JFK’s Pacific swim

JFK’s Pacific Swim”August 1962 

He heard one sunbather saying, He looks like President Kennedy, but President Kennedy isn’t that big and powerful looking.” the President plunged into the heavy surf and swam out beyond it while a crowd gathered, shouting and staring at his bobbing head. One woman dropped to her knees and prayed. “He’s out so far!” she cried. “Please, God, don’t lit him drown!” Another woman fully dressed, followed him into the surf before she turned back.

Source: “JFK’s Pacific Swim”August 1962 | The Pop History Dig

146 comments

  1. Photon says:

    Best example of photographic evidence of JFK’s abnormal neck condition, as confirmed by RFK who witnessed the autopsy..

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Was that the abnormal neck condition that allowed the Magic Bullet to miraculously pass through JFK’s neck, without going through any of his cervical vertebrae?

      Please elaborate on this abnormal neck condition of JFK’s. We are all ears.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        As usual, Photon makes a hit and run comment with no depth or basis to it, and ignores requests to elaborate on his comment.

        Just what was abnormal about JFK’s neck, and how did it affect the assassination outcome?

    • pat speer says:

      I suppose you mean the best example of the depths to which Oswald did it people will sink… Lattimer’s banana-head theory was that the bullet struck Kennedy on his back two inches down from his shoulders…and that this was at the level of his chin. This necessitated, of course, that Kennedy’s shoulders be above his chin. Lattimer then found the image above and reversed it–so that the right shoulder appeared to be above the chin, and said “Voila! Here’s proof Kennedy was a hunchback.” He deliberately avoided, of course, that Kennedy was standing at an angle in this photo, and that this is proved by the fact his opposite shoulder was well below his chin. I expose Lattimer’s hoax here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12%3Athesingle-bullet%22fact%22/LatvLatnew.jpg

      • Photon says:

        You just don’t get it, do you?
        Your supposed to be a medical expert-but you simply can’t see it. Instead of your ridiculous attempts to compare motion picture frames of a dynamic incident with a schematic drawing, why don’t you simply ask an internist to look at the film and tell you what neck abnormality he had.

        • pat speer says:

          I’m not “supposed” to be anything, Photon. I just smell a lot of horse manure on both sides of the conspiracy fence. Most of the horse manure on the conspiracy side involves the head wounds. Much of the manure on the no conspiracy side involves the back wound. People keep trying to raise it up onto the neck. Just look at Lattimer. He’s Exhibit 1a. He actually convinced himself that the drawings made for the Warren Commission, which the HSCA Medical panel claimed presented the back wound two inches higher than its actual location, depicted the back wound much lower than its actual location. Pretty bizarre. And kind of shocking.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I hear lots of noise coming from your corner, Photon. Unfortunately, it only deciphers as static.

          Let us know when you’re ready to tell us what this “abnormal” neck condition was that JFK supposedly had.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Oh we get it all right, “Dr.” Photon. As long as you keep your references to JFK’s “abnormal” neck condition obscure, the readers’ imaginations can turn that “condition” into almost anything, and you will have succeeded in your mission; that being to spread doubt and confusion throughout the JFK research world.

          In short, you practice disinformation.

        • We, that is the royal we with no agenda, know how JFK looked. It’s not as though we have no evidence of Kennedy’s physical appearance – there is nothing theoretical about how he looked.

          If we were considering someone who was not photographed, for instance someone from ancient history, then we would use all sorts of information in order to infer how he looked.

          But we don’t have to use a medical record to infer how John Kennedy looked nor should we rely on a phantom claim by photon. We have the film footage, we have the photos. Unless of course photon is arguing that all those films of John Kennedy were doctored?

          Is photon suggesting that JFK was hunchbacked as Dale Myers depicted in his cartoon, or is photon alleging that the Kennedy family had all the film footage and photographs doctored to disguise a neck abnormality?

          Speaking of doctored images: consider min. 1:00 of the Myers animation. Is there a single real life image to support the hunched jacket collar depicted by Myers? And as a matter of interest, does anyone think the sophisticate Kennedy would choose that shirt collar?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      BTW, please provide proof that RFK witnessed the autopsy of JFK.

    • theNewDanger says:

      I have seen you state something like this before but never have you proven that JFK indeed had a neck condition nor have you explained what that nonexistent neck condition is that has anything to do with JFK being shot at T3. The above photo is a STILL picture, a snapshot in time; it isn’t a motion picture that shows some neck condition. Care to provide an actual diagnosis report or ICD6/7/8/9/or 10 code to put this to rest?

  2. Photon says:

    His disdain for normal security could not be more evident. I think that Larry Sabato was probably correct-his cavalier attitude toward security probably made an assassination attempt inevitable.
    I am reminded of what happened to Harold Holt.
    He was reckless-and perhaps that contributed to the events of Nov. 22 more than any conspiracy theorist seems willing to admit.

    • Tom S. says:

      Photon, your comments strike me as unreasonable….

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#PT-109
      …..
      Kennedy unhesitatingly braved the difficulties and hazards of darkness to direct rescue operations, swimming many hours to secure aid and food after he had succeeded in getting his crew ashore….

      …and you’re taking the scene in the photo out of context…. you have no actual perspective, not knowing where members of the president’s protective detail were positioned, and wasn’t this photo snapped on a beach, where people have fewer means to conceal a potentially effective weapon compared to say…at a preannounced appearance where jackets, coats, hats, etc., are the norm?

      http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2012/12/secret-service-agents-before-during-and.html
      “Mr. President, I wouldn’t drink the night before and leave you a sitting duck like those clowns did. Can you believe they are writing multiple books and blaming you for your own assassination?”

      http://www.c-span.org/video/?296484-1/qa-gerald-blaine-clint-hill
      ….00:19:40 – Gerald Blaine

      My assessment of Mr. Palamara is that he called probably all of the agents, and what agent who answers a phone is going to answer a question “Was President Kennedy easy to protect? Well, probably he was too easy to protect because he was assassinated.”

      00:20:01 – Gerald Blaine

      But the fact that the agents aren’t going to tell him anything and he alludes to the fact that when I wrote the book, most of these people were dead. Well, I worked with these people, I knew them like brothers and I knew exactly what was going on and always respected Jim Rowley because he stood up to the issue and said “Look, we can’t say the President invited himself to be killed so let’s squash this.” So that was the words throughout the Secret Service and he – Mr. Palamara is – there are a number of things that had happened that he has no credibility,…..

      http://ctka.net/reviews/slick_propaganda.html
      A Review of The Discovery Channel documentary, The Kennedy Detail (based on the 2010 Gerald Blaine book of the same title) by Vince Palamara
      ….My assessment of Mr. Palamara is that he called probably all of the agents [true], and what agent who answers a phone is going to answer a question ”Was President Kennedy easy to protect?” [many of them did, and, like Blaine, told me that JFK was a very nice man, never interfered with the actions of the Secret Service at all, nor did President Kennedy ever order the agents off his limousine] Well, probably he was too easy to protect because he was assassinated [what?]. But the fact that the agents aren’t going to tell him anything [many told me information of much value, Blaine included]…

      • Mariano says:

        Despite his Doctor’s recent orders not to engage in any strenuous exercise till his recently inflamed old shoulder injury had healed (despite having recently collapsed in parliament), Holt still went out for a swim in the rough surf. His body was likely swept out to sea, and was never found.

        The risk of assassination at the time in Australia could not be equated to the American circumstance. Holt did not require the type of protection a U.S. president might require. At the time an Australian Prime Minister would not have had any sense that they were at risk of assassination.

        Whilst mysterious, Holt’s disappearance was not the subject of any substantive conspiracy or cover up.

    • GM says:

      His disdain for normal security could not be more evident. I think that Larry Sabato was probably correct-his cavalier attitude toward security probably made an assassination attempt inevitable.
      I am reminded of what happened to Harold Holt.
      He was reckless-and perhaps that contributed to the events of Nov. 22 more than any conspiracy theorist seems willing to admit.

      To me unfortunately this is one long JFK had it coming. What a horrible post.

      • Photon says:

        How does pointing out what this picture shows equivalent to claiming that I meant ” he had it coming”?
        If you look at the video of this event on YouTube you can see JFK totally surrounded by strangers without a SS agent in sight. Even for that time it was an incredibly reckless thing for him to do- notice the kid wrapping his arm on him as he heads for the surf.
        While he may have been an excellent swimmer years previously, by 1962 he was frequently using analgesics and wearing a back brace to deal with the back issues that nearly led to his death in the 1950s. What if he had had a spasm while swimming as far off shore as O’Donnell stated he was?
        Salinger knew how potentially damaging this story and picture were , not only for demonstrating JFK’s cavalier attitude to security but also for potentially revealing his medical secrets. Fortunately it actually made him look more appealing.

        • GM says:

          I was not referring to the photo. I was referring to your comments which I quoted in my first post. You said he was reckless with his own security, and this might have contributed to the events in Dallas. But presidents and prime minsters are not responsible for their own security. They are reliant on others to protect them.

        • What about ‘photo op’ do you not grasp, photon? how do you know who was or was not in the periphery of these photos? Are you suggesting that Kennedy was reckless to the degree of being suicidal? Is “annie’ also positing the same in a subtle manner? I hardly think a president who was confronting the leader of the Soviet Union along with the head of a revolutionary country 90 miles off the coast of the US had a death wish. I argue Kennedy was willing to die for what he believed, that he had a passion for life as exemplified in photographs including this one, and that while he was alive he had courage seldom seen in contemporary leaders.

          • annie says:

            No, annie is not positing the same in a subtle manner. I’m very sorry if I left that impression. I also didn’t get the impression that Photon was suggesting the President was careless to the point of being suicidal. The photo simply shows a friendly, accessible man who possibly had a tendancy to forget about the importance of security. I think it was frustrating for his secret service.

          • “No, annie is not positing the same in a subtle manner. I’m very sorry if I left that impression. I also didn’t get the impression that Photon was suggesting the President was careless to the point of being suicidal. The photo simply shows a friendly, accessible man who possibly had a tendancy to forget about the importance of security. I think it was frustrating for his secret service.”

            Oh annie: consider minute 0:30 and tell us that John Kennedy orchestrated this scenario?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

            With respect dear “annie”, in case you haven’t realized – with gratitude to TomS – there is no longer a kindergarten class on this site. Substantive argument with supporting links rather than employment of emotional appeal is the expectation here: “his secret service was frustrated” is a bogus appeal. You have to do better than that. Do you have proof that John Kennedy personally and recklessly called these SS Agents to stand down as they left Love Field?

          • annie says:

            Leslie……if you actually read my comments you would know that I never thought President Kennedy orchestrated his own problem, his demise. Also, I’m not as empty headed as you might think. I have many years of research behind me and usually used facts in my comments. Facts from numerous sources. My personal experiences made me even more serious about that assassination. And, if you look around, you will note that a number of regulars are still leaving opinions and interesting tidbits as comments. They are still being accepted and printed.

          • “if you actually read my comments you would know that I never thought President Kennedy orchestrated his own problem.” — annie

            annie, would you elaborate on how I might have misconstrued your words? ” . . . a friendly, accessible man who possibly had a tendancy to forget about the importance of security. I think it was frustrating for his secret service.” Use of ambiguous language does not necessarily disguise the meaning. Maybe you would like to rephrase, given how serious it is to accuse a president of being reckless with his safety. (do you or does photon have proof that security was not on the periphery of that photograph, for instance? I will look for the photos as Kennedy walks toward the sea that day; as I recall SS is quite evident.)

            Have I missed your response to the request for the name of the senator? And can you identify any comment you have made that includes links to source material? I may have missed them.

          • annie and photon, This should put your allegations to rest. Uniformed police are seen within feet of Kennedy as he walks to the sea; secret service and uniformed police are evident as he comes out of the water and there is no reason not to conclude they were on the periphery of the cameraman the entire time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEHEw-dop00

    • Jordan says:

      It’s ironic that you bring up Harold Holt who disappeared without a trace, and who was also an LBJ crony…

    • Paulf says:

      So JFK made his own assassination inevitable …. what?

      Reminds me of my college newspaper, where some knucklehead wrote that JFK was “lucky” to be assassinated because he probably was going to lose the next election.

      But we can all play.

      Ronald Reagan made his own assassination attempt inevitable because …. (something, something, hey he lied about dying his hair. That’s it!).

      Those folks who got shot in the Colorado movie theater by James Holmes made their own assassination inevitable by …. watching a bad movie?

      Those kids in Newtown ….

      Photon’s paradox, indeed.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Photon, there was a lot more in the works than whatever feelings JFK had about the Secret Service.

    • Brian Joseph says:

      I was wondering about how this photo was relevant to this site and then I read your comment. You seem to have done what you accuse ‘conspiracy theorists’ of – try to make everything or the evidence fit into their theory even if it takesa big leap. So this photo of JFK after a swim in the pacific proves that he was reckless “and perhaps that contributed to the events of Nov.22 more than any conspiracy theorist seems willing to admit.”
      Okay suppose he was “reckless”. I guess that proves there wasn’t a conspiracy. It sort of reminds me of a conversation I had many years back with someone who said that JFK was reckless and how he had really brought it on himself. When I asked how so he said that the fling with Marilyn Monroe had caused the whole thing and that Joe Dimaggio was the mastermind of the whole thing. Now that leap is much, much bigger than yours but you are a whole lot smarter than that guy was so relatively speaking it’s about the same type of leap.

    • Jordan says:

      Is it fair then to say that you’re no fan of JFK…?

    • A little more you might have missed, photon, annie:

      “He swam in the ocean, about a hundred yards offshore, for ten minutes while a crowd of almost a thousand people gathered on the beach. When he was coming out of the water, a photographer in street clothes waded out to his waist to take pictures. Kennedy glanced at the photographer and said, “Oh, no, I can’t believe it,” THE TEN SECRET SERVICE MEN WHO WERE GUARDING HIM SPLASHED INTO THE WATER IN THEIR BUSINESS SUITS . . . forming a protecting wedge around him with Dave [Powers] and Peter Lawford to hold back the crowd that struggled to touch him and shake his hand while he made his way back across the sand to the house. The president returned to the lounge chair beside the pool, picked up his sunglasses and his book, and said contentedly, “That was the best swim I’ve had in months.”

      http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/jfks-pacific-swim-1962/

      • annie says:

        Thank you Leslie for all of the work you do here 🙂 I appreciate it! You are important to this site.
        My problem, which has nothing to do with you, is that in most cases there seems to be more than one side to most of the assassination issues. It comes down to just who does one want to trust, who to believe. One SS Agent, for instance, tells us that Kennedy told them to back off in some way while another Agent swears Kennedy never said that. But when it comes to something I personally witnessed, I have to describe it as I saw it. Perhaps it was just a temporarily lack of caution which the President and his Secret Service straightened out. I looked at the info you provided here and trust it as I know you are hard working here and find reliable info. And, I certainly don’t think JFK would ever endanger himself or others on purpose. But, at the time, he was still known for being a bit more accessible than he should be. But that’s how they lived. Actually I thought it a positive trait he had and feel a little sad that so much securitity is necessary in our world. I realize it is necessary.

        • David Regan says:

          Some light reading for your enjoyment, Annie. The Dirty Secret of the Secret Service: President Kennedy Should Have Lived https://shar.es/1jhS0l

          HSCA Report of 1979 concluded “the Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties.”

          • Paul M says:

            David Regan- I just read the article you linked. Wow, and Fletcher Prouty, the man everyone likes to denigrate, said the same thing, that JFK was inadequately protected in Dallas. I have read some articles by Vince Palamara, but not his book. Anyone on this site who is interested should read it as well. Thanks for the post.

    • J.D. says:

      The idea that John F. Kennedy was “reckless,” either as a person or as a president, is completely at odds with everything we know about him.

      Far from being a reckless commander-in-chief, Kennedy turned down dangerous and reckless proposals presented to him at every step of his presidency, from Laos to the Berlin Wall crisis. His coolness under extreme pressure during the Cuban Missile Crisis likely saved the entire world.

      Attempting to smear Kennedy’s heroism in the PT-109 incident is reprehensible. Can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson or Allen Dulles risking their own lives — and suffering tremendous physical pain — as Kennedy did, to rescue an injured fellow crew member in a similar situation?

      While one can reasonably criticize Kennedy for carrying on affairs, it was ultimately nobody’s business but his own. Far from being reckless, Kennedy was so cautious about this aspect of his life that plenty of people who worked with him or socialized with him, including Ted Sorensen, had no idea about the affairs.

  3. ed connor says:

    Looks like a normal neck to me, Photon.

  4. ed connor says:

    JFK was an accomplished swimmer. He enrolled at Princeton before he transferred to Harvard, and snuck out of the Princeton Infirmary to swim in a meet, against medical advice.
    After his PT boat was sunk in 1942 he led his crew to Plum Pudding Island, and, thereafter, to Olasana Island in the Solomons. Each night he swam out into the Blackett Strait, hoping to encounter an American vessel for rescue. Years later, his friend, Ben Bradlee, asked if he feared a shark attack from below during his nightly swims.
    “Yes, of course,” said JFK. “That’s why I always swam the backstroke.”

    • Ira Jesse Hemingway says:

      It takes a special person to survive in the combat arena such as JFK experienced when he lost PT109.
      That being said, I am extremely fascinated that the American public allowed LBJ to use a very weak administrative tool the “Executive Order” to annihilate JFK’s Constitutional protections. Somehow LHO must have known that was going to happen too.

    • Anthony Martin says:

      I’m not trained in physiology, but the neck doesn’t look abnormal. The shoulders and upper back seem muscular, maybe due to someone who had a a bad back and swam backstroke a lot. It would be interesting to have an expert weigh in. In addition, a lot of world figures have disdained security in order to ‘project’ their strength. JFK wasn’t shot at in a cavalier moment riding around in a convertible. At a minimum, professional organizations who were supposed to protect the individual and who were aware of the potentiality of threats, in a critical analysis, exhibited a lot of discrepancies in the performance of a duty to protect and serve.

  5. annie says:

    I was growing up right outside of D.C. when Kennedy was President. I was also best friends with a daughter of a Senator who was a friend and a political ally of Kennedy. It was well known that at times he would “run off” from his Secret Service, take off in his convertible. We even saw him a few times and he would wave. The Secret Service brought this up a few times in the local newspapers. He could be a very friendly man, not always cautious. I’m not saying he caused his own demise. Don’t get me wrong. But I think security wasn’t the issue it became after the assassination, as much as an issue as it is today.

    • annie, if memory serves, you have posted at jfkfacts in the past. I think at the time I asked you about the Senator in question. For some reason Stuart Symington comes to mind but I may be misremembering. If you are returning to jfkfacts with a similar story, would you be willing to clarify which Senator you are referring to? Otherwise, what precisely is your point?

      • Tom S. says:

        annie,
        The comment displaying your reply to Leslie’s comment a year ago, at this link,
        https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-750758
        …was never approved, Leslie and other JFKfacts.org readers have never seen it. Are you still endorsing, almost a year later, the claims you included in that yet to be approved comment…. specifically, that “april” is some other commenter and not you?

        I ask because I think it is only fair to all JFKfacts.org readers, so I have alerted readers when I notice commenters leaving evidence that they are using more than one I.D./alias.

        • Tom S. If there is ever an “American Idol” of jfk research moderators, you will carry the torch. Thank you.

          Hello april; hello annie. And ‘hello pixie head’.

          min. 4:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEJaJL_Huh0&list=PLEiIgaZlUAfYD6l57rysG4FhaW5Qfoq0Y

          • annie says:

            Leslie
            Please consider the fact that I know who April is and I know that we aren’t in total agreement on the issues here. I had to wonder why this situation has bothered you for so long and why you’ve been so “unfriendly” about it. I realized while reading through a lot of comments on this site the other day, that there were times I couldn’t tell if it was Leslie or Tom S making the comment. But I didn’t choose to be uncivil or accusing about it.

          • Tom S. says:

            …But your empty eyes
            Seem to pass me by
            Leave me dancing with myself…


            Link to annie (“dancing” with Sammy) https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/a-new-jfk-witness/#comment-742282
            Link to gemini comment- https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/who-was-responsible-for-the-wrongful-death-of-jfk/#comment-724548

          • Tou·ché annie, but in all candour, yours might be a logical argument were it not for the fact that I’ve been engaged on this forum from its launch, yet, to my knowledge TomS was only an occasional commenter over the years until he was (wisely in my opinion) selected to moderate the site. You can trace our individual activity to assure yourself that not only do we operate at a different pace and from a distinctly different perspective but to see that Tom is far more objective than I am. I come at the investigation subjectively, weighing my life experience against allegations that Oswald was the lone assassin, whereas TomS is the far more prudent contributor.

            ‘Please consider the fact that I know who April is and I know that we aren’t in total agreement on the issues here.’

            You must admit it’s odd that you know who April is and that apparently you have a very similar IP address and that you both surface periodically with a somewhat similar syntax and view of the research. You can track my IP compared to TomS or anyone else contributing on this forum, and I speculate we have hundreds if not thousands of miles of separation. You might appreciate why the coincidence that your IP address dovetails with a series of (for lack of a better term) “mystery commenters” might trigger alarms especially when your comments align with photon, a controversial and disingenuous participant here who refuses to disclose his credentials or identity.

            ‘I had to wonder why this situation has bothered you for so long and why you’ve been so “unfriendly” about it.’

            Dear annie, with respect, I’m not here to make friends. I haven’t been “bothered for so long”. My concern surfaces when you do and especially so when your comments dovetail with ludicrous claims made by one of our resident antagonist photon — this time suggesting that John Kennedy was a reckless leader of our democracy — this would be the president who navigated civilization through the greatest threat on record, the Cuban Missile Crisis?

        • annie or april:

          thanks to the responsible management of the conversation on this forum by TomS I can refer to my challenge of last year: “your position on Hosty and Walker does seem to dovetail with that of ‘annie,’ both in form and content so I’m wondering if you follow her comments closely? It is none of my business other than it would help to know whether I should follow both commenters on the topic of Hosty and Bardwell Odum. or would one suffice?.”

          Any occasion to pursue the question of Bardwell Odum’s role in the immediate aftermath of the assassination investigation is appreciated. I for one am intrigued that “annie” has surfaced.

          • annie says:

            Leslie…….I assure you that I am the only one posting comments here from my e-mail address. I’m sorry if you were offended by something I said or did in the past. I assure you I respect your ideas even if I don’t always agree.

          • leslie sharp
            April 22, 2015 at 3:16 pm
            “april, that different opinion you are seeking is all over the net, so a google of the Walker shooting without filtering your own bias will bring you up to speed. Willy Whitten has introduced some of the key issues you will find elsewhere. . . .

            re. your position on Hosty and Walker does seem to dovetail with that of ‘annie,’ both in form and content so I’m wondering if you follow her comments closely? It is none of my business other than it would help to know whether I should follow both commenters on the topic of Hosty and Bardwell Odum. or would one suffice?.”

            annie, I see now where the confusion arose and I must say I’m no closer to knowing whether or not “april” and “annie” are friends, colleagues, or simply like-minded individuals when it comes to the assassination investigation. And I had forgotten you said that you had witnessed someone boarding a bus with a rifle who went undetected as an argument that Lee Oswald did the same en route to shoot Walker.
            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/

            As you have expressed interest in the Walker shooting and you have referred to “Dallas 1963” by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis, can we presume you rely heavily on their version of the Walker shooting? I note the authors mention James Hosty 3 times – related to his interview with Marina in the Paine’s home and the alleged note left him by Lee Oswald; they mention Ruth Paine once as a mere observer the afternoon of the assassination; and they do not name FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum at all. Yet we have Ruth Paine and Bardwell Odum engaged in an exchange about the General Walker shooting here:
            (continued)

      • annie says:

        Leslie……I’m sorry but I don’t remember you asking me about any Senator. I would never have mentioned any names or personal info. Perhaps it was someone else. The point is that I was in a position to observe the situation close up. I spent time with these people and perhaps I made a mistake by leaving a comment. I just happened to notice the comment left by Photon. Jack Kennedy was a vibrant man, full of life as was the Kennedy clan. I in no way meant to infer that he was suicidal or that he caused his own death. But he was also more accessible than any other President. Kids I went to school with were able to call him on the phone and he would talk to them. He was an outgoing friendly man. I’m not certain if careless is the right word for anyone to use but security was not the number one thing on his mind.

        • Oh annie, you continue to intrigue. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming. Apparently you have rejoined this forum to present your personal insight?

          “I just happened to notice the comment left by Photon”

          . . . meaning you consistently follow jfkfacts, you caught photon’s comment, and after months and months, this particular conversation caught your attention, a comment that suggests Kennedy was careless with his personal safety. You said to yourself, “hey … I have a very personal experience with the Kennedy clan, I know a lot more than anyone on this forum in particular, I think I’ll dangle some ‘stuff'”

          A bit irresponsible of you if indeed you question the Warren Commission Report, let alone if you support it. But then we don’t know if you do or you don’t, do we? If you have something to offer, can you step up to the plate “annie”; given the personal expense that people like our host have endured, let alone the time energy and expense others on this forum have endured, your dipping in and dipping out with a purported insider’s perspective is obnoxious, imv.

          Is the Senator in question Stuart Symington? Simple question that you seem to have avoided. If not Symington, then who?

          • annie says:

            Dear Leslie, my intent was definitely not to “dangle” some stuff. From time to time I check into this site to see if Photon is still around as well as a few other regulars like Willy Whitten. I just happened to see this new topic and saw Photon’s comment. The neck problem I never knew about but I had seen and heard about the security issue. Now I usually just read the comments and move on but this was of interest to me. I don’t think I know more than others but given the circumstances I should know a little more here and there……at least from a closer view. Lately some books have been written by SS Agents who bring up the matter of Kennedy’s issues with security. I would think we could trust what they say. It was their job to protect him. One even said that he, Kennedy, told the agents not to sit on the back of the limo in Dallas. And, I’m not sure about Love Field. I would have no idea about that.
            You keep mentioning Stuart Symington. Symington didn’t have a daughter. As far as I know his only child was a son. No, it wasn’t Symington.
            So, I guess I won’t be dipping in and out any longer. I made a big mistake in a moment of weakness. I should never have stopped to make a comment. It was foolish under the circumstances.

    • annie says:

      I wanted to back up my statement here by adding a quote from, “Dallas 1963”, a book by Bill Minutaglio and Steve L. Davis. I think this quote is an example of how Kennedy sometimes felt about security and how again sometimes did have a say.
      “A debate arises about the proper level of motorcycle protection around the President. The police envision surrounding the limousine with eight motorcycles. Agent Lawson interjects that JFK does not like motorcycles directly alongside his car because of the loud noise they make. They also interfere with the crowds view of him. After some discussion, everyone agrees to have four motorcycles accompany the President. Two will be on each side of the limousine, just behind the rear fender.”
      This is a good book if you are looking for detail concerning the situation in Dallas. It won the PEN Center USA Literary Award for Nonfiction Research. Washington Post’s “The Fix” called it one of the best books of the year……2014. Not a book to be avoided due to false info.

      • ‘Not a book to be avoided due to false info.’

        annie, I own the book and in fact have linked to it on numerous occasions at jfkfacts. Mine is dogeared and personally annotated almost beyond recognition. You know of course that Minutaglio and Davis concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin, right? I agree it is a valuable reference book for dates and particularly for background in understanding the Dallas political structure. Having worked for Stanley Marcus, I insist you consider carefully the impetus for publication of this book and perhaps look to who might have funded it. Stanley comes across as the hero – ever the consummate merchant who took offence to the Dealey’s of the city primarily because of how they might damage mercantile. Stanley was a Grolier along with John McCloy who sat on the Warren Commission. The depth of this story cannot be pursued in the space of soundbites, annie.

        • Fellow Grolier of Stanley Marcus and John McCloy: Carl Pforzheimer . . .
          ”As the library’s focus shifted toward 19th-century English romantics, Mr. Pforzheimer sold the Gutenberg in 1978 to the University of Texas for a record $2.6 million.’ [I was witness to the formal presentation of the Guttenberg]
          http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/06/nyregion/carl-h-pforzheimer-jr-89-leading-investment-banker.html

          Carl was brother to Walter Pforzheimer, OSS and historian for the Central Intelligence Agency. Walter lived in the Watergate complex at the time of the scandal and had installed a walk-in vault in his particular apartment. Did Walter house duplicates of CIA documents – some yet to be seen by the American public?

          “He was born in 1914, the son of Walter Pforzheimer, one of three brothers who made a fortune in oil stock. All three were interested in books, and two, Walter and Carl, made notable collections, Walter specialising in French books, while Carl’s more famous collection of English literature, once in the Pforzheimer Foundation, is now mainly at the University of Texas. Arthur, the third brother, became a bookseller.”
          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-pforzheimer-36312.html

          • and irony of ironies, annie, Ross Perot surfaces in this saga:

            ‘Eight years later, H. Ross Perot acted as middleman in the sale of some 1,100 books and 250 manuscripts, dating from 1475 to 1700, from the Pforzheimer collection. Mr. Perot advanced funds to the University of Texas for that sale, which at $15 million was considered the largest sale of rare books ever. It helped finance the new scholarly interest in 19th-century works within the Pforzheimer collection.’

            Perot’s agent who took his company, EDS to IPO in the late ’60’s was RW Presspritch, a firm you might recognize if you’e familiar with uber-conservative businessman Kenneth Langone of Home Depot. In the early 1970’s as head of Presspitch, Langone employed Arthur Milton Odum – former Foreign Service Officer stationed in Marracaibo, Venezuela just weeks prior to the “discovery” of an arms cache that caught President Kennedy’s interest as he prepared for his trip to Texas – Arthur Odum, the bother of FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odeum. I believe Agent Odum has surfaced in our conversation before, has he not annie?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Guess I’ll go to Lowe’s instead of Home Depot from now on Leslie.

          • annie says:

            This is all very interesting. I actually went to UT. Like you I use this book for reference, for info concerning the atmosphere in Dallas at the time of the assassination. I also had an interest in General Walker who was really in conflict with Kennedy and had more reason than Oswald to be a threat. His aunt actually went to the FBI to report him. I’m off topic but you were right to research the background of this book. Something I didn’t think to do.
            I still hold the point that Jack Kennedy could be lax at times concerning security and wish I could get hold of those newspaper articles on how his SS Agents were worried. But they are long gone I’m sure. I still think he shouldn’t have gone to Dallas. I have to agree with
            Photon. The signs were all there and even his secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, mentioned this to him. Yet he had the right to go there safely. And I’m sure he didn’t cause his own demise. I just think someone was waiting for the right moment.

          • Ronnie, I made a mess of the name of the financial firm headed up by Langone in the ’60s that employed Bardwell Odum’s brother Arthur when he left the FSO. It was RW Pressprich.

            A little more on Langone, to put his philosophy in perspective:

            “In December 2013, he criticized Pope Francis over his views on income inequality.[10]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Langone

          • annie says:

            Hi Leslie

            Once again I’m baffled. Just like in the case of Stuart Symington, you say that we had a conversation about an agent Odum. Leslie, I remember you from a year ago but not those conversations. I had to look up Symington on the internet and noted that he didn’t have a daughter. I said that my friend was a senator’s daughter and wondered why Symington was your guess? I would never mention a name to begin with. Now I do remember posting comments about Hosty because it was Hosty who investigated the so-called attempt on General Walker’s life. As I said earlier, I had an interest in Walker. That’s one reason I was so interested in the book we’ve been talking about. But Odum?

          • leslie sharp
            April 22, 2015 at 3:16 pm
            “april, that different opinion you are seeking is all over the net, so a google of the Walker shooting without filtering your own bias will bring you up to speed. Willy Whitten has introduced some of the key issues you will find elsewhere. . . .

            re. your position on Hosty and Walker does seem to dovetail with that of ‘annie,’ both in form and content so I’m wondering if you follow her comments closely? It is none of my business other than it would help to know whether I should follow both commenters on the topic of Hosty and Bardwell Odum. or would one suffice?.”

            annie, I see now where the confusion arose and I must say I’m no closer to knowing whether or not “april” and “annie” are friends, colleagues, or simply like-minded individuals when it comes to the assassination investigation. And I had forgotten you said that you had witnessed someone boarding a bus with a rifle who went undetected as an argument that Lee Oswald did the same en route to shoot Walker.
            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/

            As you have expressed interest in the Walker shooting and you have referred to “Dallas 1963” by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis, can we presume you rely heavily on their version of the Walker shooting? I note the authors mention James Hosty 3 times – related to his interview with Marina in the Paine’s home and the alleged note left him by Lee Oswald; they mention Ruth Paine once as a mere observer the afternoon of the assassination; and they do not name FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum at all. Yet we have Ruth Paine and Bardwell Odum engaged in an exchange about the General Walker shooting here:
            (continued)

          • Ruth Paine testimony:
            ‘. .. I think she [Marina Oswald] must have known that Lee had been to Mexico, judging from the materials, I have already described were picked up by Mr. Odum and myself from the dresser drawer.’ (9H385)

            ‘. . . I don’t know whether your accounts of what the FBI has put down of they conversation with me include one meeting Bardwell Odum, right after the newspapers had indicated something of a shot at Walker, before there was any corroborative details such as the contents of a note.’ (9H387)

            ‘ . . . Agent Odum has been out a great deal.’ (3H106)

            ‘ . . . I would guess that I reported to Mr. Odum other things about — . . . I talked with him a great deal. (3H107)

            We have Ruth Paine discussing the Walker shooting with Bard Odum. Then we have testimony regarding the alleged slug in evidence in the Walker shooting:

            Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not any ballistic identification was made of this slug with regard to any rifle it may have been fired from?

            Lt. DAY. No, sir, I released it to the FBI Agent B.D. Odum on December 2, 1963, at 4:10 pm. (10H273)

          • annie, I think your comment begs dissection: ‘

            ‘I also had an interest in General Walker “who was really in conflict with Kennedy and had more reason than Oswald to be a threat.” ‘

            Are you actually comparing the motive General Walker might have had to that of Oswald? I’m curious what motive you think Oswald had and on what source material you might base that on? Why not engage in a serious discussion of others who had clear motive; the steel industry, the oil industry, fired military brass. industrial military contractors, corporations whose assets were under threat across Latin America, ideological adversaries for a number of reasons? Why stop with Walker and Oswald? I’ll venture why: because the Warren Commission wanted you to.

            ‘. . . you were right to research the background of this book.’

            It never occurred to me not to.

            ‘I still hold the point that Jack Kennedy could be lax at times concerning security and wish I could get hold of those newspaper articles on how his SS Agents were worried. But they are long gone I’m sure.’

            Most news articles are well archived online, searchable by solid key words; perhaps you can recall the salient phrases and go in search and then provide those links here rather than ask the readers to accept your inferences?

            ‘I still think he shouldn’t have gone to Dallas.’

            In my humble opinion that is a most absurd argument. Kennedy was the president for all US citizens; your observations suggests that America was a third world nation with certain areas unsafe for their elected official. If Dallas was dangerous to the president, the entire Nation should have risen up and demanded troops be sent in to contain the hatred.

            ‘I have to agree with Photon.’

            apparently, unless I’m mistaken, it is photon’s comments that drew you back to this site after a very long hiatus. curious, that’s all.

            ‘The signs were all there and even his secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, mentioned this to him. Yet he had the right to go there safely.’

            You are saying that the president had the “right”? Perhaps we have a different understanding of Government of the People, By the People, For the People. This wasn’t about his “right” but more about his obligation in a democracy to advance his administration’s agenda to All the People in order we might be better informed in our vote.

            ‘And I’m sure he didn’t cause his own demise. I just think someone was waiting for the right moment.’

            The “death wish” card is a desperate tactic and not worthy of this site, yet here we are compelled to challenge any who attempt to play it. What happened to the concept of courage in our president? And your opinion of who that ‘someone’ was?

      • Tom S. says:

        I think this quote is an example of how Kennedy sometimes felt about security and how again sometimes did have a say.
        “A debate arises about the proper level of motorcycle protection around the President. The police envision surrounding the limousine with eight motorcycles. Agent Lawson interjects that JFK does not like motorcycles directly alongside his car because of the loud noise they make. They also interfere with the crowds view of him. After some discussion, everyone agrees to have four motorcycles accompany the President. Two will be on each side of the limousine, just behind the rear fender.”

        If I let my paranoid influences tap on the laptop keys, I’d probably be typing that what is
        happening here resembles what I imagine a disinfo Op might look like to readers…. several commenters submitting very similar “facts”. And annie, I don’t see where you have ever including a supporting link in a comment.

        http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html
        ………..
        Reduction of motorcycle outriders

        The frequently repeated story that JFK ordered a reduction in the presence of motorcycle outriders in the Dallas motorcade is in need of correction. Although presidential motorcades on all prior stops on the November, 1963 Texas trip normally included anywhere from three to six cyclists on each side of the JFK limousine (a fact confirmed by numerous press and official White House films and photographs), the plans for Dallas were altered by Secret Service officials to give JFK just four non-flanking outriders.

        Thus the presidential limousine was opened to crossfire, and the perceptions of professionally trained eye- and ear-witnesses were eliminated from the scene of the crime. Former agents Kinney and Godfrey confirmed that JFK never gave direct or implicit instructions to remove motorcycles from security positions adjacent to his car. Further, films and photographs of prior Texas trip stops clearly show a heavy motorcycle outrider presence during motorcades, up to and including the Fort Worth motorcade of November 21, 1963.

        The origin of the order to strip presidential security by reducing motorcycle-based security remains mysterious, and carries sinister implications.

  6. opinionator says:

    Here in Australia there is a swimming pool named after Harold Holt, another irony. I disagree with Photon’s single assassin theory, but he does makes a relevant point that charismatic leaders often shun security in order to charm and woo the masses. Benazir Bhutto stuck her head above the parapet in order to be seen by her admirers, and was similarly gunned down, undoubtedly by organised killers. And everyone in this country knows that Harold Holt was abducted by Chinese submariners for supporting the Vietnam war.

  7. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Know what’s missing in this photo? The rampant obesity that has overtaken America like an epidemic. Look at how lean those people are!

  8. Bogman says:

    EVERY president does this now and again. Obama frequents local burger and hot dog stands around the WH, unannounced and with few if any agents in tow. Nixon used to stroll the beach of San Clemente without entourage.

    Anyone who thinks JFK was “reckless” for being in a motorcade that candidates were STILL doing in the late 60s is a horse’s patoot.

    • opinionator says:

      More to the point, who really called the secret service agents off the running boards, and who insisted on the bubble top?

  9. DB says:

    So JFK was responsible for making a turn that breached protocol and traveling at a speed that breached protocol and at a minimum not providing window security and max personnel at the most vulnerable spot on the trip ?

    I can’t comment on JFKs security views but blaming JFK for non existent security at the most vulnerable area on the route is plain ridiculous and unfortunately makes me question either their intelligence or bias or both

    The successful assassination was 100% without any doubt a secret service and / or other protection units failure on multiple levels

    That limo never should of gone thru the plaza ( Major secret service failure ), if the impossible happened and somehow the limo was allowed to proceed thru an incredibly dangerous area at a dangerous speed , every window should of been closed , agents should of been all over the roofs , the grounds and the running boards ( basically everywhere )

    This is beyond commen sense , if you are going thru a high vulnerable area , you at a minimum provide max personnel protection to almost every other variable to completely eliminate this high risk. If one area is potentially compromised , you over compensate on other protection areas.

    Anyone that blames the security failure on the president simply can not be taken seriously on this particular subject matter.

    The fact no security precautions were taking on any level thru the plaza , especially in a hostile area like Dallas is not just gross negligence but unfortunately is sinister and planned.

    November 22 1963 security failures on that scale was an impossibility . It could NOT happen , it’s that simple

    There are plenty of other subject areas to justifiably disagree on or argue over but blaming the security breach on JFK is absolutely and with total certainty not such a subject area

    • Bogman says:

      Yes, and it’s amazing in the vicinity of that amazingly slow turn was a Russian defector and pro-Castro supporter who had just let the FBI know he was mad as hell about something (the FBI made sure we’ll never know), just had a meltdown and brought out his gun in the most monitored Russian embassy in the hemisphere, just spoke with KGB wet operations guy, and just played footsie with CIA-backed anti-Castro Cubans in NO.

      And then got a job in the perfect place to kill a president – but nobody saw him do it and he denied it until he was assassinated two days later.

      Does anyone wonder why the American people never bought this shyte?

    • Photon says:

      Of course the motorcade through Dallas was totally unnecessary-they could have left Love Field and gone directly to the Trade Mart.
      Who decided on a motorcade in the first place?
      The White House staff was aware of what happened to Stevenson-why did they acquiesce to a route through downtown Dallas, where at a minimum they should have expected hostile demonstrations? If you want to go down that road you have to implicate Powers, O’Donnell,O’Brien and every close JFK associate that was involved in planning the motorcade as being involved in some grand conspiracy to leave JFK defenseless.The supreme pol JFK had to be aware of the risks of a motorcade downtown in “enemy” territory-even apart from physical danger. He obviously wasn’t going to carry Dallas County in 1964- in 1960 he lost the county to Nixon by nearly 2:1. It was a reckless decision.

      • annie says:

        Yes. In October of 1963, after Stevenson himself experienced an unfriendly visit to Dallas, he expressed concern about Kennedy’s safety in the city. Kennedy himself was aware of the situation as his senior White House Aide, Arthur Schlesinger, called Stevenson to tell him that Kennedy admired his calmness in Dallas while he was under fire. They both expressed concern about the President’s upcoming visit to Dallas, wondering if it was really wise for Kennedy to go there.
        One of the better descriptions of this can be found in, “Dallas 1963”, by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L Davis.

        • Photon says:

          The tragedy of Jack Kennedy was that he WAS careless-and Leslie’s comment proves that JFK was aware of the potential dangers of a motorcade downtown-but decided to proceed anyway.
          It unfortunately followed a pattern seen while he was in the Navy in WWII. Despite being the son of a prominent American political figure he was careless enough to get involved intimately with a suspected Axis agent-an action that should have terminated his military career, but didn’t only because of the intervention of a friend of his father-one influential federal employee name John Edgar Hoover.
          Upon reading the personal history of the PT boat skipper who rescued him after PT 109 was sunk ( obtained by this author) it became apparent why JFK’s boat was sunk. Despite a squadron-wide policy of always keeping one of the 3 engines running while on patrol, even while station keeping , JFK carelessly had all of his engines off and could not respond once the Amagiri was sighted. Perhaps the most egregious example of this carelessness came at what should have been his finest hour. When JFK commanded PT 59 after the loss of 109 he helped rescue dozens of Marine raiders from an island in the Solomons. However, incredibly his boat ran out of gas on the return trip and had to be towed back to port. Apparently he never checked his fuel level before embarking on the mission. Do these incidents mean that JFK was responsible for his assassination? Of course not. But they do reveal that the assassination took place in the setting of a culture of complacency, a culture that made an attempt on JFK’s life inevitable.

          • Tom S. says:

            Upon reading the personal history of the PT boat skipper who rescued him after PT 109 was sunk ( obtained by this author) it became apparent why JFK’s boat was sunk. Despite a squadron-wide policy of always keeping one of the 3 engines running while on patrol, even while station keeping , JFK carelessly had all of his engines off and could not respond once the Amagiri was sighted.

            http://soc.history.war.world-war-ii.narkive.com/XtFbjPaF/question-about-pt109
            ….A few months ago we hosted a former PT boat crewman (when I introduced him I
            miscalled him the captain) at our local high school assembly….

            The PT boats generally moved to a patrol area as darkness settled in and acted
            as ambush hunters, with two of three engines shut down and one running at idle
            with the exhaust pipe exiting in the water to reduce noise signature. The
            exhaust had to be rerouted to above the water line for power. The engines were
            controlled by the mate in the engine room, who basically answered commands as
            on a large ship. The captain could not just shove a cockpit mounted throttle
            forward and go.
            Even with only one engine idling, it was still too noisy to detect sounds, for
            the most part. The greatest danger was aircraft, which hunted the PTs by
            looking for their wakes–thus they drifted on the water most of the time, or
            moved only very slowly. The boat’s wake in tropical waters was phosphorescent
            and easily seen from the air. Aircraft would fly up the wake and bomb or
            strafe at the point where it ended. An aircraft could be heard –sometimes–
            flying up the wake about 15 seconds before its bomb hit. It sounded as if
            someone had opened the hatch to the boat’s engine compartment. The captain had
            only that much time to recognize the sound change as an approaching aircraft
            and take evasive action…

            http://rare.us/story/the-heroics-of-one-of-our-most-beloved-presidents-are-revisited-with-a-new-look-at-pt-109/
            Author William Doyle, who coauthored Chris Kyle’s book “American Gun: A History of the U.S. in Ten Firearms,” is publishing “PT 109: An American Epic of War, Survival, and the Destiny of John F. Kennedy.”

            He was able to get a fresh look at the disaster, as he was given access to classified documents, materials from Japanese archives, and interviews from survivors, including Lieutenant William “Bud” Lebenow, a friend of JFK’s and captain of the ship that would eventually rescue PT-109’s survivors.

            As a Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG), Kennedy was given command of PT-109 after he expressed that he wanted to serve in combat. The boat was ordered to keep up night patrols after several other boats were attacked, despite the fact that their radar was not working. At 2:00am on August 2, 1943, PT-109 had the engine idling in an effort to avoid enemy detection. It would not work. The Japanese destroyer Amagiri ran PT-109 down at high speeds, leaving PT-109 cut in two…..

          • David Regan says:

            Photon, you sound like a child pouting over sour grapes every time you attack JFK. The continuing public admiration for him must really get under your skin, not helped of course by the low regard for men you admire like LBJ and Nixon.

            LBJ’s Lies About His War Record http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153

            Most Ironic Ship Ever: The U.S.S. Lyndon Johnson http://www.wired.com/2012/04/uss-lyndon-johnson

            The Truth About Tonkin | U.S. Naval Institute https://shar.es/1jvIu3

            Lying About Vietnam http://nyti.ms/Hpyt5p

            Nixon plot against newspaper columnist detailed http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39157420/ns/politics/t/nixon-plot-against-newspaper-columnist-detailed/#.Vww6v_krLIU

            Richard Nixon’s Greatest Cover-Up: His Ties to the Assassination of President Kennedy Crime Magazine http://www.crimemagazine.com/richard-nixons-greatest-cover-his-ties-assassination-president-kennedy

        • David Regan says:

          Of course, the late night debauchery antics of several SS agents in Fort Worth didn’t help matters, did it annie?

      • “The supreme pol JFK had to be aware of the risks of a motorcade downtown in “enemy” territory-even apart from physical danger.”
        ~Photon

        Yea! Kennedy just thought to himself, “why don’t I go down to Dallas and get my brains blown out!”

        Sounds ‘reasonable’ to me Photon.

        I think a more rational explanation is that “the Kings Guard” had been compromised, that the Secret Service was in on the plot at the highest levels. Along with many other agencies of the national security state.

        The people on this forum should familiarize themselves with THE PRINCE by Machiavelli for the nuts and bolts of Realpolitik.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Tom S. please post the evidence that the engine was running on 109 at 2:00 am.The manuscript written by the skipper who picked him up stated that the assumption among the other PT boat skippers was that none of the engines were running. How can I prove that? Let’s just say that I came in contact with the manuscript by personal associations. If you knew where he lived you might understand.

          • Tom S. says:

            Tom S. please post the evidence that the engine was running on 109 at 2:00 am.The manuscript written by the skipper who picked him up stated that the assumption among the other PT boat skippers was that none of the engines were running.

            Photon, if you read the portion of this account preceding what I present below, attributed to the commanding officer assigned to PT-157, a reasonable person would be impressed with how little regard W.F. Liebnow actually had for your argument and your approach to this ginned up controversy. Continue to confine your capacity to empathize to the crocodile tears you exhibit when you’re relating your opinion of Allen Dulles and the injustices done to him.

            http://travelingtubie.blogspot.com/2013/06/incident.html
            “THE INCIDENT”
            AUGUST 1 – 2, 1943
            by William F. Liebenow
            ……
            It was then that I got a chance to ask JFK how it all happened. The crux of his reply was this.
            “Lieb,” he said, “to tell you the truth, I don’t know.”
            As previously stated, in later questioning Kennedy implied that the PT 109 had only one engine engaged and that he would not recommend patrolling this way. This does not satisfy some people, they argue that even with one engine the 109 should have been able to avoid being rammed. I would say that those people have never been in close operations in a PT boat against the enemy. One engine operation was probably a mistake but the same thing could have happened with all three engines engaged.
            I believe Kennedy when he said he didn’t know how it happened….

          • there’s certainly an up-tick of teasing on this site.

            here we have photon: ‘Let’s just say that I came in contact with the manuscript by personal associations. If you knew where he lived you might understand.’

            and earlier we have annie: ‘I said that my friend was a senator’s daughter and wondered why Symington was your guess? I would never mention a name to begin with.’

            So the question to both photon and annie: why introduce these personal anecdotes knowing the likelihood you will be challenged to produce evidence? Do you intend to elaborate, or will you – true to form – slink away from the intensity of the conversation, egos satisfied? Honorable American citizens, right?

        • Photon says:

          Actually , Tom S. he never stated in that excerpt that JFK had only one engine running -only that others criticized him for only having one engine running ( as he claimed to have had) . The problem with that is that other boats in the same area did station-keep with only one engine running and never were involved in the same incident. The full manuscript mentioned the perception of other skippers in the squadron – although what you have posted confirms what I read years ago What is interesting is what Liebenow didn’t say. As I recall the same manuscript made an oblique comment about how his performance declined after the rescue -a fact that Liebenow diplomatically blamed on JFK’s chronic pain after the collision . This was in reference to the screw-up after rescuing the Marine raiders when JFK ran out of gas. Perhaps you can recover that portion of the manuscript -I was unaware that anybody outside of family circles had access to the manuscript .

          • ‘The full manuscript mentioned the perception of other skippers in the squadron – although what you have posted confirms what I read years ago What is interesting is what Liebenow didn’t say. As I recall the same manuscript made an oblique comment about how his performance declined after the rescue -a fact that Liebenow diplomatically blamed on JFK’s chronic pain after the collision.’ — photon

            Could we finally see some substance here from photon? Anyone following this site over the last 3 years will know that photon has been granted some kind of dispensation … whatever he presents is considered factual without ever having provided source material. How did he manage that? Now TomS is strenuously encouraging substantive source material and photon ignores the admonition. We get the site we deserve?

      • ‘Who decided on a motorcade in the first place?’

        photon, either you are speculating that no one is paying close attention or you’re willfully exposing your ignorance. We know who was involved in the planning of the motorcade route.

        ‘The supreme pol JFK had to be aware of the risks of a motorcade downtown in “enemy” territory-even apart from physical danger. He obviously wasn’t going to carry Dallas County in 1964- in 1960 he lost the county to Nixon by nearly 2:1. It was a reckless decision.’

        Reckless decision, photon? Parading through downtown Dallas? I thought your argument has always been that security for Kennedy was standard, met all the expectations, no big deal. Now you’re arguing that it was a dangerous dynamic — with Kennedy at fault?

        • Photon says:

          It was standard. That was part of the problem. JFK took risks that should have prompted more vigorous security policies. However, JFK already didn’t like the policies in place and would never have complied with policies that are now standard.Frankly, I think that JFK and everybody around him never assumed that anybody would actually make a serious attempt on his life-after all, it was 1963, not 1900. He had gotten away with careless actions throughout his life and at the time even his White House bedroom antics had had no consequences.
          It finally caught up with him on Nov 22.

          • Tom S. says:

            However, JFK already didn’t like the policies in place and would never have complied with policies that are now standard.

            Photon, do tell. Please post a link to something that has stood up to scrutiny, that supports that claim. You really seem intent on emphasizing an opinion that has been debunked.
            The point being that the numerous claims, found to be inaccurate, give the appearance of an agenda to plant an impression in less informed recipients of it that JFK should be blamed for his assassination. The “no, but….” just doesn’t make up for that politically motivated nonsense.

          • Tom S. says:

            Frankly, I think that JFK and everybody around him never assumed that anybody would actually make a serious attempt on his life-after all, it was 1963, not 1900.

            Mayor Cermak was shot while sitting next to FDR, thirty-three years after 1900, Harry Truman was attacked by gunmen who were stopped at the expense of the loss of the life of one uniformed member of his security detail while in his temporary residence in D.C., Blair House, more than fifty years after 1900.

            What was your actual point?”

          • photon, I suppose this could be valued as revelatory of the desperation you seem to be experiencing on this site lately. But alleging that Kennedy’s assassination was successful because he had a history of being reckless is obnoxious beyond measure. Do we have to walk you back through what has already been presented on this site – the luminaries in Dallas who sat with the Secret Service to plan the motorcade route that took him into a triangulated kill zone? Are you suggesting that John Kennedy said “now folks, let’s make sure I’m driven thru this area here . . . that we’ll be forced to slow down the exact speed to allow potential shooters to get me in their sights, and pay particular care you don’t concern yourself with open windows in this zone.”

          • jeffc says:

            Photon: ” I think that JFK and everybody around him never assumed that anybody would actually make a serious attempt on his life”

            Except, of course, Florida and Chicago in the weeks just prior to Dallas – known to both the FBI and the Secret Service.

            Also, contrary to Photon’s attempt at misdirection, the fact of the Dallas motorcade was less of an issue than the uniquely insecure environment of Dealey Plaza. The failure to apply extra security precaution in that particular place is inexplicable. What was in place instead were numerous Dallas police officers standing around (told not to participate), and several Army Intelligence agents documenting the scene with cameras. (Army Intelligence agents with cameras were also nearby for the MLK shooting)

          • “Leslie’s comment proves that JFK was aware of the potential dangers of a motorcade downtown. . . ” — photon

            Please refresh my memory photon. When did I comment that Kennedy was aware of the motorcade danger? He was cognizant that going to Dallas might spark unpleasant incidents, but he was the President of the United States. Would you have preferred he announce to America, ‘we have a city within our national boundaries that the president should not venture into’? Study your civics photon.

          • Photon says:

            My point was that no President had been assassinated since 1900. Cermak may well have been the real target of the attempt , not FDR-it is not clear. The attack on Blair House was a paramilitary terrorist attack totally dissimilar to all other Presidental assassination attempts-multiple participants being distinctly unusual.
            How do you interpret the comment ” we are heading into nut country”- humorous speculation?

          • an interesting side note directed to photon: When the FBI sought assurance (an obvious question for seasoned agents) that Michael and Ruth Paine were not involved in the plot to assassinate the president, apparently they relied on the accreditation of Frederick and Nancy Osborn of Pennsylvania. Both Frederick and his father were eugenicists, and Sr. was an attorney with a history at the very law firm involved in the scheme to murder FDR.

            photon, if you want links or source material to back up these allegations, I recommend you just “google.”

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The dangers of a parade in Dallas or anywhere else are not the real issue.
            The Fact that the Secret Service was complicit is inescapable. Leaving the agent with his arms in the air at Love Field.
            JFK did not remove the usual agents from the rear bumper, the SS did.
            Agent Ready started to react but was called back by his superior.
            Hungover agents that were never reprimanded.
            Then you add planned Military protection told to stand down over the objections of their commander. This was standard in many other parades. Soldiers lining the parade route facing out scanning the crowds and Buildings.
            This lack of security in Dealy Plaza was no accident.

            Survivor’s Guilt is well documented.
            Draw your own Conclusions.

          • Let’s give photon a boost up here:

            Lt. DAY. No, sir, I released it to the FBI Agent B.D. Odum on December 2, 1963, at 4:10 pm. (10H273)

            This is Bard Odum, the Special Agent of the FBI who was ever present in the Paine home and in pursuit of Marina and Marguerite Oswald in the first 48 hours of the investigation and the months following.

            One day later, December 3, 1963, Odum’s FBI colleagues in Pennsylvania record:

            “ . . . FBI document dated 12.3.63 stating that the FBI had interviewed two friends of the Paine’s who vouched for their innocence in having anything to do with the assassination. The friends were Fred and Nancy Osborn. It just so happened that Fred’s father, Fred Osborn Sr., was a friend and associate of Allen Dulles. Osborn attended Princeton and graduated right between the two Dulles brothers, John and Allen. I found personal correspondence at the Dulles collection at Princeton between Osborn and the Dulles brothers. In 1950, Allen and Osborn co-founded an organization called “Crusade for Freedom,” which was an early CIA propaganda effort patterned after Radio Free Europe . CFF merged with RFE in 1962. Osborn served as the first President of this organization and Allen Dulles and Henry Luce were among the original board of directors [the author fails to identify Gen. Lucius Clay, subordinate of John Jay McCloy, Warren Commission member]. . . . . During WWII, with no prior military experience, [Osborn] was appointed a brigadier general in charge of the effort to make films to stir up patriotism on the home front – in other words, propaganda. . . . “ – Steve Jones, Kennedy assassination researcher

            Fred Osborn Jr. who along with his wife Nancy vouchsafed for Michael and Ruth Paine, was employed at the time by Smith Kline French pharmaceuticals. According to Osborn Jr. himself (sorry photon, you’ll have to go digging — I’ll give you a clue, a Princeton U publication) he was responsible for investing non-profit charitable contributions on behalf of SKF. Any one au fait with how that world works knows that the board of directors of a for-profit corporation signs off on all significant contributions to charities on behalf of that profitable entity, meaning Osborn didn’t do anything without the blessing of the board members. Guess who was on the board of Smith Kline French while Osborn Jr. – the man willing to vouch for Michael and Ruth Paine in the aftermath of 11.22.63 and the man responsible of doling out those charitable contributions? Former Secretary of Defense Thomas S. Gates. Guess what controversial event Gates was involved with? The downing of the U-2 and the Francis Gary Powers saga. Former Sec Def TS Gates was also on the board of Neil Mallon’s Dallas-based Dresser Industries along with Lewis MacNaughton of Amerada Hess.

            (continued)

          • (continued)

            photon, I’m sure you’re aware of the relationship between Everett Glover and the deGolyer/MacNaughton oil concern; and you know that in spite of twisted history, a close study of WC testimony confirms that Glover was the individual responsible for introducing Ruth Paine to Lee and Marina Oswald. (We can drag George deMohrenschildt into this saga for another 5 decades as a distraction, but until we acknowledge these facts, we are tilting at windmills.) You are surely aware that Everett Glover knew Ruth and Michael Paine from their shared interest in madrigal singing, and that interest was shared with Glover, Ruth & Michael and Nancy and Frederick Osborn

            I don’t know photon . . . do you think sometime during the questioning by the FBI of Frederick and Nancy Osborn related to Michael and Ruth Paine that some astute agent could put two and two together and wonder, ‘are these the only people we’re going to rely upon to assure us that Ruth and or Michael are benign characters in the lead up to Dealey Plaza?’

            To recap, Fred worked for SKF with a board that included TS Gates, former Secretary of Defense who was on the board of Dresser with Lewis MacNaughton who was Everett Glover’s former employer … Glover who introduced Ruth Paine to the Oswalds. Ruth and Michael who shared an interest in madrigal singing with Frederick and Nancy Osborn who singularly assured Hoover’s FBI that the Paines were mere victims of coincidence on the sidelines of the assassination. And we go from there, do we not, photon?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            You can find the leaving of the frustrated agent on you tube.

            Why and who ordered the stand down of the Military troops in the “Hottest” city in the United States regarding right wing extremism?

            Ref Stevenson spat upon, LBJ and the mink coat affair, Dallas Morning News owner Dealy and his Tricycle insult, H L Hunt, Murchison, I can go on.

            Why and who ordered the stand down of troops? Who ordered the SS to back off?

          • David Regan says:

            Why would the SS not take threats on JFK seriously when there were numerous cases prior to 11.22.63? Kennedy himself spoke often about the subject of assassination right up until that morning in Fort Worth.

            JFK survived assassination attempt one month before inauguration http://s.nj.com/oijpPYZ

            Ireland Knew of Threats to Kennedy in 1963 Trip: http://nyti.ms/1bliKSf

            JFK murder plots planned in Chicago before Dallas assassination http://abc7chicago.com/archive/9315215/

            Exclusive: JFK Death Threat Note From Nov. 1963 In Miami Revealed For 1st Time http://cbsloc.al/1VPgIzp

            Intriguing Mystery – The Secret Service and the JFK Assassination http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=fac_pm

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thank you for the links David Reagan.
            In particular the last. I think it’s worth re posting.

            http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=fac_pm

          • JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown

            Video:
            https://youtu.be/XY02Qkuc_f8?t=135

            \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          My pleasure, Ronnie. You might find this article of interest as well. The Dirty Secret of the Secret Service: President Kennedy Should Have Lived https://shar.es/1j5Yvl

  10. Ray Mitcham says:

    Note that he has not got a mole on his left shoulder. The body at the autopsy did.

    How come?

  11. Mariano says:

    If only photon would reveal what his capacity on this forum is, who he represents, who funds or encourages his involvement, and whether a source of that backing is the public purse – the constant misinformation he spouts might be put to rest?
    For the most part he is a disrespectful and spiteful character who is merely civil for the fact he would not be able to participate otherwise.
    Irrespective of to what degree JFK was careless or carefree, he was the President, he valued the need to be approachable to the common person; he did not seek to be assassinated; and he was assassinated under circumstances that were subsequently covered up by the various sectors of jurisdiction in whom the nation trusted to properly investigate.

  12. Photon says:

    What misinformation? That I post items that call into question conspiracy “facts”? That I have access to items not in the public realm? That I tend to look at physical evidence and dismiss speculation about unproven associations and claims? Please quote something that I knowingly posted to be untrue-as defined by documented fact.

    • “That I have access to items not in the public realm?”~Photon

      A euphemistic rhetorical excuse for Photon’s routine habit of lack of providing sources.

      “That I post items that call into question conspiracy “facts”?”~Ibid

      No, that you continue to call into question facts that are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Example; the location of JFK’s back wound at T-3; And the fact that the chain of custody for CE399 is broken and therefore invalidated as proper evidence.

      The examples are legion if one cares to browse through these threads taking notes.
      \\][//

    • “That I have access to items not in the public realm?”~Photon

      Are you saying that there is information in the private realm that could lay to rest the myriad challenges to the Warren Commission conclusion – that you have exclusive access to but that as a US citizen you consider it your privilege to perpetuate concealment of such material? Perhaps that is what is so obnoxious about your presence here; your self serving, hierarchical attitude toward your responsibilities as a fellow American.

      • theNewDanger says:

        THIS a million times. Whether Photon is telling the truth or not about having access to information “not in the public realm” he/she/it has outed himself/herself/itself as having a conflict of interest in the JFK debate and should have some dignity and either be clear about the information or be silent.

      • annie says:

        We already know that there are items concerning the assassination that are not available in the public realm. The owner of this website has been involved in litigation concerning this very topic. And it has been brought up right here that the Kennedy family has rights to certain documents, to keep them in the family. It would be Photon’s responsibility to respect these situations. Whether or not they should be brought up on a public website is another matter.

        .

        • Tom S. says:

          annie, the difference is obvious, Jeff Morley pursued an FOIA lawsuit because the CIA refused
          to disclose what could reasonably be argued was in fact, not being withheld in the interests of
          national security.

          I do not understand why you make a comparison of that to Photon making claims alleged to be supported by evidence in an undisclosed location that he is not at liberty to point readers in the direction of for purposes of verification. You seem to be supporting the teasing out of selective details of restricted material of unverifiable sources. If this is the level of discussion you support, a result is encouraging more of it. If your goal is actually to make an
          impression to readers that these threads are a waste of their time due to the thinness of verifiable fact presented in comments, you’re well on your way to that end.

      • annie says:

        It has already been established on this website that there. are documents concerning the assassination that are not available in the public realm. The owner of this website has been involved in litigation concerning this very topic. It has also been noted right here that the Kennedy family has documents in their possession that belong to the family and are also not in the public domain. The question here should be is it right at this point for them to be discussed on a public website.

        • annie says:

          Am sorry for the duplicate. Am using a different machine, one I’m not familiar with.

          • Hah! Interesting Tom.

            So Annie, who are you and Sammy working for or with?

            Is “Dr” Photon in your group? Perhaps “professor” McAdams?

            I am sure that you are not likely able to divulge such details “due to national security issues”…
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Whoah Willie, dial it down a notch. Obviously you did not watch the season finale of the
            show “Billions”. Bobby Axelrod (played by Damian Lewis) orders the destruction of the walls, flooring and ceilings
            of his own investment company offices, in an unsuccessful search for bugging devices expected
            to have been planted at the direction of the U.S. attorney character, “Chuckie Rhoades,” convincingly played by Paul Giamatti. In the photo image at the beginning of this review of the final episode, the destruction of the office ceiling is in view.:
            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/arts/television/billions-season-1-finale-recap-a-wendy-scorned.html?_r=0

            IOW, all we know is what we can observe and document, speculation has no such reasonable
            limits. I’m expecting annie will share a perfectly understandable explanation for what can
            actually be observed.

          • “I’m expecting annie will share a perfectly understandable explanation for what can
            actually be observed.”~Tom

            I await with baited breath…
            \\][//

          • theNewDanger says:

            “Annie/Sammie” appears to be a great example of what independent analysts identify as a “sock puppet”. McSadams calls his Paul Nolan. Yikes ?.

            The forest of online sock puppetry (hint: this can include multiple people coordinating to achieve a mutual objective)
            * https://revolution-news.com/propaganda-2-0-government-trolls-sock-puppet-armies-terrorist-twitterstorms/
            * http://www.onehundredyearhorizons.com/sock-puppets-and-gamergate-depravity/
            * https://m.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2s0bxp/us_military_uses_sock_puppet_software_to_create/

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            annie
            April 9, 2016 at 12:15 am
            Leslie…….I assure you that I am the only one posting comments here from my e-mail address. I’m sorry if you were offended by something I said or did in the past. I assure you I respect your ideas even if I don’t always agree.

            ————————————

            Poor Annie, someone has been breaking into “her” house and posting to this forum on her computer. 🙁

          • annie says:

            I will say it one more time……I assure you I am the only person commenting on this site from this computer. You are very wrong about me.
            As for photon, he uses very logical arguments which are easy to follow even without links. I realize links are important and make life easier but the truth is the truth. Kennedy could be lax concerning security. Those close to him knew that without having to use links. You are doing a great job creating a myth, a JFK many will no longer recognize. That’s not my opinion. Several historians recently came up with that, that they no longer recognized him due to all of the CT going around. You’ve done even a greater job on Oswald. Before tonight I had a positive outlook regarding this site but your new set of comments ended that illusion.

          • annie says:

            Why are you all so suspicious? Tom, I thought you were representing Jeff Morley, an honest and intelligent man. Before looking over this last group of comments, I had been open to a few CT theories. That’s one reason i come here. You might not like Photon but he is never really a thug and his arguments are logical and plausible. That’s why i check his comments. I actually wish I could have been all of those people after tonight. I notice none of them stayed. Or maybe they are still lurking
            around?…but not on my computer.

          • Tom S. says:

            Annie, the evidence I’ve been presenting indicates the reason you come here…..

            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-745944

          • ‘As for photon, he uses very logical arguments which are easy to follow even without links. I realize links are important and make life easier but the truth is the truth. ‘

            photon’s ‘logic’ makes life easier for you, huh? How do you incorporate the myriad of challenges to the conclusions of the Warren Commission? Better yet, why not consider Stephen King’s version of the assassination – it might even better suit your temperament.

            The challenge on this site is and has always been to step up to the plate. Chasing the simplistic narrative of the Warren Commission as regurgitated by photon, John McAdams and Jean Davison simply does not cut it here.

            And maybe you get a bit squeamish when confronted with links that establish truths, that challenge the official version, particularly links that contradict the false reality photon has constructed out of whole cloth. If so, I recommend you stay in that comfort zone annie; after all, you know people who knew people who knew that Kennedy sometimes needed some space. That’s proof enough for you to allege he willingly walked himself into a kill zone?

        • annie, essentially the documents being sought by Jeff Morley et al are public property with restrictions that are to be lifted by 2017 unless someone is intent on them not being released. Should that transpire, we the people will have to question what is at stake, and proceed accordingly.

          ‘It has also been noted right here that the Kennedy family has documents in their possession that belong to the family and are also not in the public domain.’

          Are you inferring that photon has access to Kennedy family documents? If you are, do you have inside information to persuade us these documents should not – out of respect for the family – be disclosed? If so, perhaps you or photon will justify your even bringing up information that is considered sacrosanct. Do we hear ego and bluster behind this defence of photon? Or as Tom suggests, an effort to diminish the hard work that American citizens put into this effort on this site? Or do you weigh in with Prof. McAdams … “this is just plain fun!”

          ‘The question here should be is it right at this point for them to be discussed on a public website.’

          Perhaps you will share with us your credential that inspires you to determine what is and isn’t “right”. You seem to employ that term a good deal, annie.

    • theNewDanger says:

      Photon

      April 12, 2016 at 6:49 am

      What misinformation? That I post items that call into question conspiracy “facts”? That I have access to items not in the public realm? That I tend to look at physical evidence and dismiss speculation about unproven associations and claims? Please quote something that I knowingly posted to be untrue-as defined by documented fact.

      To what items do you have access that aren’t in the
      public realm that support your claims of an abnormal neck
      condition?
      • HOW do you have access to them?
      • Why aren’t they in the public realm?
      • Why claim to use private information to
      prop up your claims without sharing the
      documentation you claim to have access to
      that is “not in the public realm”?

      Why use private realm information to prop up your claims without
      sharing the documentation you claim to have access to? You keep
      adding layers of ambiguity to your already dishonest conduct
      here and, short of censorship, it is unclear why it is
      being entertained on each thread you corrupt.

      Virtually all your comments on JFK’s “abnormal” “neck
      condition” are posted without reference and practically all
      your claims of JFK being responsible for his own death are
      unproven and beyond disreputable, unless you can invoke the
      spirit of Fahmy Malak to make it seem like he committed suicide.

      • Regardless of his desire to be accessible, what
      “documented fact” proves JFK caused his own
      death (don’t leave out the shooting part)?
      • What “documented fact” proves JFK had a “neck condition”
      or “abnormality” that would allow for a bullet to enter his upper
      back and exit his throat fully intact leaving virtually no
      damage to a bullet or any boney structures in his upper back or
      neck?
      • Did JFK have a sudden onset case of dextroscoliosis at
      the time of the shooting?
      • Was there an abnormal amount of spacing between the
      specific vertebrae that would have been in the path
      of a bullet in a “normal” neck?

      For the millionth time, please define what you are not being
      forthcoming about? Why is being concrete and clear such a
      difficult thing for you in contrast to the “open loop”
      equivocations that seem to originate from you with unimpaired
      fluiditiy?

      • Paulf says:

        Geez, if only I had known that photon has access to secret information that definitively proves Oswald was the lone nut, I wouldn’t have questioned his veracity. Now that we know that he has super secret sources, in addition to being qualified as an expert in every field known to man, and probably hands out free chocolate ice cream to pediatric cancer patients as he is correcting our misinformation, I just don’t see how anybody can question him anymore.

        I’m so embarrassed. Why didn’t you say so before, photon?

  13. annie says:

    This week a friend who knew I visited this website asked me for the website address. Later he told me that his computer wouldn’t let him on the
    site, saying that the owner of the site had put the configuration in wrong and it wasn’t safe.
    I’m telling you this out of respect for Morley in case it matters. I know this won’t be posted but at least Tom will see it. I should add that my husband got the same results with his computer. Perhaps it’s important.

    • Tom S. says:

      annie, at least use a unique IP#, this isn’t much of a challenge….. I don’t have an email address with “otoole” in it.
      I feel excluded, since it is so popular…..
      https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/a-new-jfk-witness/#comment-733496

      • Mariano says:

        Will the real annie put your hand up? Unlikely …

        Thanks to some able sleuth-work the shenanigans are very much out in the open for all to see.

        Hasn’t annie begun to unravel in a matter of several of comments. It is the metamorphosis of a mild mannered contributor to a likeness of guttural pro Warren Report groupie.

        Different aliases; disingenuous explanations; a affinity to photon; and no interest in furthering any understanding of what took place at Dealey Plaza.

    • so annie, what’s with the common IP #s with ‘max and annie’, ‘annie and sammy’, ‘annie and anonymous’?

      Max says, back in March 2015, “One reason I think twice about posting here . . . ” which resonates with your own gosh all gee ‘Before looking over this last group of comments, I had been open to a few CT theories. That’s one reason i come here . . .”

      Syntax can be revealing. To a person (or android), you guys use a similar style; perhaps it’s unique to a zip code?

      To you personally, ‘annie’, assuming you are a single entity, do you really think anyone is concerned whether or not you are “open to a ‘few’ CT theories”? More to the point, why don’t you jump in head first, invite along your reticent compadres and dig in by linking to solid material that might refute the myriad of challenges to the official story that have accumulated on this site instead of following photon blindly because you think he ‘isn’t a thug’. (that alone calls into question you discernment.) Why not get your hands dirty, annie et al?

  14. annie, your disappointment in the site is hardly evidence that the information presented here is invalid; your discomfort simply indicates your bias. John McAdams among others provides a safe haven for those squeamish about considering links that challenge the official version. If photon is your standard, if you fail to recognize his ‘thugginess” then you will most likely continue to be uncomfortable here. You seem to be an individual of moderation, but if one studies your comments closely you argue a very firm position that Lee Oswald was the/a lone assassin. Better you simply make that clear instead of your passive aggressive approach, and let the chips fall.

    • Tom S. says:

      annie is describing the security feature in some browsers that no longer accept sites that do not have a security certificate. Since this is not a bank or a site that requires passwords and the only security threat I detect is…..annie… using multiple aliases in a total of several hundred comments!
      http://jfkfacts.org/ does not use https:// because it is unnecessary for this particular site configuration and it usually
      costs an additional amount from most website hosting companies.

  15. David Hazan says:

    What do we make of this “annie et al” discovery??? (Well done, Tom… And thank you)

    For starters, “annie” is either not a professional, or “she” is super sloppy or too lazy to use multiple accounts with unique IP addresses assigned to each. Not only the web is full of apps that allow doing this, but I have also read many discussions between experienced IT managers who speak of proprietary troll-ware that allow you to maintain a large number of identities with unique IP addresses, simultaneously, on the same device, without requiring a log out every time a different identity is used.

    So… What gives, Annie?

    Why would a non-professional decide to become an on-line deceiver? What would motivate someone to play this game if it were not benefiting them personally. Perhaps to help someone they know? Someone they care for? Someone who posts here regularly? Because, if you are indeed a professional deceiver, you kinda suck at it. Not saying that to be mean.

    I doubt that Tom would be willing (or have the time or energy) to do this, but i feel a thread which lists ALL of the comments that come from annie’s IP address(es) retrospectively could serve as a very interesting window into how “she” functions, when she functions, and what she propagates. And perhaps reveal a thing or two about with whom among the regular commenters she might be associated.

    On a side note, I am betting a penny that Annie, although most certainly not her real name, is a female.

    • annie says:

      Annie knows about IP addresses, knows they are easy to change and also knows about the use of multiple accounts. The reason she isn’t using them is because she has nothing to hide. Annie was at one time in touch with a previous moderator concerning some issues here. These were straightened out. I think if you will check the activity concerning the IP addresses in question during the last year, you won’t find any multiple names involved. As she said, she is the only one posting on this site from her computer.

      • Tom S. says:

        ….Annie knows about IP addresses, knows they are easy to change and also knows about the use of multiple accounts. The reason she isn’t using them is because she has nothing to hide. Annie was at one time in touch with a previous moderator concerning some issues here. These were straightened out.

        “Welcome to the Camp
        I guess you all know why we’re here
        My name is Tommy
        and I became aware this year

        If you want to follow me
        You’ve got to play pinball
        And put in your earplugs
        Put on your eyeshades
        You know where to put the cork ….”

        https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/new-fbi-study-hair-analysis-warren-commission/#comment-757153

        https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/norman-mailer-on-oswalds-tale/#comment-727726

      • David Hazan says:

        “Annie was at one time in touch with a previous moderator concerning some issues here. These were straightened out.” – annie

        Would you care to elaborate on that, annie? What kind of “issues” and how were they “straightened out”?… (by the way, referring to yourself in the third person is not helping your cause here)

        If annie knows about IP addresses, and if annie has nothing to hide, what does annie think about all these people who seem to share an IP address as well as an email address with annie? And Sammy?… And Gemini?

        Here’s my take on it right off the bat… Someone who really has nothing to hide would just come out and say something like “Hey, I have no idea how this could happen… Tom, would you please help me look into it? Or, Is anyone here an IT manager who has some idea how ‘they’ can do that?”

        Anyway… Nice to meet you, Sammy. Thanks for the reply.

        • Tom S. says:

          To make this phenomena and evidence completely clear, there are four different associated email addresses (only three suffixes), all including “otoole” in the prefix (before the @ ).
          All of the emails associated with annie’s comments are of one prefix, associated only with annie and april comments. Of all of the others, and there may be as many as three hundred comments, are associated with one email address with otoole in the prefix, except for just three comments that have otoole in the email address prefix and commonality of IP#’s with all of the other comments.

          There are 40,000+ approved comments in JFKfacts.org discussion threads, and there is nothing comparable to this example of deception, of which “annie” is the only recently active component of.

          All IP addresses that have been partially displayed begin with the SAME
          first two numbers, which have been masked in the interest of preserving some peace of mind of all other commenters and readers. The result is I’ve shared almost all that I am aware of while keeping some semblance of non-disclosure.
          I think what I have shared supports my conclusion that the claims of those associated with these IP #’s and email addresses are unreasonable. Other commenters have gleaned the common theme of these various identities and obviously they’ve tried to represent themselves as unconnected, and still are attempting it. I’ve presented images of comments in which these I.D.’s engage each other in the discussion.

      • annie, are we to conclude that you’re under pressure or is someone in annie’s sphere speaking on her behalf? Otherwise, why have you in this comment resorted to a version of illeism – using the third person to recall and record your experience on this site? Will annie let us know that annie is okay and not under any serious threat?

        ‘Similarly illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism. . . . Elmo from Sesame Street, whose speech is intended to mimic the speech of preschoolers.[42]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism

        • President Kennedy visits San Diego (1963)

          Note the incredible military presence as security for JFK. Certainly nothing like what was seen in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

          >As well as the fit of JFK’s suit coat.

          https://youtu.be/LrJ6Q5avdRc

          \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            A Marine every five feet. Who ordered the soldiers from San Antonio to stand down? They were ready and prepared to leave for the Dallas Parade. I’ve read their commander was livid.

        • annie says:

          I want to assure you that I have no intention of staying here to post comments or to bother anyone. I am in no way associated with Photon. Also I am not qualified to present arguments on this site. As you have noticed, what I have as a computer cannot even use links. For many years I’ve suspected that there was some sort of conspiracy and that is what initially attracted me here. Not just Photon but people like Willy Whitten. I don’t draw the same conclusion as Willy but agree with him on points like Lovelady. I in no way think I can present arguments like Willy, David, Leslie etc. I’ve always wondered about Photon and even suspected at one time that he was part of your setup. Afterall he continues here with no real email address. I’m really sorry that I hit a sour note here. I saw the topic concerning Kennedy’s security issues and only meant to leave a comment of interest, evidently forgetting that this site is one where serious debate is taking place concerning conspiracy theories. I think you have the right to have a place to call your own. Some of what happened with the IP I understand but some I don’t. I could never have been all of those people especially with s computer that stalled. I had a used computer at the time and part of the problem was that it already had an autofill. Sometimes it took me 30 minutes to get a comment ready to post….due to stalling. The computer was actually a shared computer. Just tem.porarily. I have something better now and am the only user.

          • Tom S. says:

            So… which annie is addressing us today? Is it annie the victim of computer hijackers who know how to “autofill”
            three different email addresses all including an otoole element and using IP#’s identical to or uncannily similar to annie’s…. or, is it this annie, a student of quantum physics with a sharp eye capable of spotting the admittedly well concealed rifle of a fellow passenger on the bus or the train?

            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-749363
            annie – 2015/04/19 at 2:33 am
            ….I feel like I’m experiencing my main study and interest in life, Quantum Physics, the science fiction writer’s dream of “alternate realities.” ……
            Although I feel a good debate healthy, it seems like there is too much evidence to handle. It has mushroomed out of control throughout the years. There are a number of people who no longer recognize the main characters any longer. People I talk to who aren’t on the website.
            And yes, I have seen people transport a rifle on public transportation, concealing it very well. More than once. Sorry. Why would I want to say why, where or who here? I’ve tried but without any luck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.