Sunday, October 21, 2018

Henry Mancini liked 3/4 time. Many of his greatest hits were written in it, such as Moon River, Charade, Dear Heart, and The Sweetheart Tree. It makes me wonder if when he was a little kid, his parents waltzed around the living room. And, he wrote this wonderful song in 3/4 time, one of my favorites, from the musical Darling Lili and introduced by Julie Andrews, with very touching lyrics by Johnny Mercer,  it is: Whistling Away The Dark

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Just think: The official story of the Oswald assassination is that 6 police officers, who were at a narrow ramp, failed to see a man enter and walk down the ramp in broad daylight.

That is a wall; a wall of non-credulity, and it is made of steel. Anyone over the age of 5 knows that that couldn't happen- unless the men were blind. 

Supposedly, the most lavish and exorbitant security measures ever taken in police history were taken to protect Oswald's life- so that  he could be walked 30 feet to a car. But, alas, one guy got in. He just walked down the ramp. And he wasn't seen by anybody, not the six policemen, and not the spectators either. It's like he was invisible.

That is what we are expected to believe. Why? Because it is a State decree; that's why. The Almighty State says it happened that way, and if you are a faithful minion of the Almighty State, you believe it.    

But, what if you don't? Where does it lead?

I have a cousin who likes to say, "We are all the products of government schools." That's what public schools are; government schools, where you are taught not only what to think, but how to think, and how to suppress your inborn desire to call horse shit, horse shit, when you see it. 

If it can't possibly be true that a bumbling, Clouseau-like man (Jack Ruby) breached a narrow checkpoint populated with 6 policemen, it means that the police were not trying to keep him out, but rather, get him in. But, they could not be working with him because they were going to prosecute him, which means he could not be holding any secrets of theirs. It means they had to pick someone who would be oblivious to their manipulations of him. They found that person in Jack Ruby. 

They guided him to that garage. They put Karen Carlin up to goading him for money so that he would go to Western Union. Are you aware that, in effect, Karen Carlin went into the witness protection program afterwards? They even created a false story that she died. Even famed JFK researcher Penn Jones fell for it. In reality, she changed her name and moved to Michigan. Now think about why it was thought necessary for her to do that.  

The official story of the Oswald assassination is just as bogus as the official story of the JFK assassination. And it hinged on exploiting a mentally impaired man; Jack Ruby. 

And, they knew that he was mentally impaired. So, think about it: Do you really think they wanted a mentally impaired man firing a gun in that crowded cubbyhole? If you were Jim Leavelle, would you feel safe knowing that the only thing between you and the bullet of a whacked-out man was the skinny body of Lee Oswald?  

They didn't need Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. They could do that themselves. They only needed Jack Ruby for one thing: to take the blame for killing Oswald. 

But, my point is that just from you knowing that the story of how Ruby got in is bull shit tells you that they, the ones telling the story, the Dallas Police, had to be the real killers.    

Just from knowing that, supposedly, Dallas cops Vaughn, Pierce, Maxim, Putnam, Daniels, and Flusche were there but didn't see Ruby as he openly strolled in, tells you that Dallas Police had to be the real killers.

But, Dallas Police would never have done it by themselves. It had to be sanctioned by a higher authority- the highest authority in the land, the President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

And the fact that federal law enforcement (the FBI) got right with it supporting the Dallas Police narrative, tells you that the feds were involved. But, this was a time of national crisis, and you can be sure the top "fed" was calling the shots. And, the top fed was Lyndon Johnson. 

Lyndon Johnson was the Commander in Chief. And you know that, in wartime, U.S. soldiers will fire upon and kill whomever the Commander in Chief tells them to. And even though they don't usually get the order directly from him, they understand that the chain of command goes to the top, and he is at the top.  Men who  have no inclination to hurt or kill anyone will kill on command of the President. That's what this was about. It's what got them over the hurdle of the normal human revulsion to taking a human life. And note that ALL of the DPD detectives and officers were former military, and some were still active in the Reserves. So, it was easy for them to fall into a military state of mind, where they were obeying and carrying out an order, and from the Commander in Chief. 

You know that the plan was for Oswald to be killed on the very day, don't you? I don't know who told Oswald to go to the Texas Theater, but we know darn well that he didn't get a hankering for a war movie, and his behavior in the theater shows that he was looking for someone. And, it was someone he didn't know because he kept getting up and changing seats, sitting next to various people. He wouldn't have done that if he knew, and could recognize, the person he was looking for.  

But, I don't assume they had an actual assassin there for him at the theater. That's because, if they did, he would have been shot. But, I think they were hoping that it would happen spontaneously because he was armed, and he was a cop-killer, and they were cops. Let Nature take its course, so to speak.

But, as you know, it didn't happen. It probably got pretty close to happening. There were guns trained on him.  Just a little more itch in a trigger finger is all it would have taken. 

And as a result, Oswald got to live two more days. And he did himself a lot of good in those days. How many times did he vehemently deny guilt on camera? At least 13 that I know of. He also came across as a) very lucid, b) very mature, c) very good at expressing himself, and d) not the least bit maniacal. Again, think about how they created a noise racket for the Midnight Press Conference to cover up the fact that Oswald came across as the most rational and civilized person in the room, in no way like a mad dog killer.  He was calm, poised, and in control. 

But remember: they worked on that Altgens photograph for hours to get him out of the doorway. It was childish and stupid of them to think we wouldn't still notice that it's him. You can still see his face, his build, and the shirt he was wearing. People from all over the world saw the photo and thought it was Oswald. But, the perpetrators didn't care about them. They were worried about Oswald, knowing, for sure, that he was going to tell his lawyer that that was him. 

Can you understand now why killing Oswald was an absolute imperative? And before he talked to a lawyer. They could not let him talk to a lawyer even once. It was going to be so easy for Oswald to establish his alibi, that the case would have been over before it started. The only way they could keep it going was to kill him. 

So, knowing that killing him was their imperative, do you really think they just got lucky that Jack Ruby came along and did it for them? And, he walked by 6 policemen, invisibly, in order to do it? You're supposed to believe that, but do you? 

There are many reasons why pursuing JFK truth is important, even in 2018, 55 years after it happened, and one of them is: to get your mind back. To reject a grotesque lie that the State is foisting on you is an act of defiance.  It is also an act of self-preservation, and I mean the self-preservation of your mind, where you insist on perceiving reality through your own senses, and determining what is true through your own reasoning ability.  Just say no to tyranny and the oppression of free, untethered thought. And from the domain of free, untethered thought comes the realization that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, completely and totally innocent, and so was Jack Ruby.   



Friday, October 19, 2018

You should read this one page by Dave Perry, if you haven't. It gets a lot of visibility online.  In it, he claims to "clear" Roy Vaughn of purposely letting Jack Ruby enter the garage, but he stills thinks he did it, stupidly. And that is supposed to be clearing him, as in, "'You're not bad; you're just stupid."

Look: NOBODY could do it stupidly because it was too easy to guard that ramp. An 80 year old Walmart greeter could have done it: easily.

And, Perry points out that Officers Pierce, Maxim, and Putnam also didn't see Ruby, but, that just makes it more preposterous. If it was extremely unlikely that one officer would miss seeing Ruby enter, then how unlikely is it that four didn't see him? 

And, it was more than four. There was the former officer who was there, Napoleon Daniels, and the officer across the street, Dan Flusche. They didn't see Ruby either. So, that makes 6 police officers who didn't see Ruby sneak in. And according to Ruby, he didn't sneak. He didn't hide from anybody.   

But then, you also have to include the spectators who were there because if they were really just a spontaneous gathering of citizens, then surely one or more of them, upon seeing a man breach a police barrier, would have said something to the officer. Was nobody paying attention? 

Dave Perry think that this is an either/or situation; that either Roy Vaughn deliberately let Jack Ruby enter the garage OR he did it negligently. Why does it have to be one of those two things? Why not keep our minds open to a third and entirely different option?

And that option is that Roy Vaughn and Jack Ruby were there at different times, that Roy Vaughn was neither venal nor stupid, and Jack Ruby was no super-sleuth.  


And even if you don't like the sound of it, isn't it better than believing that 6 police officers missed seeing a man conspicuously walk down a ramp? 

I think the killing of Oswald was a joint Dallas Police/FBI operation, and I think the order for it came directly from Lyndon Johnson.      

And, I'm sure it was sold as a patriotic thing, that the national nightmare had to end, that the Kennedy family deserved closure, that there was going to be a nuclear war unless they did it, and besides- Oswald was a cop killer, so think about Tippit.  

This is NOT farfetched. It really happened. Ruby got to the ramp entrance early-  probably about an hour earlier than claimed. Lt. Pierce was there in his squad car, but alone in it. Another officer was there on foot, but, he wasn't Vaughn. Spectators were also there. Ruby walked down; he was jumped, piled upon, and dragged up to the 5th floor, where he was told that he shot Oswald, and in his drugged, demented state, he believed them. Vaughn was brought down and assigned to guard the ramp. And then the show began: bringing Oswald out, amid all the pomp and circumstance, with James Bookhout playing the role of Jack Ruby for the cameras, as they put on this stage play, this soap opera, this spectacle for the American people. Oswald was NOT shot in the garage. He was shot afterwards. What happened in the garage was pure theater.

Dave Perry needs to wake up. Six police officers did not miss seeing Ruby at the ramp and enter the garage. That is NOT tenable. That has to be rejected outright. Likewise, the idea that Ruby lied needs to be rejected because Ruby correctly identified Pierce, plus he had no reason to lie. He was accepting responsibility for shooting Oswald, so why would he lie about how he got in there? And if you think he collaborated with someone in the Dallas PD, you need to think again because if that were true, then they would have to kill him pronto. How could they trust him not to squeal? They couldn't. They wouldn't. They didn't. 

So, what we are left with is that Roy Vaughn was telling the truth, and so was Jack Ruby. That means that they were there, at the ramp-head, at different times. And because of circumstances, Ruby had to be there BEFORE the shooting. So, he was there much earlier than 11:17, and it was before Roy Vaughn got started on his watch.  

This is the most logical scenario. It is the only thing that makes sense.   

I would like to offer my theory of "just war" and it's very simple: you can't start a war. You can't initiate one. You can't be the first one to fire or drop bombs. And there are no exceptions. 

Let's say you think the leadership of another country is doing terrible things to its citizens. You can't start a war over it. You can't invade and start destroying that country. Why? Because war means killing innocent people, and you can't rescue people by killing some of them. That's a contradiction in terms. So, you have to find another way. 

There is plenty that can be done: withholding trade, withholding tourism, and withholding other exchanges that are normal part of modern life. You can document abuses and atrocities that you know of. You can get the UN to intervene, to demand to send  watchers and inspectors to the country. International journalists can go there. You can ask religious leaders to condemn what is going on.  The same goes for celebrities and sports heroes. 

But, you can't start a war because that would surely kill more innocent people. And that you can't do, meaning: you have no right to do it.  

What if the country is amassing weapons which you think they intend to use against you or your allies? Can you start a war then? Absolutely not. Look: since 1945, the world has lived with nuclear weapons- the worst weapons of all. If one had the right to attack a country for having nuclear weapons or trying to get them, we would have destroyed ourselves by now. And think about the hypocrisy if you are sitting on the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, and if you are the only country that has ever used them, and you used them against civilians, as we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet you assume you have the right to attack another nation because of their presumed intentions? 

You can't attack another country for having weapons- not when the world is so stocked with weapons, as it is. The U.S., Russia, the UK, France, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel have nuclear weapons (although Israel does not acknowledge it). Many more countries have chemical weapons, the largest stockpile being held by Russia,  and the second largest by the U.S. 

But, you can't attack a country for having weapons because you may be wrong about what they have and what their intentions are. And considering that the country most likely to attack has more weapons than anybody, it makes no sense. And if we are going to at all sane and civilized, we have to reject the insanity of starting a war, that is, actually using weapons, killing people with them, in response to a country just having them or seeking them. 

It is a generally accepted principle of international law that nations have the right to possess arms to defend themselves and to determine their own needs. If we were to grant that one nation can attack another nation because it doesn't like its decisions about what arms to acquire and how many, it would amount to an unlimited right to start wars. 

To actually attack another country because of the arms it has, or the arms you think it has? No. That cannot be considered legal or moral. And that's because: WARS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, and you have no right to kill them.  Even though you are are trying to force another government to do something you want, the fact is: you are going to be killing innocent people. And, you have no right to kill even ONE innocent person. 

What it really comes down to is that the greatest moral imperative is that WE don't kill people. Thou shalt not kill. It's just like the commandment says, and notice that there are no qualifiers after it. 

If a person or a nation goes on a killing rampage, in other words, if they start warring, then there is the moral right to neutralize that person or nation.  But, until they do, there is no right to start warring. 

And, if you don't like the sound of that; if you think it sounds ominous, just remember what the alternative is. The alternative is what we did in Iraq, where we thought Saddam Hussein was accumulating certain weapons, so we went in and killed a million Iraqis. You have to remember that war is the worst thing in the world, and because it's the worst thing in the world, you don't start them. You don't use any rationalization to start them. That's none, nada, zip, zed, nunca. 

You don't start a war to liberate people. Why? Because you are certain to kill some of them; that's why. There is no liberty in dying. 

If you go to an Iraqi woman, and you ask her: "Would you rather have your dead husband alive but you have to put up with Saddam Hussein, or do you prefer to have him dead, but you get to have the government you have today?"  

What do you think she is going to say? She's going to say that she'd put with Saddam Hussein for 1000 years if she could have her husband back. 

Take a warmonger like Bill Kristol. He was in favor of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and he had to know that it was going to kill innocent Iraqis. So, how many Iraqis did you think you had the right to kill, Bill, in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power? Let's imagine for a moment that it could have been done with the killing of just one innocent person. No more. Just one. However, that one innocent person had to be your wife, Susan. 

So, what would you rather have, Bill? A world in which Saddam Hussein is still in power, but Susan is alive and well and with you? Or a world in which Saddam Hussein and your wife Susan are both brutally killed? Take your pick. 

Repeat: there is NO justified starting of ANY war.    


Thursday, October 18, 2018

The match-points of Oswald to the Man in the Doorway are so numerous, involving both the man and the clothing, that it is preposterous to think they are not one and the same person. Furthermore, there is only one reliable image of Lovelady, the one taken by Mark Lane, and he doesn't look anything like the Man in the Doorway. He was practically bald on top! And he had prominent ears! You know: Dumbo ears. It's sad but true.  The Man in the Doorway most certainly did not.  

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

There is a widely circulated article on the internet by Jane Grey called: JFK Jr. told the world who murdered his father, but nobody was paying attention. You can read it here:

So, the idea is that when JFK Jr. called his magazine "George" it was a veiled threat to George HW Bush, that he was going to expose him for killing his father. 

Is that true? I don't claim to know, but I should think he would have avoided tipping him off. 

The article is devoted to examining the evidence that Bush was there in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, starting with the 1963 memo of J. Edgar Hoover, discovered in 1978, in which Hoover referred to a George Bush of the CIA.  Bush responded that that was another George Bush, but a George William Bush was found, and he denied that it was him. Besides, the memo concerned the anti-Castro Cubans, and it's known that George HW Bush was involved with them. Do you recall the Bay of Pigs boats? The Houston, the Barbara, and the Zapata? 

But, then it gets really interesting because Jane addresses the claim of Roger Craig that he saw R.E.Vaughn arrest an "independent oil operator from Houston" who came rushing out of the Dal-Tex building shortly after the shots. Jane asks the necessary question: Why did Vaughn arrest this man? And, she provides a plausible answer: BUSH MUST HAVE LOOKED GUILTY.  He must have been sweating, panting, and looking stressed and looking like he was hiding something. 

Then, Jane looks at the FBI memo concerning a call from George Bush to the FBI on November 22, 1963, from Tyler, Texas, about an hour and a half after the assassination, to point the finger at someone- and totally without substance or credibility. She argues that this was panic-driven, that Bush needed to establish his location as Tyler, not Dallas, at the time of the assassination, because of his brief arrest immediately after the assassination.  So, it was all about creating an alibi for himself. Bush biographer Russ Baker says the same thing. 

Note that if Bush didn't drive to Tyler to make that call, he could have gone by small plane or helicopter, or he could have had someone else make the call- an audio double.   

Then, she said that Bush never was any good at hiding his feelings:

"But this story shows clearly that Bush was not the sort of cold-blooded killer who could take part in the murder of a man, and then act and look like nothing was going on as he tried to leave the scene of the crime. And it turns out that as an old man, Bush continues to suffer from this character trait, of being unable to hide feelings that need to be kept secret."

Then, Jane cited Bush's behavior at Gerald Ford's funeral when he made an inappropriate smile when referring to the "demented gunman" who shot President Kennedy.    

Roger Craig told Jim Garrison about Vaughn arresting the oil operator, and Jane claims that Garrison, no doubt, spoke to Vaughn about it. But, is that true? I would have to see evidence of that before I could accept it. 

This is how Jim Garrison wrote-up the incident in On The Trail Of The Assassins:

“At least one man arrested immediately after the shooting had come running out of the Dal-Tex Building and offered no explanation for his presence there. Local authorities hardly could avoid arresting him because of the clamor of the onlookers."
"He was taken to the Sheriff’s office, where he was held for questioning. However, the Sheriff’s office made no record of the questions asked this suspect, if any were asked; nor did it have a record of his name. Later two uniformed police officers escorted him out of the building to the jeers of the waiting crowd."
"They put him in a police car, and he was driven away. Apparently this was his farewell to Dallas, for he simply disappeared forever.”

Now, after hearing that from Roger Craig, didn't Jim Garrison go to Roy Vaughn to confirm it? Why settle for second-hand? So, did Garrison talk to Vaughn or not? And if he didn't, did he at least try to talk to him? And if he tried and couldn't, why couldn't he?  

But, here is Jane putting 2 + 2 together: She feels very strongly that it was just like Bush to describe himself as "an independent oil operator from Houston" because he did, in fact, describe himself that way to the FBI that very day. He didn't use those exact words. Instead, he was much more specific, stating that he was the head of Zapata Offshore Drilling in Houston. 

But, what I have to wonder is: didn't Vaughn ask the man his name? It seems that any police officer would. And, it's an easy name to remember. Plus, as I said previously, George Bush was running for Senator at the time. I do not know if he had already announced, or if he was about to announce, but it was one or the other. 

And think about it: Very soon afterwards, George Bush was immersed in campaigning: making appearances, being interviewed; being photographed, and being televised. Here he is in 1964 in a tv ad:

So, even if Vaughn didn't ask Bush his name, didn't he remember what he looked like? And didn't he recognize him when he saw him on tv? And doesn't the same go for Roger Craig, since he witnessed Vaughn arresting him? 

So, even if you think Vaughn wouldn't have said anything, what about Roger Craig? Wouldn't Roger Craig have pointed out that the man who was running for the Senate got arrested shortly after the JFK assassination? 

Vaughn never spoke of the incident, but Craig did. So, why didn't he identify the man as George Bush? 

I agree that it looks bad for Bush because for the longest time he said he couldn't remember where he was when JFK got shot, and that is just not credible. And then, not him, but his wife writes a book in which she claims he was in Tyler giving a political speech which got interrupted by news of the shooting? But, if that was the case, then why didn't he say so all along?  

And sure, they got some guy to claim he witnessed it, but hell, I had an FBI agent call me and tell me that James Bookhout was at least 6 feet tall, and that was a bold-faced lie. So, it means nothing. 

The bottom line for me is that I don't have any doubt that George Bush was there, and he was involved. His behavior has the stench of guilt. Do you know that he skipped Richard Nixon's inauguration in order to see LBJ off at the airport? They weren't even of the same party. How could they have bonded so close? How about the bond of blood, spilled blood?

But I am confused about the Roger Craig claim. Keep in mind that I am not as big a Roger Craig fan as many are. His claim about what Oswald said about the station wagon I do not consider bankable at all. And in this case, there are also incongruities, the incongruity of Vaughn's lifelong silence about it, the incongruity of no one getting the man's name, and the incongruity of no one, not even Roger Craig, recognizing Senate candidate George Bush as the man he saw Roy Vaughn arrest.

Is it possible that that was Bush, but there was a disguise involved? Even if he just wore a fedora hat, it would have disguised him a lot. Look how well it worked for James Bookhout. 

Monday, October 15, 2018

Mark Wengler shared a link.
6 hrs
About this website
President Donald Trump called for unity in an interview with broadcast journalists ahead of his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
LikeShow more reactions
David Martin For our sake, I hope we are visited by friendly aliens, otherwise, I don't want to contemplate what he's talking about.
LikeShow more reactions
Renda Downey Sounds like that infamous rationale from the Project for a New American Century. It will be hard to galvanize support for a war in the Middle East without a unifying catastrophic event like " a new Pearl Harbor".