This is unbelievable. I am beside myself with outrage. ISIS is supposedly beheading people. Right? So, how many innocent people do we have the right to kill in response to it? The correct answer is: None!

Read this article. At the end, a Congressman named Adam Kinzinger said he heard about the civilian casualties, but "nothing is ever perfect," and then he added that it's much less than the brutality of the Assad regime. What? I think he just gave away the farm. We are supposedly doing this to fight ISIS, not Assad. 

I wonder if Kinzinger would have the same attitude if it were his wife and children killed in Syria rather than other men's. 

White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply


The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.

A White House statement confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria's Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23.

The village has been described by Syrian rebel commanders as a reported stronghold of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front where U.S officials believed members of the so-called Khorasan group were plotting attacks against international aircraft.

But at a briefing for members and staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last week, Syrian rebel commanders described women and children being hauled from the rubble after an errant cruise missile destroyed a home for displaced civilians. Images of badly injured children also appeared on YouTube, helping to fuel anti-U.S. protests in a number of Syrian villages last week.

“They were carrying bodies out of the rubble. … I saw seven or eight ambulances coming out of there,” said Abu Abdo Salabman, a political member of one of the Free Syria Army factions, who attended the briefing for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff. “We believe this was a big mistake.”

Asked about the strike at Kafr Daryan, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said Tuesday that U.S. military “did target a Khorasan group compound near this location. However, we have seen no evidence at this time to corroborate claims of civilian casualties.” But Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told Yahoo News that Pentagon officials “take all credible allegations seriously and will investigate” the reports.  

At the same time, however, Hayden said that a much-publicized White House policy that President Obama announced last year barring U.S. drone strikes unless there is a “near certainty” there will be no civilian casualties — "the highest standard we can meet," he said at the time — does not cover the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.
The “near certainty” standard was intended to apply “only when we take direct action ‘outside areas of active hostilities,’ as we noted at the time,” Hayden said in an email. “That description — outside areas of active hostilities — simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now.”
Hayden added that U.S. military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Syria, "like all U.S. military operations, are being conducted consistently with the laws of armed conflict, proportionality and distinction."
The laws of armed conflict prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilian areas and require armed forces to take precautions to prevent inadvertent civilian deaths as much as possible.
But one former Obama administration official said the new White House statement raises questions about how the U.S. intends to proceed in the conflict in Syria and Iraq, and under what legal authorities.

.

A man inspects a damaged site in what activists say was a U.S. strike in Kafr Daryan, in Syria's Idlib Province, …

“They seem to be creating this grey zone” for the conflict, said Harold Koh, who served as the State Department’s top lawyer during President Obama’s first term. “If we’re not applying the strict rules [to prevent civilian casualties] to Syria and Iraq, then they are of relatively limited value."
Questions about civilian deaths from U.S. counterterrorism operations have confronted the Obama administration from the outset, after the president sharply ramped up drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, resulting in sometimes heated internal policy debates.  
Addressing the subject last year in a speech at the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged for the first time that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, adding: “For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live.”
Sources familiar with the new “near certainty” standard Obama announced at the time said that, as a practical matter, it meant that every drone strike had to be signed off on by the White House — first by Lisa Monaco, Obama’s chief homeland security adviser, and ultimately by the president himself. The policy, one source said, caused some Pentagon officials to chafe at the new restrictions — and led to a noticeable reduction in such strikes by the military and the CIA.
While the White House has said little about the standards it is using for strikes in Syria and Iraq, one former official who has been briefed on the matter said the looser policy gives more discretion to theater commanders at the U.S. Central Command to select targets without the same level of White House oversight.

The issue arose during last week’s briefing for two House Foreign Affairs Committee members and two staffers when rebel leaders associated with factions of the Free Syria Army complained about the civilian deaths — and the fact that the targets were in territory controlled by the Nusra Front, a sometimes ally of the U.S.-backed rebels in its war with the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

But at least one of the House members present, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who supports stronger U.S. action in Syria, said he was not overly concerned. “I did hear them say there were civilian casualties, but I didn’t get details,” Kinzinger said in an interview with Yahoo News. “But nothing is perfect,” and whatever civilian deaths resulted from the U.S. strikes are “much less than the brutality of the Assad regime.”

bpunk, I did not tell them I had a current license. I did not use the word "licensed". I told them my degree was in Chiropractic. That's all I said. I did not lie. And as I said, I don't think it matters. You don't need a license to be a 9/11 truther. 

And it has no bearing whatsoever on whether it's Oswald in the doorway, and it is Oswald in the doorway: his face, his build, his stance, and his clothes. Even his vee-shaped t-shirt. 

There is zero chance that Billy Lovelady wore a t-shirt like that. It didn't even occur to him to wear a t-shirt like that when he posed as Doorman- and that would have been easy as pie.

But go ahead, bpunk: keep dwelling on my licensing status; you got nothing else, you bloodied wee cock sparrow. 

The bloodied, being bloodied, and also being utterly helpless and hopeless to stop the rising tide of recognition of Oswald in the doorway- his face, his body, his stance, and his very unique and distinctive clothing- are quick to cling to irrelevant issues.

It makes no difference how long I was licensed to practice as a chiropractor. It has no bearing on the facts of the case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether this man standing in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald.

He most certainly was Lee Harvey Oswald, and you don't have to be a chiropractor- whether licensed or unlicensed- to see it.

I didn't write the caption for Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and I didn't ask them to put up my picture or say anything about me. 

Over on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, would they turn down an architect or engineer just because, say, he was retired?  I don't know what they do, but I certainly wouldn't encourage them to do that. Licensing is a state matter, but the state has nothing to do with this. If you have the knowledge, the training of an architect or engineer, and it's your perception that the towers were imploded and could not have fallen the way they did, with a sudden onset of collapse, with free-fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance, with sounds of explosions reported, and with almost perfect symmetry, that you should be allowed to include your name among those professionals who say that fires could not have done that. You don't have to have a license to know it. 

And, it is just another example of how utterly bankrupt these people are. They have truly run out of bullets- not that any of their previous shots did any damage. Everything I have ever claimed on the OIC website is still there. I have NEVER had to take down a single thing down because of anything said by Duncan MacRae, Joseph Backes, or Lance Uppercut. All 7 of the Altgens doorway anomalies are still there. 

As a chiropractor, I was NEVER the subject of any kind of disciplinary action. I was never the target of a civil lawsuit. And I certainly didn't lose my license. It was not taken away from me. I chose, because of circumstances in my life, not to renew it. And again, it has no bearing whatsoever on the facts in the JFK assassination.   

My friend Dennis Cimino, who is a senior member of the OIC, has been very eloquent tonight, and I want to share what he wrote to me.

 Today at 10:03 PM

Thank you, Ralph.  The Altgens photo shows L.H.O. in the doorway at precisely the moment the bullet through the windshield  has ricocheted off the rearview mirror and struck the President in the larynx and made him grasp for his throat so he could free his breathing.  If there ever was one photo that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the whole bullshit story sold Amerdekuh was FRAUDULENT, it is that sole photo.

L.H.O. is, in fact, in the fucking doorway,  and that is certain.  I would stake my very life on that fact and not flinch.

There is no place else in that building or on Earth that Lee Harvey Oswald was except the entrance to the T.S.B.D. at the moment JFK was struck in the throat from a round that went through the windshield. I mean, after all of the hours we have spent doing the work to understand that photograph fully, it's like that doorway is the center of the JFK universe and everything else spreads out from that location where Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed by Ike Altgens.

If you look at the whole of Dealey Plaza as a sphere, with that being the very center of it...relative to the magnitude of truth therein, and then work outwards, between this single indisputable fact of life, everything further away from the doorway begins to become less and less important because as you might imagine, even the assassins who did pull triggers that day were all over the place farther from the doorway, a single solitary laser line.

From JFK's limo windshield, beginning at the mirror's back which is scuffed and dented and scraped by that bullet...taking that laser line back to the Stemmons Overpass, you have that sphere with LHO in the very center, and that one line projecting out of the car FORWARDS, and you really have SOLVED the case beyond any doubt that LHO could not possibly have fingers several hundreds of yards long to pull a trigger on a weapon on the other side of Dealey Plaza at the moment the President has been hit. 

A three dimensional diagram of that is like a Veitch Diagram.  it virtually excludes LHO from guilt. 

And, it's a shame that we weren't all born 50 fucking years earlier or we would have solved this almost immediately and probably taken this case outside of the U.S. to some country where this evidence could have made a fucking difference.  Here?  Pffffft!!!!!!!!!  Never.

But somewhere, it might have changed the very course of history. in a good way.

Dennis makes a good point; it could have gone differently. Their plan was very brazen- even reckless. Just a little bit of luck going the other way, and it could have all blown up on them. 

But, here's a consoling thought: what we've done - extolling Oswald in the doorway - it is NEVER going away. The good old days when most of the JFK community was resigned to saying it was Lovelady are OVER, and they are never coming back. What's certain is that this has grown a lot since we began in 2012, and it will continue to grow,  to expand, to get bigger, to get wider. 

So, welcome to the Brave New World of JFK truth. It's destiny is the complete obliteration of the official account of the JFK assassination. And, that is as certain to happen as water flowing downhill.  

The idea that Robert Kennedy nominated Allen Dulles to be on the Warren Commission to Allen Dulles is insane. Why would he want his brother's bitter enemy, a man whom he fired, involved?

I found the record of LBJ's recorded phone call with Hoover about it.  Officially, it's listed as having happened on November 29 close to 2 PM, but it's suspect. November 29 was the very day that the forming of the Warren Commission and its members was announced. But, this phone conversation sounds very much like a first conversation that LBJ and Hoover had about it. LBJ banters about several candidates: Dulles, McCloy, Boggs, and others, to get Hoover's opinion. But, neither of them even brought up Earl Warren. How was it possible that on November 29, the very day the thing went public, that they would fail to mention Earl Warren?

Here's a list of LBJ's phone calls from November 22 to November 30. RFK is not listed. 

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/lbjlib/contents_lbjlib_phonecalls_Nov1963.htm

Now listen: it is INSANE to suggest that LBJ would bring up Allen Dulles to J. Edgar Hoover without mentioning that the idea came from Robert Kennedy- if it had. It is stark raving mad. It's plain as day that LBJ was speaking for himself when he put forward the name of Allen Dulles. He didn't start saying that it was RFK's idea until after RFK was dead. He was lying. He was Lyin' Lyndon. He was a pathological liar. Read LBJ: Mastermind by Phil Nelson if you don't believe me.

http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411958270&sr=8-1&keywords=LBJ%3A+Mastermind

Linda and I are enjoying this show called Scandal which is a Netflix show. It's a little like House of Cards. There was an episode tonight in which there was a plane crash in which everyone on-board died. And this is a frame from the crash scene.

You see a leg there, don't you. Well, nobody saw any legs at the Pentagon, and they didn't see any other body parts either. And nobody saw any legs or body parts in Pennsylvania either. 

And when I say that nobody saw any body parts at the Pentagon,  I mean not inside nor outside the Pentagon. April Gallop worked there, and she had to crawl out through the hole with her infant son. She saw no bodies. She saw no body parts. And she didn't even see any plane parts. 

Like the lies about the JFK assassination, the lies about the 9/11 attacks shall not stand. 9/11 was an inside job. The towers were imploded. The Pentagon was hit with a missile. Everything they have told us about it is a lie.  And, the lies are going down. 

This is a new video on how to fake an ISIS beheading in 5 easy steps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUyo8H5brgk

It didn't happen people. Nobody in his right mind would kneel there and say that the US government was his real killers knowing that a moment later a guy with a small knife was going to cut his head off.  And nobody would remain totally passive, as James Foley did, as the process began. Nobody would just let the guy do it, as Foley did. 

It's nonsense, people! So stop believing it. 

This is a synopsis of Dr. Cyril Wecht's speech at the AARC conference this weekend. For me, it's a disappointment because he referred to Oswald as not being the lone gunman. Oswald was not a gunman, period. He was standing outside at the time, just like most everybody else. We can see him there: his face, his body, and his clothes. 

But even without that, if Dr. Wecht would just think about it, he would realize that there is no way Oswald could have been a shooter in a conspiracy. There is no room for that on the logic spectrum. It would have been insane for anyone to think Oswald was qualified to be a sniper. He very nearly failed his last marksmanship test in the Marines, and he never ever in his entire life did the kind of shooting that was involved from the 6th floor. So why would anyone, in their right mind, choose him to do this? 

Furthermore, none of the known shots had a trajectory that can be traced back to the 6th floor window. 

Here is the report from World News Daily:  

Forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht kicked off the second day of the Assassination Archive and Research Center, or AARC, conference on the John F. Kennedy slaying by insisting Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the lone shooter.

“I think the single-bullet theory is pure nonsense,” Wecht told an all-star cast of JFK assassination “conspiracy theorists” at the conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Warren Commission Report.

Wecht proceeded to explain the gyrations and changes in direction required for one bullet to have hit JFK, passing up through JFK’s body from the entrance wound in the back, to exit through JFK’s neck (moving upward at an 11 degree angle), to enter Connelly’s back, break a rib, exit Connelly’s chest and break Connelly’s right wrist, only to end embedded in Connelly’s left thigh.

“The explanations are ridiculous,” Wecht challenged. “Was JFK bending over tying his shoe when he got shot? Not if you look at the Zapruder film. JFK was sitting upright, and the entrance wound in his back was lower than the supposed exit wound in this throat. How is it possible that a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository moved in an upward direction transiting through JFK’s body?”

Wecht insisted the burden of proof rested with the prosecution.

“All the defense has to show is that Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have been the sole gunman, and that can be established by science,” he insisted. “We do not need to prove who did the shooting to prove the government is lying. I’ll let you assume Oswald was a shooter if you want. The point is that if Oswald was not the sole shooter, the Warren Commission Report is a cover-up and the government has been lying to us for 50 years.”

I just sent this to Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, of which I am a member. I hope some good comes from it.

I am already a member and I already signed the petition.  I am writing because this is the only email address I could find for the group. I want to ask the members to consider some anatomical evidence I found that could be very important.

It concerns Ted and Barbara Olson. You know the story about how he reported getting cell phone calls from his wife on 9/11 from AA 77. Later, the FBI determined that no such call took place; that they never connected. Then Olson changed his story to that she called him from the seat-back phone until American Airlines reported that the plane had no such phones. Barbara Olson's calls are the only source of the claim that the hijackers used "box-cutters".

Several years after 9/11, Ted Olson married another woman, one Lady Evelyn Booth, who was also an attorney like Barbara, who was the same height as Barbara, and looked like she could be Barbara after having lost weight and undergone extensive facial plastic surgery.

There is a lot available about this online. Here's a very good link:

 http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-happened-to-flight-77s-passengers.html

There are a lot of photographic comparisons of Barbara Olson and Lady Booth Olson, but I have done what I believe is the first close-up comparison of their ears. And as you know, ears are like fingerprints, and no two are the same.

I have attached the collage of their ears, with Lady Booth Olson's on the left and Barbara Olson's on the right. The angle are different- about 90 degrees different- and that has to be discounted. But, I believe that when you do discount it, that they appear to be the same ear. The top of the helix on both flares out sharply, while the rest of the ear is very streamlined and flush with the side of the head. The thickness of the cartilage of the crown of the helix is the same on both. We see the same long lobule on both. The anti-helix is exactly the same on both.  The likeness of the two ears is compelling.

I'll also attach some whole images of them. And let's think about this: We know that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, and it didn't crash anywhere. So, the plane landed somewhere. What happened to the passengers? Did they all transition into new lives and new identities?  Is this what we're seeing with Barbara Olson? I'm asking doctors, particularly ENT doctors and cranial surgeons and anyone who is well versed in ear anatomy to look at these images of their ears and see what they think. I think the match is compelling.  Please send this out to the members of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth. Thank you. Ralph Cinque, DC

Think the OIC is not an active organization? Think we're not integrated and coordinated and united? I put out the clarion call about this claim that LBJ got the idea from Robert Kennedy to appoint Allen Dulles to the WC. 

First, listen to this phone conversation between LBJ and Hoover a few days after 11/22 in which LBJ says that he was thinking of assigning Allen Dulles to the commission. Start listening at 2:55.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiqnU3rbsow

LBJ: "What do you think about Allen Dulles?"
Hoover: "I think he would be a good man."  

LBJ didn't say "Robert Kennedy suggested Allen Dulles" or "I'm leaning towards Allen Dulles to please Robert Kennedy." Wouldn't he have mentioned it were that the case? This clearly shows that Dulles was Johnson's idea, not RFK's. 

The one who brought this to my attention is Professor James Norwood:

Ralph and All,

Within days of the assassination, Lyndon Johnson spoke by telephone with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.  In discussing the formation of the Warren Commission, the first name that came to mind to the new president as a member of the commission was Allen Dulles.  Of course, Hoover heartily agreed with his old friend and new boss. 

The phone conversation may be accessed on this video with the call starting at 3:05 and the name of Allen Dulles mentioned at approximately 4:05 into the program:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiqnU3rbsow 

In the days following the death of JFK, it is preposterous to give the slightest credence to the proposition that a grief-stricken Bobby Kennedy was consulted about the composition of the yet-undetermined commission.


James

Other members have also piped in:

Jim Fetzer: 

Ralph,


This is pathetic. They can't cope with the editing of the Zapruder film, the proof of multiple assassins or that Lee was in the doorway so they resort to how Lyndon selected the e members of the commission? LBJ knew every political figure in Washington, D.C., like the back of his hand. He appointed exactly those he knew would deliver the predetermined outcome. Bobby would have had no reason to suggest the man his brother had removed as Director of the CIA to be on the committee that would investigate his death. That is absurd on its face. But with modern technology, it is possible to create fake documents and conversations, much less fake photos and films, so whatever they may think they have, it can't be authentic. Fill me in on the details, but this looks like one more ruse for those grasping after straws.


Jim

Larry Rivera:

That is nonsense. Tell them to read David Talbot's book, Brothers. 

So, what did David Talbot say about Allen Dulles? This is what he said at the JFK Symposium last year at Duquesne University:



...I think what we're going to show over the next few years is that Allen Welsh Dulles was much more centrally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and its cover-up, than Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Fifty years later, it's finally time to give the man his rightful place in history. In his day, Allen Dulles was America's most legendary spymaster, the longest-serving director of the CIA. He took great pleasure in regaling the public about his espionage triumphs. But, for obvious reasons, he could never take credit for his biggest and boldest covert operation: 
the killing of the President of the United States in broad daylight on the streets of an American city. 

I hope that my forthcoming book, which will be titled "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, JFK and the Epic Battle for America's Soul" will at long last give Mr. Dulles his due. As I say in my title of my remarks this morning, I believe Allen Dulles truly was the "Chairman of the Board of the Kennedy Assassination." 

In September 1965, nearly two years after Kennedy was violently removed from office, Allen Dulles went for a stroll near his home in Georgetown with a young magazine editor named William Morris. The old spymaster, long since retired, struck Morris as an amiable, avuncular character until the name Kennedy suddenly came up in the conversation. Suddenly a dark cloud crossed the old man's brow. 

"That little Kennedy," he spat out. "He thought he was a god." 

Allen Dulles knew who the true overlords of American power were. (They were) men like him and his brother, not Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The Kennedys were mere upstarts in comparison to the Dulles family. The Dulles dynasty boasted diplomats and international bankers and three secretaries of state. The Kennedy clan, by comparison, was distinguished by saloon keepers and ward healers. When paterfamilias Joseph Kennedy was amassing his fortune as a movie mogul and stock gambler, Dulles and his older brother were running Wall Street from their perch at the world's largest law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell and creating a new global financial order. 

During the Cold War, President Eisenhower outsourced the country's foreign policy to the Dulles Brothers, with Secretary of State John Foster Dulles serving as the architect of Washington's global crusade against communism, and Allen Dulles carrying out the darker chores of empire. 

Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev who kept looking for a way out of the Cold War noose but found himself repeatedly checkmated by the Dulleses remarked at one point, "One shuddered at what great force was in the Dulles Brothers' hands." 

The Dulles Brothers stood at the very apex of American power, straddling an elite network that connected Wall Street, Washington, big oil and international finance. John Foster Dulles was the ultimate counselor for that overworld that ruled the country's government and business, and his younger brother Allen was at privileged circles master of intrigue and subversion, its enforcer... 

This is the latest from John McAdams, and it concerns the claim that Robert Kennedy requested to LBJ that Allen Dulles, the man his brother fired as head of the CIA, be appointed to the Warren Commission.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dulles.htm

And this is what I submitted as a reply. We'll see if McAdams puts it up.

I am astounded by what you people think constitutes evidence. What would be real evidence that Robert Kennedy requested Dulles be on the WC would be if he said it to someone who was totally unaffiliated with Johnson. Better yet would be a tape recording of him saying it or if it was written in his own handwriting.  

But what's cited is a memo from Walter Jenkins who was a longtime top aide to LBJ. He was part of LBJ's Texas Mafia. Jenkins was in there with Cliff Carter, Bill Moyer, and that whole bunch of LBJ sycophants. Jenkins' career ended after a sex scandal was reported weeks before the 1964 presidential election, when Jenkins was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct with another man in a public restroom in Washington DC. 

So, you've got a memo from Jenkins talking about what Abe Fortas and Nick Katzenbach said about Robert Kennedy? Fortas was LBJ's lawyer going back to 1948. It was LBJ who appointed Fortas to Supreme Court Justice. 

Nicholas Katzenbach became the defacto Attorney General the moment the bullet entered Kennedy's temple and blew out the back of his head.  Three days after the assassination, he wrote his famous memo to Bill Moyers: "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and that the evidence was such, that he would have been convicted at trial." How could he even claim to know that on November 25? The day before, J. Edgar Hoover said this about him: Hoover;" "The thing I am most concerned about, and Mr Katzenbach is having something issued, so that THEY can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." 

And then because LBJ restated his claim about RFK requesting Dulles to Abe Fortas on the phone, Whelton wants to count it as a unique piece of evidence with confirmatory value. 

I'll tell you what we're going to do; we're going to bring Phillip Nelson into this. Phil is the author of LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and also the new book, LBJ: from Mastermind to The Colossus. Be afraid. Be very afraid.   

Here's a weird statistic. The FBI reported that in 2012, there were no murders in Newton CT. But, that was the year of the Sandy Hook massacre in which 26 people reportedly died.

It says 0 murders and no nonnegligent manslaughters. So, what about the 20 kids and 6 teachers who died at Sandy Hook? Don't they count? Are they leaving them out for some reason? If so, what is the reason? 

Is it because it was terrorism? But, it wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is when you kill to make a political statement. It's when you hate a certain government, so you kill the citizens of that government to punish that government. But, Adam Lanza didn't kill for that reason, did he? He wasn't trying to change US policy in the Middle East was he? His was just the act of a raving lunatic, right? So, why wouldn't you include his victims in the crime statistic?

Very strange. 

It seems like Ted Olson goes for a certain type woman and a certain height woman. 

Now let's compare the ear of Barbara Olson to that of Lady Booth Olson.

That I consider to be very consistent. The top of the helix flares out on both, while the rest of the ear is pretty flat on both.  The top of the helix looks like thick cartilage which tapers down to narrower cartilage as it descends. We're seeing the same long lobule on both. The anti-helix (inner ring) look exactly the same on both. The angles of view are very different, but that has to be discounted. And, when you do discount it, you get the impression of it being the very same ear; there are no dealbreakers. 

And one thing is absolutely sure: this woman has undergone facial plastic surgery.

Tonight, Linda and I watched this old film noir, Cry Danger, starring Dick Powell. Goes back to 1951. I like those old movies. 

It's about a guy who has just been released from prison, having been convicted for a robbery in which he was betrayed by his accomplices. Now, he's out for revenge- and his share of the loot which was never recovered. 

In this scene, somebody was shooting at him, so he took his gun out. Then, this other guy comes along who thinks Dick Powell is the one who did the shooting. And to quickly disabuse the guy of that notion, Powell orders him to smell his gun.

My question is: How come nobody reported Oswald's gun stinking in the theater? I have a Smith and Wesson revolver that I shoot at the firing range, and I don't even have to hold it up to my nose to smell it. After it's been fired, it stinks. And it continues stinking until I clean the gun. 

None of the patrons at the Texas Theater, several of whom Oswald sat directly next to, reported his gun stinking. None of the cops in the Texas Theater who were grappling with Oswald reported his gun stinking. And none of the cops at City Hall who handled the gun afterwards and entered it into evidence reported the gun stinking. No one made a notation:"smells of having been fired." 

You can't tell me that holding the barrel up to your nose that it wouldn't have a smell, and you also can't tell me that policemen wouldn't know to do that.  

I tell you that Professor John McAdams is some piece of work. You would think that in being a professor, academic honesty and intellectual honesty would be important values to him. But, they're not. Just the opposite. 

McAdams is like Backes. And by that I mean that if John McAdams were shown a close-up photograph of the TSBD doorway which showed Lee Harvey Oswald sharp and clear and unmistakably him, he would destroy it- if he thought he could get away with it. In other words, if he knew full well that Oswald was innocent and standing in the doorway, he would stifle the information permanently- if he could. That is all you need to know about his intellectual honesty. 

We've been debating this interview of Dr. McClelland in which he states clearly and unequivocally what he saw on 11/22/63.  This is why you do this, isn't it, McAdams? So you can censor comments that do more damage than you're willing to allow? 

Boz, it doesn't matter what the Warren Commmission said or what Bugliosi said. What matters is what McClelland says himself- what we can hear him say with our ears, so we know it's from him. 

And what we can hear him say is that he saw a hole in the back of Kennedy's head that was 5 inches in diameter. He said that the right half of Kennedy's right cerebral hemisphere was completely missing: gone. And he said that when he looked into that vast hole, he could see the cerebellum falling out.  Now, that's what he said. 
And, here is a picture of McClelland demonstrating the size and location of the wound. 

But, McAdams and his minion Bozo the Clown are content to try to contradict this by citing what the Warren Commission claimed McClelland said- as if we should believe that over what the man says directly. Well, they need to talk to Joseph Backes because he'll tell them the Waren Commission made up whole long swaths of testimony that people never said, including that of Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, Victoria Adams, and others. He thinks they had screenwriters- as good as I am- making shit up.  

Just watch this yourself. This is the man, Dr. McClelland, talking. See if you think he sounds lucid. See if you think he sounds sure of himself. Who are you going to believe? What you can hear him saying or what others say he said? Bloodied bastards. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVZnP3GnIUo&feature=youtu.be

Richard Hooke made this new chart concerning Oswald's notched t-shirt which can be seen on Doorman.

And really, you can see it in a glance:

That's Oswald's t-shirt. His t-shirt did that, sunk down like that. Lovelady's didn't. That's clear as a bell. Therefore, since Doorman is wearing Oswald's t-shirt, and the only one who could be wearing Oswald's t-shirt was Oswald, he must be Oswald. This clinches it all by itself. But of course, we have so much more. Doorman is Oswald; he must be Oswald; he can only be Oswald. 

If you were going to cut off someone's head, would you use a knife that small? There is a lot of tough, sinewy tissue involved that you would have to cut through, and then you would get to bone.

How could you cut through vertebrae with that little knife? In surgery, they use a saw to cut through bone. They have different kinds. For instance, in heart surgery when they cut through the sternum, they use an oscillating saw, which is like a jig-saw that moves up and down. But, that little knife is no saw. Who would want to do it that way? 

Even if it's possible, why would that be your weapon of choice to cut off somebody's head? 

Here we see the process begin with the killer grabbing Foley around the chin.

Foley is being as still and cooperative here as he would be with a dentist, and maybe more so. He is totally capitulating. He is resigned to die, and he is cooperating with his killer. At this point, why isn't he fighting like a motherfucker? Excuse my French, but I have to use the strongest word possible. At this point, there is no reason to hold anything back. You fight like a dog. Even if it's hopeless, you make it as hard as you can for your killer. You make it as difficult and arduous for him as possible. You get fierce. You go all-out. You go down fighting. So, why didn't Foley? 

Here's the finish:

His feet weren't secured. Although the above picture is cropped, there are other versions that are not.

So, his legs were free. It means Foley could have butted that guy with his head as he rose to his feet, and then he had his feet to use as weapons. He could have started kicking. Alternatively, he could have started running. Was it hopeless? Probably. But, so what? You still try, don't you? Would you actually leave the world making your last act capitulating to killers? And on film no less for all the world to see? Is that how you would want to be remembered? Was Foley a man or a mouse? 

Then what about Foley's speech? He was about to be brutally murdered in the most nightmarish way possible, in fact, beyond anyone's worst nightmare. And yet, he speaks in cliches? Saying: "hit the last nail in my coffin", "signed my death certificate", "that ship has sailed". All these cliches occurred to him when he knew a moment later his head was going to be severed? How could anyone talk like that at such a moment? You might speak in cliches in an address to the Kiwanis Club, but in that situation? No way. 

The Foley beheading was faked, and the only question is: how. What really happened?

Some have suggested that Foley cooperated with them, saying what they wanted on film, etc. in exchange for a quick painless death off camera. But, there is no good reason to give that any serious consideration, in my opinion. That would really be bizarre on both their parts. 

I think the most likely thing is that either that guy was Foley or he was an actor who looked like Foley, but either way, the whole thing was faked. It was just as theatrical as the Turkish tv show. 

But what happened to Foley? Is he alive or dead? I don't know. But, my inclination is to think that he may be alive. And if so,, the idea would be to get him a new identity and a new look, including plastic surgery. 

Does that sound far-fetched? Well, it's not the first time such a thing has been suggested. Do you remember Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, and his wife Barbara Olson? Both were very outspoken neoconservatives. She was on American 77 on 9/11, and she, reportedly, called Ted from the plane. And then the plane crashed, and she presumably perished along with everybody else. But, the FBI said that such a phone call was impossible, that they never connected. 

Here is what David Ray Griffin wrote about it:

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”
      Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.
      However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.
Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
      Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.” After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.
      By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.
      However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.
American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”
      In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.
Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.” According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.
      Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77. And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.
      This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians
Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.
      According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers." This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents. Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”
      The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”
Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife. In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
      The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11.

Ah, but joy and love came back into Ted Olson's life. A few years later, he got remarried- to a woman who looks uncannily like his deceased wife, Barbara. She looks to be Barbara after losing weight and undergoing some facial plastic surgery. 

 Here's another comparison. What do you think?

There are a lot of people who think they are the same woman. 
When I did a Google search about it, it pulled up over 14,000,000 sites.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=&ie=UTF-8&q=Lady%20Booth%20Olson%20is%20really%20Barbara%20Olson

You can't deny that there is great similarity in physicality between the two. So, is it just a coincidence that Ted Olson happened to meet a woman who looked that much like Barbara? Is this a case of life imitating art? I am referring to the classic Hitchcock trhiller Vertigo. Here's the synopsis:

• Police detective John 'Scottie' Ferguson is asked by an old college friend, Gavin Elster, if he would have a look into his wife Madeleine's odd behavior. Lately, she's taken to believing that she is the reincarnation of a woman who died many years ago and Elster is concerned about her sanity. Scottie follows her and rescues her from an apparent suicide attempt when she jumps into San Francisco bay. He gets to know her and falls in love with her. They go to an old mission church and he is unable to stop her from climbing to the top of the steeple, owing to his vertigo, where she jumps to her death. A subsequent inquiry finds that she committed suicide but faults Scottie for not stopping her. Several months later, he meets Judy Barton, a woman who is the spitting image of Madeleine. He can't explain it, but she is identical to the woman who died. He tries to re-make her into Madeleine's image by getting her to dye her hair and wear the same clothes as Madeleine. However, he soon begins to realize that he has been duped and was a pawn in a complex piece of theater that was designed to enable his friend to get away with murder.  

So, if that is Barbara Olson reincarnated as Evelyn Booth Olson, as many believe, then maybe James Foley is going to reincarnate and start a new life as somebody else and with an altered face. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's more plausible to me than the story they're telling. Whether he is alive or dead, he definitely wasn't beheaded by the guy with the steak knife. 

This is an exchange between me and Professor James Norwood concerning Robert Gorden's claim that Oswald was getting change from Mrs. Reid at the time of the shots. 

Ralph,

An important point about Mrs. Reid is that in her entire Warren Commission testimony, her first name is never mentioned.  She is only identified as "Mrs. Robert Reid."  The result (intended or otherwise) was that it was nearly impossible for researchers to locate this important eyewitness.

Researcher Robert Groden claims that he found and interviewed the real "Geraldine Reid."  Groden alleges that her story was so volatile that it was repressed by the Warren Commission.  According to Groden, Geraldine Reid told him that she was in her office making change for Oswald for the purchase of a coke from the 2nd floor lunchroom vending machine at the precise moment that gunfire was occurring outdoors and that both she and Oswald instinctively responded to the shots.

This story is not plausible to me because the loud noise from the motorcycles almost certainly would have masked the sounds of the gunfire for people inside of the adjacent buildings.  Larry Rivera and I recently interviewed Toni Glover, who was an 11-year-old girl standing at the corner of Houston and Elm on 11/22/63.  Toni informed us that the noise of the motorcycle escorts was deafening.  This is one of the most important reasons why there is such a wide range of impressions from eyewitnesses about the number of shots heard in Dealey Plaza.  Often the "echo effect" is mentioned as the source of confusion.  But the more important reason was the loud noise from the motorcycles.

Groden's story is published in his most recent book, JFK Absolute Proof (Conspiracy Publications, LLC, 2013), and the coverage of Geraldine Reid appears on pp. 20-22.  That story figures as one of Groden's "smoking guns" which he claims to be "absolute proof" in understanding the assassination of JFK.  Unfortunately, Groden is not a careful researcher like John Armstrong.  Groden never recorded the interview with Geraldine Reid; nor has anyone ever corroborated this story.

James

Thank you, James. The "Mrs. Robert Reid" thing is very weird. She actually said when asked her name, "Mrs. Robert A. Reid". That is so over the top, I am dumbfounded.  

I have no respect for Robert Groden.  His conduct during the HSCA- the way he capitulated on the Doorman issue, never even including an image of Oswald in the comparison- was unforgivable. He sold out. Either he's terribly bad or terribly stupid.

His claim about what Mrs. Reid said flies in the face of what she told the WC.

Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?
Mrs. REID. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?
Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change, but he already had his coke in his hand. So he didn't come for change and I dismissed him.

She said she was outside with her boss Mr. Campbell at the time of the shots, so how could she be making change for Oswald? She also said that she looked up and saw Junior Jarman in the 5th floor window below the Sniper's Nest, which is where he was. How could she know that unless she saw him there? It's unlikely she knew anything about the photo of him. And the idea that the WC concocted it is preposterous.

Also, Roy Truly confirmed that she was outside with her boss, O.V. Campbell during the motorcade.

Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr. Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close.

The idea that they concocted all this is insane. Mrs. Reid was outside during the shooting, and Robert Groden is completely full of it. Thanks for writing. Ralph   

What troubles me most about this picture is: why isn't Foley resisting?

Why isn't Foley twisting and turning? Why isn't he writhing and thrashing to resist?  

I know the beheader is holding him, but we're talking about some very strong muscles. Why didn't Foley press his chin down to his chest before it even started? Those are powerful muscles, and that guy would have have had a hard time lifting Foley's chin- or even grabbing it- against Foley's resistance if he was pressing down hard. And, Foley doesn't look like any slouch. 

Is he at a disadvantage? Of course. Is the guy with the knife going to be able to prevail? Eventually. But, you go down fighting, don't you? You don't cooperate with your killers, do you?

And, Foley knew it was being videotaped. Didn't he want to show his family that life with them meant so much to him that he fought like a dog to the end?

Foley was on the O'Reilly Factor during the Libya debacle. He was captured by Gadaffi's forces and held for 46 days before pressure from his family got him released.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/20/Flashback-2011-ISIS-Beheading-Victim-James-Foley-on-The-OReilly-Factor

So, after he survives that, he goes into Syria? Why? What for? Because he was so dedicated to being a journalist in war zones?  He had also been to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Here is Foley's speech. It sounds like a prepared speech to me, and he was amazingly lofty and eloquent for a guy who was about to have his head cut off. And he blames America for his imminent death.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fRQJI-NNtI

Obviously, that could not have been his view all along. He didn't  sound anti-American on the Bill O'Reilly show. I'm sure he regarded Americans as the good guys then. So, what happened? Did his captors brainwash him? Was this like Stockholm Syndrome, like when Patty Hearst joined the Symbionese Liberation Army? 

But, Stockholm Syndrome is described as a hostage mistaking the lack of abuse by his captors for decency. But, in this case, they were about to brutally kill him, and they didn't even have the decency to do it in a way that was instantaneous and painless, such as shooting him in the head. So, how was he brainwashed? What washed his brain? 

Here are James Foley's parents. How could they go on a whirlwind media tour right after their son was beheaded, program after program after program? It's more than one page of links of their interviews. 

  http://www.youtube.com/results?q=James+Foley%27s+parents  


Some have said that Foley cooperated with his killers in order to save other hostages. But, how could he know other hostages would be saved? They would have had to release them before they killed him, but they didn't do that. 

There are over 8,000 videos on Youtube for "Foley beheading faked"

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Foley+beheading+faked


I want to join the chorus: The Foley beheading video was faked.