Kathleen Collins

I'd like to add Karyn Kupcinet, to no one's surprise. It's possible she was killed by a hit man from Chicago. It would be a shock crime to get Ruby and the Mob off the front pages of their newspapers. She was found 3 days after she died. The autopsy was performed by a pervert who had a fetish for strangled women. Two women he worked on were exhumed and found dead from another condition.

We don't know how Karyn was murdered. Even Cyril Wecht couldn't figure it out. There was an empty bottle in the bathroom cabinet. It contained 100 Desoxyn on Nov.25, 1963. About 12:30 am on November 28,1963, Thanksgiving, she may have committed suicide and you couldn't go there with Irv Kupcinet, her father, Mr. Chicago. But she might have died thinking she let her parents down.

Someone I knew who has passed away thought Priscilla MacMillian and Ruth Paine were CIA and got close to the Oswalds. Disinformationalists.

Also, I think we should add Joan Crawford, the head of Pepsico --as representative of Big Business. She was there with Nixon. Supposedly there's a picture of the 2 of them entering a hotel restaurant, the night before the Assassination. (Then came the meeting at Murchison's house -- from what I've read Nixon was not a big eater.)

Coincidently, Joan Crawford allegedly had a fling with Irv Kupcinet. She was a great friend of the Kupcinets and often visited their Chicago home.

Kathy C

[quote name='Thomas Graves' date='10 July 2011 - 02:38 AM'

[i just noticed something I'd never noticed before-- Either "Frenchy" or "The Old Hobo" directly behind him has something WHITE in his left hand and appears ready to hand it off to the dude walking past them in the suit (Lansdale?). Comments?

--Thomas

I noticed it too. What could it be? Plus they are so close and Harrelson gets a smirk on his face upon seeing Lansdale. I think both have something in their hands.

Kathy C

He could have arrived by 3:00 pm CT.

To do what? If he was in on the plot, what was there to do at 3:00 pm in DP that called for his presence?

Could it have been just for the ghoulish pleasure of being where JFK died that day? That doesn't sound much like George H.W. Bush, who is one of the biggest crybabies I've ever seen. He publicly cries more easily than John Boehner, which is saying something. If Bush was there, I can see him sobbing and blurting out, "We had to do it."

He was deeper in the CIA than was thought, looking back. Who knows what they were talking about. I can't believe you're falling for his crybaby-ness. I bet he wasn't crying during the war, when he dropped out of the plane, leaving the other 2 men not knowing that he did and sending them to their deaths. It is my opinion that he did that on purpose. He passed the test for guts. He was "in" the CIA.

And I think he was a gay man who managed to squeeze enough sperm out to have children. Would President Kennedy stand up there and cry? Even with all the pain he suffered everyday?

Yes, ghoulish pleasure. Like the ghoulish pleasure E. Howard Hunt and his wife, Dorothy, both CIA, got from getting both their pictures in one of the 3 tramps photos. Hunt the little tramp and Dorothy, a "shocked" standerby.

Gary Mack always differs with us.

Kathy C

You're very definite on that. Why do you say it isn't him?

For one thing, it doesn't look like him. For another, he was in Tyler at the time of the assassination. As I recall he went to Dallas that afternoon, but he had no reason to rush from the airport to Dealey Plaza to stand around in front of the TSBD in time to be photographed there.

Unlike Robertson and the boys, Bush was a known face in Texas. I would think that someone in the media would have noted him hanging around and would have commented on it and possibly interviewed him. ("Were you in the motorcade, Mr. Bush?" etc.)

I still say it's him. Kennedy was shot 12:30 pm CT. It didn't get dark until 5:30 pm CT. He had plenty of time to show up. He could have arrived by 3:00 pm CT. The photos where Bush has his hands in his pockets and is slouching would be proof for me. I don't know who posted them, but we'll probably never see them again.

Kathy C

I have, for the last few months been conducting research into the possible role played by individual members of the JCS, in the assassination. The above three names are of special interest to me, and I have been trying to assertain their whereabouts on the day. I know that Lemnitzer was in Germany, but I hope that members can help me be a bit more specific. One report has Lemay attending the Bethesda autopsy, standing at the back smoking a cheroot, but I now forget where I read this, and can find no official documents that support this. Any help from the esteemed faculty here will be much appreciated..Steve.

I don't know where I read it, but I too remember reading about Lemay at Kennedy's autopsy, smoking a cigar.

Kathy C

http://educationforu...ndpost&p=165359

Thanks, Michael. I still don't know where I got that information from. It seemed like it was fresh in my mind.

Kathy C

I have, for the last few months been conducting research into the possible role played by individual members of the JCS, in the assassination. The above three names are of special interest to me, and I have been trying to assertain their whereabouts on the day. I know that Lemnitzer was in Germany, but I hope that members can help me be a bit more specific. One report has Lemay attending the Bethesda autopsy, standing at the back smoking a cheroot, but I now forget where I read this, and can find no official documents that support this. Any help from the esteemed faculty here will be much appreciated..Steve.

I don't know where I read it, but I too remember reading about Lemay at Kennedy's autopsy, smoking a cigar.

Kathy C

I put in more titles. Maybe these will interest someone:

The Greatest Story Ever Sold (The Decline and Fall of Truth) by Frank Rich

This is a book detailing George W. Bush's lies. (Another lie fed to this country (not in book, but relevant) Obama coming forth and saying American troops had killed Usama Bin Laden. No one believed it. Obama does what he's told, like they all do or did after Kennedy's passing.

This book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold, deals with 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina. And all the lies coming out of the White House.

A Vast Conspiracy by Jeffrey Toobin about Clinton's lies; what his wife called "a vast right-wing conspiracy." All the machinations of Clinton's White House.

I have an anecdote about Clinton from 2 sources. When Clinton became President he told his Joint Chiefs of Staff that he wanted to know 2 things: the Kennedy Assassination and UFOs. He got a surprising answer. They told him he didn't have "high-enough clearance."

Then, when he was campaigning for Hillary, he was talking to an audience and said, "If you believe in conspiracies, we don't want you." I guess he stopped believing in conspiracies when Vince Foster was found dead. The Clintons got the message. All in my opinion.

Kathy C

Dear Nathaniel Heidenheimer,

I appreciate the time you are taking on this topic. E-mail has its limitations, and there are a few misconceptions that I'll try to clear up. Let me say, first, that you use the term "motivation" several times. This is troubling, when it comes to a given individual, as in the case of Sam Halpern. In the case of CIA, I devote an entire chapter to chronicling CIA's political motivation to thwart President Kennedy at every turn, and his motivation, in turn, to reign them in. All that can be documented. Personal motivations, as in the case of Halpern, are impossible to penetrate unless the speaker helps us out, and why, indeed, should he!

Let me say, again, with respect to "Taking Aim," that had I "world enough and time" I would have given a lengthy discussion of the attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and the CIA would be at the top of the list of perpetrators. I, perhaps mistakenly, didn't believe that I had to reinvent the wheel during my few minutes on the recent "Taking Aim" program. Since the 1967 Inspector General's Report, and the huge JMWAVE releases, the witness testimony, etc. I can't even begin to recite the litany of evidence of murder plots by the CIA this morning. I'm sure you're aware of it, so the point is a bit disingenuous.

We know that the CIA was in the murder business, the Executive Action business. This is received wisdom. I perhaps should have nodded to that fact. For "young" listeners, I would hope that they would read "A Farewell to Justice" for my views and many other books as well, such as Gaeton Fonzi's. It's not a good idea to get your information from radio programs, which offer but a glimpse of the issues.

We expected nothing more of the CIA given their record of assassinations and assassination attempts. We did expect more of the Kennedys, who presented themselves as peace-loving liberals. That THEY were also engaged in attempts to murder Fidel Castro is breathtaking, and of a different order of information than the CIA doing what had become its nature to do.

I know I'm repeating myself, but if it were merely Halpern as the source, I would be suspicious too. But there is a considerable list of corroborators of Bobby's assassination schemes.The rule in journalism is that you need two. We've got three times that.

Yes, Bobby was involved, from his office at Langley, in CIA organized plots as well as the plots on his own. CIA's efforts weren't mere "monitoring" of obstreperous exiles, as we know. That CIA was carrying on without telling the Kennedy administration is true, as you say.

This still does not justify Bobby free-lancing with Lansdale and others. I don't know what you mean by "exiles on the outs," and I don't want to venture where I don't know: exiles on the outs with CIA were the people involved in the Kennedy assassination? Does this mean that CIA is not responsible? This takes us away from the matter at hand.

Charles Ford, like the Kennedys, had his fingers in more than one pie, as the released documents show. He had that assignment from Bobby, out of Langley. He also was a CIA operative, as we know. (I didn't get the reference to Strunk and White, sorry). There is no doubt that the CIA ran its own show, and didn't inform the Kennedys of many things. That's in "A Farewell To Justice," and many other places, particularly in the biographies of John F. Kennedy. That's not new. (I am not including "The Dark Side Of Camelot" in any of this: the implication that JFK's policy-making was influenced by his infidelities is preposterous, and unproven).

I might flag your use of the word "objective" along with your use of the word "motivation." This is not aesthetics. No one is "objective" here. Everyone is acting out of their own interests. This bears no relation on what is true and what isn't true. Yes, Charlie Ford testified that he didn't do anything naughty. What's useful in the Church committee records, which are filled with such denials as Ford's, is when the truth rears its head, as when Helms admits that he made up the story that Jim Garrison met Johnny Rosselli when he was in Las Vegas. Astonishing admission! But then, the Church committee had Rosselli testify and Rosselli made his own denial that he ever met Garrison. If you read the Rosselli transcript, it's clear he is dumbfounded. He never met Garrison in his life. He saw him on television. Reading that, I believed Rosselli. What did he care about Garrison anyway! But Helms sure did.

I did not use Charles Ford's testimony in my "Taking Aim" interview. I used Halpern's oral history for the CIA.

Are you referring to my 2005 program or to the recent one? On the 2005 program, did I discuss all this Ford/Fiscalini Castro issue? I can't remember. All along I thought you were referring to the recent "family jewel" program, and then I was not on for anything like the full hour.

Bobby seems to have spent much of his time at Langley, which may account for the ease with which Hoover ran roughshod, etc. But it was, of course, Ramsey Clark that the FBI really ran roughshod over. Hoover had those files on the Kennedys, of course, and blackmail was his game, as we all know.

I did not write that the CIA "decided to help assassinate Kennedy." Nor did I ever say anything about "a neutralist South Vietnam." That was never, ever in the cards. The Vietnamese were going for broke. These are indeed, inaccurate statements. What I wrote in "A Farewell to Justice" was that the clandestine service of the CIA organized the assassination of President Kennedy, and I have paid for taking that stand. What the Kennedys hoped for, a "Laotian solution" in Vietnam, would, of course, never have happened. It's what Bobby Kennedy said his brother DESIRED, not what would have come to pass, in my opinion. Vietnamese history tells that story. They had already beat back the Chinese, the Japanese and the French.

There would never have been an investigation by RFK "with deeply compromised investigative agencies." That's a straw man you erect. Bobby knew better than that. Again, I am not getting into the CIA assassination plots that RFK may or may not have known about. I was confining my discussion to RFK's own private efforts. The why and the wherefore, I didn't discuss.

The Kennedys were neither peace-seekers (!) nor hawks. They were pragmatic politicians. As one of the books (Kaiser's or another) quotes Kennedy intimate, Charlie Bartlett, their main concern was getting JFK re-elected in 1964. This was the continuing preoccupation and obsession. Given what was going on in the world, Bartlett was taken aback. Of course, politicians worrying about being re-elected is not a crime. This is what is to be expected of politicians. We are talking about politicians here, not saints, radicals, or even social reformers. Look at Chris Dodd here yesterday saying that the Democrats shouldn't devote themselves to impeaching George Bush, since this effort would hurt their chances for re-election. So politicians play their game. Obviously the Kennedys had no idea of the depth of opposition to them.

I love Ted Sorensen's speeches, as I said in my last post, but rhetoric is not evidence. Regarding Bobby's last speeches, and his campaign, the approval he received from crowds was related to the need in this society for change, not, in any provable way, to what he would have done. I don't know what he would have done. This is not a fruitful question, it seems to me.

You close with more of those comparisons I find odious. No one at the time, those who lived this history, confused Bobby Kennedy with Martin Luther King in terms of addressing the needs of the poor and the disenfranchised. Bobby can't ride those coattails, if you have an interest in history.

And I have to say, this all seems like a fairy-tale to me, this glorification of Bobby Kennedy as someone people today believe would have marshaled social change in a meaningful way. I can imagine that those, now dead, who knew what Bobby was about because they were close to these events would be absolutely astonished. I really dislike being personal, but let me add that among my very closest friends for years was a Harvard classmate of John F. Kennedy's and a good friend of his (Kennedy appointed him to be Ambassador to Morocco, but he turned it down), and who later became Eugene McCarthy's campaign manager. He had a storehouse of evidence about Bobby's antics and tricks. He respected "Jack," but, like virtually every liberal of the day, despised "Bobby." Alas, he died some years ago, or I would have asked him to chat with you.

Dear Nathaniel Heidenheimer,

I appreciate the time you are taking on this topic. E-mail has its limitations, and there are a few misconceptions that I'll try to clear up. Let me say, first, that you use the term "motivation" several times. This is troubling, when it comes to a given individual, as in the case of Sam Halpern. In the case of CIA, I devote an entire chapter to chronicling CIA's political motivation to thwart President Kennedy at every turn, and his motivation, in turn, to reign them in. All that can be documented. Personal motivations, as in the case of Halpern, are impossible to penetrate unless the speaker helps us out, and why, indeed, should he!

Let me say, again, with respect to "Taking Aim," that had I "world enough and time" I would have given a lengthy discussion of the attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and the CIA would be at the top of the list of perpetrators. I, perhaps mistakenly, didn't believe that I had to reinvent the wheel during my few minutes on the recent "Taking Aim" program. Since the 1967 Inspector General's Report, and the huge JMWAVE releases, the witness testimony, etc. I can't even begin to recite the litany of evidence of murder plots by the CIA this morning. I'm sure you're aware of it, so the point is a bit disingenuous.

We know that the CIA was in the murder business, the Executive Action business. This is received wisdom. I perhaps should have nodded to that fact. For "young" listeners, I would hope that they would read "A Farewell to Justice" for my views and many other books as well, such as Gaeton Fonzi's. It's not a good idea to get your information from radio programs, which offer but a glimpse of the issues.

We expected nothing more of the CIA given their record of assassinations and assassination attempts. We did expect more of the Kennedys, who presented themselves as peace-loving liberals. That THEY were also engaged in attempts to murder Fidel Castro is breathtaking, and of a different order of information than the CIA doing what had become its nature to do.

I know I'm repeating myself, but if it were merely Halpern as the source, I would be suspicious too. But there is a considerable list of corroborators of Bobby's assassination schemes.The rule in journalism is that you need two. We've got three times that.

Yes, Bobby was involved, from his office at Langley, in CIA organized plots as well as the plots on his own. CIA's efforts weren't mere "monitoring" of obstreperous exiles, as we know. That CIA was carrying on without telling the Kennedy administration is true, as you say.

This still does not justify Bobby free-lancing with Lansdale and others. I don't know what you mean by "exiles on the outs," and I don't want to venture where I don't know: exiles on the outs with CIA were the people involved in the Kennedy assassination? Does this mean that CIA is not responsible? This takes us away from the matter at hand.

Charles Ford, like the Kennedys, had his fingers in more than one pie, as the released documents show. He had that assignment from Bobby, out of Langley. He also was a CIA operative, as we know. (I didn't get the reference to Strunk and White, sorry). There is no doubt that the CIA ran its own show, and didn't inform the Kennedys of many things. That's in "A Farewell To Justice," and many other places, particularly in the biographies of John F. Kennedy. That's not new. (I am not including "The Dark Side Of Camelot" in any of this: the implication that JFK's policy-making was influenced by his infidelities is preposterous, and unproven).

I might flag your use of the word "objective" along with your use of the word "motivation." This is not aesthetics. No one is "objective" here. Everyone is acting out of their own interests. This bears no relation on what is true and what isn't true. Yes, Charlie Ford testified that he didn't do anything naughty. What's useful in the Church committee records, which are filled with such denials as Ford's, is when the truth rears its head, as when Helms admits that he made up the story that Jim Garrison met Johnny Rosselli when he was in Las Vegas. Astonishing admission! But then, the Church committee had Rosselli testify and Rosselli made his own denial that he ever met Garrison. If you read the Rosselli transcript, it's clear he is dumbfounded. He never met Garrison in his life. He saw him on television. Reading that, I believed Rosselli. What did he care about Garrison anyway! But Helms sure did.

I did not use Charles Ford's testimony in my "Taking Aim" interview. I used Halpern's oral history for the CIA.

Are you referring to my 2005 program or to the recent one? On the 2005 program, did I discuss all this Ford/Fiscalini Castro issue? I can't remember. All along I thought you were referring to the recent "family jewel" program, and then I was not on for anything like the full hour.

Bobby seems to have spent much of his time at Langley, which may account for the ease with which Hoover ran roughshod, etc. But it was, of course, Ramsey Clark that the FBI really ran roughshod over. Hoover had those files on the Kennedys, of course, and blackmail was his game, as we all know.

I did not write that the CIA "decided to help assassinate Kennedy." Nor did I ever say anything about "a neutralist South Vietnam." That was never, ever in the cards. The Vietnamese were going for broke. These are indeed, inaccurate statements. What I wrote in "A Farewell to Justice" was that the clandestine service of the CIA organized the assassination of President Kennedy, and I have paid for taking that stand. What the Kennedys hoped for, a "Laotian solution" in Vietnam, would, of course, never have happened. It's what Bobby Kennedy said his brother DESIRED, not what would have come to pass, in my opinion. Vietnamese history tells that story. They had already beat back the Chinese, the Japanese and the French.

There would never have been an investigation by RFK "with deeply compromised investigative agencies." That's a straw man you erect. Bobby knew better than that. Again, I am not getting into the CIA assassination plots that RFK may or may not have known about. I was confining my discussion to RFK's own private efforts. The why and the wherefore, I didn't discuss.

The Kennedys were neither peace-seekers (!) nor hawks. They were pragmatic politicians. As one of the books (Kaiser's or another) quotes Kennedy intimate, Charlie Bartlett, their main concern was getting JFK re-elected in 1964. This was the continuing preoccupation and obsession. Given what was going on in the world, Bartlett was taken aback. Of course, politicians worrying about being re-elected is not a crime. This is what is to be expected of politicians. We are talking about politicians here, not saints, radicals, or even social reformers. Look at Chris Dodd here yesterday saying that the Democrats shouldn't devote themselves to impeaching George Bush, since this effort would hurt their chances for re-election. So politicians play their game. Obviously the Kennedys had no idea of the depth of opposition to them.

I love Ted Sorensen's speeches, as I said in my last post, but rhetoric is not evidence. Regarding Bobby's last speeches, and his campaign, the approval he received from crowds was related to the need in this society for change, not, in any provable way, to what he would have done. I don't know what he would have done. This is not a fruitful question, it seems to me.

You close with more of those comparisons I find odious. No one at the time, those who lived this history, confused Bobby Kennedy with Martin Luther King in terms of addressing the needs of the poor and the disenfranchised. Bobby can't ride those coattails, if you have an interest in history.

And I have to say, this all seems like a fairy-tale to me, this glorification of Bobby Kennedy as someone people today believe would have marshaled social change in a meaningful way. I can imagine that those, now dead, who knew what Bobby was about because they were close to these events would be absolutely astonished. I really dislike being personal, but let me add that among my very closest friends for years was a Harvard classmate of John F. Kennedy's and a good friend of his (Kennedy appointed him to be Ambassador to Morocco, but he turned it down), and who later became Eugene McCarthy's campaign manager. He had a storehouse of evidence about Bobby's antics and tricks. He respected "Jack," but, like virtually every liberal of the day, despised "Bobby." Alas, he died some years ago, or I would have asked him to chat with you.

In some ways -- maybe in all ways -- Robert Kennedy was different after his brother's death. I recall reading about Hoffa watching the speech Kennedy delivered to the black people telling them Martin Luther King was shot and killed. Hoffa is watching this and he says (paraphrase): That's not him. He's never like this. He's a phony.

I think RFK should have stopped chasing the Mob as it could get his children hurt or killed. Why did he keep going after them when John Kennedy became President. This was putting the President in danger.

I find it hard to believe that John Kennedy would have assassinated Castro and invade Cuba. First of all, the Russians allied themselves with Cuba. It would be all over for us. It would be a stupid move. And Robert Kennedy having a secret cabal with the Cuban Exiles. I hope he wasn't going to invade Cuba with them without the President knowing it. When Bay of Pigs happened, it was a disaster and Kennedy took complete responsibility, when I understand Robert McNamara had lied to him.

Kathy C

Sadly I come to find from Jim that Dave R is misquoting...

Haire never said anything about anyone else back there, according to Jim, who I think should know his own work....

In Jim D's review of Douglass we see it pop up again...

I don't see anything in Burrough's testimony supporting this... was it from something else?

Thanks

DJ

http://www.ctka.net/...nspeakable.html

Citing the valuable work of John Armstrong, he then builds a case that there were two Oswalds at the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963. One was arrested and taken out the front door. The second Oswald was hiding in the balcony and later escorted out the back by the police. Before anyone gets too dismissive, there are two Dallas Police Department reports that refer to Oswald being in the balcony of the theater. (p. 293) And there are two witnesses who saw an Oswald lookalike escorted out the rear: Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire. (I should add here, in a 4/8/08 interview I did with Armstrong for this review, he said there was a sheriff's officer who also saw this second Oswald on the stairs between the mezzanine and the first floor.) The author postulates that the man who exited the rear is the man who ended up in the Falcon. He then wraps this up by saying that this double was ultimately flown out of Dallas on a military transport plane. This is based on the testimony of retired Air Force officer Robert Vinson. It is contained in a 52-page affidavit given to his attorney James P. Johnston of Wichita, Kansas.

Norman Mailer, whom everyone despises, also said in Oswald's Tale, that there was an Oswald taken out the front and one taken out back. Mailer may have came close to the theory of 2 Oswalds, but he missed it. Someone told me that Mailer was in trouble with the IRS and that after his book came out -- he didn't even notice Secret Service men avoiding the limo in which Kennedy rode (Zapruder and Love Field) -- his tax problems were over.

Which was a dasterdly deed. He knew there was a conspiracy and found nothing to prove that?

Unbelievable.

Kathy C

I'm glad that I don't want it to be George H.W. Bush in front of the TSBD, because it isn't him.

You're very definite on that. Why do you say it isn't him?

Kathy C

a couple more. slouching.. ..b

Thanks, Bernice, but they're not the photos I neglected to save.

Kathy C

Is it being contended that George Herbert Walker Bush was not in Tyler Texas giving a speech?

A bit of investigating showed that GHWB was not in front of the TSBD at the time the picture purporting to be him was taken.

Here is the LINK:

http://www.jfklancer..._id=55654&page=

I interviewed Aubrey Irby for his recollections of the 22nd November 63' and he confirmed what is quoted in Kitty Kelly's book "The Family."

To quote from the book:

"On November 22, 1963, George and Barbara headed for Tyler, Texas (population thirty-five thousand), where he was scheduled for a luncheon speech to the Kiwanis Club, a group of one hundred men, meeting at the Blackstone Hotel.

"I remember it was a beautiful fall day," recalled Aubrey Irby, the former Kiwanis vice president. "George had just started to give his speech when Smitty, the head bellhop, tapped me on the shoulder to say that President Kennedy had been shot. I gave the news to the president of the club, Wendell Cherry, and he leaned over to tell George that wires from Dallas confirmed President Kennedy had been assassinated.

"George stopped his speech and told the audience what had happened. 'In view of the President's death,' he said, 'I consider it inappropriate to continue with a political speech at this time. Thank you very much for your attention." Then he sat down.

"I thought that was rather magnanimous of him to say and then to sit down, but I'm a Republican, of course, and I was all for George Bush. Kennedy, who was bigger than life then, represented extremely opposite views from Bush on everything."

The luncheon meeting adjourned, and George hurried across the street to meet Barbara at the beauty salon for their scheduled flight to Dallas. Before leaving the city, George called the FBI in Houston. Files obtained under the Freedom of Information Act document George's 1:45 p.m. call to the Houston field office: "Bush stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent days . . . He stated that one James Milton Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston."

The man George turned in was an unemployed twenty-four-year-old who had been honorably discharged from the Air Force upon the recommendation of a psychiatrist. He was also a John Bircher who had vigorously opposed George during Bush's campaign for GOP chairman of Harris County. During his interview with the FBI, Parrott said he was a member of the Texas Young Republicans and had been active in picketing members of the Kennedy administration but that he had not threatened the President's life.

Years later, when he was running for President, George would claim that he never made the call. Documents were then produced that refreshed his memory. He also claimed that he did not remember where he was the day John F. Kennedy was killed -- "somewhere in Texas," he said. George Bush is possibly the only person on the planet who did not recall his whereabouts on that day, although his wife clearly remembered their being in Tyler. She said that at the time of the assassination she was writing a letter in the beauty salon and that they left shortly after hearing the news.

. . . "The rumors are flying about that horrid assassin," Barbara wrote in her letter. "We are hoping that it is not some far right nut, but a 'commie' nut. You understand that we know they are both nuts, but just hope that it is not a Texan and not an American at all."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My interview with Aubrey Irby:

Mr. Irby, who was club vice president, confirmed the luncheon was at the Blackstone Hotel in Tyler Texas on 11-22-63 and George Herbert Walker Bush was there to give a speech. During Bush's speech Smitty, a black gentleman, who was the head bellhop gave Irby the bad news about JFK's death. He in turn told the club president Wendell Cherry who interrupted Mr. Bush and whispered the report to him. At that time Mr. Bush thanked everyone and sat down. The luncheon meeting adjourned, and GWB left.

He also confirmed the quote "I thought that was rather magnanimous of him to say and then to sit down, but I'm a Republican, of course, and I was all for George Bush. Kennedy, who was bigger than life then, represented extremely opposite views from Bush on everything."

That was all he could confirm from that day and had no other recollections.

(PS: He did confirm Barbara was at the hair salon across the street and George had to go retrieve her. )

For laughs Mr. Irby then told me about the time Ronald Reagan came to Tyler Texas, and he took some prized Bulls up the elevator to a suite in the Blackstone Hotel. This was before Reagan was even Governor. Then in 83'-84' Irby went to the Oval Office to meet the President Reagan. Irby was President of Kiwanis International by that time and when Reagan saw him he remembered the fun at the hotel by saying "He stayed where the bulls slept."

Ed

For some reason I can't highlight what I am addressing. Browser problems. Yes, I do contend that George Bush was standing in front of the TSBD. He wasn't there when it happened. But he was certainly there later in the afternoon. I wonder if at that age he was already the wingey-whiney, crying, puking, latent homosexual that he was when President.

Also I wonder why we rely on these documents from the FBI and CIA. Many of them are phony. How can you trust these secret agencies? They're probably the ones telling us that's not Bush.

Kathy C

Some months ago someone published photos of George HW Bush in various slouching positions to match the TSBD posture. Can these be posted again? I tried the search but nothing.

I want to keep those photos montage so I can know in my own heart that that really is Bush in front of the TSBD. I forgot to save them at the time.

Kathy C

Dean,

I don't think it was no clue. I'd read about Jack Lawrence some time back, more than a decade ago, and was overly rusty on what his story was about. I needed a refresher look.

I dismissed the James Files story, because it has too many errors. That faked up shell casing story was really bad--wrong date codes on shell. Who'd take the time to bite a shell case and put it on a fence with fingerprints. Files gets really close, but I think he is a mislead off the real shooters. The Sarti story fits politically, as I don't believe they'd use domestic shooters.

Mentioning Rosco White is about as opportunitic as it gets. He got knocked out of the race long time back. Jack Lawrence story is interesting, but he isn't a big enough player. I am not really excited by the I borrowed the dealership's car for a date, then ended up late due to parade, parked behind Dealey Plaza, and had to walk the rest of the way into work. Somehow, I think a real shooter would have a lot more aforethought applied.

I always keep in mind what the larger issues are. Castro's big complaint was "clan corporatism", as he hated the little guys getting little. Batista became as Impearlistic as they come and killed lot of people. The US corporate pay offs only made Batista worse.

Obviously, JFK and Castro got to talking and they found they had issue in common. JFK understood Cuba's Plight. JFK had the Mil/Ind networks corporatism problems and Castro's Cuba had a raging tyrant in control worse than Moussolini.

This mess was not just a Texas plot, nor a Mafia get even deal, it was because JFK located the systemic issues of corporatism gone out of control to the point of not being good for the people.

Corporatism's goals in the old days was to help the people, and some even religion ordained.

PERMINDEX's associations with lots of Fascists tells a story of what they liked. What they wanted to exploit was letting the American Public exist in the Slumber, not conscious enough to see that Freedom slipped away from them.

These issues stemmed from higher up than the Mafia. The Mafia was just a tool to exploit for those in power.

It took way more than just the Mafia to pull off this massive a cover up. Ike told us where to look: Clan Corporatism. JFK looked and found it in Cuba, against him in the White House, and at the heart of the Joint Chiefs urgings for war.

Clan Corporatism = Mil / Ind Network problem.

The real hitters won't be someone late for work, or even showing up for work. The real hitters are going to go underground really fast, forget going to work. Jack Lawrence is just too much a fly by night story, might make a patsy or backup plan thing.

There was also a shooter named "Frenchy." Also Charles Rogers, who the following year killed his parents because they were suspicious over his part in the assassination. They'd seen the tramp photos. He murdered them and cut their bodies in such a way that they filled the entire refrigerator. It became "The Ice Box Murders." And he was never seen again. Was either a shooter? I don't know. These are just names I read over the years.

Kathy C

Kathy...I am wanting to let you know that I think it is just wonderful that you are involvimg yourself, with these books through Amazon. But as a warning, be careful because there are many paying scamsters out there. About a month ago, a neighbor of mine was helping another neighhor with an Estate Sale and found that he had about 5 JFK books, a recording of all his speeches and some Life and I believe Post, first Assn. issues. My neighbor came to me for some advise of what to ask for the whole package. When I looked at the books, they were none that I had ever heard of before! All five were short books with glossy pages and lots of photos...just about JFK or the Kennedy family. Nothing to do with our concerns anyway. I told my neighbor that I had no idea what the person could charge for them and had never heard of any of them. She asked me, well, what are you studying then, with all the JFK books you have. She was not aware there were such books, to do with conspiracy resesrch. I suppose that would seem strange to have as many books as I have and just about JFK or the family...lol But anyway, you might have been able to have benefitted from these books for your sales. ...if I had known.

Good luch with your endeavor!

Dixie

Thank you, Dixie. Maybe there'll be another book sale in which you come across a Kennedy book. So far I'm doing well. My Kennedy books I left with my brother in NJ. ( I now have more Kennedy books.) It cost a lot to move down here. In the past 30 years I must have given away -- no exaggeration -- 1,000 books. I'm a bit of a collector.

The minute I walked into this apartment, I knew I was going to live here. They had a huge built-in bookcase. Plus my own laundry room.

I bet I wouldn't even sell those books on Kennedy. I found at a book sale Jesse Curry's book on President Kennedy, copyrighted 1969. It's the book that contained the original photo of Bush in front of the TSBD. The book was self-published. I got it for a quarter.

I was going to go for a master's degree in Library and Information Sciences when I finished college, but I didn't get there. I changed my mind.

Thanks again and I want to thank this forum for giving me a thread I can use to see if someone might be interested in certain titles.

Thank you, Dixie

Kathy C

Interesting, Thanks. I know the Roscoe White theme, and E. Howard Hunt. I'll have to explore the third falla.

My opinion: In the resized Bell film, you can see a man with a rifle shooting. Next and to the back of him you see a spark. So there were at least 2 people shooting at the President from the Grassy Knoll and behind the picket fence. There may also be someone on the side of the Pergola filming -- it's subjective.

I don't recall who brought the Bell film to our attention recently, but that's my view (no pun intended). I wonder if the conspirators filmed the Assassination from the South side also.

Kathy C

The experts at Aberdeen thought the rifle was outfitted for a left handed person.

Hmm, was Oswald left handed?

McAdams is exposed again.

And here again, once more, we have a situation which makes the likes of James DiEugenio and many other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists look ridiculous:

I.E.,

Oswald fired a gun in a right-handed manner (as we can tell from the Marine Corps photo of LHO below):

And (presumably) the people who wanted to frame Oswald must surely have known this basic fact about their lone patsy, right?

So what do "they" do? They decide to frame Oswald with a rifle that had a scope on it that was supposedly mounted for a left-handed person??

Brilliant plan.

This is just one more example among dozens of similar examples to demonstrate that the behind-the-scenes plotters (whom the conspiracy theorists insist were really setting up and controlling Lee Oswald every step of the way leading up to 11/22/63) must certainly have attended Brain-Dead University.

One more great example: "They" just allow their patsy to wander around freely on the lower floors of the Book Depository Building at the precise moment when the unknown "they" need him to be on the sixth floor with a gun in his hands.

Didn't the plotters even CARE where their patsy was located when they were attempting to frame him at 12:30? Per Oliver Stone's ridiculous theory on this subject--apparently not. And Jim Garrison even goes one step further than Stone, suggesting in his 1967 Playboy interview that Oswald appears on the TSBD steps in the Altgens picture (instead of Lovelady).

If your patsy-framers get any dumber, Jimbo, they'll have a collective I.Q. of negative 6.

According to John Armstrong, who did a tremendous amount of research on his own time and money, the photo above is of Lee Oswald. He was not shot by Ruby. He wasn't the patsy.

Kathy C

Kathy like they above say, no problemo...i make oodles and have of mistooks, oops another one, so what, when one does, one learns something new......it is when the whomever refuses to learn from such that gets them in double dutch eventually, btw this is our walt brown..b

I don't think it was last year but the year before. Assassination experts were giving speeches over the Internet. COPA. I wanted so much to hear Walt Brown, but he forgot to turn the mike on or something. All I could see was him, pressing buttons and saying, "Hello, COPA" a dozen times. That lasted 10 minutes. And when John Armstrong was on, he couldn't remember names from his own book and wanted the audience to help him. And when the question and answer part began, the videographer shut off his camera.

Boy was I riled.

Kathy C

Greg:

Who was the woman on the line?

Can you provide a link to your essay?

Jim,

I don't know who she was and chances of finding out are very slim at best. But never say never. Other "unknowns" have become "knowns".

Here is the piece:

http://reopenkennedy...iddle-explained

Greg, for some reason I can't finish registering on your forum. It says my email already exists. Also, how do the names go on the Forum? Can we use aliases?

Kathy C

Hi Cathy,

you're already a member under the username "Kathy C". If you've forgotten your password, just go through the normal process for that.

I just rewrote my post.

Kathy C

Greg:

Who was the woman on the line?

Can you provide a link to your essay?

Jim,

I don't know who she was and chances of finding out are very slim at best. But never say never. Other "unknowns" have become "knowns".

Here is the piece:

http://reopenkennedy...iddle-explained

Greg, for some reason I can't finish registering on your forum. It says my email already exists. Also, how do the names go on the Forum? Can we use aliases?

I might as well throw in my 2 cents. I don't think anyone has shown more interest and "researched" Karyn Kupcinet more than I. There was a man, a Professor, interested in writing a book about her. He actually interviewed the 2 men who were with her, watching TV the night she died. They left at 11:15, locking the door behind them. She was murdered approx. 12:30 am, Nov. 28, according to authorities. But the Professor dropped it. Instead, he became a Private Investigator.

For instance, I found the right agency and asked for Karyn's autopsy report. They refused and told Scott at findadeath.com that I had requested the autopsy 3 separate times in one year. Now, what's going on with the Coroner and the guy who writes irreverently and shows pictures of dead movie stars?

Scott wrote to me very angrily, I felt, and said, "Is this an emergency?" "Yes," I said. "Times up. 1963 was a long time ago."

The agency that received my emails, gave the document to the Professor now a PI. He had Professor in front of his name and that's all he needed. They blocked my email. The Professor shared the report with me.

No one knows how she died, especially McAdams. And the coroner had a fetish about strangled women. Two women were exhumed whom he worked on and turned out not to be strangled at all. He worked on them shortly after Karyn.

Kathy C

Jim Phelps mentioned the near Assassination of DeGaulle. I just thought I'd tell -- if members are interested -- that I have political biographies on sale, including one of DeGaulle.

DeGaulle by Francois Mauriac, Nobel Prize-winning novelist.

The Adenauer Era by Richard Hiscocks, about the recovery of Germany after the Nazis surrendered.

Both books are of contemporaries of President Kennedy. I also have:

Monica's Story by Andrew Morton. Insight into what drew Monica to President Clinton. In other words, she's treated like a human being.

http://amazon.com Paper and Pen

Just type in the name of the book. Then scroll down to Paper and Pen.

I am trying to find books relevant to the Kennedy Era and sell them at low, reasonable prices.

Thank You All,

Kathy C

Kathleen, if the Adenour one has a photo and or bio of ewald peters, how much?

"The Adenauer Era" by Richard Hiscocks does not contain any photos and, according to its index, does not address either ewald peters or peters ewald. But it looks like an interesting read. It's subtitle is "Germany's Miraculous Post-War Renaissance and the Man Who Created It." It's in acceptable condition. I'm selling it for $2.75 plus 3.99 shipping. Amazon.com -- (Paper and Pen.)

Kathy C

John McAdams takes an incident in or around John Kennedy's life and says it's true and expounds on it without true facts.

Greg Parker solved the Oxnard Call incident, which had Penn Jones saying that actress daughter of Irv Kupcinet, who was murdered, had foreknowledge of the Assassination. And that she made an hysterical call, person to person, that didn't go through right.

To this McAdams made up names to go with the story. The names of employees of the telephone company who heard the call, including the supervisor, are not the names uncovered later by Parker.

Karyn Kupcinet's murder has never been solved. Some even believe she wasn't murdered and possibly committed suicide. But it is odd for a female committing suicide in the nude, with her bathrobe thrown over a chair. A possible accidental overdose? No one knows. Except, of course, McAdams.

Kathy C

Jim Phelps mentioned the near Assassination of DeGaulle. I just thought I'd tell -- if members are interested -- that I have political biographies on sale, including one of DeGaulle.

DeGaulle by Francois Mauriac, Nobel Prize-winning novelist.

The Adenauer Era by Richard Hiscocks, about the recovery of Germany after the Nazis surrendered.

Both books are of contemporaries of President Kennedy. I also have:

Monica's Story by Andrew Morton. Insight into what drew Monica to President Clinton. In other words, she's treated like a human being.

http://amazon.com Paper and Pen

Just type in the name of the book. Then scroll down to Paper and Pen.

I am trying to find books relevant to the Kennedy Era and sell them at low, reasonable prices.

Thank You All,

Kathy C

Kathy,

The only "researchers" who have never, EVER been embarrassed by some portion of their work--hopefully of minimal volume--are those who have failed to even scratch the surface!

You got one wrong. So what? We all still love you--carry on.

Thank you, Greg and Bernice. I have tears in my eyes. Why the link isn't working is beyond me because it was working last night. Not now. I would try typing "A Constantine Blacklist" and the page should turn up in the summaries. It mentions Walt Brown, that he believes McLellen's book is mostly fiction. And the next paragraph says (paraphrase) Walt is also known for his search for Noah's Ark.

Love you too.

Kathy C