Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Robert Morrow

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Bernice,

Alan is a friend of mine. I think it was not irresponsible for Sprague and Cutler to endorse the flechette hypothesis when, to the best of my knowledge, (i) they did not have access to the Parkland Press Conference transcript (which was not even provided to the Warren Commission), (ii) they did not know there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield, (iii) they were apparently unaware of the tiny shrapnel wounds in JFK's face, and (iv) they did not know that, unless the tentorium had been previously ruptured, even the near simultaneous impact of the shot to the back of his head and the frangible hit around his right temple would not have been sufficient to cause cerebellum to extrude from the world. So this appears to be a classic case of acquiring new information and new hypotheses that make a difference to understanding what took place, where, in this case, hypotheses that were previously accepted should be rejected and hypotheses that were previously rejected should be accepted. After this discussion, I think I could do a better job of explaining to Alan why I do not endorse his hypothesis. Thanks very much for introducing his work here. I am sure I have copies if you want them.

Jim

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

DR.Salerian's REPORT;

Alan Salerian believes that "President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison," which paralyzed the President and rendered him

"immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull."

http://www.historica...dence.net/?p=60

He also posits that it was a smiling Lucien Conein in Dealey Plaza, captured in a photograph. A.J. Weberman has offered evidence that it was not Conein.

Also:

"On November 22, the first exhibition of Dr. Alen Salerian's paintings will happen in a private venue in honor and remembrance of President John F. Kennedy and his ideals. His assassination on the date in 1963, has been the backdrop and catalyst to this emotionally sweeping visual homage the painter calls JFK: Symbols on Canvas.

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The evidence

Alen J. Salerian

Washington Center for Psychiatry, 5225 Wisconsin Avenue # 104, Washington, District of columbia 20015, USA

Received 29 May 2008;

accepted 1 June 2008.

Available online 20 August 2008.

Summary

This paper proves that President Kennedy’s postmortem examination is a sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine and Newton’s second law “an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”. We review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.

http://www.historicalevidence.net/?f

San Diego, CA, March 21, 2009 – Noted Washington psychiatrist Dr. Alen J. Salerian presented a lecture titled “The Double Murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald Are Not Good for America: The Evidence” at the 27th Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry in San Diego.

Dr. Salerian’s presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy’s medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.

2. President Kennedy’s throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby’s testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate’s Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.

3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.

4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact: Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762,

http://educationforu...showtopic=15058

Dr.Salerian's Video Report...

I have completed searches but cannot find the pages of his report, does anyone have a link or the 4 pages i believe it said it was, thanks.b

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Robert,

I could just as well direct this at Glenn Viklund, but he, in my opinion, is a "lost cause". In any case, there

are excellent reasons to deny Witt was the Umbrella man even if we assume the umbrellas match. And if it

turns out that I am right--that one of them has 10 spokes, while the other has 12--would you admit defeat?

As Jim DiEugenio outlined in Post #80, nothing in his HSCA testimony actually shows he was there:

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

1.) He never planned on doing what he did until that morning.

2.) He did not know the exact parade route.

3.) He just happened to wander around for a walk and guessed where it would be.

4.) Contrary to what Cliff says, he did what he did with no relation to JFK's policies, only Joe Sr.

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say? Words to the effect, They shot those people. (Oh really Louie?)

6.) Admits he sat there for up to three minutes and that he never even looked behind him at the picket fence! (Truly surprising.)

7.) He never did anything like this before or since, and he was not a member of any conservative group or organization.

8.) He placed the umbrella on the sidewalk and then picked it up. He wavers on whether this is definitely the umbrella he had that day.

9.) He often uses the conditional, like I think that is me, or that may be the guy I sat next to.

Now, if there is any doubt he was there to be used as a club against the critics, Stokes asked him specifically if his umbrella could fire a dart. When it was unfolded, he then joked about people getting out of the way. Stokes then concluded that this rumor bandied about by the critics could now be dispelled. And then Blakey specifically named Sylvia Meagher and got on to another rumor bandied about by the critics, namely all these suspicious deaths.

There is a surprising lack of specificity in the questions. Only Fauntroy even began to ask any searching queries. And clearly the HSCA was not going to compare the two umbrellas.

But that is not what they wanted to do. They had an agenda. And they achieved it.

A second is that your position is incoherent. You insist that the Cuban was complicit, but

you still deny that Witt was involved. Yet they were obviously there together. So you

have to explain how, given these two guys were together, one was innocent and one not:

2uqtv.jpg

They BOTH "sit down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing", do they not?

Third, has it escaped your attention that, in some of the photos, their images have been altered?

If these guys were innocent, then why has someone gone to the trouble to distort their appearance?

al3dyw.jpg

Glenn Viklund hasn't a clue and I couldn't convince him of anything. But I tend to think that you are

actually amenable to reason on at least some occasions. Do you see why you appear to be wrong?

And with the limo out front, the bouquet of red roses and the stripes, why would they need a spotter?

Jim

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Could someone post a picture of the stripes that were painted on the curb on the south side of Elm Street? They are 3 of them. Each approximately 7 feet long and separated by approximately 40 feet. Robert Groden says you can see them in the Zapruder Film. (Perhaps just before JFK's limo is about to cross behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.)

There was a very clear picture of them in a presentation by Brian Edwards at JFK Lancer 2011. I think the Dallas police have this picture of them.

I think the stripes were used as a marker for "kill zones" for the snipers (from the front) of JFK. They *may* have also been used as a marker for William Greer the driver to slow down (or possibly stop) so that JFK could be killed. It seems to me that the stripes were located directly across from the Stemmons Freeway sign and Dark Complected Man, who I absolutely believe was involved in the JFK assassination.

My current thinking is that key elements of the Secret Service were in on the JFK assassination along with Lyndon Johnson (and Allen Dulles, CIA folks).

These 3 stripes were painted along the side of the curb and also on top of the curb. They would have been extremely visible at the time. I was in Dealey Plaza a few weeks ago and some of the yellow paint of one of the 3 stripes is STILL on the curb. Beverly Oliver says that on 11/22/63 she stepped on fresh paint and still has the paint on her shoes to this day. Beverly Oliver told me she was age 17 at the time of the JFK assassination, which means she is age 65 currently in 2011.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Could someone please answer the questions I have posed for Robert Morrow? Oh, Robert, you are here. Why aren't you answering them?

Could someone post a picture of the stripes that were painted on the curb on the south side of Elm Street? They are 3 of them. Each approximately 7 feet long and separated by approximately 40 feet. Robert Groden says you can see them in the Zapruder Film. (Perhaps just before JFK's limo is about to cross behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.)

There was a very clear picture of them in a presentation by Brian Edwards at JFK Lancer 2011. I think the Dallas police have this picture of them.

I think the stripes were used as a marker for "kill zones" for the snipers (from the front) of JFK. They *may* have also been used as a marker for William Greer the driver to slow down (or possibly stop) so that JFK could be killed. It seems to me that the stripes were located directly across from the Stemmons Freeway sign and Dark Complected Man, who I absolutely believe was involved in the JFK assassination.

My current thinking is that key elements of the Secret Service were in on the JFK assassination along with Lyndon Johnson (and Allen Dulles, CIA folks).

These 3 stripes were painted along the side of the curb and also on top of the curb. They would have been extremely visible at the time. I was in Dealey Plaza a few weeks ago and some of the yellow paint of one of the 3 stripes is STILL on the curb. Beverly Oliver says that on 11/22/63 she stepped on fresh paint and still has the paint on her shoes to this day. Beverly Oliver told me she was age 17 at the time of the JFK assassination, which means she is age 65 currently in 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all. None of what follows was written by me. It all came from Christopher Marlow, who appears to have noticed something that Jim D. seems to have missed.

228.

Christopher Marlow

San Diego, CA

November 22nd, 2011

6:08 pm

After watching this video, I looked up the interview of the "Umbrella Man" for the House Committee on Assassinations. It was very enlightening. The man's name was Louis Steven Witt, a former Dallas insurance salesman. He was questioned by counsel for the committee, Mr. Genzman....

Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots.

...

Mr. GENZMAN. What do you next recall happening?

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.

...

---> If you look at the Zapruder film, you will see that the car does not stop. But the Umbrella man and literally dozens of witnesses testified that the presidential limo came to a stop during the assassination.

The Zapruder film has been altered to conceal this and other facts. Any careful examination of the Z film will lead you to this conclusion.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the topic is "Tink's performance in the New York Times", and since it was Witt's testimony that persuaded Tink to take his position, it seems Witt's testimony is relevant in this thread.

Having said the above, I have a few questions/observations:

"Witt: Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots. "

Is there anyone in this forum that can fire a bolt action Mannlicher Carcano fast enough to make it sound like a "string of firecrackers" going off?

"Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes..."

The photographic record refutes Witt's testimony that the umbrella was blocking his view. Video and still photos show Witt in position, on the sidewalk, with the umbrella open above his head as the motorcade passes during the shooting sequence.

Witt is the only witness I know of to testify hearing "screeching of tires" as the Limo slowed/stopped. Could this detail have escaped hundreds of other witnesses in Dealey Plaza?

What is compelling about Witt's testimony that would convince an objective person that he was the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza?

In other threads on this forum, I have seen references to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Is that not applicable to this discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

When Jim D. was citing things he said that made his whole testimony sound ambiguous and vague, there was nothing there

that confirmed he was actually present in Dealey Plaza at the time. THIS, however, is completely different, since he said:

MR. WITT: . . . The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just

about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires,

the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran up on the President's

car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where

I was seeing things.

Look at the delicious irony. Tink has insisted that Witt REALLY WAS THERE. Now we discover that Will reported THE CAR

STOP, SCREECHING OF TIRES, THE JAMMING ON OF BREAKS, MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN THERE BESIDE ONE

OF THE CARS. ONE CAR RAN UP ON THE PRESIDENT'S CAR AND A MAN JUMPED OFF AND JUMPED ON THE BACK. . . .

He is describing Greer slamming on the breaks, the car being brought to an abrupt halt (which appears to be because of

the Cuban's signal with his fist), Officer James Chaney motoring forward, the Secret Service vehicle running right up to it

Clint Hill jumping off the Cadillac and getting on the back of the limo . . . WHAT ELSE COULD THIS BE? STUNNING.

Those who don't understand need to read "JFL: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", "New Proof of JFK

Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "What happened on Elm Street: The Eyewitnesses

Speak", and others. Those who having not followed research on the limo stop may not have a clue. THIS IS FASCINATING!

What you are missing, Lee, is that rationality of belief requires responding to new evidence and new hypotheses. As long

as Witt's testimony was ambiguous and vague, there was no good reason to believe he was even there--much less that he

was the Umbrella Man! But this part of his testimony is detailed and specific--and fits what we reconstructed had happened!

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all.

Why was I expecting something like this to happen?

So was he there or wasn't he?

Is Tink Thompson right or a disinfo agent?

Is he undermining the JFK critical community or strengthening it?

Was Witt an innocent bystander or a spotter for the strike team? Was he firing darts at the limo or obscure protest?

Are you now looking forward to the rest of Thompson's interviews because he's now the best thing since man started slicing bread?

Give me strength. Have you always been fickle, Jim?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all. None of what follows was written by me. It all came from Christopher Marlow, who appears to have noticed something that Jim D. seems to have missed.

228.

Christopher Marlow

San Diego, CA

November 22nd, 2011

6:08 pm

After watching this video, I looked up the interview of the "Umbrella Man" for the House Committee on Assassinations. It was very enlightening. The man's name was Louis Steven Witt, a former Dallas insurance salesman. He was questioned by counsel for the committee, Mr. Genzman....

Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots.

...

Mr. GENZMAN. What do you next recall happening?

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.

...

---> If you look at the Zapruder film, you will see that the car does not stop. But the Umbrella man and literally dozens of witnesses testified that the presidential limo came to a stop during the assassination.

The Zapruder film has been altered to conceal this and other facts. Any careful examination of the Z film will lead you to this conclusion.

"He may have been there, after all". In any case, it sound like he was familiar with what Dealey Plaza witnesses were saying when not filtered by Belin, Specter, et al.

Please forgive my ignorance: Has any confirmed Dealey Plaza witness either recalled Witt being there or identified Witt as the man with the umbrella?

Did Witt talk about being in Dealey Plaza with friends or family or anyone else soon after the event?

Earlier forum discussion of Witt:

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870 Louis Steven Witt : Umbrella Man

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2725 Was it Louie Steven Witt after all?

Edited by Daniel Meyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is compelling about Witt's testimony that would convince an objective person that he was the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza?

The testimony of Rosemary Willis to the HSCA:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Witt was too concerned with the protest demonstration going on in his own head to instantly acquire a visual on JFK as soon as his umbrella was up.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the "conspicuous person" behind the concrete wall who "disappeared the next instant," less than a second after the throat shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Marry up his comment regarding the screeching of tyres with the other witnesses.

So the CIA ran in a ringer to talk about limo stops and strings of shots like firecrackers?

Louis Witt -- yet another fine conspiracy witness whose reputation has been sacrificed to the blood lust of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

I would love to see a program based on restoring the reputation of witnesses who have been unduly smeared.

Louis Witt makes a good start. Next up, Glenn Bennett!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Marry up his comment regarding the screeching of tyres with the other witnesses.

So the CIA ran in a ringer to talk about limo stops and strings of shots like firecrackers?

Louis Witt -- yet another fine conspiracy witness whose reputation has been sacrificed to the blood lust of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

I would love to see a program based on restoring the reputation of witnesses who have been unduly smeared.

Louis Witt makes a good start. Next up, Glenn Bennett!

Could we start with Roger Craig please his story is so frustrating?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is compelling about Witt's testimony that would convince an objective person that he was the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza?

The testimony of Rosemary Willis to the HSCA:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Witt was too concerned with the protest demonstration going on in his own head to instantly acquire a visual on JFK as soon as his umbrella was up.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the "conspicuous person" behind the concrete wall who "disappeared the next instant," less than a second after the throat shot.

Agree that Rosemary Willis testimony supports Witt's testimony of fumbling with the umbrella... and yet, while they support each other's observation , the existing photographic record does not agree with that portion of their testimony.

If Witt's testimony is all true:

1. The extant Zapruder film, along with several other films and photos of the assassination have been doctored.

2. Hundreds of Dealey Plaza witnesses failed to mention the screeching of tires when the Limo driver jammed on the breaks.

3. There were numerous shots fired close enough together to sound like a string of firecrackers going off while the Limo was still to the left of TUM, in other words, before the head shot (which happened to his right).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I was told by a JFK researcher that Louis Steven Witt was indeed the Umbrella Man and that he had told his story of being at Dealey Plaza to friends years before he testified at the HSCA.

I now think it is unlikely that he was part of the plotters and it was by chance he was located next to Dark Complected Man, who I strongly think was part of the field team for the JFK assassination.

And Louis Steven Witt sure did see JFK's limo slow down dramatically, didn't he? ... as per his HSCA testimony.

One more thing, I do think Witt was protesting JFK and holding up an umbrella to call JFK personally an appeaser; I do not think he was merely referencing his dad Joe Kennedy.

JFK was assassinated with words before he was killed with actual bullets. A good example of the elite of Dallas' attitude towards JFK (and CIA/military, JCS) are the words of Ted Dealey, the publisher of the Dallas Morning News.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/were-heading-into-nut-country-president-kennedy-said-this-to-an-aide-as-he-began-his-fatal-visit-to-texas-thirty-years-ago-here-peter-pringle-evokes-dallas-as-it-was-then-a-hostile-place-which-cared-very-little-for-the-dream-that-died-there-1505387.html

"These people thought Kennedy was doing the country a disservice by being too soft on Communism. 'We can annihilate Russia, and we should make that clear to the Soviet government,' the venerable owner of the Dallas Morning News, Ted Dealey, had told Kennedy at a dinner at the White House. What was needed, said Dealey, was 'a man on horseback to lead this nation, and many people in Texas and the South-West think that you are riding Caroline's tricycle'. Kennedy was not amused, but held his fire."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...