Jackie Kennedy was MK Ultra Victim, aka Manchurian Candidate; Unconsciously Shot JFK in the Throat

I guess that's one way of looking at it, but if you use those spectacles for too long you will see it in near every thread on this board.


Rather than that, I see it as a place to explore potentials without them being caught up in the general threads and of course, there are those around who pop up when threads like this are made to obfuscate and debunk and while that is their prerogative, have you ever entertained the possibility that there may well be some credence to this and the layers of the onion are many?

Hmmm, white man speaks with fooked tongue

reply to post by EnkiCarbone


The whole site is full of slanderous accusations. We get a new birther thread every week. Jackie did not kill her husband, but if someone wants to look at the possibility, so what? Why are you so angry?

And as far as slandering the intelligence agencies, HSCA was very suspicious of the CIA. The CIA has killed or tried to kill multiple world leaders; why not their own?

You might want to pass onto the website you got this from that it's "Ladybird" Johnson, not "Ladybug".

So much for extensive research on their part

Originally posted by EnkiCarbone

I am really just surprised at the lack of outrage in this thread.

I know the internet is fun, when you can just "say things" from your basement lair, but you should really use some discretion before besmirching the name of our 35th President, and his family. It's nice that you can so easily talk ill of the dead. Do you care? I doubt it.
This is without a doubt: completely insulting to our intelligences, slanderous to Jackie O, the Onassis family, to the Kennedy family, and to the American Public.

I know exactly how you feel.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by EnkiCarbone

 

The whole site is full of slanderous accusations. We get a new birther thread every week. Jackie did not kill her husband, but if someone wants to look at the possibility, so what? Why are you so angry?

Because being Skunkworks does not give you magical powers against the legal ramifications of slander and libel, that's effing why!

It's ok, though... we can just cover it with the blanket theory that she was an unwilling participant, a victim of "mind control". Sounds legit. In that regard, why not just start accusing high ranking government officials and CEOs of raping children? Who should we start with? I'm pretty sure I can pull a Blogspot site out of my bottom in about 15 minutes, and I've never really liked that Bill Gates guy... should we say he rapes children, or kills children?... maybe he kills them, THEN he rapes them. Woo hoo... Proof? Don't need it! My "theory" is that he was under the control of (flips coin) Aliens! And, I'm covered under the magical protective powers of ATS: Skunkworks, which is like diplomatic immunity against libel and slander.

See my point?

It's not an issue of what other threads say what, it's a matter of knowing where to draw the line on the internet. Saying there is proof that somebody killed their spouse (when there is no proof, not a shred of one, other than their twisted imagination) is not just poor taste, you need to watch it when you make accusations like that. Someone might forward the entire thread to the right greedy lawyers.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by EnkiCarbone]

reply to post by BiGGz



Hey Buddy, I don't need to be told how to think!

I'm giving my opinion on what I observed in the video. To me it looks like she reached down with BOTH hands to grab, pick-up, collect something to give to the SS guy that comes up from the trunk.

I'm not saying she DID it, I'm only giving some input to her body movements.

Logic to me, would not be crapping on someones post. Lets THINK about that. ; )

Watch when they first pass the sign ..that guy in the car has something in his hand (magazine or newspaper) it appears as if he tosses (or whatever was in it)towards JFK (like a chemical maybe ?) Then JFKs hand goes to his eyes and then throat ..

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Simplynoone]

reply to post by EnkiCarbone


Oh, boo hoo. They wouldn't take me to court just because they'd had to prove it was libel (not slander; slander is spoken) and that might drag up some ugly stuff.

There was another guy who tried to sue for libel because he was accused of being involved with the JFK assassination. The trouble is, the jury wasn't the Warren Commission, and the jury actually ruled that he probably DID have something to do with it and so he lost his case.

Not to mention that kind of stuff costs money, for both parties, and if it's not true then why bother? If it was true, still why bother? It would only bring more attention to it.


Long story short, the only thing that's going to come of this, is you crying, and I can live with that. I won't be expecting any letters in the mail....

This is way to foolish to even make any real sense.

has anyone seen the vid where jfk gets shot. jackies got up and looked at him horrified. plus we would have saw a gun or had whitnesses. idiots

Originally posted by X9ballX
This is way to foolish to even make any real sense.

has anyone seen the vid where jfk gets shot.

Um, this post already doesn't make sense. I don't guess you actually looked at the OP.

jackies got up and looked at him horrified.

In which frame? The Zapruder film is numbered frame by frame on the first page in a YouTube video.

Hi ATS-ers , long time lurker, first time poster.
Just noticed something interesting, frame 334 shows Jackie's arm "disappearing" into the back of the seat. Has anyone else seen this before? I can't think of an explanation for it...

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by X9ballX
This is way to foolish to even make any real sense.

has anyone seen the vid where jfk gets shot.

Um, this post already doesn't make sense. I don't guess you actually looked at the OP.

jackies got up and looked at him horrified.

In which frame? The Zapruder film is numbered frame by frame on the first page in a YouTube video.

i had an old camera from back in the day.as in around that time. for some reason when i looked at the footage of whatever i looked at the audio wouls sometimes be off for a few seconds. in other words after when it was suppose to happen. you can see the mouths of people saying things that dont get heard til about 3 seconds later. maybe thats why.

why it dose this i dont know. but it does. more people would have seen the gun my freind. especially if she got up and poitned it in the air.

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
You FAIL.
timeline = 12 second mark: Frame 242

[edit on 28-8-2010 by ATS4dummies]

[edit on 28-8-2010 by ATS4dummies]

if you pause that video at 9 seconds there is a black frame.around frame 13.Odd

Originally posted by aeonminder
Hi ATS-ers

, long time lurker, first time poster.
Just noticed something interesting, frame 334 shows Jackie's arm "disappearing" into the back of the seat. Has anyone else seen this before? I can't think of an explanation for it...

Welcome. Feel free to express your views. This forum was ment for that.

Chances are if you find something said by someone else to be utterly ridiculas your gonna say something they find to be just as bad.

Some things take time to soak in. Some things get ignored because they sound odd.

The reason why I think this thread is a tad bogus is because I think more people would have saw the gun.

Thankfuly this forum is free enough to allow people to share why they think this or that.

In a sense be glad this thread didn't get removed. The people who run this forum allow all to be free thinkers and allow all to voice their opinions.

reply to post by X9ballX


dammit. i just noticed where her hand is... it's behind his head... not "disapppeared"

i fail.

Originally posted by aeonminder
reply to post by X9ballX

 

dammit. i just noticed where her hand is... it's behind his head... not "disapppeared"

i fail.

We all make mistakes. Dont worry about it

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
good work and the nerve to post this, it is one possibility but one that will not get far, as i review the videos, there is no gun in her hand , secondly he is shot 2 times once from the back and once from the right temple side just above the eye. my guess would be a 30-06 sabot round 25 to 36 grain not much more than that.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by bekod]

reply to post by aeonminder


If you read through some of the links in the original post, you'll see that is commonly thought that the Zapruder Film went through some creative editing in the time it was kept from the public.
There are missing frames at crucial times, and that would probably be the reason the sound doesn't match throughout the video.
There is also a history of cropping what we have been shown, as evidenced by William Cooper, in his interpretation of the events, in his videos.

Next, someone is going to tell me Yoko was part of John Lennon's assasination. I really really do not believe Jackie did this. And her crawling back to the trunk after his being shot was shock and instinct to survival.

reply to post by bekod


Witnesses on the scene said there was an entry wound on his left temple.

I wish I had time to link this for you, but already late for work.


To those not familiar (enough) with MK Ultra, an in depth investigation by you is in order. It may change your view on quite a few events in the past.

One other thing; no one has mentioned Bush Sr's oil company in the Caribbean or his purported involvement in the sabotage of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA did not like JFK, and would have used any resource, in my opinion.