Nic Martin

When Castro took power in Cuba, he shut down mob casinos & heroin pipelines - which cost the mob millions of dollars. If the government was going to assassinate it's commander, having "Oswald" visit Cuba to lay the blame at Castro's feet would whip up public support of an invasion of Cuba, to overthrow Castro & let the mob get their footholdings back.

That's not even mentioning that they protected Joe Sr from death threats in the 1930's and were RUMORED TO have helped in the election ( although everyone knows they did ), and then RFK went after the REPUBLICAN mob..

The mob had every reason to want Kennedy dead, and the mob could do it where it'd never be solved. If LBJ & his buddies had gone to the mob, they wouldn't have said no.

I don't doubt the involvement of Clark & Wallace, but if they were in the Plaza, they weren't shooters IMO.

I don't think he'd do it, to be honest. Investigating this case gets you tagged as a nutjob, and his books at the moment are selling pretty well. It's bad stigma, although if someone managed to get him to THINK about it, his stamp of approval on either theory would seal the minds of most Americans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nic, don't you think that he and others in the Kennedy family and their intimates DO think about that a lot? I think it is interesting that the 'think tank' produce vic-a-vis 'environmental' (read : pro-industry irrespective of environmental effect except insofar as circumventing protest) policy that Bobbie Jr. is attacking quite vigorously in this speech are spawns of the JBS and allied think tanks. For some time now these elements have been guiding conservative thought on enviromental issues. It could be argued that this speech IS a declaration of his thinking in the Kennedy issue. That remains to be seen. If so, I don't envy him. But, given what his Family have gone through, I suspect he's approaching these issues 'eyes wide open'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously they think about it, but I'm not sure how many of them today believe in a conspiracy, or - given the fact they're married with children, would speak out if they did. Considering the many ways in which people have shut Kennedys up, Bobby Jr. of all people, would probably rather turn a blind eye for his safety & the safety of his family.

I think it's naive to assume that Hoover, Johnson, and basically every other high-ranking government official were just the Good Guys fooled into it by the Bad Guys. If they were such knights in shining armor, why were they so easy to blackmail or shush up?..

I don't think it's wise to completely rule out the idea of Wallace being there, but maybe not as a shooter. It's entirely possible he was in the 6th floor for other reasons. Reporting to a shooter located elsewhere that the motorcade was waiting, giving a green light, etc. It's more likely that it was a plant, yes, but in the spirit of keeping our minds open..

The idea, though, of him being a shooter, when most CTs try their best to prove that the Sixth Floor was a bad angle for shooting no matter who was behind the gun - is a bit silly.

I don't think he'd do it, to be honest. Investigating this case gets you tagged as a nutjob, and his books at the moment are selling pretty well. It's bad stigma, although if someone managed to get him to THINK about it, his stamp of approval on either theory would seal the minds of most Americans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a whole crop of Bobby's kids that I'm betting are gonna crack and start talking about the murders of their father and uncle. John, if you're looking for one to talk with I would start with Maxwell Taylor Kennedy, who I got to shake hands with last year at a park opening in honor of Mexican-American civil rights and labor activist Cesar Chavez.

Not only did he seem eager for his family's legacy of embracing the good fight to continue, he's a history professor! You might want to contact him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't doubt that a Kennedy will eventually crack and talk about it, but I don't think it's going to be Bobby Jr. His latest book sold relatively well, and I don't know if he'd want the negative media stigma against a follow-up because he was stamped a conspiracy nut.

I don't think he'd do it, to be honest. Investigating this case gets you tagged as a nutjob, and his books at the moment are selling pretty well. It's bad stigma, although if someone managed to get him to THINK about it, his stamp of approval on either theory would seal the minds of most Americans.

And Nic, I agree that "what you think you KNOW may not be the case."  I've encountered a lot of instances of that already...what I've been told as "fact" turned out to be fiction.  That's why I raised the question...how are we gonna know the facts when we see them?  There's already enough "reasonable doubt" out there to drive a person over the edge.  So how does one discover what's real when so many of the principals are dead, or refuse to speak, or refuse to speak with clarity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people. Sigh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

"This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people."

*******************************************************************

Which also runs the risk of the story being repeated, or reiterated a third, fourth, or fifth time. And, much like the loss of generations which occur each time you add another track to a tape in a recording studio, resulting in what is known as

tape "hiss", quite discernible on the finished product, even after hours have been spent in the final mixing process. So too, can the initial accounts of witnesses also take on another sound of their own, either through unintentional embellishment on the part of the witness, in an effort to satisfy the interviewer's questions, or on the part of the interviewer, equally unintentional, in an effort to extract something more prescient than the witness may be able to offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true indeed, however - this one event had visual evidence attached, and this one witness is quite reliable. When I'm finished trying to prove it yes or no, and I've cleared it with my original source, I plan on posting it here.

And Nic, I agree that "what you think you KNOW may not be the case."  I've encountered a lot of instances of that already...what I've been told as "fact" turned out to be fiction.  That's why I raised the question...how are we gonna know the facts when we see them?  There's already enough "reasonable doubt" out there to drive a person over the edge.  So how does one discover what's real when so many of the principals are dead, or refuse to speak, or refuse to speak with clarity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was something that every researcher, LN, CT, whatever - takes as fact and runs with, and I'm trying to prove if it is or isn't true, which results in a lot of calls to a lot of people. Sigh.

I honestly don't know.

I would say that I'd believe it when I saw the government documents, but they could just fake documents to further shove the truth back. Claim to have declassified Document A, but instead, have released a fake with the same number as Document A. I wouldn't put it past them.

There's still so much that is sealed up, locked up, kept away. Only recently, thanks to a friend, did I really open my eyes that even what you think you KNOW may not be the case. A part of the case I'd long accepted as fact, might not be so - and it makes me question a lot of things that I also previously accepted as fact.

This case is like dumping twenty puzzle boxes into a giant tub, shaking it up, and then attempting to put them all together again. You'll think you have one area figured out, yet one piece doesn't fit, and you have to dig through all the pieces again.

Alright, this is going to be my final post on this subject, as quite frankly, it's way past "beating a dead dog" and into "hurling insults at the remains of Ben Affleck's career."

I don't care if you don't like me, Tim, but please, get your facts straight. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Democrat. I'm socially liberal, yes, but fiscally conservative! I support based on the candidate, not the party. Wow, hard to swallow, I imagine. Someone that partially agrees with your political party-of-choice *gasp* HAVING ACTUAL OPINIONS ON OTHER ISSUES THAT DIFFER FROM YOURS!

If you'd like to go back to college (or maybe it's a first for you, as I don't know nor do I really care if you've been already) to somehow find a way to carry children on your own, that's GREAT, then I'll truly believe that you have a clue in hell what you're talking about. Until then, you have as much right to my uterus as I do to your testicles. Unless you'll voluntarily go through non-chemical castration because it's my belief that every male pro-lifer has to, I really don't want to hear your opinions on MY body until you let me make decisions regarding yours. Of course, I’d probably want to remove that rather large stick you have placed in your rear.

Next, this little act you seem to have going of trying to act superior in other forums because we've disagreed here is REALLY pathetic. It makes you sound like a broken record. Are you honestly so fascinated by me that I have a bearing on EVERY posting you make? Also, considering your track record of arguing with members, it's rich of you to condemn me for disagreeing with you. Would you rather be the pot or the kettle? I don't know if it honestly matters though, they're both black.

Also, my respect is EARNED. Simply because your mother got knocked up long before my parents were even married, does not give you a golden ticket. Something you might have noticed, is that not much is free. You don't get a high-paying job at the top of the line just by saying your birthday, and you don't earn my respect by flashing a birth certificate.

I don't care if you & your friend Gillespie think I'm a "disgrace." I've heard a lot worse. Usually it's from people jealous because I'm getting such an early start on this, dirty old men that are pissed off I won't screw them, or people that dislike my right to free speech. I've never claimed to be a "lady." When I think of "ladies," I think of women in dinner gloves and pearls that pretend not to notice their husband is rattling office drawers with his secretary. I'm of the more modern type, or maybe you dislike knowing women actually have power now. I'm not looking for a stamp of approval from anyone, so if you honestly think your commentary is going to make me cry and take my toys to another sandbox, you are sorely mistaken. I'm not the type to sit here, bite my nails, "Oh, what will the neighbors say?!"

You have nothing left to prove. You had nothing to prove to start with, as all your "Evidence" was in a book of debatable origin that isn't taken seriously in any debate unless you're talking with the Pope. Would you honestly take anyone seriously if their only support for their belief was, “MY INVISIBLE MAN SAYS THIS IS WRONG, THROUGH THIS BOOK THAT ADMITTEDLY HE DIDN’T EVEN WRITE HIMSELF, BUT BECAUSE HUMANS ARE INFALLIABLE.. OH? THEY’RE NOT? NEVERMIND THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN FOLKS..”

Maybe it makes you feel like a big strong man, carrying on like this, whining about a teenager that upset you OVER THE INTERNET. Case closed. I will no longer be responding to you any time you address me with anything even remotely tainted with your misogynistic BS whining.

Sweet dreams if you still think you're bothering me.

Nic wrote:

Bush has nominated him, but it hasn't been announced that it's officially "approved."

No idea what this means.  "Approved"?

As I'm sure you know, nothing the President says automatically becomes so with a nose wiggle. The Senate is there for a reason. As the Senate hadn't yet confirmed Roberts as a replacement for O'Connor, there's no reason to think they'd be any less eager for details about Roberts' history when appointing him as the highest judge in the land.

You'll have to wait until the Confirmation hearings, like everyone else, before you can say he made it.

I guess I haven't followed this is as closely as I should. (Too busy reading Dershowitz's thrashing of Rehnquist, I guess.) Have they announced that Roberts will be chief once confirmed?  If so, then I think they oughta make available every bit of his work for previous administrations.  To do anything less would be to engage in deliberate deceptive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush has nominated him, but it hasn't been announced that it's officially "approved." Several Democrats in the Senate now plan to fight harder for the release of documents, including Ted Kennedy.

Hmm. So it's basically confirmed that there was a conspiracy, and the government / government-controlled mass-media made it go away quietly without too much of a stink.

If any members in the area could find anything in newspaper records at the local library, or maybe through the County/State Archives, they'd be good to have.

I think he's referencing Altgens, in the very right-hand side:

Anytime John, if I find anything else of interest while going through my collection, I'll post it here. I've determined that magazines printed outside of the U.S. are more likely to contain the best pictures in the best sizes.

Thank you, Mr. Gratz, for further proving my point that you have to attack me instead of actually bringing up stats & facts beyond what your bible says. I'm no longer interested in this conversation, as it's going nowhere.

Andy, I am genuinely sorry for the effect this has had on the forum, however you must admit that it is an insanely "hot button" topic that obviously a lot of people feel passionately about. It's difficult to restrain such strong feelings, ever.

Just another comment..

Tim, I respect you as a JFK researcher. I respect pretty much everyone on that board, for what they do. This isn't about JFK.

Two words: Oh please.

Tim, it's time for me to be brutally honest. I think your logic goes somewhere along the lines of the people that voted Peroutka.

You keep throwing out nonsense comments to attempt to discredit ME without coming up with any facts, actual statistics, or support AT ALL for your conclusions. Since you can't attack my facts, which are entirely true - you attack me? Who DOES that after about 4th grade?

You keep slinging out that it's killing a BAYBEE, and tell me that I could put it up for adoption. I don't know about YOUR ability to read, but as I've said before in this topic, I could not medically carry a child very long into the 2nd trimester without dying myself. My body can't take it. I have health problems, and GETTING PREGNANT would KILL ME. Not GIVING BIRTH, actually BEING PREGNANT. I cannot have a parasite leeching off of my body, because I WILL. NOT. SURVIVE. That means BAYBEE won't either. Great, the funeral home would be burying a girl that's actually APPLYING herself in her life ( as opposed to the hundreds of my peers that are getting knocked up and don't get to go to college ) because someone thought it was their right to tell me I had to die, because they wouldn't grant me an abortion. What's murder now? But as long as I don't try to save my own life with an abortion, I'm okay by you?

Women like this are common, so it's not just me. 670,000 women die a YEAR in America from pregnancy related complications. A woman is 13x more likely to die during childbirth and pregnancy than by an abortion. Fact. What would you say, Mr. Gratz, if you were a doctor, and had to look at that woman's parents, and tell them that because of the politics of people like you, they have to bury their daughter. Or their sister, or their friend, or their wife. Would you be prepared to do it 670,000 times a year?

Your views are stuck somewhere between, "BITCH FIX ME SOME PIE," and not letting women vote. The 50's is over, there aren't any June Cleavers today. Telling a woman that she has to die so you can sleep better that she didn't have the right to stop it, is a really scary idea. It sounds a lot like what a serial killer's thought process would be like - taking control of a woman's right to her OWN LIFE, and only letting her die. And you have the balls to call ME a murderer?

I'll give you fair warning now, if you can't actually put up facts, or attempt to shoot mine down, I'm no longer interested in your immature bickering. You've proved your point, you're a close-minded asshole that can't support anything you believe in with fact - and I've proved mine. To use a common phrase, "Put up or shut up."

Good one, Nic. Thanks for posting those.

The one of Jackie disembarking from AirForce One is very dramatic. The blood on her garment and legs is quite unsettling.

james

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Nic.

I agree with james, that pic of jackie is Exellent

That backyard photo seems to have be "fliped as a Mirror image" left is right and right is left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're both welcome.

Robin, I noticed that too - but that's how it's printed in the magazine, so I figured I'd scan it that way. You can slightly see the curve of the binding of the page on the left-hand side.

Did anyone see this show last night? I had HC on at 7, then 8, then 9  and it was not on here.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er.. Doesn't the original post say Saturday?.. And last night was Thursday.

In a magazine about the assassination, I found this picture dated November 20th, 1963. Jackie & JFK with Earl Warren.

Also, figured someone might want these.. They're not rare, but they're pretty big.

They're not my "points", as you put it.  I never used that word but simply quoted the salient parts of your angry, venomous and personally mean-spirited vitriol.  Do not misquote me; and I've got MUCH better ways to spend my time than reading your empty dispatches and wondering why you're still allowed to participate here.  Go ahead, take your best shot.  I won't read it but maybe some of your invertebrate partners will be amused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One question, though - if you're so against caring, why did you bother replying at all? If you have things so more important, why waste your time in the first place? It's all fine and good to say you don't care, but the fact is, you still took your precious time to rag on me. More than once.

You see, the problem with your "points," Mr. Gillespie, is that you do not know me. This summer, I volunteered as an escort at an abortion clinic. I saw first-hand protestors throwing things at girls that were raped by their family members, and had to make a choice based on their own mental health. I heard them shouting, "WHORE!" and "YOU F***ING SINNER." That doesn't make you all nice and cushy comforted around people just like that. When you're taking all of that so some poor young girl doesn't have to, and you have people like Mr. Gratz in that crowd, you eventually get to a point where you just SNAP, and you refuse to sit back and let these girls be judged unfairly by people with made-up statistics and complete bullxxxx rationalizations, "YOU CAN'T CONTROL YOUR LIFE BECAUSE MY GOD SAYS SO!"

I admit that it's not necessary to use name-calling, and I admit it makes me a hypocrite, considering I spend a lot of my time trying to stop fights on the JFK board. However, you deal with half of what I saw, and not want to just slap the woman with 4 kids that doesn't believe in birth control - even after FIVE miscarriages & 2 of her 4 living children being mentally disabled ( don't you think that's your body's way of saying, HEY, I CAN'T HANDLE THIS? ), when she says, "YOU STUPID WHORE!" to a girl who was a virgin until her brother took PCP and raped her for TWO HOURS.

And, Mr. Gratz - the problem with what "the bible says" is that not EVERYONE reads or believes YOUR bible. There are different religions, with different belief structures. I have my own beliefs about this world, and none of them include the existance of your god, or a need for your bible.

There's a law in this country now, where if a robber shoots a woman that, didn't even know she was pregnant yet - he can get an extra sentence for a life that nobody knew was there. That's BS. That's steaming, fly-infested, BS. But I digress...

I don't have issue if you drink, smoke, eat meat ( which, considering I was a vegan for 3 years until I had to stop due to a health problem - I could say OMG YOU'RE MURDERING ANIMALS YOU MEAN MEAN MAN! ), get tattoos, get piercings, or want to play with anal beads until you get off. It's your body. It's your life. I believe that, beneath all your rigid beliefs in institutions such as religion, there's actually a man intelligent enough to make your own decisions about your life. What I don't understand is how you deny me the same courtesy, and why you won't keep your rosaries off of my ovaries.

I saw an article, about a woman who had an abortion, and the result was left inside of her, which could have killed her. It was about, a centimeter big. Looked like a little pink blob. Do I think that's wrong? No. It doesn't even have a fully-developed heart to pump through it's non-existant system, so how is it alive?

As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans? Why be so arrogant that you think humans are all that's worth protecting? And if humans are so valuable, why do you support the war? Why would you insist that a girl like me, whose body cannot handle carrying a child to term, has to die for a baby she doesn't want - when the baby would die anyway?

I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!

If you would care to work for a medical license, Mr. Gratz, and perform an endometrial ablation, as well as a tubal ligation on EVERY SINGLE woman that doesn't want kids EVER, maybe you'd see the abortion rate go down. I have friends that have had multiple abortions due to circumstances beyond their control ( such as a girl I knew that was continually raped by family, and couldn't talk to anyone until she mentioned it in her suicide note ).

Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong. Bringing up the religion card, though, I believe is a sign of desperation - or extreme narcissism ( then again, reproduction is narcissism ), to think everyone has to bend down to what a god they might not believe in "says" through a book "he" probably had nothing to do with. I believe that it's no mistake that everything listed as a sin in the bible, was frowned upon by society before the bible was written. "Hey kiddies, if some invisible man in the sky says that you can't do this or he'll put you in time out, people would avoid doing it! Hee!"

The fact is, there is a difference between walking up to someone and shooting them point-blank, then the removal of a parasite that you never gave permission to be there.

So, Mr. Gratz, let me ask you this. Are you prepared to sterilize women who never want children? What about women, like myself, that could die before the fetus-in-question had transformed enough to survive? Sterilize them, too? Are you prepared to visit adoption centers all over the country, and look at the overcrowding and say that women should suffer through pregnancies they don't want in order to further crowd those centers? SEVERAL adoption centers won't take a child unless it's a "pure-bred" white baby, so what about all the Asian, black, or Hispanic babies? Where do they go when their parents don't want them? Well, they'll probably wind up in a dumpster - and then people like you will condemn the mothers, even though you put them in that situation.

LBJ was the most crooked politician in recent memory, this is true. There's no reason to believe anything he ever said. However, JFK did say a few nice words about McCloy, however, I could say a few nice words about just about anyone, and it doesn't mean I'll mean it.

I agree with the general consensus of this thread, there's no reason to believe LBJ's autobiography, or what he spread around. Considering Hosty's quote isn't that much more reliable as to what he was told, the only person that'd really know was shot in a hotel pantry in 1968.