Monday, March 31, 2014

My cousin Michael Skene died on March 22, and today was the day of his memorial service. Over 200 people congregated to honor him. 

Although we were cousins, we were more like brothers. Michael was also my roommate in college at UCLA. 

Mike was the same age as I am, 63. He died of cancer. He lived most of his life with a condition known as Crohn's disease, which is similar to colitis except that it's higher up. It's well known that the chronic inflammation of Crohn's disease can develop into cancer, and in his case, it did. 

But, even though Michael lived with Crohn's disease since he was a teenager, he lived a very full and accomplished life. He became a lawyer, and he was an extremely good one.  He knew the law very well, and he was a courtroom lawyer, a daunting litigator. He had a beautiful wife, Denise, and they had three beautiful children. 

Despite his illness, Mike was very athletic. He volunteered to be the soccer coach for the local high school and actually took the team to the State finals. He wrote two books: one was a chronicle of the wartime experiences of our Uncle Mike who stormed the beaches at Normandy on D-Day. And the other was a very creative allegory about fallen angels who had been kicked out of Heaven but wanted to appeal their case to God. So, they figured they needed the best lawyer there ever was, and they settled on Abraham Lincoln. So, they travel to Earth and back in time to find him to argue their case. I read it and was very amused. 

The last time I saw Michael was at the OIC JFK Truth Conference in Santa Barbara on November 22. He was already designated terminal then, but he was well enough to drive up from Agoura and attend the conference. He stayed for it all. That evening, he and I and Linda went out to dinner together. Linda had met Michael several times before at various family gatherings. And that night, Michael got to see two of his cousins- me and Tony Longo- perform the song, "He Didn't Do It" about the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Years before, Michael had read, at my request and because I sent it to him, the book JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, and he spoke highly of it. Michael was only 13 years old when JFK got killed, and of course he was a long way from being a lawyer. But, it has occurred to me that if Lee Harvey Oswald had had Michael Skene defending him, it would have been all over for the State. He'd have made mincemeat out of them.  Was he as good as Mark Lane? You bet. Mike was as good a lawyer as Mark Lane. He was as good as anyone you could name.    

No, Backes, YOU are the fucking idiot. You can't blame it on generation loss from repeated replication. No JFK motorcade film has been duplicated more than the Zapruder film, and we see it in excellent form on Youtube. Like here: 

I just crudely did a Print Screen from Youtube to get this:

It's not bad. We see Kennedy trying to cough up that bullet. We see Connally reacting to being shot. It's bright. It's sunny. There's no darkness. The Zapruder film is infinitely more popular than the Towner film, so in all likelihood, there were many more generations of copies involved with this than the other. 

Backes, are you alleging that the reason why the doorway is black in the Towner film is because the generational copying turned it black? That originally we could see all the figures from the Altgens photo including Doorway Man, but that the copying process resulted in "contrast buildup" and "generation loss" which resulted in a black doorway? Is that what you're saying?

On Wikipedia, they give this example of generation loss. Notice that the loss affects the whole image. It doesn't just blacken a small area like a doorway.

 It hasn't gained blackness; it's lost blackness. But, this is what it says about the digital realm:

Used correctly, digital technology can eliminate generation loss. Copying a digital file gives an exact copy if the equipment is operating properly. This trait of digital technology has given rise to awareness of the risk of unauthorized copying. Before digital technology was widespread, a record label, for example, could be confident knowing that unauthorized copies of their music tracks were never as good as the originals.

It goes on to say that it is important not to use compressed images. Then it says:

In digital systems, several techniques, used because of other advantages, may introduce generation loss and must be used with caution. However, copying a digital file itself incurs no generation loss--the copied file is identical to the original, provided a perfect copying channel is used.

Keeping in mind the example of generation loss that they showed us above, do you think it's likely that the dark doorway in this Towner frame is due to generation loss? 

 Here's how it's going to be, Backes: Any time you start spewing your techno-babble, I'm going to call you on it to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, that you're just full of shit. And you know what else you're full of? You know.

I certainly do not claim that Robin Unger is the one who implanted the Mother and Baby into the Towner film. Somebody did it, but it wasn't him. His job is just to support it, to vouch for it.

I am not going to speculate about when it was done or who did it except to say that it had to be long ago. They couldn't have done it after the Towner film was widely seen and dispersed because then there would have been two versions of it. They had to do it at a time when it was under government control, and that's before there was an internet.   

So, why don't the online versions of the Towner film show the Mother and Baby? I think it's because the fix they did, which was pre-digital, did not transfer to the online digital environment. At least, it didn't translate very well. 

If you look at that closely, you see a faint suggestion- at least of the baby. You wouldn't recognize it all if you didn't know about the other. But, with the vision of the other in your head, your mind can fill in the blanks and conjure up the rest. But, why is it so sparse? Why is it so depleted, especially when we can see the Fedora Man just fine? Again, it just didn't hold up when they made the transfer. It got washed out. 

The area of the doorway is also highly suspicious in the Towner film. We know that at the time of the motorcade, bright sunlight was streaming into the doorway. In fact, it was blindingly bright, and that's why we see multiple individuals vizoring their eyes with their hands. Yet, the doorway looks dark in the Towner film.

 It was only a few seconds before the Altgens photo was taken, and you can't assume that the conditions were any different. The odds are great that they blackened out that doorway. Is there any justification for this contrast?

I'm not buying it. Are you? 
Unger, you submitted a new frame from Towner, a different one from before, but just because it's a different frame does not justify the baby becoming misshapen into a seahorse. 

Alright, we acknowledge that it's a different frame, but you still have to explain why it's shaped like a seahorse. It's not as though the shape of the baby changed over the course of one second. And the mother is distorted as well with that dark brown stripe going across her face. She doesn't look remotely anatomical, meaning even less anatomical than she did before, and she didn't look too good before. So, what happened to her? 

These figures changed. The reason they changed is because they are labile and volatile images artificially infused into the film, and they have no stability. And I suspect that the distortion we see is quite random, meaning that if you tried it again to lift a frame out of the film, that it would most likely not be exactly the same. It would likely distort in a different way. It wouldn't look exactly the same. 

Unger, YOU posted that frame without looking closely at the Mother and Baby. You didn't notice how distorted they are. I had to point it out to you. That's tough. Now, you have to live with the consequences of it. 

Whether you agree that that baby resembles a seahorse or not doesn't matter. I think it does, but you don't have to agree. But, what you can't deny is that that baby does not look human. It does not have the shape of a human baby. It is grossly distorted, and there has to be a reason for it. And if you refuse to provide a reason, it only proves that you don't care about the truth, that you are nothing but a Dis-info Operative who is covering for the killers of John Kennedy and at a good salary. Although many of your fellow Ops are in the UK, you are in Australia, but it works out just the same. 

Why did the images of the Mother and Baby become grossly distorted and not the images of anyone else in the frame, Unger? Answer the question. 

First, Joseph Backass made a post without saying a thing. Not a word. It was just pure badmouthing against me without advancing the slightest argument. I guess if I'd been slammed as many times as he has I'd be wary of making an argument too.     

Backes, you are a proscenium-stuffing fool with the brains of a gnat. Go to Hell. 

Now, I want everyone to notice something important. In Robin Unger's recent posting of the Towner frame with the Mother and Baby, they are the only ones who are distorted. All the other figures look OK. It's just them who have problems. 

The baby is shaped like a seahorse, and the face of the mother has lost all its human form. She looks like a freak. 

Here it is compared to an actual seahorse. 

It wasn't that way before. 

It was a freakish blob, with no arms, etc. but it wasn't shaped like a seahorse.

So, what the Hell is going on here? I am still waiting for an explanation from Robin Unger. How did that baby get so deformed? And why the baby? Why not some other figure in the frame? Show me anyone else in the crowded frame who is so distorted?

I'll tell you why it's the Mother and the Baby who are distorted and no one else: it's because they aren't real. It's because blobs of color are all they ever were. It's because, unlike the others, they have no form. They're just blobs of color that were superimposed, and the colors tend to run. Now, if that's not the right explanation, then let's see Robin Unger proffer another one that sounds better. Why those figures, Unger? Why not some other figure? How did they get so messed up?  

Sunday, March 30, 2014

And remember, folks, when we bypass Robin Unger and go directly to the Towner film, we don't see any of the Woman and Baby. Here are two versions of it.

Backes bitches that it's on Youtube, but so what? The Zapruder film is on Youtube, and we can see it clearly, and there are no missing figures. We're seeing the man in the Fedora hat as clearly as ever. 

The Woman and Baby in Towner are FAKE. They weren't there; their images were entirely fabricated. And, I hope you realize what it means. It means that EVERYTHING that I have been telling you about these photo and film fabrications is true. The Altgens photo was altered. The Wiegman, Hughes, Martin, and Dallas PD films were altered and in some cases fabricated, such as Lovelady being placed at the desk in the Squad room. The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of the world. The American Nazis who did it, who killed Kennedy, started altering images on Day 1, and they haven't stopped. They altered everything they could get their hands on. The phony Woman and Baby in the Towner film are particularly egregious. They are gross. It's amazing that they had the nerve to do such a thing- but they did. And they'll fake more images right now if they have to. They'll do anything to keep the ruse going that Oswald killed Kennedy. He didn't.  

Unger says they're two different frames. But so what? They're from the same film and very close in time. So, why should one be distorted just because it's a different frame? Here they both are:

The one on top is the original one that Unger posted. The one on the bottom is the latest one. But why the brown streak across her eyes below? Why the misshape of the baby's body? And although you can't see it well at this distance, why the misshape of the baby's head? Why is the flicking hand so much more prominent below, and why is it white? Wasn't the skin tone of her hand the same as her face? What, did she suddenly have vitiligo on her hands? And why would her hand be directly above her head? Look at it again in the gif:

And come to think of it, I just thought of something. Let's assume there was about a second between those two frames. If she was moving her hand constantly waving, why is the hand in the exact same place?

Since Robin has reminded us that they are two different frames separated by a second or so of time, why is the hand in the same place in both directly above her head? Shouldn't it be a little different? 

It's a bogus image, Unger. It's as a fake as a three dollar bill. And you're just digging yourself in deeper denying it. 
That image on the right really is grossly distorted. Of course, even the one on the left has got gross distortions and impossibilities that I have been talking about for years. But, the image on the right takes it to a whole new level. Look how totally misshapen the baby is. It looks like one of those mythical marine creatures. How do you account for that? The baby's head looks squashed and flattened. The flickering hand above the woman's head looks like a bright frisbee, having lost all the subtlety of the other side. Then, the white areas on the bottom part of the image are all enlarged and enhanced. Just compare to the other side. 

I account for this by pointing out that it was a phony image to begin with, accomplished with globs of color. But, it's an imperfect art, and at times, you lose control of where the color goes. That the Woman and Baby were added to the film is an absolute certainty. The question is: why? Why was it so necessary to have a woman and baby waving at the President? Who cares? 

Well, the only reason I can think of was to provide some confirmation of the Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo. They came first. They were faked on November 22, 1963. I don't know when the Towner film was faked, but it may have been years later. I really don't think there is any other plausible explanation for why this was done.

Unger, I have not written to Duncan MacRae. That was sent by someone else. I have not been writing to ANY of my adversaries. I'm not interested in writing to them. Anything I have to say to them I will say right here.  

And what I have to say to you right now is: why are those colors running in your last rendition of the Towner Woman and Baby?

The last time we saw this kind of thing was with the Dallas PD footage in which Lovelady's colors started running.

Note also that he too is, in my estimation, a bogus image who was implanted into the film. In regard to this, Richard Hooke said that the bogus images do not hold up well in a digital environment. I haven't seen this kind of color-running with any non-disputed figures in any film. It's only with the disputed ones. 

So again, Robin: explain how this got distorted. You proffered it, so it's your responsibility to explain it. My explanation is that it's a bogus image in which they infused colors to concoct the Woman and Baby, who were not there at all. And the bogus colors run. 

Uh-oh. Robin Unger's colors are running. 

I've been saying for a long time that the Woman and Baby in the frame from the Towner film were Photoshopped in, and now it appears their colors are running. 

Here are two versions. On the left is the original from when Robin Unger first posted it. But, he posted another version on March 6, which is on the right. 

On the right, you see the brown streak across the mother's eyes. You also see the weird distortion of the baby's white coat, giving it the shape of an embryo. The bonnet too is misshapen. And notice that this time the flicking hand above her head came out much whiter. How come? More paint. 

I'll give you the link to Robin's site so that you can see for yourself that I am not making this up. I just took it from his site, as-is. My crop was from the second frame in the stack.

The whole thing got very mashed and distorted on this redo, Unger, so why? It's brighter overall. The whites are whiter, as they say in the laundry soap commercials. But, everything got, in the words of the vernacular: fucked up. 

So, what is going on here, Robin? Better start talking because this is definitely a smoking gun. You, or somebody, "messed where they shouldn't 'ave been a-messing," to borrow a phrase from Nancy Sinatra.  
Why is this 1958 photo from Robert Oswald's 1967 book Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by his Brother, of such poor photographic quality? Doesn't it seem more like a lithograph than a photograph?

And with such a broad smile like that, shouldn't his teeth be showing? Try it yourself. Smile as broadly as that and see if it doesn't expose your teeth. 

And since teeth are white, the contrast of even a slight exposure would surely have shown. So, were his teeth blackened out in order to hide the fact that one of his front teeth was missing? 

We don't see any pictures of Lee after the 1959 passport photo in which his mouth was closed.

I placed the ear from Harvey's mug shot in so that you can see that they were different ears, with a different shape to the top, thicker cartilage on Lee, and a bigger ear overall on him. It also protruded more.  Those are definitely not the same ear. 

But why no pictures of Lee after 1959? Is that missing tooth the reason? 

Wow! There is more to that 8th grade photo of "Lee" than I realized. Do you know what he's doing in that picture? He was demonstrating the fact that his front tooth had just gotten knocked out in a fight. His friend Ed Voebel who took the picture said so. 

Here it is up-close.

The problem is that Harvey was not missing any front tooth. Here are his teeth from the 1981 exhumation.

And here are his Marine dental records showing no front tooth missing.

It was November 1954 when it happened when Lee was 15 years old. A 15 year didn't lose a baby tooth, did he? 

The HSCA had tried to talk to Ed Voebel, but alas, Voebel was dead, having died suddenly of a "blood clot" at the tender age of 31. Do we get to count that as a mysterious death? Well, like it or not, we are. 

So, Lee had a missing front tooth, and Harvey did not. That adds up to Two Oswalds, and the argument has got a lot of teeth behind it. 

Saturday, March 29, 2014

bpete is a very stupid man. He thinks you have to look at crotches to tell whether individuals are male or female.

But, we see people every day and we know immediately whether they are male or female and without looking at their crotches. In Medicine, the term is "secondary sexual characteristics". If the genitalia are the primary sexual characteristic, then the other non-genital features which distinguish males from females are the secondary sexual characteristics. And in this case, we clearly see a female on the left and a male on the right. And in her case, the area of her crotch isn't even in the picture. 

I tell you, bpete is just plain stupid, and he is very immature. Embarrassingly so for a middle-aged man. He's like a child. He's in his 40s, but mentally, he is a boy, not a man. 

His full handle is bpete1969. If that's the year of his birth, then he's, 45. 

Duncan MacRae has a music video on his Google page from 1985 in which he was performing when he was 16 years old. I'll give you the link. It's not my kind of music- just noise to me.

But, if he was 16 in 1985, that means he was born in 1969- just like bpete.  

bpete, that is, MacRae, you don't seem to understand who is in charge here, who gives the orders. That would be me. And if you don't like that, then it's Joseph Backes, the proscenium arches, and you know the routine. By now, you know it well.  My answer to your questions are two words, and the second one is "you". 

Now, moving on, I was saying that Harvey was malnourished in his formative years and most likely including the 9 months he spent in the womb. No such hardship befell Lee. It resulted in this disparity:

You see, they only looked alike in their faces. Their bodies were vastly different, and I'm sure it got to be a problem. That may be why we have no images of Lee beyond 1959. That image above on the left is the very last image we have of Lee, and it's dated 1959.

This Bronx Zoo picture was taken in 1953, so Harvey would have been 14 years old. 14! Can you imagine that he was that small at the age of 14? Lee's half-brother John Pic was shown this picture by the Warren Commission, and he said that it was NOT his brother.

It has reached the point that the certainty of Two Oswalds is just as great as the certainty of Oswald in the doorway, and that is absolute. Here is a good concise statement about the Two Oswalds from the Harvey and Lee website which is run by James Hargrove but with the approval and involvement of John Armstrong:

    JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. A Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald. HARVEY was of small stature, quiet, slightly malnourished, and lived with a short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor who never smiled. New Orleans born LEE Oswald was tall, husky, and athletic. As a youth LEE lived with half-brother John Pic, brother Robert Oswald, and his tall, nice-looking mother, Marguerite Claverie Oswald. A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to “defect” to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian. HARVEY “defected” and two years later returned to America with a Russian wife and child. A year later this former “defector” was handing out literature in support of Castro and Cuba. Unknown to HARVEY, he had become the ideal candidate to frame for the assassination of President Kennedy. And also unknown to HARVEY were the activities of LEE Oswald in the summer and fall of 1963, when LEE was impersonating HARVEY and helping to set up HARVEY as the accused assassin of President Kennedy.
You really should visit the Harvey and Lee website if you haven't. It was newly reorganized this year:

Jack White said it best when he said that anyone who does not accept the work of John Armstrong has to be fundamentally lacking in intelligence, and I agree.  There is just too much evidence to dismiss. It is way past the threshold of certainty. 

Harvey Oswald was short and small throughout his childhood. He would have been about 13 in the above picture. And it was lucky for him (if we can ever apply the word "lucky" to him) that he had a late growth spurt. By 1955, he was 16, and he may have been 5'6", but he may have shorter. 

After that, he reached 5'9", but I consider that a late growth spurt. 

Why was he so scrawny? Was it just genetic? That may have been part of it, but it wasn't all of it. I think it's likely that his biological mother (who was not the short, dumpy Marguerite Oswald of fame) was poorly nourished when she bore him. It was 1939, so wartime, and the living conditions in Eastern Europe, where she was, were bad. There is speculation that he wound up in an orphanage, which meant that his post-uterine nutrition was no better than his intra-uterine nutrition. When you get a bad start in life in that respect, you never fully recover. 

And when Dr. Hartogs interviewed Harvey in New York in the early 50s, he said that he looked like a starving refugee child from the war zone. He pegged it. 

Meanwhile, Lee underwent no such nutritional strain and was beefy by nature. 

As I said, the senior members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign all agree that Oswald was innocent and that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the murder. But, there is divergence among members about other things.

For instance, Philip Nelson maintains that LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination, whereas John Hankey maintains that George HW Bush had a higher role in the planning of the assassination. 

Which one of them is right? I haven't the slightest desire to take one side or the other. I know that LBJ and George HW Bush were both deeply involved and high up in the chain. 

In fact, George HW Bush, although a lifelong Republican, skipped the inauguration of Richard Nixon, a man who was the direct protege' of his father, Prescott Bush, just to see LBJ off at the airport. Can you imagine? That's how good and close of friends Johnson and Bush were. 

Forget about the party difference. Who gives a shit about that? They had something much more important in common: blood. The blood of John Kennedy. When you murder together, that makes you brothers, alright. And it's a brotherhood that is very high up on the totem pole. It means being brothers for life. 
OK, I got the definitive word from John Armstrong. This picture was taken in the 8th grade, in October 1954, at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. The one who took the picture was Ed Voebel.

So, that was 1954. The CAP picture was 1955, so just a year later.

So, do you think that Lee went from being the biggest kid in the class in 1954 to the smallest guy in the unit in 1955?

Psst. They're two different guys. 

Yes, it is pretty damn insane to think that these two were the same human being with the same kind of genitalia. The claim that they are the same is an example of the Bizarro World that JFK assassination research has become. It is an example of one of those "big lies" that Hitler used to talk about,  "a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." 

Did you know that Warren Commissioners Allan Dulles and John McCloy were both involved in Operation Paperclip which involved whitewashing Nazis and getting them visas to emigrate to America? One of them, Walter Dornberger, became the head of Bell Aircraft where Michael Paine worked. Fancy that.

After a long stint at Trembling Hills, Backes is back. I don't know how much Thorazine they pumped into him, but I'm thinking of buying stock in Sandoz. 

And what did it take to awaken Backes out of his stupor? He didn't like the designation of this picture of Oswald as being from the 6th grade. He thinks it's the 9th. 

Well, Oswald looks big enough to be in the 9th grade, but what about the others? Look at that little girl next to him. 9th grade is the first year of high school. Does she look like a high school student? 

Regardless of what grade it was, Oswald looks a lot bigger than the others, and that is the point. Is there any chance that the Lee Harvey Oswald we know was ever the biggest kid in class?

I rather doubt it. In fact, the LHO we know was quite a runt his whole childhood, where he was both short and small. 

And I've got news for you, Backass: Lee only completed 1 month of the 9th grade before dropping out to join the Marines. So, maybe it was the 7th or 8th grade, but definitely not the 9th. 

As for Harvey, as I said, he was small. Here he is in 1955, so age 16, where you can see that he is both short and small.

Fortunately for Harvey, he had a growth spurt after that which took him up to 5'9".  But, you don't think Oswald went from biggest to smallest, do you?