Ashton Gray

I must not be as educated on word definitions as you are, Ashton.

emphasis

n 1: special importance or significance; "the red light gave the

central figure increased emphasis"; "the room was

decorated in shades of gray with distinctive red

accents" [syn: accent]

Yep, I guess you aren't:

Do notice the root of the word. And while they mention only the example of italics in typography for emphasis, typographic references uniformly give at least these five:

That's from an article called, appropriately enough, Five Tools of Typographic Emphasis. Clever name, don't you think?

Wherever one goes one finds universal agreement (present august and supremely haughty company excepted, of course) that boldface is a form of emphasis, as it has been since the first boldface was designed for movable type. Even modern webstylists agree:

• There are time-honored typographical devices for adding emphasis to a block of text, but be sure to use them sparingly. If you make everything bold, then nothing will stand out and it will seem as if you are shouting at your readers.
  

That's from The Web Style Guide, 2nd edition, a section called, curiously enough, Emphasis

And the typographic bible, the Chicago Manual of Style, supports all the above.

If you want any more private tutoring in public, feel free to lip off at me again. I'll gladly accommodate you.

In the book by Trask's (National Nightmare) there is a good image of Zapruder's face as he...

A forum search on "Trask" and your name sure turns up lots of hits. I'm not going to run out and buy it. If you have it, is there anything preventing you from just presenting the image or images from Trask that you keep referring to?

Ashton Gray

22 October 1962

John F. Kennedy speaks to the nation announcing the presence of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Daniel Ellsberg is called to Washington D.C. as a consultant on the crisis. He serves as an intermediary between a crisis work group at RAND and the Pentagon, being flown back and forth between D.C. and Santa Monica in a military plane. Ellsberg is working directly with the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (ExComm).

27 October 1962

John F. Kennedy decides to quietly accede to Kruschev's demands to have American Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet missiles being removed from Cuba. Daniel Ellsberg, at the Pentagon, is absolutely outraged. This completely contravenes the dictates of Ellsberg's Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) theory of international relations.

30 October 1962

Kerry Thornley becomes a member of the Hotel, Motel, and Restaurant Employees Union [known today as the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders' Union International] in New Orleans. Its office is in the Newman Building at 544 Camp Street [which also has an address of 531 Lafayette Street].

10 December 1962

A top-secret CIA program called QK/ENCHANT has been started: "J. Monroe SULLIVAN, #280207, was granted a covert security approval on 10 December 1962 so that he could be used in Project QK/ENCHANT. SHAW has #402897-A" [NOTE: From a CIA document summarizing Clay Shaw's contacts with CIA.]

1 c. February 1963

Ruth Hyde Paine gets the first of two phone calls from Everett Glover concerning a get-together at his home on 22 February 1963.

13 February 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald attend a dinner party at the home of George De Mohrenschildt.

22 February 1963

Ruth Hyde Paine meets George De Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Marina Oswald at "a gathering of friends" at the home of Everett Glover. Also attending are two "roommates" of Glover: "Dirk" or "Volkmar Schmidt" and "Richard Pierce."

2 March 1963

Lee and Marina Oswald move to 214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas.

9-10 March 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald purportedly takes photos of the home of General Edwin Walker.

11 March 1963

The Militant, a prominent left-wing publication, publishes a letter signed "L.H.," believed to have been written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

12 March 1963

Ruth Hyde Paine visits Marina Oswald, for the first time, at the new apartment. On the same day, Lee Harvey Oswald orders a rifle and revolver from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, Illinois.

20 March 1963

Ruth Hyde Paine visits Marina Oswald at the Neely Street house again. This is the same day the rifle and revolver are shipped to Lee Harvey Oswald.

31 March 1963

Photos of Lee Harvey Oswald are taken with him holding weapons and a newspaper.

1 April 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald is "fired" by Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.

2 April 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald go to the home of Ruth Hyde Paine purportedly for a dinner. Also present is Ruth's estranged husband, Michael Paine.

5 April 1963

A photo of Lee Harvey Oswald with weapons is signed on the back with this date and "To my friend George from Lee Oswald." The handwriting is attributed later to Lee Harvey Oswald. Additional unattributed writing says: "Copyright Geo do [sic] M" and the words, in Russian: "Hunter of fascists, ha-ha-ha!"

6 April 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald's last work day at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.

8 April 1963

There is a flight plan of this date for a flight from New Orleans piloted by David Ferrie. Passengers listed are Hidell (an alias for Lee Harvey Oswald), Lambert (an alias for Clay Shaw) and Diaz. The destination is Garland, Texas.

20 April 1963

Ruth Hyde Paine has a "picnic" with Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald at a park near the Oswald's Neely Street apartment.

23 April 1963

Lyndon Johnson is in Dallas for the Second Annual NASA Manned Space Flight Conference. He makes an announcement about some kind of plan for John F. Kennedy to visit Dallas.

24 April 1963

The Dallas Times Herald is headlined: "LBJ sees Kennedy Dallas Visit—One Day Texas Tour Eyed." Ruth Hyde Paine comes to the Oswald's Neely Street residence at 10:00 a.m. Lee Harvey Oswald is completely packed for a trip to New Orleans, as are most of the contents of the apartment. Ruth Hyde Paine drives Oswald to the bus station.

Ashton Gray

Wasn't it Martin Luther King who said that a response should be 'judged by the accuracy of its content and not by the boldness of its letters'.

Whoever said it, it's a good 'un.

Just so we are straight, Ashton ... I have heard it said that the use of "CAPS" is representative of yelling.

While CAPS is a form of emphasis, so is boldface.

The bold letters in my view are to separate my answer from the poster that I am responding to.

Okay. But that's what the little boxes above with curly-que quotations marks are for, so it's kind of gilding the lilly. I haven't reproduced your bold codes here (which are a pain in the ass to reproduce when replying to different sections of a message), and I don't think anybody will get confused.

Some people use color to quote, too, and it's equally a PITA.

I'm not the formatting police, and of course people can and will do whatever they want, but following the built in forum conventions is a help and a courtesy. It also makes bold and color actually mean something when used.

And just to attempt to get on-topic here: I tend to agree generally that Zapruder and Sitzman were on the pedestal and shooting a film. On the other hand, I find some of their connections to smell a bit like sardines left in the sun, and do think there are some grounds for there having been some monkeying with the film. I just wish the discussion could be a little more orderly and could focus (I couldn't "dodge" that one; sorry) on more relative certainties and on fewer fuzzy features of folderol.

I also would like to hear Jack's overview on all of this. I'm still wondering if there isn't some point of agreement that might be reached that might actually be worth pursuing.

Ashton

Bill...you have lots of contacts at NARA...how about getting them

to answer these questions? As public servants, I am sure they

will be eager to answer questions from the public.

Hi Jack. While waiting for One-Who-Yells-With-Bold-Codes to get back from NARA, and as dispassionately as possible:

1. What is the overview regarding the film, Cecile B. DeZapruder, and the changeling Sitzman?

2. How does it fit in with who put Kennedy in the shooting gallery and cover-up thereof?

3. What do you feel was/is the purpose of the Zapruder film (in any form)?

4. Referencing the black-and-white medium-CU of Sitzman you use for scarf reference, and other images you have displayed to prove (not to my satisfaction) that her bag was on the pedastal at any and all relevant times, why do you then say she/they weren't on the pedestal shooting a movie?

5. If Zapruder/Sitzman didn't shoot a movie from that angle, who did?

6. What is the role of One-Who-Yells-With-Bold-Codes in regard to all the above?

These are not challenges. This is an attempt to understand the underlying issues.

Ashton

I tried, and even updated my computer to latest Windows software, but couldn't get into the program posted, though I'd like to try it again and hope others try it and give a report on its usefullness.

Hey, Bill. I'm really chagrined to hear about your difficulty. The file is supposed to be cross-platform.

It isn't really a program, though: it's a file that requires the program FileMaker Pro to open and use. I may not have made that entirely clear in my message, or gave it too short shrift trying to get to the philosophy and nuts-and-bolts of the thing. If so, and that's what created the problem I apologize.

I will whistle up some friends who have FileMaker on Windows and get them to download and test at least to make sure there isn't a corruption problem with the file. If so, I can try compressing it with .zip and Stuffit and re-upload it.

Ashton

if he were in the know I find it unlikely he would have placed himself so close to the target. Look where LBJ was!

It could have been Connally's understanding that the shooting would take place at the Trade Mart. Hence his expression of surprise and uncertainty of group survival when the shooting started in Dealey Plaza.

And all this time, Ron, I thought you were just another pretty face.

I think you very well may be right.

On part of this subject: this whole "trade mart" thing pops up everywhere, and it's so consistent with the CIA twosies psy-op. I've just received a focused text export from a friend who has started timelining this stuff since I uploaded the Filemaker file, and in this short time she's hit on something related to Oswald's handing out leaflets in front of Clay Shaw's New Orleans Trade Mart that just has me...

It's a stunner. I'm going to try to get it condensed and cleaned up for the forum and post it as a separate topic soon.

Ashton

To Ashton: I did not feel that your post was in any way a personal attack on me, notwithstanding the fact that my post apparently prompted it.

Not a chance. I had my message and image ready to post, and when I came to post it saw yours.

I SEE then “Soup” you highlighted in your post. I thought of it as the “oddly amorphous” toe section of the shoe before you used the “Soup” appellation. I like your term better than my own.

Okay, but apparently, from your continued tortured waffling, you didn't get it.

I've seen this kind of thing on photos more times than I can count. All it takes is a sloppy squeegee job on negatives that get hung up to dry, or any of the other possible places where something can get on a negative or print. You can go out and see the face of God or Dolly Parton in a cloud, too, if you want, but it won't convert a drip into the sole of a shoe. You might make a drip think he's seen one, though.

Now, what about the “HAND.”

Here we go...

[Yadda yadda yadda, and....]We can see, in some versions of the photo, four fingers curled down, with a thumb drawn up tight to the right, giving the impression that we are viewing a RIGHT HAND.

Horsepuckey. The hand is naturally cupped and you're looking at the INSIDE of the fingers, and the thumb ain't "tight" anywhere. It's just lying alongside the forefinger. <Yawn.> Excuse me.

but… the hand has a forefoot growing out of it.

You aren't trying to figure this out at all, or help anybody else get it, are you?

Up to this point, I’m at a loss to decide one way or another.

It's Dolly Parton.

Now, imagine that we see a hand. Remember, it’s a RIGHT hand.

I'll try to keep it in mind. I'm wrinkling my forehead and everything. I got my face all scrunched up in concentration, and I'm trying to hold my mouth just right.

To get Kennedy’s right hand into this position he doesn’t have to merely move his hips and rotate his legs, he has to rise up from Jackie’s lap, move his hips towards Jackie far enough to allow room for his torso to fall backwards on the seat—

Oh, codswollop! He doesn't have to do a goddamn thing but lie there with half of his head gone while his wife is attempting to do anything she can while in a state of shock, including allow Clint to get into the car so he isn't thrown off and also killed. The most natural thing in the world anybody would do is attempt to lie JFK on his back, and the very act of her trying to turn him from his left side to his back, would very likely cause his right arm to flop against the seat in the exact position it's in, very likely with Clint's right shoe under the arm trying to find a purchase without doing further harm to Kennedy.

You know, this entire discussion about what Jackie and Clint were or were not doing with/on/around JFK at this point is just ghoulish insanity by a bunch of people who've never been in the backseat with somebody whose head had been blown off, or have tried to get into a backseat with same and the spouse of same. And it's especially pathetic since it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with who killed Kennedy and why. So whether it's a hand, foot, or the Holy Grail, I hope anybody else posting another 6,000 words about it knows just where they can stick it.

Ashton Gray

Excuse me?

We're—

We're this far into this question, and not a single soul has brought up the fact of Lawrence F. O'Brien—later to play the longsuffering role of the poor Watergate "victim" while Connally was Treas Sec—having been John F. Kennedy's Special Assistant to the President for Congressional Relations?

And having been "very well acquainted with Congressman [Albert] Thomas"?

And having been in on "some discussions" about the Texas trip?

And did nobody notice that Kennedy's Appointments Secretary, ferchrissake, Kenneth O'Donnell, couldn't manage to give a single firm date for anything related to the planning of that trip when Arlen Sphincter helped him weasel all around it in "testimony" just six months later? And his testimony was taken right at his White House office, where every record he ever made would have been! Oh, he can tell you the helicopter left the White House lawn at 10:45 a.m. for Andrews AFB the day the trip started, but for every answer about when it was planned, he might hit the month. Maybe. But mostly not. In fact he makes the waters as muddy as he possibly can by saying "We had been discussing this for almost 6 or 7 months, but the time had never seemed quite right..."

Right.

Well, despite O'Donnell's Sphincter-aided weaseling, it looks like Dawn might have a laser lock on how this thing was cooked, because O'Donnell nearly wrote a book trying to soften the edges and make it seem "oh, all happenstance, ya know," but here's where he spills it anyway:

• Mr. SPECTER. When were the specific dates of November 21 and November 22 finally set as being the precise times for the trip to Texas?
  Mr. O'DONNELL. Well, I am not clear in my recollection of that. I would think some time early in November. I know Thanksgiving was one of the problems we had to work with. We decided that would be the best time to go, in that general area, and we, in general, would keep a file—once we agreed we were going to Texas—we would keep a file on all the speaking engagements, all the invitations the President had received. I would go to that file and select some that might look promising. One of them that I recollect was an invitation from Congressman Albert Thomas, or his committee, that was giving him an appreciation dinner—not the Congressman himself. And the President was very fond of Congressman Thomas, he was most helpful to him, and I knew he would want to go, if this was at all possible. I would think that probably had more to do with setting the actual definite dates of the 21st and 22d.
  

Hmm. Wonder how that "looks promising" invitation from the Valenti committee for Congressman Thomas got into that file?

Wouldn't have been the Special Assistant to the President for Congressional Relations who tucked it in there, would it?

Ohhhhh, hell no.

Ashton Gray

In a way, JFK has been made to take the blame for this as well, supposedly he was succumbing to Connally's iron will to go to the Trade Mart. I believe the aformentioned evidence gives one great pause to consider a "third alternative" - the Secret Service factors.

Interesting as always, Michael. I believe the Secret Service factors may indeed loom large.

I haven't had an opportunity yet to fully respond to John Simkin's earlier post where he was talking about Nixon's possible reasons for making Connally Treasury Secretary, and although this isn't directly responsive to what you posted, nor a complete response to John, I still have to at least mention here that Connally was installed five days before the taping system was, and Secret Service was in Treasury at the time, so of course under Connally. Butterfield had the SS under him within his White House duties, but that didn't alter the fact that they were Connally's boys, so Butterfield had to have tight and secure coordination lines with Treasury.

I don't think Connally's appointment had diddly to do with any reasons Nixon might have been deluded into believing he had. I don't have time to go into all the ramifications, but I've already pointed out that Connally started as Treasury Secretary five days before the tape system was installed, and left five days before the Watergate "arrests." This doesn't require Mensa qualifications to figure out who Connally was serving. It warn't Nixon.

But back to the Trade Mart, and here's a TANGENT ALERT:

The entire Trade Mart concept was pioneered and perfected starting in 1948, in N'awleens, by that gay blade and CIA (but not really; but, okay, a little bit; but le's jist not talk about it, okay?!) operative Clay Shaw. And throughout 1963 he was fixing himself up a "new, improved" Trade Mart in N'awleens.

Ashton Gray

P.S. By some means that is a complete mystery to me, I've become unable to post more than one reply in any thread until somebody else posts something. If I try to respond to more than one message, or even do an "ADDREPLY" after I've posted a message (and before anyone else has), it just gets added to the last message I posted, as though I had edited that message (when I haven't) no matter what I try to do. I've appealed to the Forum gods in the appropriate forum but so far to no avail. I'm mentioning this here because there are several other posts and people I'd like to be responding to in this thread, but simply can't until this gets fixed. It's very annoying. (At least for me. Some here likely consider it a gift from God.)

Show us a photo of the limo with an antenna in that location. Please.

Jack, he can't because it doesn't exist and never did. You are right. The antenna in view is behind the hand, and the angle of the shot merely happens to create a tangent of the antenna with the shadow on the thumb (exactly where a shadow on the thumb would be expected). Bill's alleged "continuation" through the sleeve cuff is no "continuation" at all: it jogs down to the right, exactly where one would expect to see the line where one side of a man's shirt cuff overlaps the other, and in exact parallel with the arm—which confirms it to be the separation at the sleeve cuff overlap.

This shoe nonsense has gone beyond beating a dead horse to inflicting post-mortem torture.

Ashton

It looks to me like Sitzman in Bronson is in Zapruder's shadow and could be wearing the same beige dress. I can't make anything out about the sleeves. However, I'd be willing to bet money that it's the same dress and sleeves.

You are correct, Ron.

I agree with Ron that Sitzman is in Zapruder's shadow. Her eyes are visible just above the camera, and her scarf is discernible, and even her barrett appears to be catching a bit of light.

In another thread over the Miller photo, I had seen where someone mentioned how he and Jack have experience in graphic design as if they have an edge on interpreting photographs...

Well, no: that isn't what you saw at all. How about you quote it.

...but what causes them to make errors is that they don't apply the other rules of photography concerning light and shadow to their observations, which in turn leads to erroneous interpretations on their parts.

Heh. I don't think either Jack or I tried to build a case that a splashed blob of chemistry was the sole of a shoe.

Far too much nonsense is being put onto this forum because people are not following a simple rule called "Occams Razor". Occams Razor suggest that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.'

Couldn't agree more. So why did you spend so much time and so many forum pages on trying to sell the photo chemical stain as the sole of Clint's shoe, which requires the postulation not only of Clint's third leg, but also insectoid articulation of his lower limbs?

The main support you had for such a surreal "case" was a photo taken an indeterminate time apart from the photo at issue, which, really, has nothing whatsoever to do with where he had moved his foot to by the moment when the Miller shot was snapped—which was inside the car, as anybody but a damned fool would have done on a vehicle accelerating to the speeds it reached.

Even putting everything you write in bold still won't make the splotch a shoe (though it does make replying hell), so maybe a little more respect for Jack's efforts would be in order. He had it dead right on Kennedy's hand, but nobody would accept the obvious—including you—because that thing in front of it just had to be photographic information, so just had to be something.

It was nothing. It was a big fat nothing but a stain. "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

And here we are both in agreement with Ron that Sitzman is in shadow. That isn't to help you batter Jack, because I don't think he should be battered, and I think you're out of line to keep at it. It's just a different perception of the same mostly-inadequate information, that's all.

How about you start working with him instead of against him to try to arrive at the most sensible interpretation of the limited information available? Don't you agree that would accomplish the most with fewer forum pages?

Ashton Gray

Ruth and Michael Paine's CIA ties made for a most strange and intriuging " friendship" to the young couple.

Tell me more about that.

Ashton

Congrats, Ash. You've mastered the Jack White technique of superimposing groovy lines and arrows that point to .. nothing of significance.

By God, I think you're right!

Ashton Gray

All right, so now this is definitely happening in other threads, and the common denominator seems to be if I'm the last person in the thread who has posted, and I'm trying to add another separate post (reply to somebody else or new reply) without someone else intervening.

It's just happened to me twice in the JFK forum in the thread on photo alterations, even after completely logging out of my computer and logging back in.

This has got to be some kind of forum software glitch.

I would really appreciate getting some kind of moderator help or workaround.

Ashton

So now what's this: an Ewok in a drum major's coat pointing to another gunman from the middle of the street?

It ain't soup.

Ashton

It's the presidential flag on the left front fender.

Jack

OooooOOOooooh!

Thanks, Jack.

Hail to the Chief.

Ashton

So now what's this: an Ewok in a drum major's coat pointing to another gunman from the middle of the street?

It ain't soup.

Ashton

seriously

Seriously. And fill it with Drano. Drug pusher.

Ashton Gray

Okay. That's it. I've had all I can take. I tried not to do this, but after 27 pages of this nonsense, I've had it.

(First, to Stephen K. Doyle: this is not in response to you, directly, but to the rest of the 27 pages, and nice to see you here. It's simply an unfortunate circumstance that your entry into the fray happened just as my top blew.)

A-hem.

Ladies (who might want to leave the room), gentlemen, and any other life forms attending: the appendage protruding from the carriage of the vehicle in the "Corham" photo is a H A N D! Fer the love of Aunt Gertie's girdle, how can you let the ham-handed latter-day retouching of some milquetoast, underpaid layout artist with a high-tension editor or art director breathing down his/her neck lead you down such a dead end (and ultimately meaningless) path to waste this much time on?

The goddamned "sole" is SOMEBODY'S S O U P! Actually it's most likely some splashed photo chemistry, whether from original negative developing, or rushed print making, or during the making of a third or fourth generation reproduction at the stat house (photostats for publication position), or it could be some opaquing fluid dripped by some other underpaid drudge being rushed stripping flats for the platemaker, or GAWD KNOWS.

But LOOK at what's THERE in the non-retouched image:

Maybe it's Marley's goddamned ghost, but it is not—repeat, N O T—the sole of any shoe!

All I did was outline "the blob" and colorize it, and it's OBVIOUS what it is. And what's sticking out of the car behind it cannot possibly be any other thing than a hand. Just as it always has been. And the only thing I've done to it is add a slight amount of increased contrast to bring out the lights/darks that are there.

The idea that it was Clint's shoe is just too boneheaded to countenance. The information for the definition of Clint's right leg is also in the image, so I've done about a 4% dodge of highlights on the trailing edge, which is flapping in the wind, just as expected. It wasn't necessary to add any information: the leg definition is in the image.

Okay, now let the next 27 pages begin on the burning question of whether it's:

1. Kilroy's hand

2. Forrest Gump's hand

3. John F. Kennedy's hand

For others here, though, who are absolutely baptized into the Itsafoot religion, and who might have any inclination to proselytize in this direction, I got four words for you:

Talk to the hand.

Ashton Gray

All this may be old news to some but it fits in this thread:

Connally had been bedmates with Johnson since as early as 1941, maybe 1940:

• "Connally distinguished himself at the University of Texas, where he received a law degree in 1941. He had already passed the bar examination before graduation and begun his career in politics on the staff of Congressman Lyndon Baines Johnson, the beginning of a life-long association."
  

After WWII, Connally "became known as a political mastermind, running LBJ's political campaigns from Congress to the White House, and also serving as legal counsel to oilman Sid Richardson." (Same source as above.)

Among other things, Connally was Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon from 11 February 1971—about the exact time the last tape machine had arrived to be installed in the Oval Office on 16 February 1971 (you can't make this up)—until 12 June 1972, which happens to be five days before the "arrests" at the Watergate (you just can't make this up).

God and CIA work in mysterious ways.

Ashton Gray

A trip by JFK to Texas was first discussed by JFK, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, and Governor John Connally on June 5, 1963, at the Cortez Hotel in El Paso, Texas.

I might have known Johnson would be involved in it somewhere!

Informative post, thanks.

God and CIA work in mysterious ways.

Ashton

Here's a brief recap of just some of the ground taken in this campaign in only a few days. This doesn't include all the very valuable data posted so far in this thread by any means, but does focus on some pretty key events. This is a text timeline made from a tab-delimited export from the JFK Timeline Database I've uploaded and started the linked topic on.

Let's see how many "coincidences" the Coincidence Jockies can ride at one time:

• Wednesday, 5 June 1963
  John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John Connally (former Secretary of the Navy, 1961), Cliff Carter, and Fred Korth (Secretary of the Navy, having succeeded Connally) are all in attendance at a meeting at the Cortez Hotel in El Paso, Texas. Part of the meeting involves a discussion of JFK visiting Dallas. The first date discussed is August 27, 1963, to coincide with Johnson's birthday, but it is rejected as being "too close to Labory Day." The date of 21 November is set as the earliest feasible date considering Kennedy's other committments.
  Thursday, 5 c. September 1963
  An unknown person or persons at "the White House" decide or arrange that Kennedy's upcoming trip to Texas will be extended from 21 November through to the evening of 22 November 1963, to allow for a motorcade in Dallas on 22 November. [NOTE: Actual date in September is unknown. It is being estimated arbitrarily to be early in September, but may have to be moved pending more information. When in September it actually happened has little bearing, but is at least of interest concerning its sequence relative to the Buell Frazier hiring at the TSBD on Friday, 13 September 1963 (see).]
  Friday, 13 September 1963
  Buell Wesley Frazier begins work at the Texas School Book Depository on Friday the 13th, September 1963. He has been sent there by the Massey Employment Agency in Irving Texas. [NOTE: Like it or not, believe it or not, the number 13 appears repeatedly, constantly, in operations proven to be connected to CIA. Buell's sister is Linnie Mae Frazier. One month and one day later, she will have a coffee get-together with Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina Oswald, resulting directly in Oswald being hired at the TSBD at a time when they aren't hiring. See chronology entry for 14 October 1963.]
  Friday, 4 October 1963
  John Connally meets privately with JFK at the White House to discuss details of Kennedy's upcoming trip to Texas. Originally set only for 21 November, the trip has been extended through the evening of 22 November to allow for a motorcade in Dallas. Lyndon Johnson is not included in the meeting. Afterwards, he purportedly is upset about having not been notified, but this is according to Connally claims only. [NOTE: Connally meets privately with Johnson, too. Their little get-together is at Johnson's home, which is called, quaintly, "The Elms."]
  Monday, 14 October 1963
  Buell Wesley Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Frazier has Ruth Hyde Paine and Marina Oswald over for coffee. Buell's employment at the Texas School Book Depository is discussed, supposedly the motivation for Ruth Hyde Paine calling the TSBD later in the day and arranging an employment interview for Lee Havey Oswald with Roy Truly the next day.
  Tuesday, 15 October 1963
  Lee Harvey Oswald is interviewed by Roy Truly at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) and is hired on a temporary basis purportedly only because several regular employees are being used to "put down plywood" on the sixth floor of the building. Oswald is told to start the next day, 16 October 1963, supposedly because it is "the beginning of a new pay period." Here is Truly regarding the interview:
  

And here is Allen Dulles questioning Truly about the hiring:

Wednesday, 16 October 1963
Lee Harvey Oswald reports for his first day of work at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). He is starting on Wednesday purportedly because it is "the beginning of a new pay period" according to Roy Truly [see chronology entry for 15 October 1963].
Friday, 15 c. November 1963
A change in the route of Kennedy's Dallas motorcade is made by a person or persons unknown. The change will take the motorcade through Dealey Plaza on Elm, in front of the Texas School Book Depository (and in line-of-sight of the Criminal Courts Building). On or about the same date, Roy Truly lays off a temporary employee at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), but keeps Oswald on.

As if this alone doesn't permanently move the stakes about 90% into the lonely little patch of "lone asssassin" territory, I just got given a brief glimpse of some things happening around the time of the gun mail-order, and it's to make hairs stand on end.

I think I hear a far Fuhrman wailing and gnashing teeth...

Ashton

I've read that in the weeks leading to November 22, when it aqppeared that JFK may have been wavering, LBJ was quite insistent on the Texas trip going ahead as planned. (Sorry, I can't find the reference but I'll try to dig it up).

If you can that sure would be interesting, Mark, especially the part about JFK wavering, since Connally tries to make it sound like the President of the United States was following him around like a lap-dog begging for a chance to come to Texas.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Ashton

In recent days, I keep having the bizarre experience of having separate replies I post to entirely separate messages being added to a reply I've already posted.

It starts with me replying to a message in a thread, previewing it, then posting it, which works for the first message in the thread I reply to.

If, though, I click "Reply" on a completely different message from a different person, and use the normal routine for posting a reply, the second reply gets appended to the first one I posted, as though I had edited that one and extended it, which I unquestionably hadn't.

It's been hit-and-miss, and several times just leaving the thread or forum and coming back seemed to unbug it, but tonight I went all the way through clearing browser history and cache and quitting and restarting the browser, went back into the same thread and tried to post a reply, and it got added to the last message I'd posted, which was to an entirely different person!

So I edited that away, saved the edit, got back into read mode on the thread, and tried to post a reply (I'd saved it as a text file) by clicking "AddReply" at the bottom of the page (rather than the "Reply" button on a specific message), and got exactly the same results.

I cannot fathom any reason at all for this bizarre behavior, and can't find any way to work around it, and it seems to be getting more frequent. I'm not entirely certain, but it seems very vaguely that I only experienced this in the Watergate forum, and possibly only with a few threads. But I haven't been taking notes, so this may not be accurate.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Ashton Gray

Ash,

You may be interested in a site that addresses some of the issues connected to world corporate takeover, huge international media, etc.; it's http://www.newswithviews.com

JG

Thanks very much, John. Sorry to be so slow to respond. I've been scanting the Watergate forum in recent days, sidetracked over into the Kennedy assassination by Dandy Dawn Meredith (the little conniver ) while awaiting some information I needed to wrap up the CIA Bait-and-Switch series. Thankfullly, it's here.

So there are my lame excuses for all my neglect of everybody, but I'll get over there and take a look without fail.

Ashton

From Connally’s WC testimony:

...

Damn, Ron: you cleared the bases with that one! Grand slam!

What a reluctant lady Connally was, huh? Gee. That's about the longest bout of foreplay I've ever read of anywhere.

And Kennedy just wouldn't go to Texas unless they could hold hands. Uh-huh. I'm sure that's just the way it all happened. Except for this one little thing...

I had, as you know, as Mr. Blakey just recounted, I had been appointed by President Kennedy as Secretary of the Navy and had served in the year 1961 as Secretary of the Navy. I, as a matter of fact, not only talked to Mr. McNamara, but I had gone and talked to President Kennedy before I went home to run for Governor.

Whoa! It's a threesome.

Now, I'm trying to think who else would have been all up in there...

Oh, yeah! Daniel Ellsberg. Beginning at almost the same time as Connally started as Secretary of the Navy, Ellsberg became a consultant from Rand for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (ISA), with "go anywhere see anything" kinds of clearances. And just try to guess who the Deputy Secretary of Defense for ISA was at the time! It was Ellsberg's good buddy Harry Rowan, who would then become head of Rand, and a few years later have the McNamara report slipped into some briefcases and handed to Ellsberg.

There's more to come on this. I hope Bentand Slithery's people get him a case of No-Doz and a copy of The Big Book of Vapid One-Liners. He's gonna' need it.

Ashton