Bernice Moore

deleted edit finally worked...b

HI GLENN, YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN WILLIAM REYMOND'S INTERVIEW WITH JIM MARRS ON THE OTHER ZAPRUDER FILM...B PS...dr jim...you left out the motorcyclist chaney in the differences seen in the zapruder, in your summation at the top of page 11.....fwiw...thanks b REPORTING THAT THE EDIT IS NOT WORKING... :oit did now...?????????

HI GLENN, YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN WILLIAM REYMOND'S INTERVIEW WITH JIM MARRS ON THE OTHER ZAPRUDER FILM...B dr jim...you left out the motorcyc;ist chaney in the differences seen in the zapruder, in your summation at the top of page 11.....fwiw...thanks b

Thanks Stephen, here is a link to the article..best b. http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110328/bs_prweb/prweb8243198_1;_ylc=X3oDMTEwcWM2M3AwBF9TAzIwMjM4Mjc1MjQEZW1haWxJZAMxMzAxMzE3ODA1

QUOTE JIM;''The reason that Z film alteration is so hard to advance is that the people who have advocated for it have made very strong claims and then when someone does not agree with them, they are then attacked and ridiculed'' Jim...FWIW IMO.. I would suggest you go into a search within the forum threads, use just the words Jack White and or alteration, a suggestion, to see exactly whom, are then attacked and ridiculed...perhaps you will come to realise exactly who attacks and ridicules whom, and how very much he for one, has repeatedly taken because of his beliefs, which he is entitled to..but others do not think so....it goes back many years.....imo...bB)

http://www.liveleak....=8ef_1177398555 The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception ..or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110324/ts_yblog_thecutline/sarasota-herald-tribune-now-hottest-place-to-land-a-journalism-jobSarasota Herald-Tribune now hottest place to land a journalism job:blink:

http://www.jfklancer.com/HumesBos.html HEAD WOUND, scroll down, back of the head right hand side, bethesda autopsy, Boswell, Humes, Finck ETC...... .Humes, Boswell and Finck at National Archives..... The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm. (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). In non-technical language this indicates that a small wound was found in the back of the head on the right side. Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42 and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. Due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site. JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT by Gary L. Aguilar, MD San Francisco, California, August, 1994 If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem. http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Horne then showed the frame from a film of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head saying "Dr. Burkley told me it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," and he put his finger at his right temple. We don't know if Burkley told Kilduff that there was a wound to the right temple or if Dr. Burkley made that kind of a gesture. It is certainly provocative.Horne then showed the notes of Seth Kantor as seen in Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas," reading: "entered right temple." We don't know if this is an observation he made himself, or if this is a recording that someone told him, or if he writes this down after seeing Malcolm Kilduff. But this too is provocative.Horne commented that if what we are seeing is true then we don't need any "jet effect" to describe what we are seeing. This would be the result of a shot from the front and the debris trail hits the two motorcycle policemen, and litters the back of the limousine. Shortcut to: http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

THE WOUNDS AT BETHESDA: Horne report 96..Wound change Bethesda to right side head;; Now the description of the wounds dramatically changes at Bethesda. Horne showed a page from the autopsy protocol, and read from it, (MD3 p.3) "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull oHorne report 96..Wound change Bethesda to right side headn the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions, in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 centimeters in greatest diameter." Horne commented, "Now there has been a big change taken place here. In Dallas the wound is in the back of the head, pretty well localized to the occipital or occipitalparietal region. Now it's chiefly in the right side of the head extending into the temporal region and the occipital region. And Dr. Humes says it's 13 centimeters in greatest diameter." Horne then went to an audiotape of David Lifton interviewing John Stringer in 1972. Horne read the important segment first. Lifton: "Yeah, okay, well when you lifted him out was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "High in the back or lower in the back? Stringer: "Oh, the occipital part, in the back there... [and then it's garbled ] ...up above the neck." Lifton: "Yeah, in other words the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes, in the back part." Lifton: "The back portion, okay. In other words there was no 5 inch hole in the top of his head?" Stringer: "Oh, it was, some of it was blown off yeah, I mean towards out the top in the back yeah." Lifton: "Top in the back, I see. But the top in the front was pretty, oh, I don't know, intact?" Stringer: "Yeah, sure." Because of the lack of time Horne wasn't able to read passages from the Humes and Boswell ARRB depositions about the 10 by 17 centimeters and how it represents missing bone and a lot of missing scalp. But these statements are recorded in the depositions and both men are unequivocal about what they wrote. Horne then pointed out it is not just Humes and Boswell who report this huge area of missing bone and scalp. Dr. Pierre Finck reports to Brigadier General J. Blumberg February 1st, 1965 (MD 28), calling it a right, frontal parietal-occipital wound. Horne exclaimed: "That's the whole right side of the head! That's not what was described in Dallas." Horne then referred to Paul O'Connor's interview to the HSCA's Andrew Purdy: "O'Connor described a defect as being in the region from the occipital around the temporal and parietal regions,, a massive hole, no little hole. Horne then read from another HSCA staff interview report, this time with James Curtis Jenkins: "He said he saw a head wound in the middle temporal region back to the occipital. (MD 65 p.4) Horne displayed 3 color coded skulls: One depicting the wounds as described in Dallas, a wound in the occiput 5 by 7 centimeters as described by Dr. Carrico to the Warren Commission. Dr. Carrico was the only one to give a dimension in 1964. A second skull showed the wounds as described at Bethesda. At Bethesda the wound is larger. Skull #2 was painted to show what Horne previously thought the missing bone looked like at Bethesda. Then Doug showed skull #3. Dr. Boswell drew on a plastic skull for the ARRB an even larger hole, which does include the original wound as described by Parkland physicians. Nearly the entire top of the skull and most of the entire right side is devoid of bone and scalp. One skull showed the wounds as described in Dallas, the next as Doug thought the wounds were described at Bethesda, and the 3rd as Dr. Boswell drew it on the plastic skull, which to Doug's shock was largest of all, and far larger than anyone had previously described or drew. Horne next had some fun at Humes and Boswell's expense showing the photographs which accompanied the JAMA articles as saying their hands were describing the size of the head wound at Bethesda. Horne then showed a statement from Dr. Fink wherein the phrase "portion of the crater" appears, saying, in other words, there was no through and through perforation of the bone. Humes said there was in his ARRB deposition. But Finck said in 1965 there was no portion of a crater. Dr. Boswell told Purdy in 1977 that only when they reinserted a fragment of bone "that came from Dallas" could you reconstruct the entrance wound, and then the massive wound in the head was immediately above that. So, what this means is when the body is received at Bethesda there is nothing but a giant hole, and only after a small fragment was inserted could someone reconsctruct what they thought was an entrance. Horne, "So what's going on here? Is there any evidence at all that the chain of custody [of JFK's body] was interrupted? Well, there sure is. There is a lot of evidence." http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/horne/Backes2a.html

hi michael; yes post 19 i believe, it was not there the other day when i read this thread,duh.. pleased at least you are on the bit,that is it, imo they are placing their hands on the right hand side of the back of their head, not just on the right side of the head, which would be over the ear area, thanks much, Martin, i have had a photobucket account for a few years,i have some there but not this particular photo, it would take me weeks i figure to get the tousans of photos and documents posted and uploaded, and i know my hands could not take the work involved, any longer, so i will await the program problem whatever to right itself, i do know from Rich's site, that forums do run into such, from time to time, i just do not understand why one can post a photo but another with lots of space cannot, but then i know nothing of programs, many thanks fellas, carry on, bests...b:ph34r:

deleted..

Thanks Bernice. We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland. I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland. They may never been shot or been covered. Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source to see what happend to JFK's head. It confirms the photographic evidence. Credit to John Hunt. Great guy. My very best to you Martin thanks Martin, how come you can post photos??, i cannot neither can Jack, darn and i have zillions of space left for doing so,but all fail, anyway, thank you, there are no photos showing wounds from parkland, though there is the old story that some were taken, but never have appeared, the photo, is the very old one, posted a zillion times, showing the witnesses from parkland, placng theirs hands on the back of their heads, where the hole was that they saw, it shows small photos of all, compiled into one photo, i thought you would have it, anyway it does show them holding their hands on the back right hand side of their heads, as you posted......i will try one more time to upload a photo, but that and that's a big but.. .carry on, thanks...b;) no good, it did not upload.so ..for now...

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Hi Jim. Thanks for sharing your work. Does the above prove that there is more than once source film? Or is it simply highlighting different versions (different formats and generations, for example) of the same original film? Over the years I've read accounts of people who've seen different versions of Z and of altogether different films of the assassination. Does anyone know if these accounts have been listed/cataloged (who, and what they saw) anywhere? I tried searching the Forum, but didn't find anything. Greg there is some information within this earlier thread here on the forum...b http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10813&st=45.....................see post #50

Robin this is similar with added info, best b Spencer was a Petty Officer and Photographers Mate at the Naval Photographic Center. She developed JFK autopsy photos, and is perhaps the most important witness regarding the autopsy photos. She actually saw an autopsy photo showing the back of the head wound. Her deposition was taken June 1997 by the ARRB: Q: Did you see any photographs that focused principally on the head of President Kennedy? A: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. Q: Could you describe what you mean by the "wound at the back of the head"? A: It appeared to be a hole, inch, two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here. Q: You pointed to the back of your head. When you point back there, let's suppose that you were lying down on a pillow, where would the hole in the back of the head be in relationship to the part of the head that would be on the pillow if the body is lying flat? A: The top part of the head. Q: When you say the "top of the head," now, is that the part that would be covered by a hat that would be covering the top of the head? A: Just about where the rim would hit. Q: Are you acquainted with the term "external occipital protuberance"? A: No, I am not. Q: What I would like to do is to give you a document or a drawing, and ask you, if you would, on this document, make a mark of approximately where the wound was that you noticed. MR. GUNN: We will mark this Exhibit No.148. THE WITNESS: Probably about in there. Q: And you have put some hash marks in there and then drawn a circle around that, and the part that you have drawn, the circle that you have drawn on the diagram is labeled as being as part of the occipital bone, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did you see any biological tissue, such as brain matter, extruding from the hole that you saw in the back of the head? A: No. Q: Was the scalp disturbed or can you describe that more than just the hole? A: It was just a ragged hole. Q: And it was visible through the scalp, is that correct? A: Yes. Thomas Robinson Mr Robinson was a mortician employed by the Gawler Funeral home, and was part of the team that performed the embalming and cosmetic work on the President in the early morning of November 23, 1963 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He described a three inch circular ragged wound in the rear of the Presidents head. The morticians closed this hole with a piece of heavy duty rubber. His HSCA interview in 1977 by HSCA staffer Andy Purdy was never released until 1992 by the ARRB(marked MD63). Excerpts from that interview: Purdy: Could you tell me how large the opening had been? Robinson: I would say about the size of a small orange Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape? Robinson: Three(inches) Purdy: And the shape? Robinson: Circular Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or ragged? Robinson: Ragged Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located? Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up? Robinson: I would say pretty much between them. Purdy: Were you the one responsible for closing those wounds in the head? Robinson: We all worked on itThey brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head Purdy: You had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber? Robinson: It had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back overand stitched into that piece of rubber. James Sibert Sibert was an FBI agent from the Baltimore office assigned to stay with the Presidents body from Andrews AFB through the autopsy. His 1997 ARRB deposition is critical: Q: Could you give the best description of the wounds to the head? A: Well, there was a massive woundright back in this part of the head Q: Youre touching the cowlick area of the head? A: Yes Q: And the size would be? A: It was difficult to see, because the hair was so mattedit was so bloodsoakedit was difficult to see any distinct outline of where these bones had been literally blown out of the skull Q: At the time you observed those wounds, the photographs had already been taken? A: Yes Q: Were you able to tell whether any part of the scalp was actually missing? A: Well, there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn'tt intact, the bones weren'tt in place Q: So both scalp and bone were missing at the back part of the head? A: Well, there was tissue of course, but there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing The "MD" medical exhibits are available here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/contents.htm An interview with Spencer can be read in William Law's "In the Eye of History".

Mike, It comes from a very good source. This is an excerpt from a letter I received from Prouty who was replying to a letter from me. Both were subsequently placed on his website: "BURNHAM has introduced another interesting subject with his statement: ===>'The founder of SONY Corporation, Akio Morita, a man I highly respect, commented that following the defeat of Japan he made several trips to America... Upon return home he noted that "Cheap" things were labeled "Made in Japan" in stores in America. He went home determined to change that image. Hence, the SONY Corp, which has since evolved from its humble beginnings as a manufacturer of stereos and T.V. to be recognized a leader in that industry.'<== (That's not quite an accurate copy of Burnham's words; but I'll stop here for another purpose.) It just happens that I was ordered to Tokyo during the early days of the Korean War period, and was assigned the job of "Military Manager of Tokyo International Airport" during the period of the U.S. military occupation of Japan. At that time it was the third busiest airport in the world, not only because of the Korean War activity; but because of just such business activity as Burnham describes on the part of Mr. Morita. Many other Japanese entrepreneurs were doing their best to revive from the losses and damage of WWII; but even more important was another enormous business phenomenon. I began to notice that day after day the few Japanese transport aircraft available, and countless large commercial aircraft from USA Charter Companies began to jam the parking ramp on Tokyo Airport. They were loaded with items from the States. US money and manufactured material was flooding the place. Have you ever really thought why Mr. Morita, a fine Japanese businessman, would name his company SONY? That is not a Japanese word, nor is it a Japanese acronym. The name SONY began to appear at the airport after the flood of post-war recovery money, and one of the meanings of those four letters is "STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK". That has always been SONY or SOCONY. (The Standard Oil Company of New York) THE ROCKEFELLERS had arrived to re-finance Japan. What this meant was that during those "MacArthur" days Rockefeller money was flooding Japan; and money such as that (Yes, I'm using the term MONEY) kind of "money" began the amazing job of rebuilding Japan. We should all note that these phenomena took place in what we called the Korean War and the Vietnam War eras. These conflicts carefully orchestrated and planned during the Cairo and Teheran Conference days in Nov/Dec 1944 had been ably designed to pour hundreds of billions of dollars/money into those activities. The Vietnam cost ran well over $500 billion... and this was not Maria Theresa "Dollars". Your good letter has caused me to go back through some of my dog-earred records to rediscover and to confirm much of what you have written. It is my belief today that this High cabal is going to increase around the world rather than to have itself modified. Thank you for your good letter, L. Fletcher Prouty" . ;)Greg thank you for the very interesting information, i am thinking a book in itself..perhaps...take care b

Mike, It comes from a very good source. This is an excerpt from a letter I received from Prouty who was replying to a letter from me. Both were subsequently placed on his website: "BURNHAM has introduced another interesting subject with his statement: ===>'The founder of SONY Corporation, Akio Morita, a man I highly respect, commented that following the defeat of Japan he made several trips to America... Upon return home he noted that "Cheap" things were labeled "Made in Japan" in stores in America. He went home determined to change that image. Hence, the SONY Corp, which has since evolved from its humble beginnings as a manufacturer of stereos and T.V. to be recognized a leader in that industry.'<== (That's not quite an accurate copy of Burnham's words; but I'll stop here for another purpose.) It just happens that I was ordered to Tokyo during the early days of the Korean War period, and was assigned the job of "Military Manager of Tokyo International Airport" during the period of the U.S. military occupation of Japan. At that time it was the third busiest airport in the world, not only because of the Korean War activity; but because of just such business activity as Burnham describes on the part of Mr. Morita. Many other Japanese entrepreneurs were doing their best to revive from the losses and damage of WWII; but even more important was another enormous business phenomenon. I began to notice that day after day the few Japanese transport aircraft available, and countless large commercial aircraft from USA Charter Companies began to jam the parking ramp on Tokyo Airport. They were loaded with items from the States. US money and manufactured material was flooding the place. Have you ever really thought why Mr. Morita, a fine Japanese businessman, would name his company SONY? That is not a Japanese word, nor is it a Japanese acronym. The name SONY began to appear at the airport after the flood of post-war recovery money, and one of the meanings of those four letters is "STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK". That has always been SONY or SOCONY. (The Standard Oil Company of New York) THE ROCKEFELLERS had arrived to re-finance Japan. What this meant was that during those "MacArthur" days Rockefeller money was flooding Japan; and money such as that (Yes, I'm using the term MONEY) kind of "money" began the amazing job of rebuilding Japan. We should all note that these phenomena took place in what we called the Korean War and the Vietnam War eras. These conflicts carefully orchestrated and planned during the Cairo and Teheran Conference days in Nov/Dec 1944 had been ably designed to pour hundreds of billions of dollars/money into those activities. The Vietnam cost ran well over $500 billion... and this was not Maria Theresa "Dollars". Your good letter has caused me to go back through some of my dog-earred records to rediscover and to confirm much of what you have written. It is my belief today that this High cabal is going to increase around the world rather than to have itself modified. Thank you for your good letter, L. Fletcher Prouty" . Thankyou Greg; fascinating information, a new book in itself, perhaps..?? best b

thanks david for showing the posters other than Jack, how rude and ignorant they really are, that leaves all with never a good impression of them....good lord has it gotten to the point here, where a question cannot be asked, without being rudely bombarded by some trying to pretend they are supposed know it alls.gentlemen...ha, you are crap... b

http://www.life.com/ the meaning of the Japanese word...GAMAN http://tinyurl.com/6bxwenm

Joe Kennedy was no angel but neither was he a bootlegger By Terry Prone Monday, March 14, 2011 ANY student of the Kennedy dynasty knows all about the father figure, Joe Kennedy, who shaped and warped the lives of his children through his determination to live vicariously through them and ensure that each should fulfill his ambitions. (this disappeared once already from the paper so am printing the article out... This was the man who became US Ambassador at the Court of St James and, while there, provided his masters with consistently rotten advice. That rotten advice was rooted in his incapacity to understand Hitler's regime, that incapacity influenced, up to a point, by some covert admiration for the Nazis. This was the man who subjected his emotionally troubled daughter to a lobotomy which institutionalised her for the rest of her life. This was the man who, while cosying up to the Catholic hierarchy, was at the same time flagrantly unfaithful to his marriage vows with (among others) film star Gloria Swanson. (His wife, according to some biographers, had the most cruel revenge when he was rendered speechless by a stroke in later life. That stroke allowed her to spend his money on constant travel and talk to him in ways he would never have tolerated when in the whole of his health.) This, finally, was the man who built the legendary Kennedy wealth through rum-running during Prohibition. Bootlegging put him arm-in-arm with the Mafia which grew powerful as a result of Prohibition. No argument about those details, right? Wrong, according to a new history of Prohibition, written by former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent, who points out that in the ten years directly after the Repeal of Prohibition, the much mistrusted Joe Kennedy was proposed for three federal positions considered to be so important as to require Senate confirmation. The posts were Chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission, Chairman of the US Maritime Commission and Ambassador to Great Britain. All required him to undergo the detailed process of challenge which in recent years has sunk several aspirants to high office when it revealed that they had tax issues or had employed illegal aliens as nannies. Yet Joe Kennedy came through the same process without being nailed as a bootlegger. Now, let's be clear. Opponents didn't want Kennedy to get any of these three posts and they were legion and, as proven by history, correct, at least in relation to the position at the Court of St James. They had money and motivation. Yet the state records do not reveal anything which suggests Kennedy's accepted bootlegging past was put to him as an accusation. At all. Ever. Just as significant is the fact that the major national newspapers of the time, which were, of course, immeasurably more powerful than newspapers are today, never said a dickie bird about the bootlegging matter. Neither the Senate nor the media at the time were being positive towards Kennedy. They raised nasty issues about possible stock manipulation and other negatives. "But about involvement in the illegal liquor trade, there was nothing at all," Okrent points out. "With Prohibition fresh in the national mind, when a hint of illegal behaviour would have been dearly prized by the president's enemies or Kennedy's own, there wasn't even a whisper." Curious, that. Then some decades passed, and, in the 1950s, Kennedy came up for consideration for a federal post by President Eisenhower. The FBI were invited to comb through all aspects of his private, public and commercial life. Not all of what the FBI found was positive towards Kennedy, but not even the most motivated detractors told FBI officers about him having built his business empire on rum-running during the years of Prohibition. Curiouser and Curiouser. The first mention on record comes ten years later, when a journalist, writing about John F. Kennedy's candidacy, said that in those parts of the country which were still anti-alcohol, opponents of JFK had taken to referring to his father as "a rich bootlegger." The older Kennedy clearly didn't challenge the reference, and it can be inferred that the reason was fear of giving it wider currency than it already had. Kennedy was as far as possible kept out of the limelight during the Presidential election campaign, because he was generally regarded as a floridly bad egg with the potential to wreck his son's candidacy. "A quiet period followed," according to Okrent, "and then the inference started showing up again after the 1964 publication of the Warren Commission report. Supporters of the theory that John F. Kennedy was murdered by the Mafia suggested that the assassination had something to do with the aged resentments of mobster Sam Giancana." After that, all bets were off. Self-confessed Mafia mobsters came out of the woodwork, claiming to have supplied Kennedy with liquor or bought it from him. Or, if they hadn't any direct connection, they got themselves headlines, mostly when publicising autobiographical books, by saying that they had known of some other mobster who had supplied or been supplied by Kennedy. By the 1990s, the allegations had become fact and popped up in every feature or book about the Kennedys. They popped up in odder places, too. When Kennedy's grandson was about to be tried for rape, several jurors disqualified themselves by confidently stating that the Kennedy money was earned by law-breaking during Prohibition. Their confidence was based on the spontaneous growth of unevidenced assertions around Joe Kennedy's past. The fact that the assertions grew like mint or ivy was partly due to the general view of him as a bad man, and it is understandable that members of the general public, hearing recurring references to Kennedy's bootlegging over a period of time, would believe them to be true and pass them on as fact. It is less understandable and completely unacceptable that journalists would, when encountering what one of them called "the remarkable lack of documentation in government files" of Kennedy's rum-running, would not ask themselves the legitimate question "Is it possible that the absence of documentation indicates that Kennedy wasn't a bootlegger?" None of the journalists asked that question. Instead, they took second and third-hand accounts from people whose word was dodgy at the best of times. One of them developed a particularly sophisticated way to get around the problem. "The sheer magnitude of the recollections," he wrote, "is more important than the veracity of the individual stories." Well, no, it isn't. What this and other journalists revealed was that each of them was suffering from "theory-induced blindness." Theory-induced blindness is what happens when any of us buys into a belief about the way the world works with so much enthusiasm we stop observing how it actually works. Does it matter that a man long dead has been irrevocably traduced, when he was no angel in any other area of his life? Yes, it does. Any time journalists, paid or unpaid, set out to prove their own prejudices rather than find the truth, it damages all of us. This appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, March 14, 2011 var dc_AdLinkColor = 'blue'; var dc_PublisherID = 169098;&gt

Joe Kennedy No Angel, but no bootlegger either... Joe Kennedy was no angel but neither was he a bootlegger | Irish Examiner http://www.examiner....ger-148064.html This short article points out imo, just one of a zillion, unevidenced assertions that go forth unchecked within the information of the Kennedys and the assassination, repeated until, they are taken as fact but that still does not prove that they are the truth.....b

http://www.digitalspy.com/ustv/news/a308754/advertisers-shun-the-kennedys.html Advertisers shun the series..

hi walt, i sent you the info as well as others some weeks ago, on the forum beung archived, perhaps it went astray, and thankyou to the ef, for allowing this thread, for good memories, and all, now the gif i am posting, if it works, sometimes they do not here, is a joke, please take it that way administration and all, rich posted it quite a few times, he stated it was his favourite gif, but we never knew why.........LLH, LOL...B PS if the gif does not enable, perhaps someone will do so, with thanks...take care all.best b.. it is working when clicked, thanks...

How could LHO mail a m/o for a kleins rifle on march 12/63.. at a corner box see http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/chrono.htm in Dallas and it be deposited the very next day in Chicago on MARCH 13/63...?