New: Speaking of DP Eyewitnesses

[Jack White]

(snip)

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens

looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first

shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT

AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED

BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time

of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at

the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos

which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he

make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?

How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses

to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness

statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6.

My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier.

If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point.

If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're

throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.

Why limit the authenticity of photos ONLY to those BEFORE the Altgens

SIX photo? Altgens himself said he did not take Altgens FIVE and EIGHT.

FIVE is on Houston Street. EIGHT is after the event is over. So you are

willing to talk about FIVE, but not EIGHT. Based on Cheney's statement,

ALTGENS SEVEN CANNOT BE GENUINE EITHER, since it does not show

Cheney ahead of the limo, as he testified. CHENEY SAID HE SPEEDED

UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FIRST SHOT (Altgens SIX). Please argue

with Cheney, not me.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

(snip)

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens

looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first

shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT

AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED

BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time

of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at

the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos

which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he

make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?

How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses

to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness

statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6.

My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier.

If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point.

If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're

throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.

Why limit the authenticity of photos ONLY to those BEFORE the Altgens

SIX photo?

Because that is the crucial sequence which shows:

1) The drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. and the continued drop

on Elm St. Couple this readily observable phenomenon with the

location of the holes in the clothes and any further discussion of the

"Lone Assassin Theory" is moot.

The holes in the clothes and the Dealey Plaza photo evidence corroborate

the T3 back wound recorded in the death certificate.

We can dispense with discussion about the NAA and other black hole

"debates" about the "question of conspiracy."

2) It shows JFK reacting to a shot to the throat from the front and

becoming paralyzed in less than 3 seconds. This event finds much

corroboration in the witness testimony.

Altgens himself said he did not take Altgens FIVE and EIGHT.

I thought Altgens said he did not remember taking #5. Not the same

as a flat-out denial, eh?

The Houston St. segment of the Nix film appears to agree with Altgens #5 -- I

have no reason to suspect its authenticity.

FIVE is on Houston Street. EIGHT is after the event is over. So you are

willing to talk about FIVE, but not EIGHT.

Correct. Utter waste of time in my opinion.

Based on Cheney's statement, ALTGENS SEVEN CANNOT BE GENUINE

EITHER, since it does not show Cheney ahead of the limo, as he testified.

CHENEY SAID HE SPEEDED UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FIRST SHOT

(Altgens SIX). Please argue with Cheney, not me.

Jack

Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of

Altgens #6, my argument potentially remains with you and other

alterationists, but I'm still waiting for the argument that the photos

I cited are not authentic.

[Cliff Varnell]

my argument potentially remains with you and other alterationists,

Clarification: the Fox 5 autopsy photo has been proven to be faked, just

as the HSCA suspected.

I resist being put into any one "camp" in the alteration debates, most

of which I've managed to avoid.

[John Costella]

Cliff,

I share Jack's frustration that you would want to restrict your attention to the photographic evidence prior to the shots. It's almost like focussing your attention on the Main Street part of the motorcade, or Love Field. I doubt that those have any alterations.

However, that is your choice, and it is an interesting one.

I agree with you that there is far less direct proof (perhaps no direct proof to this point in time) for alteration prior to the shots. (Jack may disagree, in terms of the discrepancies in bystanders on Houston and on Elm that he has documented; I have not spent the time to check his analyses on that.) (I'm also excluding the evidence of the Z film as a whole being faked, such as the incorrect Stemmons sign; the frames in question occur before Z255, but I don't think you're talking about the fixtures in Dealey Plaza, but rather actions before a particular point in time.)

There is much in Z that is circumstantial, such as the non-reactiveness of the bystanders on the north side of Elm; the two bystanders on the south side of Elm (including the man that flops his arms down) that keep looking up to the corner and ignore the presidential limousine completely; and so on.

It's an interesting point. To tell you the truth, there has not been nearly as much work done on the time prior to the shots as during the shots. Which makes sense, when you only have a finite amount of time available ... but it does show that more might need to be done.

John

[Paul Rigby]

Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of Altgens #6...

Cliff,

Me old Harriman sparring partner, might be worth checking the Houston Chronicle interview with Chaney published in the paper's edition of 24 November 1963. According to Mark Lane's testimony to the WC, citing that interview, Chaney said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour…when the first shot was fired” (2H43).

Anyone got a copy of that Chronicle interview to confirm or refute Lane's version?

And is Chaney really behind the presidential limo at the moment of Altgens #5? Looks very like he's alongside it to me, looking to his left!

He died, incidentally, reportedly of a heart attack, in 1976.

Paul

[Cliff Varnell]

John,

I think we're both convinced that our respective approaches are the

most effective way to attack the cover-up of John F. Kennedy's murder.

The vast differences (and perhaps even conflicts) in our methodologies

do not deter from our common goal.

Cliff,

I share Jack's frustration that you would want to restrict your attention to the photographic evidence prior to the shots.

Prior to the throat shot and 3.4 seconds after.

From the Adolphus Hotel on Main St. to Altgens #6.

After Z255 -- have at it, my friends, and may the Goddess bless.

It's almost like focussing your attention on the Main Street part of the motorcade,

That's the start -- just west of the Adolphus.

or Love Field. I doubt that those have any alterations.

Music to my ears, John.

However, that is your choice, and it is an interesting one.

Everything we need to know about "how" JFK was murdered can be

found in that sequence. Main St. to the kill zone.

The "how" strongly indicates the "who," from whom we can readily deduce

the "why."

I agree with you that there is far less direct proof (perhaps no direct proof to this point in time) for alteration prior to the shots. (Jack may disagree, in terms of the discrepancies in bystanders on Houston and on Elm that he has documented; I have not spent the time to check his analyses on that.) (I'm also excluding the evidence of the Z film as a whole being faked, such as the incorrect Stemmons sign; the frames in question occur before Z255, but I don't think you're talking about the fixtures in Dealey Plaza, but rather actions before a particular point in time.)

Correct. JFK's actions in the limo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Z225-237.

Nellie was right there and described the hand motions at the throat.

There is much in Z that is circumstantial, such as the non-reactiveness of the bystanders on the north side of Elm; the two bystanders on the south side of Elm (including the man that flops his arms down) that keep looking up to the corner and ignore the presidential limousine completely; and so on.

It's an interesting point. To tell you the truth, there has not been nearly as much work done on the time prior to the shots as during the shots. Which makes sense, when you only have a finite amount of time available ... but it does show that more might need to be done.

John

With all due respect -- do you have to?

I'm a big fan of Dealey Plaza witness testimony, John. This is a great work you

have produced.

I'm also a big fan of the photo evidence I have cited, as well as contemporaneous

documents at Parkland and Bethesda, and near-contemporaneous documents such

as the death certificate and the FBI autopsy report (but NOT the final autopsy report,

which was a political document!)

One of the great myths of the JFK assassination is that there was absolutely

NO legitimate official investigation into the crime on 11/22/63.

This is not true.

"Somewhere between 11pm and midnight," the autopsists huddled and

speculated that JFK was struck in the back with a round that dissolved

in his body. The FBI men took this speculation seriously enough that one

of them called the firearms unit at the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence

of blood soluble rounds -- the Magic Bullet was presented, instead. Because

the FBI guy gave it a corny name -- "ice bullet" -- this scenario is roundly

pooh-poohed.

That's a mistake.

The historical record shows the CIA with such a weapon in '63, the Dealey Plaza

films and photos show JFK turning paralyzed within 3 seconds -- all according to the

CIA playbook -- and the throat x-ray shows an "air pocket" at the very back of the

neck but no exit. Nellie described the motions at the throat and Jackie described

a "quizzical look" and asked: "What are they doing to you?"

They were paralyzing him for the head shot -- obvious to me.

I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of Altgens #6...

Cliff,

Me old Harriman sparring partner, might be worth checking the Houston Chronicle interview with Chaney published in the paper's edition of 24 November 1963. According to Mark Lane's testimony to the WC, citing that interview, Chaney said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour…when the first shot was fired” (2H43).

Anyone got a copy of that Chronicle interview to confirm or refute Lane's version?

And is Chaney really behind the presidential limo at the moment of Altgens #5? Looks very like he's alongside it to me, looking to his left!

He died, incidentally, reportedly of a heart attack, in 1976.

Paul

Paul, I hold out the possibility that the first shot Chaney heard was not necessarily

the first shot fired or the first shot to hit JFK.

I see nothing in Altgens #6 (Elm St) in conflict with Chaney's testimony, no matter

how we may characterize his location.

[Jack White]

Cliff, you are not paying attention.

I said in Altgens 6, Cheney is in the expected location; I am not disputing that.

In his testimony, he said that immediately after Altgens 6, he accelerated and passed

the limo, and LOOKED BACK and saw the head shot. This is contrary to

Zapruder and Nix. WHY DO YOU DISBELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY? Why do you say

that it is unimportant?

Jack

Edited December 11, 2007 by Jack White

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, you are not paying attention.

I said in Altgens 6, Cheney is in the expected location; I am not disputing that.

Great! Then we appear to have little conflict. I have yet to see any argument

that the films and photos I cited are anything but authentic.

I wish you the best in your research, Jack.

In his testimony, he said that immediately after Altgens 6, he accelerated and passed

the limo, and LOOKED BACK and saw the head shot. This is contrary to

Zapruder and Nix. WHY DO YOU DISBELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY?

Why do you ascribe to me a belief I have never, ever stated?

I have not disputed any part of ANYONE's testimony, and as an avid

defender of the witness testimony and the witnesses, I urge you to

cease characterizing my arguments as such.

Why do you say

that it is unimportant?

Jack

I think 95% of what is said and written about the case is utter bollocks.

And that includes 9 years of my own work on the usenet groups.

This is not meant to be taken personally, Jack.

[Jack White]

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?

(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?

(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

You assume correctly.

Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with

Jim Marrs back in 2002.

I wrote (emphasis added):

Hey Jim,

I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:

(Jim Marrs, quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder

blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission

smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't

be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because

hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.

Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is

that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin

theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the

government....period.

(quote off)

That sums it up to a T.

Much regard,

Cliff Varnell

Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added):

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,

the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window

dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has

the staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what

changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty.

The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively,

irrefutably.

We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line

of historical fact.

Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion,

fwiw...

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, I hold out the possibility that the first shot Chaney heard was not necessarily

the first shot fired or the first shot to hit JFK.

Perfectly conceivable, agreed.

I see nothing in Altgens #6 (Elm St) in conflict with Chaney's testimony, no matter

how we may characterize his location.

1) I don't know the full extent of Chaney's testimony, which is why I asked if some better informed soul could reproduce, for all of our benefits, his interview in the Houston Chronicle. It is amazing - to me, at least - that the full texts of Chaney's various radio, TV, and newspaper interviews are not readily available. It is an omission that needs rectifying.

2) That's uncharacteristically lawerly of you: Does Altens #5 concur with Z255? If Chaney is where he appears to be in the former, Z255 is a blatant fake, as are the frames prior to it, which should capture Chaney's movement to the position captured in that frame/Altgens #5.

And if the Altgens photo is genuine, and Chaney's position is alongside the limo, we now have a very good explanation - the best - for the otherwise inexplicable: why the WC failed to call him as a witness. In other words, he had to be omitted to protect the second version of the Z film.

Paul

[Jack White]

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?

(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

You assume correctly.

Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with

Jim Marrs back in 2002.

I wrote (emphasis added):

Hey Jim,

I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:

(Jim Marrs, quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder

blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission

smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't

be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because

hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.

Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is

that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin

theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the

government....period.

(quote off)

That sums it up to a T.

Much regard,

Cliff Varnell

Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added):

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,

the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window

dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has

the staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what

changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty.

The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively,

irrefutably.

We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line

of historical fact.

Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion,

fwiw...

I have known Jim Marrs for more than thirty-five years, and talk to him

frequently. His email to you was a polite "Texas brush-off"...essentially

agreeing with you THAT ONLY ONE PROOF IS NEEDED to prove the

conspiracy. The single bullet theory is a good one to choose; if you

can prove it, nothing else is necessary. Jim agrees with you on that.

But he does NOT believe that in studying the case. He has studied

EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE since it happened. HE WILL NOT AGREE

WITH YOU THAT HE COULD HAVE STOPPED WITH THE SINGLE BULLET

THEORY. You present one email from Jim. I present knowing him

nearly forty years.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?

(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

You assume correctly.

Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with

Jim Marrs back in 2002.

I wrote (emphasis added):

Hey Jim,

I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:

(Jim Marrs, quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder

blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission

smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't

be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because

hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.

Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is

that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin

theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the

government....period.

(quote off)

That sums it up to a T.

Much regard,

Cliff Varnell

Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added):

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,

the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window

dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has

the staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what

changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty.

The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively,

irrefutably.

We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line

of historical fact.

Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion,

fwiw...

I have known Jim Marrs for more than thirty-five years, and talk to him

frequently. His email to you was a polite "Texas brush-off"...essentially

agreeing with you THAT ONLY ONE PROOF IS NEEDED to prove the

conspiracy. The single bullet theory is a good one to choose; if you

can prove it, nothing else is necessary. Jim agrees with you on that.

But he does NOT believe that in studying the case. He has studied

EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE since it happened. HE WILL NOT AGREE

WITH YOU THAT HE COULD HAVE STOPPED WITH THE SINGLE BULLET

THEORY. You present one email from Jim. I present knowing him

nearly forty years.

Jack

Jack, I had taken a similar view as Jim Marrs' on the clothing evidence

at the beginning of my internet research back in 1997.

That was the starting point. It has nothing to do with "stopping

research in the case." It has everything to do with investing one's

time in areas more fruitful than others.

I find the NAA controversy a pernicious waste of time.

The acoustics evidence is a national joke, since the T3 back wound

establishes 4+ shots.

The controversy over the head wounds is probably the biggest black

hole discussion in the entire case.

Jim Garrison set the JFK investigation back several years.

And this is just to name the major areas I regard as a waste of time.

Alteration post-Z255 is a rabbit hole I choose not to go down.

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

My assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

I respectfully differ. If each picture is worth a thousand words, I posted references to pictures worth about ten thousand words which destroyed that shibboleth.

TIM -

THEY DID CHECK FOR OPEN WINDOWS IN FORT WORTH AND FOUND SOME KIDS WITH A RIFLE -

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prolo...last-day-2.html

"....Howard says that every floor and window in a tall building facing the parking lot where the President was to speak on Friday morning was thoroughly checked. Occupants were asked to keep their windows closed on November 21 - 22, but on Thursday afternoon a policeman spotted an open window on an upper floor. Howard says that two teenage boys in a law office were using a scope to get a closer look at preparations in the parking lot. The problem was that the scope was mounted on a hunting rifle belonging to the father of one of the boys, an attorney in the office. The rifle, taken from an office gun case, was not loaded. It was determined that innocent curiosity had compelled the boys to take a magnified look at the parking lot activity through the scope. The father was notified and the weaponry in the office safely locked up...."

SO THEY DID CHECK THE OPEN WINDOWS IN FORT WORTH, BUT NOT IN DALLAS.

IF CHECKING OPEN WINDOWS ON THE MOTORCADE ROUTE IN DALLAS WAS NOT ON THE LIST OF SECURITY ITEMS TO DO, THEN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASSASSINATION MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT.

IF CHECKING FOR OPEN WINDOWS ON A MOTORCADE ROUTE WAS NOT PART OF THE ROUTINE THEN, I'M SURE IT IS NOW, BECAUSE THAT LAPSE IN SECURITY WAS NECESARY FOR JFK TO BE KILLED IN DALLAS.

AND AS MY ASSERTIONS THAT WINDOWS ARE NORMALLY SECURED - WAS NOT WRONG - MY ASSERTION THAT JFK SPOKE WITH IAN FLEMING ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO WAS EQUALLY NOT WRONG.

BK is as wrong in asserting that windows were normally secured on presidential motorcades as he was in asserting that JFK spoke to Ian Fleming. JFK did not.

WHILE MY SOURCE IS JOHN PEARSON'S THE LIFE OF IAN FLEMING, THIS LINK CERTAINLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/jfk007.htm

Relationship Between John F. Kennedy and James Bond 007

by Ron Kurtus (revised 15 September 2001)

The James Bond 007 series of books written by British author Ian Fleming were mildly successful in the late 1950s and early 1960s. After Fleming met President John F. Kennedy, the books became extremely popular in the United States, resulting in a series of 007 movies.

Ian Fleming served in British Intelligence during World War II. From this experience, he learned the workings of the system of spying and the secret service. He started writing his series of James Bond books around 1951 and wrote a book every year or two until completing 13 books.

Fleming and Kennedy Meet

Fleming was somewhat dashing and had many friends within British government. Thus, he was invited to a party in Washington D.C. held by newly elected American President John F. Kennedy.

Fleming was introduced to President Kennedy, and in their conversation, he told Kennedy that he had a way to get rid of Fidel Castro, the Communist leader of Cuba. This piqued Kennedy's interest, since Castro had been a thorn in the side of Kennedy.

Gave amusing suggestion

Fleming said that Castro's beard was the key. Without the beard, Castro would look like anyone else. It was his trademark. So, Fleming said that the U.S. should announce that they found that beards attract radioactivity. Any person wearing a beard could become radioactive himself as well as sterile!

Castro would immediately shave off his beard and would soon fall from power, when the people saw him as an ordinary person.

Kennedy had a good laugh about this bizarre suggestion.

Kennedy tells about books

John F. Kennedy was a young and fun-loving president. He had a good sense of humor and certainly enjoyed a joke or two. His style and grace caught the Country by storm.

When he found out that Fleming had written some spy stories, Kennedy promised to read one.

Later, in a press conference, a reporter ask President Kennedy what type of books he liked read. He said his favorite books were the James Bond series, by Ian Fleming. Once the public found out about it, the books rose to the best-selling list.

ACTUALLY, THIS LAST TWO STATMENT ARE INCORRECT. KENNDY NEVER SAID WHAT KIND OF BOOKS HE LIKED TO READ AT A PRESS CONFERENCE, HIS SECRETARY, MRS. LINCOLN, IN RELEASING A LIST OF BOOKS PRESIDENT KENNEDY HAD RECENTLY READ, ADDED IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND SPY NOVEL TO THE LIST BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT THE REAL LIST WAS TOO BORING. ACTUALLY IT WAS THE FIRST LADY WHO READ FLEMING AND ENJOYED HIS BOOKS.

SO NOW WHAT DOES TIM HAVE TO SAY?

In no way do I accuse BK of making intentionally false statements of fact

BUT YOU NONETHELESS ACCUSE ME OF BEING WRONG ABOUT THE SECRET SERVICE POLICY OF CHECKING OPEN WINDOW AND ABOUT JFK MEETING FLEMING.

but I am unaware of any historical record that JFK met with Fleming.

NOW YOU HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE FACT.

"HUMILITY IS THE RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH." BUT TIM CAN NOT BE HUMBLE.

And BK also misstated the relationship between Alex Rorke and Sherm Billingsley

OKAY, THE FBI REPORT SAYS THAT THEY ARE RELATED - ARE THEY, YOU CORRECTED THE RECORD.

(he states he got that from an FBI record, which must constitute one of the few FBI records he trusts). So I would only credit a BK statement if he provides a source for it. Again, I do not accuse him of posting intentionally false information but these examples indicate to me his research ought to be verified.

TRUST BUT VERIFY.

I'M GETTING TIRED OF HAVING TO CORRECT GRATZ'S POSTS. MAYBE IF HE DIDN'T POST SO MUCH HE WOULDN'T BE WRONG SO MUCH.

BK