1977, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis issued an official proclamation apologizing to the families of Sacco and Vanzetti who, it had been discovered, were innocent of the crime for which they had been put to death.

The roster of those who have traveled the highway of dissent, alone, is one we should review:

- For denying his daughter admission to a public school, Oliver Brown took the Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education all the way to the United States Supreme Court…ending segregation in public schools.

- Rosa Parks, a weary black women who refused to change her seat during a bus ride in Selma, Alabama…challenged the ordinance which relegated her to the back of the bus…and won.

- An obscure minister named Martin Luther King, from the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, preached non-violent civil disobedience against intolerance…and won.

- A small band of idealists, called "Freedom Riders" appeared powerless in the face of millions of segregationists, the governors of several states…police wielding tear gas, wholesale arrests, murders, brutal beatings, and "Bull" Conner with his attack dogs….but the Freedom Riders finally won that one, too.

- In the early days of Vietnam, anti-war demonstrators, numbering far less than one percent of our population, took to the streets and ignited a movement which ended the career of Lyndon Johnson and finally, the war itself. They were labeled "peacenicks," "beatnicks" and "traitors," but they too, finally won.

- Two obscure reporters for the Washington Post wrote stories related to a bizarre burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington D.C. They accused high officials at the White House, the Justice Department, and the Committee to Re-Elect President Richard M. Nixon of inspiring the burglary, obstruction of justice, illegal break-ins, illegal wiretaps, perjury and a plethora of other serious crimes. The perseverance of those two reporters – Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – eventually brought down the administration of Richard Nixon and forced him to resign.

- The grandson of Italian immigrants became a lawyer – who lost 41 out of 42 cases. He became a prosecutor and finally a Federal Judge. He presided over the Watergate trial and stood up to the President of the United States, forcing the President to release his papers and secretly recorded tapes. He died in August of this year, at 89 years of age, still insisting that the system works. His name was John J. Sirica.

If you think the group assembled here today seems small, you should have been with me in 1967 and 1968 during the first meetings I participated in on this subject. Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, Jr., Harold Weisburg, Bud Fensterwald and I would sit in my living room or in my kitchen arguing about what we should argue about – and wondering if we would ever reach the public with our research. We didn't have computers or fax machines, or, certainly in my case, much money.

For those of you who managed to attend this conference, I have every confidence that you are representative of millions who share our views. Please be assured that we CAN make a difference.

In the echelons of the Federal government and the establishment media, we who are assembled here are referred to as "conspiracy buffs," "nuts," "kooks," "profiteers," "charlatans," just plain "crazies," ….or all of the above. Remember the roster of those who have gone before us, and let's consider ourselves in good company.

Time magazine got so alarmed with one of us a while back, they reviewed his movie without seeing it! Maybe that's what they mean by the phrase, "a landmark in American journalism." Jim Garrison wrote something in A Heritage of Stone that summed up my feelings about the Time article when he wrote: "First we executed the suspect (Oswald) and then we held the trial." That was a considerable departure from what was being taught in our law schools.

That we hotly dispute one another's theories about this case is of small consequence, weighed against our common belief that the election of our President was nullified with bullets, instead of ballots.

That is what keeps us united in our cause.

That is what, according to the polls, is a view which is shared by the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens,….that a conspiracy and a government-sponsored cover-up, blotted out the rights of our citizens and the sanctity of the rule of law.

And that is what will forever be paramount among all of the issues which continually dog our deliberations. Issues about autopsy photos, magic bullets, pictures of Oswald which are obviously not Oswald, numbers and styles of coffins, and all of the other issues, cannot eclipse the ultimate violation of the rights of citizens in a democracy designed for the people….NOT for the convenience of elected officials and their appointees.

In the forward to Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher wrote:

"On the day of the assassination the national climate of arrogance and passivity in the face of relentless violence – beatings, bombings, and shootings – yielded in some quarters to a sudden hour of humility and self-criticism. The painful moment passed quickly, for the official thesis of the lone, random assassin destroyed the impulse for national self-scrutiny and repentance."

A few paragraphs latter Sylvia wrote:

"Few people who have followed the events closely – and who are not indentured to the Establishment – conceive of the Kennedy assassination as anything but a political crime. That was the immediate and universal belief on November 22 before the opinion-makers got to work endorsing the official explanation of the complex mystery as Gospel and entreating all good citizens to do the same."

Sylvia wrote those words in December of 1966.

If we are truly living in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we'd better damn well prove it now, by forcing a just resolution to an event which occurred on a public street within easy view of the building we are gathered in today.

Thank you.

Mary Ferrell

Edited April 10, 2009 by William Kelly

[Don Jeffries]

Thank you, Duncan, for making the obvious point. I was going to make it but ended up not thinking a reply to this kind of thing was worth it.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

I truly do respect you.

I'm not sure why you're reluctant to answer the questions I asked you on another thread. Like many others, I read your book when I was young and am happy to have such an esteemed researcher participating on forums like this. I am honestly curious about where your beliefs stand at this point in time, and if they've changed on any essential points I'd like to know why. Is that unreaonable?

On a somewhat related point, I was reading an online piece by Jim DiEugenio recently, and he mentioned that during one of the JFK conferences, you'd recounted a story about the widow of O.P. Wright hearing that several nurses at Parkland had reported other bullets being found there. I find that fascinating, new information and would love to hear more details, if you wouldn't mind sharing.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Duncan,

I never suggested that there was anything sinister behind any of the sudden conversions to lone nutterism or the temperance of formerly strong pro-conspiracy views. I do believe they are curious and often inexplicable. Vince Palamara, for instance, was one of my favorite researchers. Imho, he thoroughly documented the failure of the Secret Service to do its job in Dealey Plaza and his work would cause most intelligent people to suspect at least some agents of complicity in the crime. When he filmed his abrupt conversion to lone nutterism and uploaded it on You Tube, I was hardly the only person to be totally flabbergasted. He was questioned by myself and others on this forum, as to what caused his sudden shift of opinion. Like Gary Mack, Dale Myers, Todd Vaughn and so many others, he couldn't give us a single reason why he changed his mind. I think such mysterious conversions are irrational and certainly worthy of discussion on forums like this.

As for the Umbrella Man, there is certainly some movement there. I am hardly the first person to describe this as "pumping." The larger issue is why his strange behavior is not even mentioned any more by anyone. Do you believe Steven Witt's ridiculous story, and accept that he was the Umbrella Man? There used to be a general consensus that he was a signal man of sorts for the shooters. This notion appears to have been dropped by nearly everyone. Why?

There is nothing wrong with research evolving as new evidence comes to light. That, however, really hasn't been the case here. What evidence has arisen over the past 25-30 years that would cause knowledgable researchers to back off from a strong pro-conspiracy stance? We are under no obligation to respect all opinions. For instance, if someone maintains the grass is red or the sky is brown, he has the right to do so, but no rational person is going to spend a moment considering the validity of what he says.

This evolution of opinions that you mention, based on research, is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Where is this research that caused so many to discard the well founded doubts that Oswald killed Tippit? That caused some to believe that the backyard photos are "probably genuine?" When someone changes their own well documented beliefs on a crucial aspect of this case, we are certainly entitled to question that on forums like this. The fact that they do so without giving any reasons why is bound to breed suspicion. That's the nature of discussion forums.

I think this is an important issue. I think there are several factors at play and they apply to different people. Some jointly apply to some people. Others are affected by only one. I'm not here and now going to try to mention [though I have my thoughts!] on who has been affected by what. The forces: One is that many Americans like to be on what they perceive to be the 'winning side' and sadly, America is a conquered nation, having IMO been taken over by those who pulled-off the Coup d'etat in Dallas and a host of follow-on sub-coups I'd gladly mention (right up to today). They feel that the critical viewpoint (no matter how righteous and close to the truth) will not prevail, so they cowardly join the perceived prevailing side [this can be seen throught history and American History, sadly]. Some are effected by the fact that life is easier and one gets paid better (literally) working for the side of the coup than those who try to expose it. I think little is due to 'getting conservative with age'. I'm quite old and as radical as I was in the 60s. If it is a change in their organic thinking, one would have to think of other types of mental degeneration. Some were always 'sleepers', IMO, intelligence - mockingbird plants who were to appear as members of the critical opposition and then when activated, turn - an old technique. This, I think goes a long way to explain the one way conversions. A few have been threatened or see others who have been. I could but will not mention one most here would immediately know. Others have seen their friends mysteriously die of 'natural causes' in unnatural numbers and timings, and 'seen the light' for survival. Most of these don't convert, but just drop-out. A few may convert though. And then there are those who no rational explanation can yet inform a person with their head screwed-on correctly as to why they would change - as the offical fairytale never stood the test of logic; always was full of holes and official hanky-panky and cover-up [not to mention involvement of some]....and that has only gotten more so over the years. A good number of the turncoats I believe know that the critical viewpoint against the official version is the correct one. Only a minority, IMO, in their hearts and minds believe their new religion. I think they mostly need to be ignored and we shake our heads and treat them as if they had died when they morphed to the enemy camp....the indefensible camp of the unspeakable [in the Douglass sense].

Peter:

Click on the first two links in the first quote box of the post at this link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=165508

Look at the happy faces.....on the pages that I directed you to. There is no shame in being exactly what you describe....in fact. it is the opposite....it is the way to acceptance, respect, wealth and power, and it is disgusting to the point of criminality. No rules or morality in a captured country, as you accurately called it.

Gray Davis at least knew how to feel shame. The American traitor and Abwehr agent who Sam Pryor introduced to Willkie in Willkie's hometown in Indiana in 1940, after flying William Rhodes Davis there in Pryor's private plane, was Gray Davis's grandfather. Davis changed his first name at a young age, making it difficult for an already incurious press to even link Gray Davis with his own father. Joseph Graham Davis Sr., let alone link him to his infamous grandfather.

The bold coldness of these extreme right "rulers" is not cluelessness. You pointed out GHW Bush's reaction to the Pryor biography. Captured nation is the only way to describe our circumstances.....

Edited April 10, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Don Jeffries]

Tom and Peter,

Great points. There is indeed no shame among those who profit sinfully, even if the circumstances that make their wealth possible are dishonest, corrupt or criminal. Witness recently the total lack of embarrassment on the part of the greedy bankers, caught with their hands in the bonus jar immediately after whining to Congress that they needed to be bailed out for the good of the economy.

One of the all time unpleasant fellows, long time baseball manager Leo Durocher, made the phrase "Nice Guys Finish Last" popular several decades ago. It appears that all too many in sports, and the business world, have adopted this nasty credo and applied it to the way they conduct their lives. There are many, many allegedly pious people today who have amassed great wealth and quote the Bible freely, while studiously avoiding one particular passage like the plague; "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Sorry to go off topic. I tend to do that.

But I understand where you're coming from. It does indeed sometimes feel like we're ranting to an audience that isn't there, fighting for a cause that's already been lost, in a war we didn't even realize was being waged.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Don Jeffries

[Guest Tom Scully]

Don,

One irony is that "operation Mockingbird" probably was not even necessary - the "journalist community" would have gladly carried out it's objectives with much less expensive CIA influence than was unleashed. No member of the press has the slightest interest in investigating and reporting on the circumstances of quotes of GHW Bush and Karl Rove displayed here, confidently and publicly endorsing the new biography of a man; http://samuelpryor.com/Home_Page.html who Winchell. Pearson, Marquis Childs, Asst. US Attorney General O. John Rogge, and perhaps a dozen authors of books, including presidential biographer Herb S. Parmet, all described as knowingly and deliberately introducing candidate Willkie to a traitor who was openly offering millions of dollars in funding from Goring and Ribbentrop for Wendell Willkie's campaign to unseat FDR. This man Pryor later flew Davis to meet with Willkie at Pryor's Jupiter Island home and introduced him to isolationist committee chairman Verne Marshall.

Pryor befriended and chose to be buried next to Charles A. Lindbergh. This saga has the added dimension that the Nazi Abwehr agent that Pryor collaborated with and aided in the corruption of candidate Willkie, was the deliberatley hidden grandfather of Gray Davis....successfully kept hidden even as Davis's 2003 California gubernatorial opponent, Arnold Schwarzenneger, a man who in 1990 had voluntarily asked Simon Weisenthal to investigate the Nazi background of Schwarzenneger's own family, was the target of much negative news reporting related to his father and grandfather's Nazi service.

Opinion, as Peter so clearly posted....is "incentivized", shaped by ideology, agenda, and anticipated reward. The proof is, as I keep coming back to, the fact that we as country, much more so than western Europe with the exception of the UK, are skewed so far to the right, but we still think we are "centrists". Militarized, "law and order", corporatism seems like "home" to most of us. Only six percent of the world population, but confining 25 percent of the world's prisoners....no problem.

Rabidly right wing religious fanatics openly infesting the military and shaping a "biblical" foreign policy, no problem:

The man who recently headed the pentagon policy board wrote this years before his appointment:

"Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 report suggested..."

No matter what the consequences of the dominance of our political and business culture by entrenched neo-fascism, there is no discussion as to whether a shift to the distant left side of center would be to our benefit, and the populist accomplishments of the French voters, influenced by their left leaning political ideology, is reflexively ridiculed, and never examined critically, even as 50 million in the US have no health insurance coverage and tuition costs for higher education become increasinlgy unaffordable.

When it comes to rationally reacting to implausible official BS like the "magic bullet" and the WC declaration that both Oswald and Ruby were LNs, why would you expect most to react any differently than the do when they never even notice the fact that the French voter has achieved many benefits from the way he votes, vs. the American, who seems to have achieved next to none for himself and his family?

Edited April 10, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

Peter,

The man who wrote the following, the son of Gen. Joseph Carroll, founding director of the DIA, sums up what you, Don, and I have been trying to get across in our recent posts:

....Sinclair Lewis, for his part, showed how the simultaneously banalizing methods of capitalist enterprise (false advertising, consumerism, pieties of affluence, amoral bureaucracy) are exactly what that enterprise created to keep from being criticized......

- James Carroll

....and I wish I could share your hope and Bill Kelly's optimism, but I am held back by knowing what Upton Sinclair published years before global depression, a "business coup" attempt in the US, several wars that featured conscription to raise the required numbers of US troops, a few assassinations, and the scrapping of habeas corpus, fourth amendment protections, the official approval of torture, secret rendition, secret prisons, and the outsourcing of so many of our jobs:

Upton Sinclair - Wikiquote

The Brass Check (1919)

* Journalism is one of the devices whereby industrial autocracy keeps its control over political democracy; it is the day-by-day, between-elections propaganda, whereby the minds of the people are kept in a state of acquiescence, so that when the crisis of an election comes, they go to the polls and cast their ballots for either one of the two candidates of their exploiters.

* The methods by which the "Empire of Business" maintains its control over journalism are four: First, ownership of the papers; second, ownership of the owners; third, advertising subsidies; and fourth, direct bribery. By these methods there exists in America a control of news and of current comment more absolute than any monopoly in any other industry.

Despite Sinclair's 1919 description, and the catalysts for change that followed, our grandfathers and fathers opted to "stay the course", and to support the efforts of the elite to keep change to an absolute minimum. We've accepted their sponsorship of their puppet Obama, offered to us in response to our demands for change, but without the redistribution and reform of the entrenched concentration of power and wealth we hoped would be part of Obama's advertised agenda of change.

The opportunity you were looking for needed to happen during the pre-presidential primary period, and as we saw, it is a process so scripted tightly choreographed that only the CFR approved candidates are allowed to advance. You only have to look at our own generation.....Joan Baez is till Joan Baez, but the Woodstock, "summer of love" was 40 years ago, aside from Joan, how many of our contemporaries have any spirit of resistance, or even objection, left in them? Go along to get along has long since stamped out the spirit exhibited in the student strikes and protests in the spring of 1970. The dean is not going to occupy his own office, and tuition costs are too steep today to justify skipping class to push for political change. Places on the web like DailyKos organized to elect democratic party candidates...they succeeded......the oligarchy remains in place....now what?

[Don Jeffries]

It's also perfectly reasonable to expect some not to answer, it's called freedom of speech, which includes the right not to speak.

OF COURSE THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT, BUT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO WONDER IF THEY DON'T ANSWER PERFECTLY REASONABLE QUESTIONS.

Vince Palamara, for instance, was one of my favorite researchers. Imho, he thoroughly documented the failure of the Secret Service to do its job in Dealey Plaza and his work would cause most intelligent people to suspect at least some agents of complicity in the crime.

You haven't done enough research Don. If you look at similar Kennedy mororcades, you will find out that similar failures by the sectret service often took place. The only difference is that someone killed Kennedy in Dallas.

That's simply not true, Duncan. There have been numerous discussions about this very issue on this and other forums. It was not typical for the motorcycles to lag behind the limousine, and while we obviously can't compare the Secret Service's performance with anything else, since there was no previous assassination attempt, it's hard to believe that anyone can innocently accept their total lack of response. In any real investigation of the crime, those Secret Service agents, in particular Emory Roberts and Bill Greer, would have been questioned relentlessly about their curious actions (or lack thereof) in Dealey Plaza.

It is true, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

AND ANOTHER SNAPPY RESPONSE FROM YOU THAT COMPLETELY DISMISSES THE QUESTION. GIVE ME A REASON WHY AN HONEST INVESTGATOR WOULDN'T HAVE QUESTIONED THE PERFORMANCE, OR LACK THEREOF, OF THE SECRET SERVICE ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION. ARE YOU HONESTLY SAYING THAT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS DID THEIR JOB ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?

When he filmed his abrupt conversion to lone nutterism and uploaded it on You Tube, I was hardly the only person to be totally flabbergasted. He was questioned by myself and others on this forum, as to what caused his sudden shift of opinion.

He gave honest answers and he should be applauded for doing so. I thought the treatment given to him for his change of views was disgusting. Vince is still a fine researcher, and his Secret Service work stands the test of time.

I totally agree that Vince's work on the Secret Service stands the test of time. That makes his conversion to lone nutterism all the more unfathomable. Would you please provide a single rational excuse he provided for his abrupt change of opinion? I don't recall any.

Bugliosi..he made that clear.

YES, HE SAID BUGLIOSI CONVERTED HIM. HE DECLINED TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE STERLING RESEARCH AND/OR NEW INFORMATION THAT HE FOUND PERSUASIVE.

Like Gary Mack, Dale Myers, Todd Vaughn and so many others, he couldn't give us a single reason why he changed his mind. I think such mysterious conversions are irrational and certainly worthy of discussion on forums like this.

That's really utter nonsense Don, Gary Mack is not a lone nutter, he still believes in Badgeman, so how can that be? You only need to visit the Dale Myers website to find out why he changed his mind, or view any of his documentaries, theres nothing mysterious here.

Gary Mack is in effect a lone nutter. I exchanged several emails with Gary about this, and he was never able to give me a single reason for his total change of views on so many aspects of this case. He still clings to Badgeman and the acoustics evidence, which really comprise two of the weakest indications of conspiracy there are. How can someone claim that the grainy alleged figure "Badgeman" represents stronger evidence of conspiracy than the bullet holes in JFK's clothing, for instance, or the strong indications a bullet was found in the grass in Dealey Plaza? On every t.v. show Gary has appeared on, he has dismissed "conspiracy theories" and supported each untenable conclusion of the Warren Commission. Yes, he still claims to believe in conspiracy, but his actions belie his words. As for Dale Myers, I tried to engage him in conversation several years ago on another forum. He briefly appeared there, primarily to promote his book "With Malice." I kept trying to get him to tell me what time he thought Oswald had left the TSBD, and how he could have determined that, since there is no credible evidence to indicate what time that was. He kept replying by saying "buy my book." He had a consistently haughty and arrogant tone in all his posts, and he didn't last long there. I tried looking up his web site, but the JFK Files site (I assume that's the one) doesn't seem to have the information you describe. Perhaps you could provide a link for that.

I've never heard so much drivel in all my time on here. Name me one, just one example of Gary saying that there was no conspiracy.

GARY MACK HAS, DURING HIS EVERY T.V. APPEARANCE, PROPPED UP THE OFFICIAL STORY. HE HAS NEVER UTTERED A PRO-CONSPIRACY WORD ON AIR SINCE HE BECAME AFFILIATED WITH THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM. WHILE HE STILL MAINTAINS THAT HE BELIEVES IN CONSPIRACY, HIS ACTIONS SUGGEST OTHERWISE.

As for the Umbrella Man, there is certainly some movement there. I am hardly the first person to describe this as "pumping."

Yes, and everyone else who described it as pumping is also wrong.

Spoken like someone who is truly tolerant of other views. Your numerous debates with Bill Miller over Gordon Arnold illustrate perfectly the futility of attempting to change the perceptions of others, in regards to how they interpret the photos and films.

I respect almost everything which Bill Miller posts. Just because I don't agree with him on some matters, and he doesn't agree with me on some matters, doesn't mean either of us get paranoid like you do, and start hinting that certain people on here being disinfo agents etc just because they don't conform to your views or demands for answers.

I HAVEN'T HINTED THAT ANYONE IS A DISINFO AGENT. I ALSO DON'T DEMAND THAT ANYONE CONFORM TO MY VIEWS OR ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS HERE. ISN'T THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF A DISCUSSION FORUM? THE REASON I'VE ASKED JOSIAH THOMPSON CERTAIN QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE I DO RESPECT HIS PAST WORK AND AM INTERESTED IN WHERE HE STANDS ON ISSUES OTHER THAN FILM ALTERATION.

The larger issue is why his strange behavior is not even mentioned any more by anyone.

It is mentioned. Just because it isn't mentioned here very often doesn't mean it's never mentioned elsewhere, On my own forum, it has been and still is a hot topic of debate.

Do you believe Steven Witt's ridiculous story, and accept that he was the Umbrella Man?

I'm undecided on that.

Undecided? Exactly what about Witt's ridiculous story is remotely believable?

It's all perfectly believable.

UH...OKAY....

There used to be a general consensus that he was a signal man of sorts for the shooters. This notion appears to have been dropped by nearly everyone. Why?

Because it's absolute lunacy.

Again, the voice of tolerance. It's "absolute lunacy" to suggest that a guy with an open umbrella on a sunny day, who moves it in some way just before and during the shots, and then acts like no other witness afterwards, might have had some connection with the crime?

Yes Don, what a way to make yourself incospicuous as a signal man lol!!!

WELL, HE APPARENTLY WENT UNNOTICED BY THE AUTHORITIES, SINCE HE WAS NEVER QUESTIONED OR EVEN IDENTIFIED.

There is nothing wrong with research evolving as new evidence comes to light. That, however, really hasn't been the case here. What evidence has arisen over the past 25-30 years that would cause knowledgable researchers to back off from a strong pro-conspiracy stance?

New evidence turns up all the time. The discovery of the Jeffries film for example shines a new light on the issue of the position of the hole in Kennedy's jacket in relation to it's entry location..

You are sounding more and more like a neo-con yourself. The alleged "bunching up" seen in the Jeffries film "throws a new light" on things, but suggesting the Umbrella Man's filmed behavior is suspcious is "absolute lunacy?" The "bunched up" theory is just as impossible at the single bullet theory. If you don't know that, you know nothing about this case. Even if you accept the improbable notion that the most immaculately dressed politician of his time somehow allowed his coat to ride up some 5 inches in public, are you going to seriously entertain the notion that his shirt rode up to such an extent that the holes matched perfectly? And what about the autopsy face sheet, the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report? Exactly how did they all become "bunched up?"

I was waiting on that coming lol!!! What a load of garbage, it's clear his jacket was bunched up in Dealey Plaza, the photographic record clearly shows this.

AGAIN, THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE FILM SHOWS. HOW DID HIS SHIRT BUNCH UP PERFECTLY, SO THAT THE BULLET HOLES ALIGNED? WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THE BUNCHING UP OF THE AUTOPSY FACE SHEET, CERTIFICATE OF DEATH, AND SIBERT & O'NEILL REPORT TO?

This evolution of opinions that you mention, based on research, is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Where is this research that caused so many to discard the well founded doubts that Oswald killed Tippit?

It's everywhere if you look in the right places

Thanks for a definitive and detailed reply. A converted lone nutter couldn't have said it any better.

8 letters P.A.R.A.N.O.I.A

EVEN MORE DEFINITIVE AND DETAILED. THE ORIGINAL BAND OF CRITICS PROVED LONG AGO THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD TO EVEN ARRIVE AT THE SCENE OF THE TIPPIT MURDER IN TIME TO COMMIT IT. YES, I'M AWARE THAT PRO-CONSPIRACY GARY MACK (ALONG WITH CONVERTED LONE NUTTER DAVE PERRY) PURPORTED TO SHOW THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE ARRIVED THERE IN TIME ON ONE OF THOSE UNBIASED T.V. SHOWS, BUT SOME OF US REMAIN SKEPTICAL. REMEMBER ALSO THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE OFFICIAL CONTENTION THAT OSWALD LEFT THE TSBD AT 12:33 (WHICH WAS AS LATE AS THE WARREN COMMISSION WAS WILLING TO LET THEIR LONE ASSASSIN LINGER, IN ORDER TO GET HIM TO THE TIPPIT SCENE IN THEIR ABSURD, CONTRIVED RECONSTRUCTION). THERE ARE TONS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE TIPPIT EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY THE CHAIN OF POSSESSION (AS THERE IS WITH ALL THE ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE). NEITHER DALE MYERS NOR ANYONE ELSE HAS MADE A STRONGER CASE FOR OSWALD SHOOTING TIPPIT THAN THE WARREN COMMISSION DID. WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE OF YOURS THAT IS "EVERYWHERE?"

That caused some to believe that the backyard photos are "probably genuine?"

I think the use of the word probably is fine, what's wrong with it? It means the person is undecided and is open minded..

And again, they ought to be able to tell you why they believe they are "probably genuine."

That's such a stupid statement Don. They believe they are probly genuine because they have seen no evidence which convinces them of fakery.

THEN THEY HAVEN'T EXAMINED THE WORK OF THE CRITICS. JOSIAH THOMPSON WROTE "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS" IN THE 1960S. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT HE ISN'T FAMILIAR WITH THIS SUBJECT. AS I NOTED, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A PHOTO EXPERT TO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE PICTURES.

When someone changes their own well documented beliefs on a crucial aspect of this case, we are certainly entitled to question that on forums like this. The fact that they do so without giving any reasons why is bound to breed suspicion.

Suspicion of what Don?