Kathleen Collins

Removing Peter as a moderator was bad enough, but deleting his posts is, in my opinion, a criminal act. It is the destruction of intellectual property. I will recommend to Peter that, if they are not restored, he should pursue legal action against The Education Forum and whoever was responsible for this atrocity. I cannot believe that John Simkin could exercise such atrocious judgement. RESTORE THEM! Perhaps Tosh has set the right example for the rest of us.

This is outrageous!

Here are the latest thoughts from Judyth, which suggest that another motive may have been censoring his views:

Poor Peter Lemkin, I support him and he wrote a thank-you note...Can you magine?

ALL HIS POSTS WERE ERASED.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT HE EXPRSSED SOME SUPPORT FOR ME JUST BEFORE HE WAS ERASED?

THE ARCIVES HAVE HIS POSTS.

I HOPE DEMANDS WILL BE MADE TO HAVE HIS OVER 5,000 POSTS RESTORED.

THINK OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING. I HAVE HAD ALL THAT DESTROYED BEFORE..

IT IS A BLOW.

I HOPE THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PETER'S POSTS CANNOT HAVE EEN ERASED ALSO FROM THE BACKUP ARCHIVES.

IF SO, THAT IS NEFARIOUS.

I formally protest the removal of Peter Lemkin. The research community has lost a great man: Rich DellaRosa, someone with ethics. Now Peter is gone from here. A really bad week for those who remember President Kennedy. Think it over, moderators.

Kathy C

I feel John Simkin is angered and has acted on that rage. Why not cool off and then make an intellectual decision?

Peter Lemkin is high strung. Are we going to lose him because of his temperament? I was surprised to read the following, Mr. Simkin:

"However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum." -- John Simkin

Kathy C

From Guardian.co.uk

March 10, 2010

Fidel Castro TV series charts 638 assassination attempts

He Who Must Live documents Cuban leader's escapes from

bacteria-infected hankie, exploding cigar and poisoned wetsuit

Illness has forced him from public view but Fidel Castro is back in Cuban living rooms via a lavish

television series that celebrates his escape from 638 assassination plots.

The eight-part series, He Who Must Live is an extravagant departure from Cuban TV's typically low-budget fare:

more than 1,000 actors and extras are used in a mix of CSI-type fiction, docu-drama and archive material.

The interior ministry, institute of police sciences and state-sanctioned film-makers teamed up to tell the story

of how the CIA spent decades trying to murder the US's tropical communist foe....

Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/1...nation-attempts

When are people going to admit that Fidel Castro is dead.

Kathy C

I guess we can blame it on global warming, since numerous jetliners fly over my house daily.

Not too fast, Jack. I saw a big one over Secaucus, NJ last Saturday.

Kathy C

I formally protest the removal of Peter Lemkin. The research community has lost a great man: Rich DellaRosa, someone with ethics. Now Peter is gone from here. A really bad week for those who remember President Kennedy. Think it over, moderators.

Kathy C

Peter Lemkin has authorized me to post the following on his behalf:

> Jim. I'm sick at heart. 6 years. 5350 posts. I calculate 10,000

> hours research and writing - maybe more. Some VERY important and

> unique stuff. Much of it lost in my own computer due to recent

> cyberattack. Post below already posted, but thanks. Simkin's

> pronouncement total bull and lies, damn lies and distortions of time

> - he has a magic time machine and has reactions happening BEFORE

> causative action! I just got word that 'the lady in question' other

> than realizing it was all a mistake told Simkin ONE year ago. They

> made me moderator about six months ago....I'll have much more to say

> soon...but I want to get it all in temporal order. They will look

> VERY bad. AS for legal threats, I didn't mention it [and even then

> said would NOT if they reversed the actions that I mention next]

> UNTIL they took down my defense thread and her meek admission of a

> 'mistake' AND without me doing anything - cut my membership; blocked

> my IP AND deleted ALL of my posts!...and left my name defamed and no

> apology; no explanation; no sorry; no nothing......Simkin loved my

> JFK stuff, but HATED my 911 stuff....only his 'approved' conspiracies

> are to be discussed. For Andy, there has been none since Caesar was

> assassinated - and that is maybe just heresay. I'm disgusted. Peter

>

>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> (If my past efforts at attempting to broker peace deals on the

>>> internet are any indication, I will now expect to be shot by both

>>> sides. Fire at will.)

>>>

>>> Robert Charles-Dunne

>>>

>>> Robert, I for one will never shoot at you. I think you are about the

>>> best, if not THE best and most articulate voice of reason, political

>>> acumen. plus wise and artistic wordweaving we have [or I had] on

>>> this Forum. I stand accused of nothing except trying to defend

>>> myself from false charges. Long before this broke out publicly I

>>> sent both Administrators privately offers to prove the allegations

>>> false in some in camera setting [not on the Forum publicly], as I

>>> had and have more than enough proof to do so. From one came silence,

>>> from the other more vitriol. Please note that the charges when

>>> revealed to most [although several members secretly had been let in

>>> on them, as well as the women in question through a whispering

>>> campaign - the source of which I'll leave to the imagination of such

>>> clever people] accused me of having done untoward things to multiple

>>> women [there was an 's' applied twice]. Now we all know there was

>>> never even the one. So, though not guilty; though not presented the

>>> evidence; though not allowed to defend myself; and though I did try

>>> briefly - that has all be expunged - along with the half-baked

>>> limited-modified-hangout demi-semi-partial retraction [also gone].

>>> No full retraction, no apology, no re-instatement of my membership

>>> [no charges as to why it was removed]; lies that my IP was/is not

>>> blocked, when it is. I seem to remember from the Watergate era a

>>> phrase that went like this: What did they know [or invent], and when

>>> did they know it [or invent it]? Walker said he was taking some

>>> leave and has not left. He feigned resignation only to come back to

>>> vote against me. Vote on what and a vote taken just before the

>>> 'news' that the 'rumour' was false....great timing....one might even

>>> say a bit 'too good' to be true. So, the man who believes in no

>>> conspiracy since the assassination of Caesar apparently, it seems,

>>> was in some way involved in one - yet in a letter to the mods I was

>>> accused of a conspiracy to destroy the good name of Mr. Walker.

>>> Ironic, in the extreme. It started IMO as a political vendetta and

>>> grew and grew. My attempts to present evidence against vague charges

>>> or hear them or defend myself were denied, ignored or when attempted

>>> on my own removed. It never happened - or so they'd like you to

>>> believe. I'm a teacher at University, currently unemployed - imagine

>>> trying to get a job with these allegations over one's head, let

>>> alone a date. So many employers and potential dates 'google' names

>>> just to see what pops up. There were other epithets hurled at me in

>>> public and in private - thinking like a Nazi, unstable, insane

>>> [boilingly so], dangerous, and on and on and on. Found to be

>>> innocent, yet executed - without trial or due process. I belive

>>> commonly known as a lynching. It was all in the timing and the

>>> manipulation of the whispering campaign. Of what may I ask am I

>>> accused of to warrant removal from the Forum, ditto my IP blocked? I

>>> did not start any of this. I did not ever do anything wrong or break

>>> forum rules - yes I showed a private message as my only way to

>>> expose the ugly rumor and to defend myself as I saw the noose

>>> dangling on yonder tree with my neck's name on it. I thank all those

>>> who see some injustice in this. I feel personally offended and my

>>> reputation besmirched [a mild understatement]. Peter Lemkin, in

>>> banishment and my IP blocked.

Why is the topic that I started locked?

Please allow Peter Lemkin to come back to this forum. He is a very intense man and is very concerned about USA. I think he may even be threatened or under attack in other areas of his life. I don't know what happened here recently -- a sexual abuse issue? Let him give his side. Please. He added a lot to this forum. The extent of his work speaks for itself -- although it's all been removed.

I also think Evan Burton is a great guy and not a prejudiced moderator, fair to others even if he disagrees with them. Evan is no "toady" to anyone. He disagrees with Peter yet votes for him to be a moderator, etc.

I haven't had access to a computer for a few days and I don't know what happened and am trying to put it together.

Anyone can be accused of something. Investigate this woman's claim, but allow Peter to stay a member. How do we know what any member does in his/her private life? Peter is going through a very rough time. Please help him.

Kathy C

I think everyone knows I loved him and always will.

Kathy C

Hi Tosh,

I'm not much of a Jack White but I've used Photoshop to lighten two squares in this image where there appear to be people. One looks like a man with a hat carrying something towards the front of the lot and the other is towards the back of the lot and to the left.

You'll have to zoom in in order to see them. Hopefully you can see them too, or maybe I'm seeing things.

In the square on our right it looks like one man handing another man a rifle. It reminds me of the Man on the Roof photo which I have posted here twice. I am using another's computer so I can't post it again for awhile.

I am trying to find where the limo was driven to get to Parkland; so I can see the building where the roof man stood via Google Earth Street View. It's apparently near a "covered" section of the Freeway where the limo was photographed. Jack White said there was a floral business there at that time. I haven't located the section of the Freeway. -- Sorry for the digression.

Kathy C

Tosh, I took another look at the South Knoll on Google Earth Street View. In my humble opinion, yes, from the bridge or thereabouts someone could have shot the President. But not to Kennedy's right temple. There is no longer a forked tree (except a little one near the top, which wouldn't hide anyone). But it's very shady and cozy. I still believe someone could have been hiding under the triple underpass on Elm St if Kennedy was not wounded in the plaza. I understand the bullet entrance under Kennedy's hairline came from the front and imo could have come from the South Knoll.

Kathy C

ANYONE CARE TO CRITIQUE THAT DAMN THING.... OR IS IT TO MUCH OF A DELICATE MATTER? HAS IT BEEN DOCTORED OR BRUSHED OUT?

OH WELL... WHAT THU HELL. WHO CARES? RIGHT?

It's me again. The forked tree seems like there's someone there, but an expert would have to work on it. I cannot. I will say on Google Earth Street View I did not see a forked tree on the South Knoll, which doesn't prove anything. Many decades have passed. The South Knoll is very shady. But unless someone shot from the bridge, I can't see how Kennedy could be shot from that angle.

Wish I could help more.

Kathy C

I have been asked by Chris Lightbown to post this:

Question for Greg Parker

Greg, I’ve noticed that on a couple of occasions where your posts have necessitated references to John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, you’ve expressed marked caution about the accuracy of Mr Armstrong’s work.

Could you please elaborate your concerns? This is a friendly request. You are a highly respected researcher and as some forum readers have invested considerable time and interest in Harvey and Lee, expressions of doubt by somebody like yourself are not to be taken lightly.

To date, most of the reaction to John Armstrong’s work has consisted of wholehearted dismissal by LN believers and – with the exception of some conspiracy believers – a quite astounding silence, given the monumental amount of research that underlies Harvey and Lee and the book's implications. A reasoned analysis of any of John Armstrong’s work would be most welcome. Thank you.

Chris,

I have sent a reply through John Simkin. If anything needs clarifying, please contact me direct via email.

Thanks for the kind words above also.

What's the big secret? I am a Harvey and Lee believer. Greg Parker was the only researcher to finally put to rest the the "Oxnard Call," which Penn Jones wrongly said was made by actress Karyn Kupcinet, and other inconsistencies.

I would like to know what Greg thinks of Harvey and Lee for the above reason and because I would like John Armstrong to finally publish his findings re Donald O. Norton, the alleged "Lee Oswald."

Kathy C

That being the case, how do we know which of the two is incorrect, or whether it is neither or both that is (or are) incorrect?

More to the point, how was any of this done without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the photographer(s)?

Were Phil's negatives modified and then returned to him? If so, what other changes were made to the other images? If none, why not?

A Polaroid Land camera did not, of course, have any negatives. Is that, together with early publication, a reason to eliminate Moorman from being an alteration candidate?

How do chains of custody figure into any of this? What do other images of this area show? At least one point in this brief study (the bushes) can be attributed to perspective; would need a clearer image to determine if the shade issue is another.

Duke, all very astute points, but ones which Jack will no doubt not address. I have on a few occasions asked to discuss and/or speculate how any of these alterations could actually have been accomplished, but he refuses.

Easy. Men claiming they were Secret Service or FBI asked for the films and photographs, which would be given back. Most, probably, came back; but when they did, the pictures were retouched and most likely, the photographers didn't realize it, because they hadn't seen them yet.

Kathy C

When I confronted her on the internet about which Oswald she knew, HARVEY OR LEE, she became incoherent

and nasty...saying there WAS ONLY ONE OSWALD. This sealed it for me...since I know there were two LHOs.

Her story of the midnight call from the laundromat talking about the impending assassination was ridiculous,

and opens her to charges of ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT.

Jack

Jack, could it be possible that Harvey Oswald didn't know "Lee" existed? Also, how dumb could he be? He was being painted as a communist and finds himself in a building in which President Kennedy was going to pass by in an open car. When he was confronted, he seemed relaxed. Was he waiting for a phone call? He didn't hear the shots?

Kathy C

I am not sure what you mean about "Google Earth". I do not think that would give a good perspective as to depth and alignment. Perhaps, I am not following. I asked sometime back if someone could or would take a look today from the south knoll, as well as the parking lot and the "Wedge and Pillar" of the underpass.., but nobody has responded and the thread has been dropped. Of course I am working off memory and feelings. I have been back there hundreds of times after the shooting. The first impressions, of that day, are still fresh in my memory.

Thanks for your input and interest. Tosh

Tosh, in your browser, type in "google earth street view." This will take you to a sight about how to use google earth. Then type in : "Elm St and Houston St, Dallas, TX." It's really a lot of fun. You use your mouse to get around.

Kathy C

Tosh, some pages of images that you may want to inspect, if you haven't already:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...m=31&pos=43

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP-2/

I was told that The Cuban was making a fist and flashing a Victory sign at the limo to signify attempt 2 or to tell Greer where to stop. If this is true, The Cuban in most probability is "Gator." His V-sign wasn't a V sign at all. He was merely holding up the only 2 fingers he had. (The lower right corner photo)

Also in that photo the Umbrella Man's umbrella seems painted in.

Kathy C

Here is a thought to consider: In picture #3 where all the people are running toward the north end of the underpass, could it be that they were running after the limo as it headed under the rail road to see what the results of the shooting caused? Even the railroad workers cross over to the other side to see the Limo speed off toward Parkland. What did they hope to see? The Limo? Or had bad the shooting was?..., or if the President had indeed been hit? Some who had ran toward that direction said they thought the shots came from that direction near the grassy north knoll and the fence and that is why they ran to that location. I am familiar with the Warren Report and what some say as to why they ran to that location. Others had said a different reason why they ran to that location. Perhaps selective testimony was used in the recap of events. Its possible.

I think I would have been going the other way if I thought someone, or a nutcase, had shot at the President from there and might still be there. As to the motorcycle patrolman? If I were him I too might think, after seeing people running in that direction, that they might be trying to catch the shooter, or thought the shots came from over there and he drove up the slop or catch the shooter. Could it not be that most were only trying to see what was happening inside the Limo after the shots had been fired at the President?

I know what the record says. But who established the record that day? Was it an accurate account of events as they happened? Could the echo effect had something to do with the direction of the shooting? What about the sound of a firecracker after some of the shots, or at the time of the shots? Could that have been the "windshield" being shot and hit? I find it difficult to accept that a shooter behind the fence less that ten feet away from some who were standing in front of the allege shooter or slightly to the side watching the Parade also ran toward the triple underpass. Would they not have turned and moved toward the shooter at the fence, or away from the shooter, or just hit the ground and covered their heads? Or perhaps ran the other way to get out of the way or another lunatic shot?

If we are to speculate then lets speculate and argue till the next century on some of these thoughts. With all the possibilities established after years.., all the pros and cons and egos.. we are going to be here for a very very-- long long time. Tosh

P.S. As to officer White being able to see behind the wedge bannister and pillar, you have to take into account that the railroad bed was raised some four or five feet above the foundation base with base rock that supported the load of train traffic in those days. If he was standing on or near the base of the bridge below the railroad grade, then he could not see someone crouched or prong in that area of the wedge and banister pillar. That would be a perfect place for a shooter to hide himself ..., even from view of the south parking lot which is lower than the bridge foundation base. I can see two shooters there.. one in the parking lot and the one positioned in the wedge. Perhaps you would have to go to the Plaza today in order to get a perspective on this. Keep in mind that today the railroad tracks (Metro tracks) are about two feet lower than they were in 1963.

Tosh, I was on Google Earth Street View and got a good look of Dealey Plaza. I cannot see how anyone could shoot President Kennedy from the South Knoll. It would really have to be a magic bullet. However, underneath the Triple Underpass, there was plenty of opportunities from a gunman to shoot at the President. The walls had "slots" in them where someone could stand within and hide.

There is a man running towards the Assassination, crossing over to Main and Commerce and Houston. He had been down by the Underpass and Elm. Something frightened him. He is seen in 3 films, including the Zapruder film. Early in the afternoon, the FBI got a call from a man saying he had been down by the Underpass and saw "signals." He didn't give his name. Now if the Underpass was OK, he could have stayed hidden there if he saw signals and heard shots. But he ran toward the Assassination.

Kathy C

Tosh, did you ever hear of a Donald O. Norton or meet someone by that name?

Thanks,

Kathy C

The short answer is NO. The long answer: However, I was asked about him some years ago in reference to a place near Marathon Key Florida, "Starlite Cruises", a fishing and boat cruise ran by Chubby Winer of Marathon. (before the hurricane Andrew) Don Norton was a name often used by the INTEL community as a drop name, one of many drop names used in various UC operations of the sixties. Paul Lee was another and Norton and Lee used to work out of the old Lowrey Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado around 1980. Paul Lee was active in the Iran-Contra affair. There was a Don Norton who was a pilot who worked with Chip Tatum and Bill Cooper and Buz Sawer during the early days of the contra resupply network. (Operation Enterprise and Supermarket) I am familiar with some saying Norton was Lee Oswald, but I do not buy that. As I have said Norton is a common name used in black operations of the CIA. At one time I used the name 'Buck Pearson"..., not Buck Parsons of BoP fame, as some have confused me with.

Was Chubby Winer a redhead? "Donald O. Norton" of Avon Park, FL was in the fishing and boating industries and he was chubby.

Thanks for responding. "Donald O. Norton" nearly drove me nuts.

Kathy C

Tosh, did you ever hear of a Donald O. Norton or meet someone by that name?

Thanks,

Kathy C

John Judge: It was always so obvious, how could we have missed it ???

Khalid Rosenbaum wrote:

http://jackiekilledjfk.wordpress.com/

It's time to think the unthinkable: Did Jackie Kennedy pull the trigger?

Was Jackie Kennedy involved in the conspiracy to assassinate her husband, John F. Kennedy? It's a question I hope to explore in the spirit of inquiry, and not in that of accusation.

Whether you were alive on November 22, 1963 or hadn't yet arrived, the murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy is an event that evokes some response in almost everyone. It was a day of violence, betrayal, mystery, and grief. Did Oswald really act alone as the Warren Commission insisted? Was there a government cover-up at the highest levels; and if so, why? Books and articles about the assassination in Dallas have generally sold well, even if they told just part of the story. I myself have been an off-again, on-again amateur researcher of sorts into that day that stole my innocence forever. I was 10 years old when it happened. I was 56 the other day when I finally stumbled onto the conclusions of a researcher who was not afraid to consider the unthinkable: Jackie Kennedy pulled the trigger of the gun that instantly ended her husband, John's, life. I know, I know, she is the last person you'd expect to have been the monster that cut down her husband in his prime! We all watched her bravely grim face during the ordeal of the lying-in-state and funeral of our beloved President. Those of us who have seen the Zapruder film of the assassination were moved to tears at the sight of Jackie crawling onto the boot of the limousine to retrieve, or so it's said, a portion of her husband's brain.

Where's the EVIDENCE for what you're implying, you ask? Here's a slow-motion clip of the Zapruder film for your perusal. Please zero in on Jackie beginning at the point JFK grabs his throat and look for 4 CLUES:

1. She leans into him but does not put an arm around him as would be a more natural response. Instead, she keeps her hands out of camera range by contorting her arms rather awkwardly, perhaps conscious of the possibility that there are cameras on both sides of the street. Photos and film taken from the left side of the car also do not show exactly what she's doing with her hands.

2. She seems more focused on Gov. Connally's words to her than on her husband's condition. Could Connally possibly be telling her it's time to "do it"? Or perhaps he's uttering the trigger words that will elicit a previously induced hypnotic suggestion. Do they looked shocked at what's happened to you? Or do they look like they're simply discussing their next course of action?

3. At point of head impact, white smoke moves upward on LEFT SIDE of JFK's head. This white wisp of smoke or vapor is visible even in photos and film taken from the other side of the car. A bullet doesn't cause smoke; the barrel of a gun does. There are various reports (here's one) that indicate that the gunshot entry wound was on the left side of JFK's head; exit wound to the right front. One of the doctors at Parkland, Dr. Jenkins, testified to the Warren Commission that he had discovered what appeared to be a bullet wound to the "left temporal region" of the President's head. (Of course, the Warren Commission took care of that "misconception"!)

4. She quickly hides something (the gun?). In the still frames of the Zapruder film, it appears to me that there must be at least one frame missing between #326 and #327. Judging from the slow progression of the other still frames, there's no conceivable way that Jackie's arm could have skipped from an upright position to one pointing down in the space of one frame (1/18 of a second)! What do those responsible not want us to see? A gun? (See all frames.) Judging by the blood and brain spray exiting JFK's head, what kind of trajectory would the bullet have to travel? Isn't it more consistent with someone placing the muzzle near his left ear and firing upwards than it would be of a long-distance shooter firing from behind…or even from the front? A doctor who saw JFK at Parkland Hospital immediately after the murder indicates that his head wound was on the front right side. There is an assassination researcher who puts forth the theory that there was a shooter in the trunk of the car! He is actually closer to the truth than other theorists because the intensity and trajectory of the shot indicates that it came from within the tight little circle of the car and those in it and around it. His conclusions support rather than deny mine. There are experts who insist that the Zapruder film was altered and also that frames were removed; and these alterations seem aimed at obscuring the moment of the head shot. The final product still shows evidence of a shot from the front, so this alteration must, more importantly in the minds of the alterers, have been done to hide both the fact that the car was brought to a near standstill for the execution of the head shot(s), and to hide the fact that Jackie's hand held a gun.

The sequence of events that took our President's life was, in my opinion, and based on observation of the Zapruder film, as follows:

1. JFK was shot in the throat from the front, possibly by a bullet that went through the windshield of the car. Contrary to popular belief, Gov. Connally was not wounded until AFTER the fatal head shot (as evidenced by the fact that he is able to turn his body around and toward Jackie in order to speak to her). Note: If you click on the link to the article regarding Gov. Connally's wounds, notice how clearly the white smoke is visible in the Zapruder frames he posts.)

2. One or more bullets from the rear were fired at some point during the sequence, causing JFK's back entrance wound (which was shallow probably due to his heavy back corset-like brace), and the injuries to Gov. Connally.

3. Jackie maneuvers herself into position in order to deliver a head shot to enter from the left in JFK's hairline near his ear and upward, but she hesitates a few seconds too long, forcing the sniper hidden on the grassy knoll to respond with a head shot of his own. This sniper's shot nearly coincided perfectly with Jackie's shot, and the startling realization that rifle shots were coming in her direction, coupled with the horror of her mortally wounded husband falling toward her and not away from her, caused her to flee away from their source and towards the rear of the automobile seeking the protective arms of her personal Secret Service agent, Clint Hill. (Jackie almost roughly pushes JFK's body aside as she swiftly climbs out onto the trunk of the car to retrieve some mysterious object. The official story that she was trying to save brain matter or a piece of skull is suspect as the Zapruder film clearly shows that the trunk area is still in pristine condition. The reason she looks like she's trying to grab something on the boot of the car is that she's reaching for the protruding "buttons" about halfway to the Secret Service handles in order to hold on to something while she makes her escape.)

4. The nearly simultaneous head shots coming from two different directions – one close to the head from the left and the other traveling a distance from the right front – explain the conflicting bodily movements indicating JFK's physical reaction to the two head injuries. (Slightly forward at the first shot, but then quickly back and to the left after the incoming shot from the grassy knoll.)

Another good link to a larger, blown-up version of the Zapruder film can be found at Metacafe. The white smoke is clearly visible, as well as the gun-hiding motions of Jackie Kennedy after impact.

Here's a preliminary list of possible MOTIVES as to why Jackie Kennedy would have committed this crime in conjunction with the political conspiracy to assassinate him followed by a government cover-up:

1. JFK's indiscretions with other women from the very beginning of their marriage. Perhaps Jackie was fed up, and possibly planning to divorce him anyway, so when she learned of the conspiracy (through Onassis?) to assassinate him, she volunteered. It's reported in Peter Evan's book, "Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That Brought Down the Kennedys…", that Jackie had begun an affair with Onassis just months before the assassination, and that the Kennedy marriage was in such shambles that divorce was almost inevitably going to happen after the next election. The Kennedys did not share the same hotel room in Texas the night before the murder.

2. She was threatened by the conspirators. Perhaps she was told that if she refused to cooperate and deal the fatal blow that would ensure her husband's death, there would be a bullet in it for her. Or maybe harm to her children. They would have told her they planned to shoot to kill JFK anyway, so what difference would it make if she participated. An extensive cover-up of her involvement, to the extent of doctoring and falsifying autopsy documents and eye witness reports, was promised.

3. She was in love with Aristotle Onassis and did it at his behest with promises of a future life with all of the benefits millions of dollars can buy. Jackie did vacation – without her husband - on Ari's private yacht to recuperate from her baby's death just months before the assassination.

4. Aristotle Onassis and other new world order advocates took advantage of her post-traumatic stress syndrome following the sudden death of her baby in order to utilize hypnosis and/or mind control techniques much like those reportedly used with Sirhan Sirhan. Evidence that links Onassis to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy has been brought forward (See Peter Evans' book, "Nemesis," for details.)

5. Jackie's mother was Jewish. Perhaps Jackie, although Roman Catholic herself, had a loyalty to the state of Israel and cooperated with the Zionist objective to protect its interests in maintaining Israel as the site of their proposed future world government under a world leader of their choosing.

6. Jacqueline Bouvier was a C.I.A. agent assigned to infiltrate the Kennedy clan as they moved up in political circles. Here's an excerpt from an online biography of Jackie (among others) that cites the fact that she did work for the C.I.A.! "Jackie attended boarding schools and then went off to Vassar. After two years, though, she got tired of it and spent her junior year studying at the Sorbonne in Paris. When she got back to the US she did not want to go back to Vassar, so she enrolled in George Washington University in Washington, DC, graduating in 1951. She took a job at the CIA and in January of 1952 went to work at a Washington newspaper, where she was a photographer. During an assignment she met U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy . They were married on September 12, 1953. Their first child, who lived, was Caroline Kennedy, born November 27, 1957." [Emphasis mine.] The entire biography can be read here. Jackie may have been merely following the orders of her superiors to hit their target.

Jackie's and her mother's long association with George DeMorenschildt, a known CIA asset, closest friend of Lee Harvey Oswald, acquaintance of George H.W. Bush, LBJ, Abraham Zapruder (!) and others leads me to wonder if he was, perhaps, Jackie's (and maybe her mother's) "handler," as well as Lee Harvey Oswald's! Here's an excerpt from a site dealing with a publication called, "Timeline Chart," discussed on this Education Forum: "I first started researching the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission for clues, when I came across George De Mohrenschildt. I thought it was strange that a man who visited Jacqueline Kennedy's mother on a regular basis would also befriend the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. In the first several years of my research, I even had a nightmare that Jackie Kennedy had been involved in the assassination. I began to look at this or the possibility that her mother Mrs. Hugh D. Auchincloss was involved. But I concluded, that no one in their right mind would have placed themselves or their daughter in an open convertible with a possibility of being shot, for Jackie sat three feet away from JFK on that fateful November 22, 1963.

De Mohrenschildt testified that before Oswald was even born he visited with Jackie and her mother in 1938 on a daily basis at Easthampton, New York. You may, like myself, find this hard to digest."

7. Jackie and Lyndon Johnson were in collusion. They had something in common: they had both been pushed out of the loop of John F. Kennedy's personal life. Perhaps their individual bitterness over the way JFK treated them caused them to come to an agreement to aid each other in punishing and removing the source. LBJ was aware that Republicans wanted to look into his possible bribe-taking, and Jackie was undoubtedly aware that her husband's tryst with a possible communist spy. Ellen Rometsch (as well as his secret marriage to Durie Malcolm) was about to become public knowledge. Tape recorded phone calls between LBJ and Jackie from shortly after the assassination reveal an over-familiarity on LBJ's part that could possibly stem from his knowledge of what she had done that fateful day in Dallas. It sounds like he was using it for all it was worth to coerce Jackie into a more intimate relationship with him. Jackie reportedly did not know she was being recorded but seems to take care in choosing her responses, perhaps due to CIA training and political savvy.

Thanks to John Judge for passing this along.

His comments: Post literate, post historical, post scientific, post logical. This oozing crap is supposed to serve as analysis or research? It has so many holes as to look like swiss cheese. And of course, it was the Jews, always the Jews. "We are allowed to believe anything, but to know nothing." - JJ

Let's hope no one believes the above, but actually probably thousands will: The same people who write to dead celebs or confuse the actor with the hated character.

Kathy C

Tosh, some pages of images that you may want to inspect, if you haven't already:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...m=31&pos=43

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP-2/

I was told that The Cuban was making a fist and flashing a Victory sign at the limo to signify attempt 2 or to tell Greer where to stop. If this is true, The Cuban in most probability is "Gator." His V-sign wasn't a V sign at all. He was merely holding up the only 2 fingers he had. (The lower right corner photo)

Also in that photo the Umbrella Man's umbrella seems painted in.

Kathy C

This sent to me via e-mail and cut and pasted without change from T. Plumlee:

Peter. I remember You, Jim Marrs, and I, going over this when we were marking the FBI FOIA pages in Arlington, Texas. Jim ask those questions. I'll do by best to recap the answers: As to who we were waiting for, in my mind at that time, it could have been anybody. I did think, in a passing thought, that it could have been Roselli. But nobody responded to that answer, or wainted to hear that.

Question: Also about the original flight plans back that changed and the mention of meeting-up with a former Eastern Pilot. Care to comment on that? Answer: Yes. From what I remember the flight out of Dallas (no flight plan filed) was to originally fly back to Houston Texas where (I thought) I would go back to Florida on another flight and the DC-3 would be flown back to West Palm by an Eastern Airline pilot. I was told another flight out of Red Bird went to Wichita Falls, Texas near the AFB there. Sometimes people just don't listen or read what is said. From my view point I feel some answers they do not want to hear or read. Perhaps because they just don't fit into the scope of things as they see them. [/color]

Wichita Falls, TX. I understand that's where Robert Oswald has lived for a very long time.

Kathy C

Tripods and remote cameras has to the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum.

Jack, you have some great ideas and have done some informative studies, but you sound insignificant when you conjure up these wild ideas as to how things went down on 11.22.63., with no proof or evidence of such. Some of these theories would be better suited for a science fiction novel.

Remote cameras are widely used by the military. Check it out.

Here is just one site:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/115a/remote...inghistory.html

There are hundreds.

I keep thinking about the woman on the south side who had a film camera. They confusgated her camera and film and she (and we) never saw it again. I think the tripod cameras would be a great idea for the assassins. Then films and photos could be substituted. One question: Is it possible for the camera lens to follow the limo, say, from Houston and Main to the left on Elm St in 1963?

Kathy C

Even as a little kid, I could tell something was wrong with the backyard photos. The "guy" has weird legs, he's not standing right. I never saw anyone with a body like that. And the more I saw pictures of LHO when he was arrested, the more I could see it wasn't the same man. I know now Harvey had a double -- Lee. But they didn't use him for these pictures.

Someone here said they could "unmask" (my word) a photo that's been added to; faked. I wish that person would unmask these backyard forgeries.

Kathy C

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

So Duncan has an association with Gary Mack. How would he have found out what Von Pein said unless Gary Mack told him? So Gary Mack gets to post things on the sly. When was the last time he posted something himself -- about anything?

Kathy C (The Gary Macker)

tosh here you go..THIS BTW WAS TAKEN FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OVERPASS FOR DOUG WELDON'S DOCUMENTARY .b

HERE ARE THE PHOTOS TOSH NO PROBLEMS TODAY..you had mentioned a photo of the limo i believe taken at love with a stain on the carpet in the back perhaps this is the one you meant....and showing the thickness of the asphalt a few years back....BEST B

The photo of Dealey Plaza taken around the time that Kennedy was killed has me asking 2 questions and both answers will probably be 'no.'

The white van heading North, that wouldn't be a laundry truck like the one seen in Dealey Plaza?

The car in the center of the picture on the bottom, is that a Rambler?

(Also odd: there seems to have been a collision with 2 cars at the median.)

Kathy C

Even in the halftone of Bond posted here, it is easy to see the the stuffed toy

white dog Jackie holds up, causing her husband to smile. I have enhanced it

to darken the background so the dog outline can be seen easily. An original

slide would show the dog image in much greater detail than this descreened

halftone.

Note the contrast between the dog's right paw and Connally's hair.

Jack

Maybe she's telling the President that their children will love this toy.

Kathy C

I just spent a half hour looking at the Croft photo while listening to the 10 pm tv news.

Found several oddities. You may want to take a look.

Jack

When enlarged, the woman looks as though someone blotted out the top of her face. Why? I don't know. She also is carrying something.

Kathy C