Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michaleen Kilroy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michaleen Kilroy

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't find Helms funny or innocuous. In fact, I find him culpable:
  2. The strange thing is Holland is absolutely clear on the details on what he heard and saw, and his testimony perfectly matches what everyone can see in the Z film, IMO. And about six guys went with him to the picket fence so they must have heard and saw the same thing. I can't believe he was wrong about the foot. Why would he even say it if he didn't see it? Then it shows up in a photo of the limo on the way to Parkland? That's quite a coincidence if Holland got it wrong. My guess is JFK was in his death throes as the limo came out from the under bridge and that's when Holland saw his foot hanging over the car door. I only brought this horrific scene up because for me it again reinforces that the head shot came from the front right as Holland and his fellow railroad men saw it. One more thing - I heard both Wesley Frazier and another key witness at a JFK Lancer conference both say the last two shots were almost simultaneous just as Holland heard it, like many witnesses have said. That negates the possibility that the Carcano did all the shooting.
  3. I was watching the SM Holland interview with Mark Lane recently (who IMO offers the most damning evidence of a shot from the front) and noticed this photo at the end. I had never seen it before but it was included after Holland said JFK was hit so hard by the shot from the knoll that it "flipped him over" and his foot was hanging over the car door. You don't really see this in the Zapruder film but is this true?
  4. Would be great to try the lie detector test on this interview:
  5. Sure would love to see that test on certain CIA officials testifying to Congress during the HSCA, namely Helms, Phillips and Angleton.
  6. It’s all of a piece, isn’t it? Don’t think I have anything new but I like to try to point out issues that maybe the uninitiated may understand. The CIA’s obvious malfeasance means the case is never closed until they come clean on what the hell they were doing with LHO.
  7. FYI, I spent time looking at live coverage following the assassination. The film of Oswald handing out fliers in NO is broadcasted in the early evening of Nov. 22 by Cronkite and others. At that moment, if they didn’t know already, Helms and others at Langley knew the accused assassin had interfaced with their secretly funded propaganda group, the DRE. And they never said a word about it to anyone. Lone nut. Right. Sure seems obvious to me the highest echelon of the CIA was overseeing an operation to tie LHO to Castro in the public’s mind ASAP. That’s the ONLY reasonable conclusion. Especially since they covered it up for decades and STILL won’t provide ANY explanation.
  8. Forgot I had posted it here before: FYI, I sent it to Robert Blakey who emailed me back this: “I read your piece with great interest. Sadly, I don’t think anything will come of it in our lifetime.”
  9. Just a lone nut loser, eh? And yet, for some reason, this anonymous sociopath caused such consternation at the CIA that they chose to withhold material evidence, lie and run domestic operations to obstruct justice in all federal inquiries. Curious how you can explain this: https://medium.com/me/stats/post/377267b73309
  10. I'm not sure so I'll let the Dan the Man tell his story:
  11. I finally had the time and the stomach to watch "Parkland" (plus it was free with Amazon Prime). I found it to be a tragi-comedic farce by the producers who are pretending to deliver 'just the facts, m'am" while doing their level best to stay away from inconvenient facts that might get the viewer to question the official story. Or they included facts that clearly show a conspiracy that they likely didn't mean to. A few incongruities that jumped out to me were: You call a movie "Parkland" but you don't include reporter Seth Kantor's run-in with Ruby there? That's as close to an indisputable fact in this case there is, no matter that the WC chose to ignore the veteran reporter's account and go with the "over-emotional, patriotic nut." Jackie's character hands a nurse the part of Jack's head that she had retrieved from the back of the limo. The nurse's response was - "It's from the base of the head." Well, yes, it was. And how does that fit in with a shooter situated high and behind the POTUS? They choose not to mention what EVERY surgeon and nurse who saw the president before the tracheotomy saw - an entrance wound in the front of his neck. They choose not to include what several surgeons and nurses saw - a clear blowout in the back of the head. Robert Oswald's immediate acceptance that his brother is guilty and guilty alone. He's agreeing with his co-workers that Lee is the apparent shooter when he's just been picked up on a different charge. With what we know today, I was amazed how prescient both Lee and his 'crazy' mother were. When Lee tells his brother "don't believe the so-called evidence" that was before anyone even knew about the "magic bullet" much less the rifle with no prints and a bad scope. Marguerite claims he's a spy for the government before we ever knew how the CIA - the day of the assassination onward - decided to cover-up the fact Lee had gained publicity in NO through the secretly funded DRE. And the close trailing of Oswald weeks before the assassination, and the agency's own internal lies about LHO to the Mexico City station. And Lee's requested hour-long meeting with the FBI in NO. Sure looks like a government agent to me! They included the 'baby shoes for June' line that Lee actually told Marina, not Robert. But they leave out the part where Robert looks into Lee's eyes and Lee tells him, "you won't find anything there, brother." That could mean two different things, e.g. I'm an empty soul OR I didn't do it so there's not guilt to be found. Half the movie focuses on Zapruder and you don't include Dan Rather seeing the assassination film and then LYING directly to the American public about what he saw on national TV? What was the point of the juxtaposition of Hosty burning historic evidence while JFK's eternal flame is lit? This movie shows what happens when you attempt to build a credible a story around the WC fiction. It just falls apart. Completely. One note: I know Zapruder was going through a lot and maybe didn't have his wits about him but the better option than selling his movie to LIFE magazine would have been to provide copies to the top forensics labs and law schools in the country, allowing only approved law enforcement and legal professionals to view it. That way the truth of the 'back and to the left' would've come out without the public necessarily having to view it. Especially once the WC decided to not include a true descriptions of the film. At that point Zapruder must've known the WC was lying and should've made sure the American public knew that as well. I also recently watched media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the assassination and have come to one conclusion: the JFK case is a mess because people in high places who should've known better and that the American public trusted LOST THEIR NERVE. Cronkite, Bradley, the NY Times, etc., etc. The irony is that most were 'fans' of JFK's courage, imagination and service to country. And those 'friends' all disappeared and shirked their duty just when JFK and their country needed them most.
  12. To me, it’s damning evidence of a conspiracy at the highest levels of the agency. if the DRE’s interactions with LHO were happenstance, you could see covering up the relationship to avoid embarrassment, however wrong to do. If Helms et al were lying because the agency was using Oswald for an intelligence purpose, you could also see a coverup to avoid suspicion in the case. But after 55 years neither of these explanations hold water. The relationship with the DRE that Dulles, Helms, Phillips, Kent, Joannides and finally the entire agency as an institution during the time of ARRB covered up has to be incriminating.
  13. If you're looking for good, brief sources for your students to understand the CIA's plain treachery in the case, I'd check out these: https://www.amazon.com/CIA-JFK-Secret-Assassination-Files-ebook/dp/B01FIGY89Y https://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doc.-156-1.-Dan-L.-Hardway-Declaration.pdf https://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/robert_blakey_aarc_9_26_letter.pdf
  14. CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms was in charge of Phillips and George Joannides in the summer and fall of '63 and approved promotions for both during that time. I believe Phillips was promoted to running all anti-Castro operations in the Western Hemisphere in October that year from Mexico City. Joannides was promoted to Chief of Covert Operations likely in July from Miami while continuing to serve as case officer for agency's favorite anti-Castro propaganda group, the DRE. So Joannides was overseeing the DRE during Oswald's interactions with the group in NO while Phillips was based in Mexico City during Oswald's visit. Phillips then visited the CIA station in Miami in mid-October. And their boss, Helms, lied about it all to successive investigations: https://medium.com/@macgiollarua/a-jfk-assassination-question-that-still-requires-an-answer-377267b73309 As Chuck Berry once sang, that's too much monkey business for me.
  • Create New...