Wednesday, December 12, 2018

This video of Oswald really speaks volumes. Just listen to his voice, to the way he denies the charges.

Do you realize how unusual it is for a guilty suspect to be so adamant, so vocal? Most guilty suspects keep their mouths shut. They don't speak the way Oswald did. And it's because they are not actors; they are not that good at lying. But, Oswald was not lying, and he was not acting. And that's why his "performance" was so good; because it was real. He was just being honest. 

Here is the reporter who said that "ownership of the two weapons have definitely been traced to Oswald." Don't you think that happened just a little bit too fast? Like it was all set up? And behind that reporter is the French reporter who the next morning would wax on repeatedly in his French accent, "I saw the muzzle flash against his black sweater." He kept saying it over and over, yet, we never saw any muzzle flash. And as close as the shot of Oswald was taken, the muzzle flash would have singed the sweater. You know, it's fire.  

But, getting back to this, it is followed by Oswald's very vociferous denial. He really was adamant. 

It is moving to hear Oswald say that, and a real reporter would have been moved by it. He would have been impressed by it. But, these reporters were just State lackies. Everybody wanted Oswald to be guilty. The idea that the State had so quickly, almost immediately, solved the case was the kind of news that they felt Americans wanted to hear. It was the most comforting news they could get at that point. "It's terrible that it happened, but at least it was just some nut, some crackpot."  

Oswald said, "I have nothing against anybody." Hmm. That's a lot to say. It's not something I could say. I've got things against people. And if a man says something that sounds that sincere, and Oswald certainly did, why wouldn't you stop and give it pause? Why wouldn't those reporters stop, in the midst of the stampede, and say, "Wait a minute. Maybe he is innocent."

Here's the guy who put this up on Facebook:

Look at his face when he says "I emphatically deny these charges."
Exactly. Look at it, how impassioned he was, how fervent he was. It is the face of an innocent man. 

David Dreyer

Why did not someone ask Billy Lovelady if it was him on the steps of the TSBD?

David, it's complicated. When Lovelady testified to the Warren Commission, Attorney Joseph Ball could have asked him, "Is that you?" pointing to Doorman, but he didn't. Instead, he played this game, telling him to draw an arrow to himself, and giving him a photo in which there already was an arrow pointing to Doorman. What, was that supposed to be a hint? We still have the photo and there is only one arrow on it, and we know that one was drawn by Buell Frazier.. So, where is the arrow that Lovelady drew? Then, after the arrow-drawing, they talked about it, but neither saying that Lovelady's arrow pointed to Doorman. It's clear that Lovelady did not say, and did not want to say, that he was Doorman. He did not start saying it until May 1964- half a year after the assassination. So, why did he start saying it then? They must have threatened him. Lovelady did not want to go along with this ruse. He did not want to lie.  He was forced to. And he wasn't even any good at lying. He had a terrible poker face. And that's why he was killed in 1979, because they couldn't risk his terrible poker face.

Monday, December 10, 2018

I have been wondering lately why the American people re-elected George W. Bush in 2004 when he lied us into war. And he lied us into war not only in Iraq in 2003, where Saddam Hussein had destroyed his WMDs and had no ties to Al Qaeda, but in Afghanistan in 2001. That war was justified on the claim that Osama bin laden had planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, which is false. Over 3000 architects and engineers say that it is false. And, the fact is, to avoid war, the Taliban offered to extradite bin laden to a third country for trial. And if that had happened, surely that country would have let the U.S. to present its evidence against him in court. Why wasn't that good enough?  We're talking about avoiding a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed. No one has a right to kill innocent people- for any reason. And no government has the right to kill them for any reason. So, launching that war, which George Bush did, was a crime against humanity. 

So, why did the American people re-elect Bush? By rights, he deserved to go to prison- and for the rest of his life.  He did not deserve to go back to the White House. So, why did the American people put him there a second time?   

I can only speculate about it, but what I would say is that as of 2004, the outcomes of the wars looked pretty good. Both seemed to have been successful, with missions accomplished. It wasn't true, but it seemed that way.  And I have to assume that most voters accepted the argument that although the dire warnings about the threat Saddam Hussein posed were false, he was a bad guy anyway, and isn't the world and aren't the Iraqi people better off with him gone? Well, not the dead Iraqi people. They're not better off with him gone. They'd be better off if he was alive- and so were they. And not the friends and family of the dead Iraqis either because they loved the dead Iraqis. 

That the American people could brush off the fact that the whole basis for attacking Iraq was false speaks volumes about our culture and our beliefs, that America has the right to impose its will on the world, that we are the policeman of the world, and we are also the judge of the world. We get to judge which regimes can stay and which must go. And even though many innocents have to die whenever we start a war, and we have started many, we have the right to decide that it's worth it to kill thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people, in order to accomplish our objectives.   

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually said on national television that it was "worth it" to kill 500,000 Iraqi children (from the embargo) in order to contain Saddam Hussein.  I wonder if she would have thought that if one of those children was her grandchild. 

I keep recalling what a dear cousin of mine once said, that Americans are all the products of public schools, which is to say, government schools.  The fact is: it blinds us to the crimes - to the atrocities- that our own government commits.  

So, U.S. voters put a known war criminal back into the White House in 2004, and of course, he is still walking around a free man today. And, it's not just him. How many did Clinton kill in Kosovo, Serbia, Sudan, etc.? How many did Obama kill in Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.? Don't you get it?  That America and Americans are oblivious to all the carnage we cause in the world? We actually think we're good. 


Saturday, December 8, 2018

Juliette de la Bretoniere wrote this as a hypothetical exchange that could have taken place:

Officer: What’s your name, Sir?
Molina: My name is Joe Molina
Officer: Where were you when the shooting took place? 
Molina: I was right outside our building watching the motorcade
Officer: Who else was there?
Molina: Well Sir, there was him, her, and him... and that new fellow, Oswald. 

Remember that Oswald wasn't arrested until 2:00, and I don't know what time his name was announced to the public, but I presume it was shortly after that. But, there were police swarming the TSBD right away. Bonnie Ray Williams said that he and James Jarman and Harold Norman were stopped and questioned by police as soon as they got downstairs from the 5th floor. That was only shortly after the shots, and it was long before Oswald's name was in the public domain, the point being that no one, at that point, would have felt inhibited about mentioning Oswald- except, of course, for those who were in on it, such as Bill Shelley. 

Remember, as I have been telling you, the TSBD was a CIA front company where school book distributing was just their cover for espionage and worse. How could they be distributing books to schools when small, hand-held orders were all they handled? There were no class-size orders of books going out of there. And we have never seen any prepared packages of books- of any size. Not a single package that was wrapped, tied, labeled, and stamped or close to it- and this despite the fact that "order-fillers" were filling orders all morning and bringing them to Troy West, their one and only "mailer." It is all very, very fishy.   .

Friday, December 7, 2018

Joe Molina's home was raided the night of the assassination. They suspected him of being an accomplice of Oswald. It is ridiculous. Even Oswald wasn't an accomplice of Oswald, so how could Joe Molina be? Joe Molina and Lee Oswald never met. They never exchanged words. Joe Molina said so. And just think: If they really suspected Molina of collaborating with Oswald in the murder of JFK, wouldn't they have asked Oswald about him? But, they never talked to Oswald and asked him about Joe Molina. Doesn't that tell
you that they knew it was bogus? 

Was there any evidence of collusion between Oswald and Molina? Absolutely not. They claimed to base their suspicions on Molina's involvement with the G.I. Forum, which was a civil rights group for Hispanic veterans. They claimed it was rife with Communists. But, Joe Molina wasn't a Communist; he was just Hispanic. And even if he was a Communist, why would anyone assume that a Communist would desire to kill President Kennedy? Killing Kennedy meant propelling Lyndon Johnson to the White House, and Johnson was much more rancorous towards Communists than Kennedy was. If Joe Molina was a Communist, he would have wanted to protect every hair on Kennedy's head. 

So why did they really want to wreak havoc on Joe Molina? I can only speculate, but what I speculate is that he must have said something that challenged the official story of the assassination. Joe Molina was in the doorway. So, did he say that he saw Oswald in the doorway? That would definitely rise to the threat level that would warrant such drastic action. So, they stormed Molina's home, much the way the Gestapo stormed the homes of Jewish families in Germany.  The only difference was: no jack boots. Now think about this:


So, it's a situation in which the FBI never questioned Oswald about Joe Molina, even though they raided Molina's house in the wee hours of the morning; and Joseph Ball, the keeper of the doorway for the WC, never questioned Molina about the doorway and the identity of Doorway Man. 

It means they never really suspected Joe Molina. They were just harassing him for the sake of harassing him. They wanted to keep him busy and send him a message, to shut the pluck up.

So, did Joe Molina say he saw Oswald was in the doorway? 

Joe Molina was fired by the TSBD. But why? He was officially vindicated. So, why'd they have to fire him? 

Remember, the people in the know knew with certainty that Molina was not involved in the plot to kill Kennedy because it was their plot, and they knew exactly how it happened. The Dallas Police were just their puppets; their marionettes. They sic-ed them on Molina because they must have considered him a threat- to their official story. 

So again, I ask: did Joe Molina say that he saw Oswald in the doorway? 

There is no record of it, but they wouldn't make a record of it. To him or to anyone who said it, they would have just said, "No, you didn't, and you better not say it again."

And Joe Molina went on to never say anything. He has never entered the JFK debate in any way, shape, or form. He is still alive, and he still lives in Dallas, long retired. He went on to get a job with the Post Office, and after rising through the ranks there, he got a cushy job with the Labor Department. He has never said a word about the JFK assassination and what he saw that day. He has never taken a stand on any aspect of the case.   

Joe: you are not going to live forever. So, before you shuffle off this mortal coil, how about telling us what you know? Don't take your secrets to the grave, Joe. Join the JFK truth movement before your time runs out. And the truth is: they can't hurt you now. 


Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Bill Benton Moving along...I'd like to provide a solid round of applause for Ralph...because of his mention of the "9-11" false flag attack (planned and executed by the Intelligence Community), intended to be a pretext for these terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and a return to a "wartime economy"). Nowadays, there seem to be VERY FEW commentators who will acknowledge this reality...and during a story will blithely refer to the terrible Saudi terrorists who attacked our nation on 9-11!! Are these people "gatekeepers" or simply brain-dead numbskulls?
Ralph Cinque Thanks, Bill. I have decided that I am going to speak frankly about 9/11 truth to anyone and everyone- in any circle. I say: stop the nonsense. This is like the Emperor who wore no clothes, and no one would admit it. Anyone with even half a brain knows that for those towers to have fallen the way they did, there had to be a planned, explosive demolition.
Is it known what time the 3 tramps were marched across Elm Street in front of the TSBD doorway? Thank you.
Ralph Cinque: That is very controversial, Mitch. Officially, it was about 2:00. However, there is a figure in the doorway who appears to be Oswald, and if that's him, then it had to be shortly after 12:30, and I mean like 12:34.

Granted, there is a lot of distortion there, but still, there are no deal-breakers: a slender guy, with a long neck, same shape head, shoulders back, and with the right height. 
I am really convinced that that is him. And if it's not him, then there was another amazing coincidence that someone else should have looked and dressed so much like him at that company. 
So, until something else surfaces to make me think different, I am going to assume that that was Oswald, and that particular Three Tramps photo was taken shortly after the shooting. And note that Jim Marrs maintained that there were two sets of Three Tramps photos taken, one soon after the shooting, and the other at 2 PM to conform with the story they wanted to tell, that it was later.