Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Look at this collage. On the left, the guy behind Blackie Harrison is said to be Jack Ruby.  But, Blackie was very tall- there was no one taller in that garage. And you can see that the Ruby figure is only a few inches shorter. But, on the right, it's several seconds later, and the scuffle is underway, but look at the disproportion between Blackie and "Ruby" now. They're like George and Lennie from Of Mice and Men


Do you understand that the official story of the Oswald shooting is just as bogus as the official story of the Kennedy shooting? That Jack Ruby, like Lee Harvey Oswald, was just an innocent patsy? The difference was that Ruby was not of right and sound mind whereas Oswald was. There was nothing wrong with Oswald's mind. But, Jack Ruby was confused, befuddled, and often incoherent and flighty. They sent the "Maestro of Mind Control" Dr. Louis Joylan West of UCLA to treat him because Ruby was a victim of mind control. Oswald was NOT under mind control. 

What about your mind? How's it working? Can you, or can you not, see that the "Ruby" on the left was much taller than the "Ruby" on the right? I've got news for you: neither one was Jack Ruby. 
So, here is the last moving frame in the Newsreel. Notice that we can only see "Ruby's" arm. He is not in the picture otherwise. 



Then, after a flurry, it settles on this:




Wow, that's quite a difference. We are talking about a small fraction of a second difference in time. So, how could the camera go from this to this in a split-second?





It's bull shit. They just tacked that in there. It was not part of the film they were showing. This is just selling. It's propaganda. It's special effects from a movie company that specialized in it. 
I just thought of something funny. Let's laugh!

Here's the Jackson lookalike frame and the Jackson photo. Notice how similar their perspectives are.



So, the angle, the perspective are about the same, right? So that means the filmer had to be very, very close to Jackson, right? As in right on top of him?

But how? Jackson said that he had his left foot up on the bumper of the car. And considering our leftward he was, it's hard to imagine anyone being more leftward. And to the right of him was Jack Beers. This is by Robin Unger, which I endorse:


So, you see the car, and Jackson said he had his left foot up on the bumper of the car. Nobody was to the left of him, and even in the displays that Gary Mack made, no one was to left of him. And Beers, who caught a more open and inclusive view of the cubbyhole, had to be to the right of him- closer to the center. So, where was the cameraman who took the Jackson lookalike frame? He had to be, essentially, in the same spot that Jackson was in order to capture the same view. So, how come Jackson never talked about some other cameraman breathing down his neck? We would know about that guy, if he was there. But, there was no one there. The Jackson lookalike frame is just a rendering of the Jackson photo that was tweaked and rendered to look like a film frame.  It's fake, fake, fake!
A reader wrote asking about this image. Was Oswald making a fist here?

I am glad he asked about this image because I have been wondering about it myself lately. The man who is holding Oswald's left hand is Detective Charles Dhority. Next to him is Leavelle, and next to him is Graves. I agree that it is very odd that the ambulance driver was holding on to Oswald's arm as he is pushing him. And how could Dhority be holding his hand like that as they are moving? Was Dhority actually maintaining that and progressing with them? I don't see how. It seems totally impractical. 

I know that hand will naturally make a loose fist because of the spring tension in the flexor tendons. Simply put: the fingers naturally tend to curl up. But, I agree that that looks awfully tight.  

And I already pointed out that the dressing over the clothes above the wound is on the wrong side. Oswald was shot in the left rib cage, so why is there a dressing over his right rib cage?

So, what I conclude about this photo is that it's one of those made to order "iconic" photos, much like the Jackson photo, which is full of fakery. And note that we don't see this image in the film, which is also true of the Jackson photo, that we never see it in any film, that is, we don't see the Jackson photo imagery from the perspective of another cameraman. There is just that freeze-frame from the Universal Studio newsreel which settles on a Jackson-like image that is NOT continuous with the running movie. It's just cinched in at the end. It's a trick.



I call this the Jackson lookalike image, and we only see it in the Universal newsreel, but not in the film as it's running; only as a single, solitary, still frame. It's fakery; it's the crafting of an iconic image, and I believe that applies to the one of Oswald's last image, where the dressing is on the wrong side of his body.








Friend Richard Miodownick sent me this video concerning the meeting at Ruby's apartment the night of November 24. Besides the three who died pretty soon after that meeting, there was a fourth person there, also a Ruby lawyer like Tom Howard, C.A. Droby, who received threatening phone calls that he would be the next to die if he got involved in defending Ruby. And he stayed off the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhM1YNkcBII

Most people are aware of the mysterious deaths connected to JFK's murder but don't realize that there were mysterious deaths connected to Oswald's murder as well. The official stories of both murders are lies. Utter complete lies. 



The Critical Contribution of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty

by Dr. Thomas Halle



 I’d like to suggest that, if you've not already done so, you “take a gander” at Col. L. Fletcher Prouty’s classic, “The Secret Team.” In the course of reviewing some of the many volumes in my personal Kennedy assassination library recently, I was perusing this book, once again, and confess that I was surprised. Prouty provides enormous insight into the operation of the “intelligence community” (particularly the CIA), chock-full of hidden lines of control and agendas, a distinct covert culture and “deniability,” and how the “Agency” has moved far beyond its original mandate. He emphasizes things like extensive compartmentalization, how people like McNamara were skillfully managed during the Kennedy administration, and a labyrinth of “smoke and mirrors”…including how our news is keenly managed and shaped, and how, e.g., a military officer may actually be a CIA figure, acting under “military cover,” and a CIA man may be a real military officer working for the agency.

This covert activity (never envisioned by President Truman, when he signed the measure creating the CIA)—replete with “cover stories”--is so extensive and profound, that media figures, military officers, members of Congress, and even intelligence operators may not be privy to the real goings-on. The “Official Narrative” has now become reality. This multifaceted and complex system, where “one hand may not know what the other is doing” is actually directed by the Power Elite, or what Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the “High Cabal.” Prouty also mentions a shift from national sovereignty (which he says no longer exists) to an egregious form of globalism…. one which I will suggest is related to organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group (and these terrible “free trade” treaties, like NAFTA), supported by many in Washington today, and across party-lines. The author does go as far as mentioning the CFR.

The fact is that (despite some ugly, tabloid-like character assassination by people like Seymour Hersh, and profuse historical revisionism) President Kennedy planned a military withdrawal from S. Vietnam for his planned second term. Yet, we have come to see that he had many enemies surrounding him (such as the Bundy brothers, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and General Maxwell Taylor), and others—like McNamara--who were manipulated into a certain mind-set, and a shift from this particular stand on Vietnam (in spite of Kennedy’s emphasis on this being “their war,"and to very soon withdraw our support) to a full-blown military venture was very deftly engineered. First, the Diem brothers were removed (the news of which was enormously shocking to the president), then came the writing of a new NSAM document to supplant NSAM 55, in preparation of a change in administration, then came the removal of President Kennedy. When Johnson entered the White House, he—too—was managed, and—in conjunction with NSAM 57—overnight the paltry “adviser” presence of the US in Vietnam mushroomed into a massive military operation. Incidentally, Prouty maintains that before the end of 1963 this small, supposed military, presence was ENTIRELY CIA controlled, AND—in the context of some truly weird developments--the US ambassador to Vietnam was senior to the military command hierarchy. I invite you to reflect on that for a moment!!

One facet of this terribly complicated world was the fact that Kennedy was sold the idea of “counterinsurgency” by General Taylor, his primary military advisor, who was someone actually working for Langley. So, while the young president was dedicated to such ideals as world peace and self-determination of other nations, the growing primacy of this concept meant a ramping up of anti-Communist activity, in effect, robust military operations under “peacetime” cover. At the same time, his employment of figures outside of the Washington Establishment—particularly the NSC—meant the CIA, supposedly under the direction of this committee, was allowed to run rampant, and to expand exponentially. In a word, Kennedy was bamboozled, and--in some ways—had been his own worst enemy.

Now, many of us were already aware of Prouty’s important role in educating us about the “Secret Team” and the part it played in the Kennedy assassination (expressed by one who had been at the heart of the intelligence world), but what I’ve since found surprising—in the second edition of his book--is the “razor-like” clarity, and the sheer comprehensiveness he provides. These include commentary on the complexity and subtlety of the intelligence community operations and its characteristic style, as well as how the Vietnam War was skillfully engineered. Naturally, with this additional amplification, and a recollection of the incredibly dark “Langley” history around the world in the fifties and sixties (including the assassination of African and Central American elected leaders, and the toppling of governments), one can easily comprehend how this “monster, allowed to grow and prosper during the last years of the Eisenhower and early years of the Kennedy, administrations, when opposed by President Kennedy, turned on him and led to the elimination of a sitting American president. After all, you keep a rabid dog in your backyard, and chances are someone is eventually going to get bitten.

It certainly does not require major mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. Moreover, Col Prouty, investigator Mark Lane, Dr. Cyril Wecht, and ARRB military consultant Douglas Horne, are among those who have drawn the conclusion that the nation suffered a coup d’etat in 1963. So does Professor Peter Dale Scott, with the only difference in his viewpoint being that he insists that this is “business as usual” (“Standard Operating Procedure” (SOP)) in the world of “Deep Politics.” The Power Elite generally get what they want. And, yes, the framing of the Official Narrative, with plenty of whitewash (and complicity) by the Warren Commission, included the framing of one Lee Oswald for the crime is consistent with this reality. Of course, the ignorant and the stooges may choose to continue to believe the junk propaganda, but this does nothing to change what actually occurred.


And now, just for fun, I am going to write a review of the new and already fabled movie, LA LA LAND, which I saw last night.
First, I liked it. I can see what all the hoopla is about. Emma Stone is dazzling. Not only is she beautiful, but she has a voice like an angel, and when she dances, it's like she is weightless and floating in the ether. And Ryan Gosling can really play the piano. It's really him playing it in the movie. I looked it up. And the theme song of the movie, which is also their love song, is entitled CITY OF STARS, and it is an exquisitely lovely song. And keep in mind that I am an Oldies guy. I rarely like new music. But, I like this song. In fact, I like it so much, I just may end up recording it myself. So beware. Don't say I didn't warn you.
The other songs in the movie are lively and energetic and fitting for the scenes, but not nearly as memorable as CITY OF STARS.
The movie also includes a lot of pure instrumental jazz, of high-caliber. But, I can't say I have a good ear for that kind of music. I can enjoy it, but in small doses.
As for the story, it's a love story, where they fall in love with each other, but they are also in love with their careers as performers, him as a jazz pianist and her as an actress. And that leads to problems. I won't tell you how it ends, but you don't doubt their sincerity either way, and the ending is very touching and emotional.
There is an "other-world" quality to this movie throughout. It's happening in Los Angeles and presumably in modern time, but to me, it came across as anothert dimension. Perhaps I'm saying that because there is fantastical stuff that happens, such as them suddenly ascending into space and dancing among the stars.
Also, there is really no character development except the two of them. For instance, at one point, out of frustration, she gives up and goes home to her parents, and he goes out there and pulls her back. But, you never see or hear from her parents. Everyone else in the story is just a prop.
So, for me, it gives the story a surreal quality that I think prevented me from getting as fully immersed in it, as I would have otherwise, and as I have with other movies. But, maybe that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
So, if this were Amazon, and I was rating La La Land on a scale of 1 to 5, I would give it 4 stars. But, keep in mind that I am a very tough movie critic, So 4 stars from me is impressive.
So, I am recommending La La Land because of the talent of its stars, the beautiful theme song, and the fresh, original way they achieved poignancy at the end. That's a lot to like.