It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Neither John nor Jackie Kennedy are smoking a cigarette. The smoke has been caused by some explosive reaction, such as the detonation of a firearm cartridge. Such smoke remains where the gun is; it does not travel with the bullet. The fact that this smoke appears in the sequence at the same time as the fatal injury, and that it emanates from the left-hand-side of JFK's head, where Jackie Kennedy has positioned herself, means that President Kennedy was killed by his wife.
Jackie attended boarding schools and then Vassar. After two years, though, she got tired of schools and spent her junior year studying at the Sorbonne in Paris. When she got back to the US she did not want to go back to Vassar, so she enrolled in George Washington University in Washington, DC, graduating in 1951. She took a job at the CIA and in January of 1952 went to work at a Washington newspaper as a photographer. During an assignment, she met U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy, who was 13 years her senior. They were married on September 12, 1953.
Notice, for instance, a couple of similarly-dressed men, marked 'A' and 'B' (with an equipment bag, marked 'C'), who are almost certainly CIA operatives. President Kennedy is shot in the head right before their eyes, but they do not even flinch, because they are there to document the event, just as the Dancing Israelis were there in New York City to document the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre (as discussed elsewhere on this web site).
Why would she hold the gun up in the air like that? Surely someone from the crowd would have seen that, no?
I read an interview long ago that said she thought the entire vehicle was under fire, and she panicked and was trying to escape -- to save her life.
Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
But, I can't resolve the first image I posted with that same video either. Frame 242 does not match the first image posted above.
Can anyone compare the first image with one of those stills side-by-side and show the match?
He claimed he worked for the CIA from 1960 to 69 and as the night went on I brought up the 911 issue.I'de say he was about 80ish.
He was silent and almost sheepish as I brought up inconsistencies in the official story,so I changed the conversation about what he was doing in London and advice on decent restaurants.
He quickly changed the subject to the JFK assasination and stated Jackie shot him with a small weapon that was hidden up her sleeve.
He said she was a MKultra victim and the best way to take him out "was in full view to dazzle the spectators,in plain view"!!!! WTF!
Originally posted by ATS4dummies
Originally posted by filosophia
Frame: 181 JFK waves
221 Sign blocks camera
229 JFK CLUTCHES THROAT
240 Man in front of JFK (in suit) turns towards JFK
254 Jackie puts her hand on JFK's shoulder
this happened PRIOR to him getting shot
...prior to JFK getting shot, he leans forward and Jackie clutches him, and only a few seconds before that he was waving to the crowd. Something is definitely strange about that.
Obviously Jacqueline Kennedy could not just produce a gun and shoot her husband from point blank range in broad daylight, at least not with any degree of certainty. Who knows where he would be looking at the designated time and place, and the type of weapon identified here only has one bullet in the chamber.
Solution? He had to be incapacitated in a way that was sure and precise, such that he was unable to react.
When viewing the Zapruder film it is easily seen that John Kennedy is smiling and waving to people along the roadside as his limousine starts to be obscured by the street sign, but is suffering pain and discomfort of the upper respiratory tract as he comes back into view at the rightmost edge of the sign.
Whatever effect has caused this change has happened between frames 206 and 221, inclusive, and by frame 230 (below) the President is in clear distress.
We can work out the minimum and maximum time involved from these observations. The minimum time is obtained by assuming (254 - 221) frames at 18.3 fps and the maximum time by assuming (254 - 206) frames at 16 fps. Hence, from the onset of pain until incapacitation must have taken from 1.8 to 3.0 seconds. This is very rapid. It is also not caused by a bullet wound, as the official storyline goes, because there is no blood, no violent lurching of the body, no concern on Mrs. Kennedy's face, no concern on Connally's face (when he turns around) and no attempt by John Kennedy to dive for cover or to protect his wife.
Mrs. Kennedy keeps her full attention on Governor Connally from frame 255, when he starts to look behind, up to and including frame 291, when he looks away. This corresponds to a time span of between 2.0 and 2.3 seconds. Not long, but long enough for Connally to ascertain that JFK is fully incapacitated and to give the signal to Jacqueline Kennedy.
President Kennedy's reaction is not that of a victim of a gunshot or an electric shock, but that of someone who has been exposed to a lachrymatory agent (or lachrymator). These cause difficulty in breathing, paralysis and general respiratory discomfort. Even relatively mild ones can be very fast acting: "Tear gas is so fast-acting it's amazing. It affects your throat more than it affects your eyes, in fact. I honestly felt like if I didn't drink something my throat was literally going to fall out of my body." (Source.)
There were many chemical and/or biological agents known to research laboratories and the military, even back in 1963. These are classified in various categories, three of which are the harassing agents (such as CN and CS gas), blister agents (such as mustard gas) and nerve agents (such as sarin - discovered in 1939 - and tabun).
They are all incapacitating in nature and their characteristics depend upon the type of agent, the concentration and the method of dissemination. "Usefulness," in the military sense of the word, depends upon the time taken to have the desired effect, the predictability of behaviour and the antidotes available for friendly personnel.
Connally, having assurred himself that the David-ben-Gurion-ordered "wet op" (U.S. Navy parlance for a bloody assassination) to remove "an enemy of Israel" was going according to the detailed plan that he, Johnson and Aristotle Onassis had devised and rehearsed during the three months that Jacqueline Kennedy was on holiday with Aristotle Onassis (against her husband's wishes and advice, by the way), then sits in the car, waits for the signal during the trip along the appropriate road, checks the effectiveness of the nerve agent used and, when Kennedy is displaying the symptoms that Connally would recognize from navy experiments, gives the nod to Mrs. Kennedy before turning away again and waiting for the shot.
How do you ensure that 'Lyin' Johnson is not shot? You do not shoot JFK from the front, because Johnson was travelling in the car behind. How do you ensure that Jewess Jacqueline Kennedy is not shot? You do not fire from either side, nor from the front or back. How do you ensure that President Kennedy is killed? You have to shoot him in the head from very close range. When a shot is fired from a gun, where is the smoke from the gunpowder? At the place of firing.
Only 1 hour 38 minutes later that same day, 22nd November 1963, on board Air Force One, Johnson was sworn in as U.S. President in his home state of Texas, with a composed Jewess, Jacqueline Bouvier, faithfully by his left side and another Jewess (Johnson's wife, Ladybug) on his right side.
Congress'man' Albert Thomas perhaps knows more than a little about this plan, as he winks at smilin' 'Lyin' Johnson. Mrs. Kennedy has maybe a twinge of remorse here, but Ladybug Johnson appears satisfied with the day's events (like her husband, Ladybug was a rabid Zionist).
"It is interesting, but not surprising, to note that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel's intelligence service agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned. And yet a Mossad motive is obvious. On this question, as on almost all others, American reporters cannot bring themselves to cast Israel in an unfavourable light - despite the fact that Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories." - US Representative Paul Findley, March 1992.