It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The JFK Photo That Could Have Changed History (hoax)

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by pumpkinorange
You are most correct.

From what I have studied, particularly "Thanks for the Memories" by Brice Taylor, that is how "they" gain control over our politicians and world leaders.

First "They" (the group that has the real power) zero in on your weakness. We all have weaknessess.

Then they "feed" that weakness and (film/photograph) you subcoming to that weakness.

Then the blackmail card - "You do exactly as we tell you, or everyone will know via our publishing said photo/film".

Just another bullying tactic, but it's one that has been used to rule the world for a long time.

Go to my previous post and to the link. There are pictures of Jane Mansfield (who had a fatal car "accident"), Sammy Davis Jr. (Who Brice Taylor aka Susan Ford talks about in her book) with Anton LaVay, the head of "The Church of Satan". fyi: Sammy Davis, Jane Mansfield, Marlyn Monroe all were involved in The Church of Satan and friends of JFK.

"Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" Old Russian Proverb

(fyi: I'm not even "Christian" and the warning bells are going off on this one).

As much as I want to like the idea of "Camelot" and the Kennedy's they were, just like most men/women of real money and power, ruthless and service to self people.

So we find out that JFK had a collar and leash attached to and lead by the real powers that be.

One last thought, I read David Icke's "The Biggest Secret" and Brice Taylor (aka: Susan Ford) "Thanks For The Memories" years ago and still have these books on a back shelf in my library. Chalked them up to mostly vivid imaginations - now I'm not so sure.

Where there is smoke there is fire. - American Proverb

People have called both Ms. Taylor and Mr. Icke crazy - years later much of what they are saying has come to light as true........yet people forget who tried to initially warn them.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by ofhumandescent]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

JFK had an unusual face. That's him.


That might have been his death certificate in the making.

Play with the big boys and you better be prepared to do it their way or else.

What appears as "lucky p" was the dog collar being put around JFK's neck.

Everything has it's price. and the "more fun" it is the higher the price.

Funny, how many of the people connected with the Kennedy's ended up having "accidents / suicides".

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:51 AM

Again the ties between various Illuminati families is very involved, and a long unraveling process, similar to untying a set of bad knots confronts the researcher. The Kennedy family abounds with marriages to names such as Anketells, Baileys, Booths, Buckleys, Collins, Hatfields, Humphreys, Freemans, James, Phelps, Reagans, Russells, and Smiths.3 The Kennedys that we will look closest at are related to the Fitzpatricks, a powerful Irish family whose coat of arms has 3 fleur-de-lis with a dragon and a lion. (The Fitzpatricks may tie back to France, and they may possibly part of the Sang Royal (Sangraal--Sang Raal is the term used in the older manuscripts which can mean both Royal bloodline or Holy Grail.) Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis who married John F. Kennedy was tied to the Auchinclosses via her sister’s marriage into the Auchincloss family.

The Auchinclosses are Scottish bloodline of the Illuminati. "One can fairly hear the woof and tweet of history whistle through the names of the ramified Auchincloss tribe: Bunt, Grosvenor, Rockefeller, Saltonstall, Tiffany, Vanderbilt and Winthrop among others."5 For instance, Hugh D. Auchincloss, Sr. married Emma Brewster Jennings, daughter of Oliver B. Jennings, who co-founded Standard Oil with John D. Rockefeller. As for the numerous Kennedy intermarriages with notable names, for instance, Bernet Shafer Kennedy (1798-1878) married Phebe Freeman in 1820.6 But then the question arises--were either of these people secretly part of the occult? Andrew Kennedy married Margaret (Penny) Hatfield (1824-1989). The Andrew Kennedy family is allied with the Hatfield, Bailey, Collins, and Mullins families.8 Again a person is confronted with a great deal of clues, but precious little time and resources to try following up the numerous leads.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:56 AM
First of all, Kennedy's philandering ways were not "well known" among the public in the 1950's, as some here have claimed. Although the press, fellow politicians and people of influence may have known, the public at large was kept in the dark. It wasn't until after his assassination and the years following it that Kennedy's true playboy ways became common knowledge.

Secondly, it boggles my mind that so many of you don't understand how this picture becoming public would have changed history! Kennedy defeated Nixon in the 1960 election by the slimmest of margins. There is little doubt that a picture clearly showing Kennedy in the presence of naked women, while his wife was left behind to give birth to their stillborn child, would have angered/upset enough decent, church-going Americans to sway their votes. This wasn't 2009, folks. Things were A LOT different back then. Today we expect our politicians and celebrities to act this way, but not back then. Back then we actually looked up to our President, or potential President, and the Kennedy's themselves were considered royalty. This would have seriously damaged that perception. It wasn't until Watergate that the American people and the press started to be more harsh in their treatment and their assessment of politicians.

So, had this picture been released- and this is a hypothetical situation because I don't think the press would have released this photo had they gotten their hands on it anyway- things were different back then, and the press kept such things to themselves. Anyway, had this picture been released, Nixon would have almost certainly been elected. Now, those in this thread who agree with me up to this point have alleged that Nixon would have mishandled the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the world would be a lot different now- if it even still existed (possible nuclear holocaust). But I disagree. If Nixon had been elected, the Soviets would have never tried testing him and putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. They only did this to Kennedy because he was young, unproven and potentially weak. The Russians had already had extensive dealings with Nixon as a Senator and a Vice President, and they knew he was tough and they knew what to expect from him.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Union's "testing" of Kennedy, is very similar to what we are experiencing today with President Obama. He is young, inexperienced, and potentially weak. The Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and a host of others are doing their best to test him and see what they can get away with. This is something that VP Biden predicted would happen during the campaign, and it has come true.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by Bspiracy

Yeah, screwing around on your spouse while she is having a miscarriage definitely qualifies anyone as "The man." Give us all a break...

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:01 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So no one remembers Gary Hart? His run for the presidency was torpedoed over less.

JFK was the Golden Boy, family man, war hero. The big knock on him at the time was his Catholicism and that he would turn the entire country over to the Vatican if he won.

Kennedy's biggest attributes at the time were his clean reputation and that he wasn't Nixon. And it was a very, very close (some say rigged ~see Chicago, Texas & Richard Daley~) election. I think a picture like that coming out could've very likely turned the election. We'll never know.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:03 AM
I don't think its him his side parting is on the opposite side.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:07 AM
I'm surprised people think this wouldn't have changed anything.
Seems a fellow was impeached for similar behavior.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by pizzanazi75

Yep... those are definitely naked women on that boat.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:16 AM
"JFK did have a short but very well lived life and I'm so happy for him"

Are you freaking kidding me? The SOB was on a yacht full of naked women while his wife delivered a stillborn infant via emergency c-section and that is a well lived life?

Oh, and I would be one of those who would never vote for Hillary because of her putting up with Bill's philandering. If she has such little respect for herself, you can hardly expect her to have any respect for others.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:56 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:05 AM
ummmmmmmmmm JFKs affairs were pretty well known...even at the time, i doubt this would have changed a thing

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by NoWorldOrder12

Many women connected to JFK ended up D.E.A.D.

It was rumored that Marlyn Monroe was going to expose "something" the day before she committed "suicide".

Many bodies swept under the rug.

Many people "mind conditioned" to accept the "Camelot" Story.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by ofhumandescent]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM
His short life was blessed, but yet a fool to see it.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:47 AM
Oh no, a guy on a boat with naked girls. How did he ever become president? That monster!

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:47 AM
Did anyone look up this "expert"?

His Website seems alittle odd.
I bet any money that lawyer who owns TMZ wrote the entire page for this.

I smell conspiracy.
Maybe I'm over-analyzing it.
Maybe I shouldn't gamble.

[edit to add sarcasm]

[edit on 28-12-2009 by havok]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:01 AM
If I held on to a scandalous photo of a man, that I thought might be JFK, laying by himself on a boat with naked woman who are not even within his sight, let alone anywhere near him, when I finally decided to go public it would be TMZ.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Deny Arrogance]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by TXRabbit
So they have a picture of someone living a lifestyle we all dream of. And this changes history how?? lol

Because while we all dream of that, most of us (not me) also denounce it. Go figure!


posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:22 AM
The bikini tan line on the girl in mid-air (with no motion blur) is inconsistent with bikini styles available in 1956. That style came about in the 1960's or later.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:31 AM
the photo is from 1956. So yes if it was released in that year[the stiff 50's] i would say he wouldn't be president in the 60's[Maybe later].SO then Nixon would have been it? or another year eisenhower, i wonder how the cuba missile crisis would have gone....

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in