Wednesday, July 17, 2019

How about some rock 'n roll? This is a Beatles song, Tell Me Why, written by John Lennon and released on A Hard Day's Night album. It was recorded in 8 takes in February 24, 1964. Hey! Paul and I did it in fewer takes than that. So, I guess that means we're better than the Beatles. Not really. Nobody is better than the Beatles.

This is the laurel I was sent for making it into the South Film and
Arts Academy Festival.

And, I was just informed that My Stretch of Texas Ground has been selected by another film festival, the Hollywood Verge Film Awards.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

This is an old standard from 1934, and I think it has some of the prettiest lyrics ever written. It's not just the very thought of you, he tells her; it's the mere idea of you. That's got to sound good to a woman, right? There is very soulful guitar playing here by Paul Popa in his solo. The song is: The Very Thought Of You with words and music by British bandleader Ray Noble.


Here are two updates about My Stretch of Texas Ground. It has been selected to be in the South Film and Arts Academy Festival, which is out of Chile. And it has won the Honorable Mention Award at the Los Angeles Underground Film Forum "for your vision and the film's unique contribution to cinema." 

Monday, July 15, 2019

I found this list of 25 countries which hate America, and it included Iraq.

It says: stemming mostly from the wars that have ravaged the country, Iraq's 67%  disapproval rating isn't hard to understand. But, we liberated them. Don't they appreciate it? Well, the problem is that a million of them, or more, we liberated from life itself. And if they wanted that kind of liberation, they could have called Dr. Kevorkian. Just think about it, will you? We crossed an ocean; killed a million of them; and George W. Bush has the nerve to put a positive spin on it. 
Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, has weighed in on the Fetzer decision, in which the judge refused to let the case go before a jury. Jim Fetzer had expert witnesses who were going to testify about the authenticity of the birth certificate. So, why not let a jury decide? A jury of one's peers? Isn't that the American way? 

Paul Craig Roberts

The official explanation given of the Sandy Hook school shootings struck many people at the time as fishy.  Various aspects of the story did not seem to go together well or fit normal procedures for such a crime.  Contradictory evidence was never explained, and doubts based on evidence were ignored rather than answered.  
Now a Wisconsin state judge, Frank D. Remington, has renewed doubts about the Sandy Hook event.  This was not Judge Remington’s intention.  It was the result of his summary judgment in a civil defamation lawsuit in favor of Lenny Pozner against James Fetzer and Mike Palecek.  Fetzer accused Pozner of using a fake death certificate as evidence that Noah Samuel Pozner, age 6, was shot and killed at Sandy Hook school. 
Judge Remington has renewed suspicions about the school shooting, because he kept expert witness testimony favorable to the defendants from the jury and issued instead his own declaration of the defendants guilt in place of jury determination.  
Two highly qualified forensic experts examined the various copies of the death certificate that have featured in the controversy.  Larry Wickstrom concluded that one of the certificates “is an altered and unreliable document” that permits no conclusion of forgery or originality, that one “is a forgery,” that the State of Conecticut “has issued two different and certified as true versions,” and that one “has been digitally and physically altered.”  Wickstrom concludes: “That until such time as the State of Connecticut addresses and rectifies the conditions that allow this kind of record manipulation, any ‘true copy of a record filed,’ certified by the Seal of State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, should be considered suspect and treated as unreliable.”  
The second forensic expert, A. P. Robertson, noted many anomalies and concluded: “Given the vast array of different versions of the same document and all the numerous documented anomalies that are clearly visible, I would ask the question, ‘Would a reasonable person of average intelligence draw the same conclusions as the Defendants?’ I think that the answer is almost certainly yes. I would dare to say that any person of average intelligence would come to the conclusion that there appears to be some sort of intentional document manipulation.”
By removing such powerful exculpatory evidence from the defense and taking the case out of the hands of the jury, Judge Remington has given the trial the appearance of a show trial in which the outcome was pre-determined.  It is not defamation if a person states in good faith that a document is fake.  This is merely a person’s honest conclusion, in Fetzer’s case backed up by forensic experts.
The forensic testimony should have gone to the jury.
Then to get to the bottom of the Sandy Hook school shooting controversy Judge Remington, if it was within his power, should have had Connecticut state officials explain the anomalies and differences in the certificates or denounce them for not being official copies.
The inappropriate way in which Judge Remington handled the case smells like a coverup and an orchestrated lesson to people that they will be punished if they doubt official explanations.
If the official story of the Sandy Hook school shootings is correct, there should be abundant evidence with which to answer skeptics.  Instead, skeptics have been demonized and evidence in their behalf ignored even in a court of law. 
When judges fail to follow proper procedures, especially in such controversial cases, they contribute to public perception that legal processes are corrupt.  
Carl Herman reports here:  on the violation of due process by the judge apparently in order to deep-six the evidence that the death certificates were, as Fetzer had concluded, altered or fakes.  For the experts’ finding, scroll down to near the end.

Lennon Tulsa Here's an interesting fact. Billy Lovelady prior to his employment with to the TSBD was in the US Air Force. He was dishonorably discharged for stealing weapons from the post armory where he was stationed and selling the weapons. Strange how he would be employed by a man who was a rabid right-winger, who also employed a US Marine 'defector' who claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist liberal in the same building, at the same time. It's also a 'coincidence', both the former Airmen and ex-Marine just happened to look very much alike. Guess who else was a known gunrunner? Jack Ruby. I think Lovelady was keeping tabs on LHO while at work. Maybe both men were cut-outs. Only LHO didn't know he was going to be a patsy in the end. Anyway, neither men could have done the shooting. But only one of these men knew what was going on. By the way, have you noticed where Lovelady is looking? His line of sight isn't looking at the president or any vehicles in the caravan. He's looking towards the South Knoll.
  • Ralph Cinque Larry Rivera has suggested that Lovelady was an alternate patsy. It's chilling that he was introduced as "Billy Nolan Lovelady" which is how lone nut assassins usually go, by 3 names. In January 1963, the head of the TSBD paid Lovelady's fine so that he wouldn't be extradited back to Maryland. They had plans for him, no doubt. The TSBD was a CIA front company, and the book distributing was just a facade. Nobody would run a book business the way they were running it, and the idea that it was generating enough revenue to pay 75 employees is preposterous.

I'll point out that  what he said about Jack Ruby being a gunrunner is false. Ruby, in his bio-chronicle, specifically and adamantly denied running guns. And since he was accepting responsibility for shooting Oswald, and for which he received a death sentence, why would he lie about whether or not he ran guns? Even Rick Blaine in Casablanca (Bogart's character and the proprietor of Rick's Cafe Americana) admitted that he "ran guns to Ethiopia." So, why wouldn't Ruby? He would. He could. But, he didn't because he didn't. It was just part of the schitck they wrote for him, something to glamorize him and to preoccupy those looking for connections  that would entangle him in something that would challenge the official story. It's a sandbox for CTers to play in where they won't hurt anything because they won't get near the truth that Ruby was completely and totally innocent, that he was just the witless patsy in a murder that was committed by the DPD and the FBI.