David G. Healy

Truman Capote was not Jackie Kennedy's dear friend. He favored her sister, Lee. When asked about the Gore-Vidal- Truman Capote lawsuit, Lee said, "Oh, everyone knows they're both fags." This hurt Capote very much. After all the years of trying to help her get an acting career. Truman went on Stanley Siegel's NY show and read something sarcastic he wrote about Lee: "Ah, the Princess..." And when all the socialites turned against him due to "Answered Prayers," which he wrote about them, they dropped him cold. At someone's party afterward, Truman saw Jackie Kennedy Onassis there and said in a loud voice, "Why didn't you tell me that tramp was going to be here? I wouldn't have come." No, he did not like those 2 sisters. He also said about Jackie in People Magazine, "She has contempt for everything under the sun." As for Roy Cohn, who believes anything from that fake? The man claimed to be heterosexual, but wasn't. He went after homosexuals legally. The man lived a lie. His jealousy of Robert Kennedy was well known. Kathy C thank you Kathy -- appears Mr. Morrow can't get much *straight* these days, can he? ! ! ! ! So cheer up Bobby Morrow, it's tough finding this ISN'T a supermarket checkout line with tabloids every which way you turn, eh? Appears no one is buying what your peddling...

Here is another take on Heyman and his book. http://www.ctka.net/reviews/heymann.html Thanks for referencing that, Bill. Lisa Pease's methodology for fact-checking an author's footnotes should be fundamental. Too often, it's not. For someone that brags about skimming books and interprets so many unsupported assertions as facts, her advice is unlikely to be heeded. For the "Kennedy groupies" it literally does not matter how many MOUNTAINS of documented and sourced evidence there is on 1) JFK's sex addiction or 2) Robert Kennedy's and Jackie Kennedy's affair. And both of these things are facts and extremely well supported. Because these people have lost their ability to think objectively about the Kennedys; they approach history as if they were school girls cheering for the Beatles in the 1960's. Now calm yourself, son.... most here aren't "Kennedy groupies", those that are, LURK. Having said that, there does seem a predisposition of others here to fall into that LBJ did it trap-camp... and when THEY (as you're feeling at the moment) get knocked downcause you can't provide evidence and/or case testimony, they simply seem to revert to unsupported, simpleminded, non-sensical rumor and innuendo concerning JFK's sexual life, as if its any business of there's (unless your a voayer of course)... Your going to have to do better than this, youngster.... ya know, when cdddraftsman on alt.conspiracy.jfk finally knocked off his obsession with JFK's sex life (after 5 years of nonstop postings) he came to find out, he didn't have a damn thing to say -- the xxxxx went from 600 posts a month to 10-20 and none of those are responded to...

not to put too fine a line on it: and perhaps the decedent never was in a airline seat. Point is, shock imagery (such as in this thread), whether in or out of a court setting holds little sway with American populace. We're desensitized... Remember, all those 60's political assassinations, not to mention the fact--at the supper hour we dined regularly with the CBS News Hour and Uncle Walter Cronkite discussing the latest Vietnam body count (nightly) -- complete with combat footage, casualties included... so... You'd get more mileage out of those shock photos if you could find an FAA crash investigator citing him: "Yep, based on my experience, and where it (the body) was located, appears that of a plane passenger (or building occupant, etc.)..."

This is yet another example of your uncommonly rich attraction to employing CIRCULARITY when arguing your point. Your assertion is: "This is a great book." My challenge is: "Provide proof that its content is factual." Your reply is: "I (Robert) have proof of the allegations made in this book--and the proof IS CONTAINED IN THE BOOK!." Fallacious idiocy at its finest... It's not circular at all. I READ the book which, of course, YOU have not. Then you say it's not proven because you have not read the book. You are being circular. I READ the book and there were several examples of people walking in on Robert Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy while they were kissing, or sitting in each other's laps, or canoodling, or Robert Kennedy staying in her hotel room on trips (not his) or RFK and Jackie going downstairs on a boat and coming back 10 minutes later looking all relaxed and happy in a post-sex glow... not to mention what folks like George Smathers, Truman Capote, Ken O'Donnell, Mary Harrington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. - all super close friends of the Kennedys - and all confirming an affair between Robert and Jackie. Or the comments of the doormen Sam Murphy who saw Robert Kennedy often coming and staying overnight. Or what Kenneth McKnight who walked into RFK's offices in July, 1966 and saw Jackie Kennedy "straddling his lap, her arms around his neck." [bobby and Jackie, p. 121] The book is filled with anecdotes like that confirm to the 99% level that RFK and Jackie were having a love/sex affair. One of Jackie's dear, dear friends was Truman Capote: "When Madame Queen Jackie heard about her sister's thespian plans ... she flew into a rage. Didn't Lee realize, she said, that they were merely using her? Didn't she understand how embarassing all this would be? Never mind that Madame Queen [Jackie Kennedy] was sleeping with her very married brother-in-law and concomitantly with none other than Aristotle Onassis, and that both were paying big money for her services. That did not count. All that mattered at the moment was that her younger sister was about to make her theatrical debut. Jackie couldn't take it." [bobby and Jackie, pp. 131-132] When one reads this fine book and sees page after page after page of similar anecdotes and quotes from close friends of the Kennedys, it becomes obvious that Robert Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy were having a steaming hot affair and especially Jackie was heads over heels in love with Robert. As for Truman Capote in the quote above, Jackie's very close friend is effectively calling Jackie a slut, a homebreaker and a high end prostitute sleeping with family. And that is from one of Jackie's best FRIENDS. You ought to read what Roy Cohn has to say about RFK! Greg, maybe you ought realize that humans have feet of clay and certainly the Kennedys did and think about what the implications of their weaknesses were. And don't treat them like they are infallible comic book heroes. Also, you might want to actually READ the book: http://www.amazon.com/Bobby-Jackie-C-David-Heymann/dp/141655629X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295733907&sr=1-1 spoken like a true Kennedy ala *Camelot* hater..... you could at least be a little less transparent, clyde... sure you're not cdddraftsman, Mel Ayton's wonder boy? LMAO! ! ! You sure sound like'em.... Say, do you flood AMAZON with this same trash?

P200048 Photograph of a body found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building [emphasis mine] Pentagon employee, of plane passenger Evan?

you need a girlfriend dude! Carry on!

It's ok, Pat ... David also doesn't know what he means. And please do not give him a list to do for he needs to stay focused on getting that request made to have an expert of his choice to examine the Zfilm at the NARA so to put an end one way or another to the alteration debate. Wish all the years we have been waiting for him to get it together that I am sure he is almost finished, but a list afterward might be nice. Oh Willie, when you need a boost you always show up on my doorstep to whine about old-ish being the only person you defenders of the 11-22-63 Dealey Plaza film photo record have to convince the Zapruder Film (currently stored at NARA) is in fact, the ORIGINAL. All this hesitation on your part to clear up this simple matter is beyond pale.... and it's so simple to do -- Surely, it makes not only me to wonder why you need this protracted controversy... What's up Wild Bill? The simple fact remains, for ten years you haven't convinced anyone that your photo analysis trumps anyone elses! Especially those of us that make/made a living working with composite film-photo-video imagery.... Zapruder film authenticity-legitimacy is under sever challenge, books have been written on this very subject (is that the list you're talking about?). Having Bob Groden tell YOU anything different makes one question: why YOU, toots. Carry on!

Nolte just sold an additional 150 DVD copies of JFK (the film)... the more he whines about WCR conclusions, the number of those that believe in conspiracy increases. (of course that's already over 70% of thinking americans) We're counting on you Nolte-moron, do the next best thing.....

Ya gotta understand Monk--- Pat Speer got speared by David Lifton many moons ago, he hasn't recovered... Frankly, I find his moderator status here a JOKE... (and the humor continues) I beg your pardon? It says NOTHING about either of you! I thought that this discussion/argument was about ideas, concepts, and conclusions -- and I'd expect that you, as a moderator, should know that it is NOT about "the persons" involved in the debate-- IMHO. Wow. Now that says a lot about... -- never mind, I don't want to be a hypocrite considering my above statement. However, sometimes the truth isn't found in the most popular or simplistic argument. The truth exists irrespective of the perceived obscurity of the argument which identifies its location. The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball. That is inappropriate ad hominem especially for a moderator. Wow.

How about we start with the first amendment Len, that one is under fire since Tocson, well even before Tucson. Can you cite any examples of how you think the 1st amendment has been "under fire" since and even before Tucson? Do you read or watch the news Len? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine"? Have you heard the calls to limit the voices of the conservative media? If not, you need to get up to speed if you want to play.... ya mean "Hannitized" is the best answer conservatives have to the call limiting the violent, idiotic voices of conservative gloom and doom talk show media? Get over it, son! The GOPers can't get out of their own way... and to think, the Tea-Crumpet crowd haven't warmed their rhetoric up, YET! What a farce the "GOP" movement is.... no vision, no answers, no media = simply NO, your legacy! ! ! ! (more messes for the liberals to clean up later -- same old story) So, John Boehner "temporary" Speaker Of The House, is he the sacrificial cow (of the moment) in the pursuit of GOP obstructionism? Repeal the health care bill? Who do you think you're kidding, never happen -- the last thing GOPers want, or need, is the insurance industry tearing at your bums... now THAT would be a pretty picture... fairness doctrine? LMAO!

You're sounding suspiciously like an alt.conspiracy.jfk mega xxxxx, cdddraftsman (whom is obsessed with jfk's sex life). He can't bait CT's on that (non-moderated) board-forum either... So, perhaps you shpould file a lawsuit, maybe you can get traction in that venue! You're from Texas, why NOT? Perhaps picketing in front of the 6th floor museum will aid your cause....

I actually checked this out with an officer in Special Forces, who, in turn, checked it out with a sniper unit. And we're wrong. The best shot is not with the car coming toward the shooter. The best shot is one in which the target is moving the least relative to the sniper, and which affords the sniper a chance to escape. In this case, it would be from the upper floors of the Dal-Tex, firing straight down Elm as the limo headed toward the overpass. The sixth floor window was almost as good. So it depends on the objective of the shooter. If the sole goal was to kill Kennedy, then shooting straight down at him as he turned onto Elm was the right shot. If the goal was shooting him and getting away, however, then the shooter or shooter took the right shots. wrong? B.S. Frankly, Carlos Hathcock observations (a man who sniped-shot and killed nearly 100 with a rifle, and escaped EVERYTIME) are a bit more germane than that of a SOF officer whom had to check it out with a sniper unit... (and Hathcock had much to say) On further study, I'd be surprised if you DIDN'T find that those whom attempt (and lived) to shoot and kill a head-of-state, they fully expect to die during the process.

Giffords is Jewish and was married in a synagogue by a Rabbi thought I think her husband is or was Christian (last name Kelly),made that what you saw. However acording to someone who claims to he a close friend of Loughner said his "mom is Jewish" and you must have missed the anti-Semites are all over it. Supposedly he admired American Renaissance, an anti-Semitic group but he listed both Das Kapital and Mein Kampf as among his favorite books. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1 http://www.google.com/search?hl=pt-BR&q=jared+lee+Loughner+jewish&btnG=Pesquisar&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/09/dhs-memo-suggests-shooter-may-be-linked-racist-organization NOTE TO TOM - You're a moderator so why are did make a totally irrelevant off topic post on this thread in violation of the rules you are supposed to enforced? interesting... just yesterday (01-10-2011), Mark POTOK of the Southern Poverty Law Center (whose spent years investigating right-wing fringe groups and familiar with American Renaissance) clearly stated: he could find no relationship between this guy and the American Renaissance, an anti-Semitic group..... link below http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

spoken like the true .john (aka AAJ) believer.... I've been listening to that nonsense there for the past 17 years.... why am I not surprised its here... and GaryL. the whine has elevated to fever pitch these day's, perhaps its time for you to write a book...got it in ya?

well, at least they haven't shut a thread down as you've been known to do when it strikes your fancy..... and frankly, Mr. Morrow and his incessant LBJ opines are muchado about nothing... this board seems to be the only place he's gets positive attention...

Barb Junkkarinen has said yes but Bernice Moore and Bill Kelly have said no. I was wondering how long it was going to take John McAdams to get here..... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !

David, You have been going on for years saying that the NARA needs to turn the film over to (you, I supposed) so it can be examined so this matter can be put to rest. Paul on the other hand is saying something different than you do ... Paul says it doesn't matter if the film is the original or not if one cannot show a chain of possession. I am sure from your past postings defending the need to examine the said camera original that you see as I do that Paul is making up irrelevant excuses that he feels will cover his lack of interest in doing any research or investigations that would either confirm or deny his allegations. I know, like you must know, that the assassination only happened once on 11/22/63 and even if Zapruder had left his camera on the pedestal and an unknown drunken bum had picked it up and turned it in to the cops that the film can still be examined to know if its the camera original or not. And for Paul ... the above comes to light when you fly by the seat of your pants and just make excuses for your lack of action. So again - why the lack of action on you peoples part? You spend years posting day after day the same complaints when you could use a small fraction of that time doing something about getting the answers that you claim to seek ... why is that?? Could it be that you aren't really interested in finding out that you were wrong .... that possibly you'd have to find something else to do with your time??? This isn't about whether the film is legit or not ... its about you people doing absolutely nothing to find out the truth that you claim to seek. Even a letter to the NARA would show that you were serious enough to at least of done something, but you have nothing but excuses to offer .... what a shock!!! I look forward to another response that I can take refuge with. Bill Miller as EVER, what YOU suppose, is simply irrelevant there Bill.... Off the top, and in my humble estimation, researcher Paul Rigby has no peer on this or any other internet JFK assassination related board and/or forum, PERIOD! The case evidence lynch pin concerning the murder of JFK relied on the in-camera Zapruder film. It is imperative that the 6th Floor Museum demand forensic testing of same, NOW. Or, forever hold your peace! You, have no legitimacy concerning this subject matter... Now half the word merchants around here can tell you, in a court of law if you can't provide chain of evidence documentation regarding a piece of case evidence, it doesn't exist, PERIOD. The rest is spin! Regarding Rollie's report, comments and dancing while defending same, its waste of time -- therefore irrelvant. To quote one quite familiar with the Zapruder film, years ago: "the Zapruder film will never, EVER end up in a court of law..." What amazes me here is simple, Bill: although quite a few alleged, CTer's on this board, whom wholeheartedly agree that a conspiracy killed JFK, some of those same CTers are also terrified Dealey Plaza history (as we know it, according to the WCR) was botched! Kinda strange, eh? Now this is the problem CTer's have regarding the Zapruder Film, it's controlled by the 6th Floor, simple as that, if YOU doubt that read the conditions the 6th Floor has to adhere to regarding the film. And please, don't be shy, tell us what is in the agreement! Perhaps Ray here can run a little *legal-beagle* interference for ya, eh? So here's my final words on Zapruder film alteration: the legitimacy of the film is challenged, seriously challenged! Its up to YOU, the 6th floor museum, and any other preserver of Dealey Plaza History to make that challenge right! PROVE to us the in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA is indeed the original allegedly shot by Abraham Zapruder. Now, you've got absolutely NO incentive to do that, as these recent, less than stellar posting of yours indicate... so to me (and others) its a moot subject (and has been for a few years now - unless you need to score some newbies new to the case debate points -- knock yourself out), you're a waste of time Bill, nearly 10 years and you still sound the same. Uninformed! edit: In closing, regarding Paul Rigby and research? You Bill, have a long, LONG way to go in order to catch Paul Rigby, not to mention match his research abilities... toodle-loo chum!

let's just say hon, I heard it another way.... another way, making much more sense than that drivel.....

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English. Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't. Paul oh---- O-U-C-H

No, you have opinions which are not supported by the facts, and every time people who are familiar with those facts ask you to debate them, you refuse to do so, claiming various reasons. oh? "refuse to do so"... well then, close this thread down, as you're wont to do when you can't get your way..... otherwise, do a little research on your own for a change....better yet, regarding the JFK assassination, read HOAX; Murder in Dealey Plaza, etc... in short, get familiar with the JFK assassination -- till then and only then, maybe, just maybe some one will debate the alleged "WCR case" facts with you!

why are you endlessly putting words in others mouth? That's really a bad habit of yours and one habit that renders your film-photo-pic "opinions" as senseless to those that have experience in the area -- no credibility chum!... And praytell, who might your rated experts (sic) be names please, AND when they examined the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film? Certainly not Roland Zavada who ducked out of the 2003 Univ.of Minn., Zaprduer Film Symposium... Roland missed a great opportunity to present his case, to set Z-film alteration types straight, but alas, he knew what questions he'd face, and with the knowledge the symposium was not a SMPTE convention type of crowd, in short Roland knew those there would not be eating out of his hand...

Thank goodness that Zapruder had enough foresight to have copies made of his film because that kept anyone from removing non-eventful limo turns from the original. How do we know this ... because Zapruder kept one copy and to this day that is a fact that alteration claim makers cannot get around. Bill simple, then deliver Zapruder's copy for forensic film testing... better yet, PROVE to us that film is a 1st generation copy -- and to this day that is a fact that non-alteration whiners cannot get around. tsk-tsk Oh, and how long did Zapruder keep a copy of the film? Gary, your boy is doing it again.....

More general phrases that are void of data and facts concerning alteration ... how does anyone put up with that? To date there has not been one Zapruder film alteration claim hold up - why? Groden, a CTs, claims to have examined the Zapruder film and found it to be the original, as did Zavada. Can anyone post a request that was made by an alterionist to the NARA requesting to have an expert examine the film on their behalf .... I am sure many of us would love to see it. Bill you're gonna have to do a lot better than that if you expect to dazzle all with your JFK assassination photo-film-pic brilliance. And, how would you verify a request was made to to NARA? The same way you verified Roland Zavada Report? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! You're still to easy William!

buy yourself a pint, Dunc.... you're off-base on this.... and frankly, anyone responding to those of the *don't-screw-with-my-version-of-Dealey-Plaza-history Zapruder film* film purist, regarding possible Z-film alteration issues, well, they're playing right into lone nut hands... Until you (and others) understand and KNOW what a optical film lab is, then stand in one, have know optical film matte (special effects) artists, and most importantly know how to PROVE what currently exists as: the "in-camera Zapruder film" (currently residing at NARA) as the actual film shot from the DP pedestal on Nov 1963... you're wasting bandwidth, as simple as that! I've heard every whine about why it CAN'T be altered and not one, ONE factual, tangible piece of evidence citing the film to be un-altered... all opinion, Dunc -- and opinion is NOT fact! Of course, you are welcome to your own opinions -- but do us a favor, declare your comments as your own opinion(s)... Thanks, David Healy

humor old Len, he thinks he's Redd Foxx....