JFK holds Lambchop

[Bill Miller]

Though I'm not sure why any of this is important. Did Lambchop shoot the president? I'm sure with increased scrutiny a certain person will be able to find the outline of a gun in its hoof.

Paul, as one who believes there was a conspiracy and more than one shooter firing during the assassination ... a select few CTs have gotten so ridiculous with their claims that your comments are certainly justified. However, I am concerned that because of your comment that there will soon be a thread started soon where Jack claims that he sees Mr. Moose or Bunny Rabbit in place of Lambchop, thus it proves alteration. (sigh)

[Paul Baker]

Hi Bill,

I guess I'm a little wet behind the ears here, compared to some of the other members of this site. I've been hanging around for quite a while, but I've read too many ridiculous posts about film alteration, and felt the need to respond in some way, even if my only form of defence is sarcasm. If common sense prevailed, I'd come up with something a little more sensible. There are a number of coherent and intelligent people that contribute to this site - you included, of course - but I believe there's a majority that serves just to obfuscate the truth, whatever that may be.

For the record, I think Oswald did it alone. This is only because, in all the books I've read and documentaries I've watched about the assassination, I've yet to come across a convincing argument to suggest an alternative. I don't mind telling you that, because don't think you'll be offended. I can be persuaded otherwise - because I enjoy a healthy and enlightening debate, and I never mind admitting I'm wrong.

Paul.

[Don Jeffries]

This thread has, like so many others, been turned into an attack upon Jack White and the whole pro-alteration view in general.

As I've said before, I'm an agnostic on the issue of film alteration. However, Jack's posts are usually thought provoking and always interesting. In this particular case, he was simply pointing out that there was some kind of stuffed animal in the limousine and that therefore Jean Hill's initial description of "a dog" in the car-which was used (and is still used) to discredit her as a witness-was not as ridiculous as it seemed.

I was once, not that long ago, one of those who tended to doubt all of Jean Hill's testimony because of the "dog" in the limo claim. Thanks to Jack and others, I now realize she could easily have seen something that resembled a real dog in that car. Bill, the reason Jean plays down the "dog" story in her book-which I read-is because by that point she was undoubtedly weary of having it thrown in her face to ridicule the rest of her testimony. She also didn't realize, I don't believe, that any film had been discovered that tended to support her on this. Considering all she'd been through, it was a perfectly natural human reaction.

Jack's claims on this thread are not outlandish at all. The constant attacks upon anything he posts are tiresome and contribute nothing to this case. The most controversial thing he's ever said cannot hold a candle to the single-bullet theory, for instance. Yet despite the obvious scientific impossibility of the single-bullet theory, anyone who wanders onto this forum still promoting it is not attacked the way Jack White is on nearly everything he posts.

[Paul Baker]

Just what expertise or studies do YOU bring here, Mr. Baker?

Merely an understanding of the issue and a healthy sprinkling of commone sense, Jack. I make no claims to be an expert, but I do have the mental capacity to see through many of the flimsy "studies" presented here.

In your postings, remember THAT THIS IS A RESEARCH FORUM, AND OPINIONS ARE NOT RESEARCH.

Stop shouting Jack, I hear you. However you wish to define research, it certainly is NOT achieved by posting a cropped image with an open-ended question. As for Mr Healy, I was simply making an honest observation. If you know of any post he's made that is built on a piece of research please put the link here, I would be genuinely interested to read it. As far as I can tell all he does is create flame wars. Can anyone dispute that? I don't mind being proved wrong.

Real researchers DO NOT DEBATE lone-nutters.

Wrong Jack. Real researchers keep an open mind. Clearly you are entrenched in your own opinion... er, research.

Excuse me if I ignore you henceforth.

With pleasure. You are excused.

Kind Regards,

Paul.

[Bernice Moore]

Bill: Try this for Your memory........

Bernice, if you look long enough you may find a good color print of Jackie at Love Field and that print will show that she was holding a little bouquet of white flowers. Using poor blurry images has allowed those flowers to be seen as a puppet ... all in the name of alteration. The only thing these kinds of claims and poor images do to help anyone is that possibly if JFK's body was ever brought out of the grave so to examine his head wound ... there would be no need to roll him over to see the back of the head for JFK would have already rolled over in his grave from seeing the things posted on this forum.

****************

.IMO...........I agree Bill, I believe you have made him roll over ,and I have no doubt that he has, by those, who continually attack others for trying to present information and findings,

such as Connie Kritzberg presented for us....and what Jean has given to us......which you ignored.....

.. You deliberately missed the point, and totally ignored what Connie stated in her book, and ignored the

ASK conference findings....you are far from slow, so I am concluding you did so...... deliberately, in order to have another go at Jack, or any others,you feel

like...... what is it with you ????....... Do you take an ugly pill each and every morning??

It is constant, neverending...

Bernice : Quote" Poor clip but interesting....

"Jean Hills, white dog ? Lamb chop.?

Jackie: White Dog ..

http://jfkhistory.com/whitedog.gif

From "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window"..

1994..Connie Kritzberg..

page.178..

Jean Hill

"A statement made to me by Jean Hill plagued her for years, and

bothered me as well. She said there was a "fluffy white dog" between

the President and Jackie. She was ridiculed by a number of people, she

related , in her story written by Bill Sloan entitled "The Last Dissenting

Witness".

I found the statement somewhat embarassing, and I wished

I had considered omitting it,( Nov.22/63 for her newspaper story, and or

book,I believe..b.m.)

but there was no time for reflection.

Copy boys were relentless in seizing the paragraphs almost before the

paragraph was typed..

Only in 1993 was television news coverage shown which portrayed Jackie

Kennedy accepting a small white "Lambchops" stuffed animal which she

showed to Jack and carried to the limousine with her.

Jean Hill was vindicated, and I was vastly relieved both of us when the

footage was shown to participants at the 1993 ASK symposium held in

Dallas.

Hill had been ill, her father had recently died, and she did not see the

comforting clip.

On what small and relatively insignificant points of fact

reputations rest...."

I guess the problem is, was ,that those in attendance at the 1993 Ask, in Dallas

did not get the information out.......?? Too bad, as Jean is still ridiculed and seeminlgy

corrected , and belittled, on this subject on the web....as well as it being used, to the

demtriment of her entire story..

.....By those who were not there....

The photo, showing Caroline and JFK, with a Lamb Chop puppet, may have been seen by

a woman who then

crocheted or knit one ,and presented it to Jackie..Many women did these type

of crafts back then, they still may ??

Jean mentioned and rightly so, she saw what appeared to her to be a dog..

The comps below are from work done by Jack White some years ago...

B...... ""

************

.....The point is not, if it was a puppet, a dog, a small fluffy bouquet of mums, pompoms whatever, who knows now...??

The point was, and is......... Jean's opinion, not yours, nor anyone else's, this was and is about Jean's and Connie's given information,

not anyone thinkies,

in this regard, pertaining to what She Thought

She Saw, as the Limo approached her.... She saw Jackie showing something to JFK, in those fleeting

seconds, before he was murdered........that she thought to her at that distance, was to her a small fluffy dog....

The point is, that it could have been a bag of marbles for whatever importance it is to the assassination itself..

What it comes down to is, that this is used against Jean and she is called a xxxx about all, and the whatever is used to do so, and you for one are

encouraging them....by what you say, and that plays straight into their hands....If you do not think so, simply go back

and read your comments in this thread..

What is important, and is used, and has been unmercifully so, is that what she thought she saw,

and again she was there and this was Her impression.....It has continually been used to totally ignore and put down,any and all

of Jean's information, pertaining to what she saw pertaining to the assassination......By the old, well if she lied about one fact she lied

about all the rest.....you can't believe anything she said..

And you, it appears to me, help them with your opinions, not on Jean's

documentation...but in arguing about what you think she did not see......and on what you think, Jack has and or does present,

by ignoring what Connie has also informed us of, what ASK saw, in a film, and on the photos

posted and information....etc.........by trying to divert the attention to Jack's awful work IN YOUR Opinion, and the blurry copies of

said photos etc.......this thread is not about what you think....

..I had hoped it would have led to a discussion about what else Jean saw..and her

information, but not a chance in hell....Bill's here...

IMO.......What you are doing and have done again, and so often, is attack the messenger and not concentrate on what has been presented by way of

the documentation that pertains to information....... it is not what you think about what others have presented.....It is about

said documentaion when presented...and it should have been.........It should not be about getting back at Jack nor anyone else, but you continually make it so...

Should you be held responsible, as you seem to go on and on at times about how the alterationists make all such a trial for the consp network..

researchers......for any and all mistakes in the future or in the past, that they have and do make.

I do believe you agree that the backyard photos have been altered,and that frames were deleted within the Zapruder film...... if so, you also believe in alterations, as that is what the word means.........therefore you are one, you can and will

deny such till the cows come home, but there it is none the less.....

Get off peoples back imo.....your continual diatribes and interferrence so often, has been so overdone, to the point that you have become so wearing,

that many are as sick of you as you try to make out that they are of David, or Miles, and others.....you throw around the word xxxxx so often, you have also

now earned that distinction...and stop trying to speak for others.......

You have done good work in the past, get out of the attack mode, and back to the research, and try to help and not continually criticise..and hinder.....and

seemingly obstruct, it is not about you, Bill....

What are you really up to ????...You are far from helping the situation.....

I am gone no use trying to present any documentaion or anything further in this thread....smash it all to hell and back all you want to Bill, as you already have....it is all yours as far as I am concerned, and you win nothing....all you have done is disrupt again one more thread..with your mee maws..all you have shown to me once again, is that I have no idea what exactly you are.....other than a xxxxe disturber...

P.S........When you do finally go back to your research, I do not think you should put anymore shooters up in any more trees.....

B............

Edited March 9, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

What it comes down to is, that this is used against Jean and she is called a xxxx about all, and the whatever is used to do so, and you for one are

encouraging them....by what you say, and that plays straight into their hands....If you do not think so, simply go back

and read your comments in this thread..

Look ... I only said what Jean had told about how it came to be that she mentioned a little white dog in the seat. Jean said the reporter wanted her to guess at what it could be and when the cameras rolled for the record ... Jean said it looked like a dog. Jean didn't know what it was and she regretted ever allowing the reporter to talk her into guessing as to what it was.

And yes, it didn't matter what it was ... Jean didn't know, but was asked to make a guess which some people wanted to crucify her for it. That doesn't excuse the nutty claims made beyond the scope of what had transpired and why.

Bill

[Paul Baker]

Jean didn't know what it was and she regretted ever allowing the reporter to talk her into guessing as to what it was.

In her interview on Black Op, Jean said (words to the effect) that in hindsight she was pleased about the ridicule she received as a result of her observation, since it helped discredit her and might even have saved her life. Of course, to some degree this does contradict her own accounts of the attempts on her life in "The Last Dissenting Witness" ("They" could kill the President, but Jean Hill was much more of a challenge).

[Chris Davidson]

...in Martin film.

His right hand is inside the beast.

Jack

Looks like a winner Jack. If I can find the copy of Wolper's Four Days in November I had transferred to DVD [which I lent to someone who hasn't returned it], I can post multiple frames of Jackie receiving Lambchop at Love Field. Very clear frames.

Thus far, I am content personally with every observation made by Jean Hill in the Whitewash.

- lee

Lee,

Do you remember at what point Jackie receives lambchop?

This video to start with, is after she was done with the initial welcoming line.

thanks

chris

[Jack White]

There is no need to guess what Jean said about the little dog. She testified under oath.

I summarized it in the initial posting.

Jack

Edited March 10, 2008 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

There is no need to guess what Jean said about the little dog. She testified under oath.

I summarized it in the initial posting.

Jack

I find it funny that you have heard some witnesses state that what they said before the commission wasn't accurate/been changed and other times you wish to claim it to be gospel. I only suggest reading her book so to fill in the blanks and to hear Jean's own personal account.

[Miles Scull]

There is no need to guess what Jean said about the little dog. She testified under oath.

I summarized it in the initial posting.

Jack

I find it funny that you have heard some witnesses state that what they said before the commission wasn't accurate/been changed and other times you wish to claim it to be gospel. I only suggest reading her book so to fill in the blanks and to hear Jean's own personal account.

On the topic of Lambchop, real or no, source is important.

I only suggest reading her book so to fill in the blanks and to hear Jean's own personal account.

This is a misstatement of fact.

Jean Hill never wrote a book or wrote her book.

A book was written by Bill Sloan with Jean Hill.

Sloan puts Hill's experiences in "novel-like" form complete with invented dialogue & colourisation for effect & invented thoughts.

Sloan also wrote a fiction novel called: Other Assassin: The Truth You Couldn't Know Until the Cold War Ended

Sworn testimony has to be the gold standard.

[Miles Scull]

He also wrote JFK: BREAKING THE SILENCE, as well as several other books.

Are you saying that because an author wrote a fictional book, he is less capable of writing a non-fiction book?

Righto, Kathy

I will supply a couple of points, but first:

Which books has Sloan published, Titles?

Have you read any of them, which?

Your answers will help me with references for my points.

Thx

[Antti Hynonen]

Numerous off-topic posts deleted off of this thread by me today at 8 am Forum time.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Lee Forman]

...in Martin film.

His right hand is inside the beast.

Jack

Looks like a winner Jack. If I can find the copy of Wolper's Four Days in November I had transferred to DVD [which I lent to someone who hasn't returned it], I can post multiple frames of Jackie receiving Lambchop at Love Field. Very clear frames.

Thus far, I am content personally with every observation made by Jean Hill in the Whitewash.

- lee

no clue if this will load...

Untitled_0001.wmv

[David Andrews]

Not loading for me.