Why, if the Zapruder film was extensively altered, did they leave in the part showing Kennedy's head going back and to the left?
Here now is John Hankey:
I have tried to make myself exhaustively expert on all matters relating to JFK Jr. in the last months before his death.
I believe I have read every single word he spoke or was quoted as saying, or said on video. I have tried to be thorough as possible- and had lots of help. And, based on that, I can tell you that the above story about there being some special report is a lie; and, I believe it is a lie sponsored at its root, by the perpetrators, although it is hard to winnow the dupes from the perps. The lie is rooted in the lie that JFK Jr. was going to run for the Senate in NY.
Fact: He could not possibly have been more emphatic and explicit that he was not going to do that. And he gave these reasons: 1) He was, rightly, very satisfied with his work at George magazine and wanted to continue. 2) He had seen the personal lives of his family members, specifically the marriages of his family members, most especially his cousin Joe's, ruined by the pressures of political life. He said entering politics was like going to war, and you had better be prepared, and be very secure in your personal and family life. But, that wasn't true of him. The night before he died, John spent that night alone in a NY hotel room, because he was estranged from his wife, Caroline. That may be an exaggeration. But, they were quarreling to the extent that he spent the night away. Heck, I'm married, and I've slept on the couch a few times, and I'm not inclined to make too much of it. But, the point is that his marriage was at least a little rocky. And it was certainly not the kind of marriage that he said was necessary in order to enter politics.
This story- that he was going to run for Senate- is a whole-cloth fabrication, fabricated in order to implicate the Clintons. That was the sole purpose of the fabrication. There is nothing else tying the Clintons to the murder; except the fact that Clinton was president and nominally in charge of the FAA and the Air Force, the two organizations most blatantly involved in the murder of JFK Jr., (and 9-11 too, btw)*.
I see this as precisely parallel with Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedy assassination. There were, and are, all these rumors that Kennedy was going to drop Johnson from the ticket. They come from the least credible and most-implicated-in-the-assassination sources imaginable, and to say that Kennedy denied them is to say the least. He could not have been more emphatic in his vehement denials, insulting the reporters who asked.
It seems clear to me that the fall-back position in the murders of both John Kennedy Sr. and Jr. is that the perps don't care if you see that they did the killing, as long as you see the right wing and the left wing as both implicated: that is they don't mind if you blame Bush, and the national security state, as long as you also blame Johnson, in Sr.'s murder. They aren't thrilled to have you blame Bush, but it's a good day as long as you also blame Clinton in Jr.'s murder. And therefore stay home on election day.
This is an exceedingly delicate point, and I don't fault anyone for disagreeing. It took me long enough to figure it out. But I think it answers the question as to why we were handed a Zapruder film showing Kenndy's head going back and to the left, indicating a shot from the front. It was in order to implicate Johnson.
These issues are part of my daily thinking. I can't escape them or set them aside. And I know some people will be glad to have me share so I will.
Here's an exercise I think everyone should try to engage in. Pretend that you are Robert Kennedy; and you are privy to discussions between J Edgar Hoover and LBJ the morning after the assassination. Remember that Hoover warned of the coming assassination in the memo William Walters removed from the FBI telex. Remember: Hoover had just told Johnson that the CIA tape of Oswald in Mexico was a forgery, implicating the CIA in the assassination, and in a plot to provoke an invasion of Cuba and possibly WW III. I believe that these two FACTS demonstrate that neither man was involved. But, for the sake of argument, and science, imagine that these three men were not involved (RFK was attorney general. Meetings between the three of them MUST have taken place); all the shooters who were arrested were escorted out the back of the police station without leaving a trace. The FBI knew that there were dozens of CIA Cuban killers in Dealey Plaza. But that's all they knew. They didn't know who the shooters were. And they could not prove that these CIA guys were involved. What were they supposed to do? Hoover's agent, Oswald, was in custody. The evidence against him was being manufactured, and published, right and left. And thick phony dossiers were being published on the front page of every paper linking Oswald to the Russians and Cubans.
If a President is murdered and the FBI says they don't have a clue, that not only makes them look incompetent, it suggests they were involved. Ditto for Johnson. Bobby gets a pass, although he shouldn't.
The perps had spent weeks spreading the false rumor that Kennedy was going to drop Johnson, in order to suggest that Johnson had a motive (the fact that there is no basis whatever in fact is not a hindrance). Now, the day after the murder, the perps had the same operatives running around all over the halls of Washington saying that Johnson did it.
These guys, LBJ, RFK, and JEH were under unthinkably intense pressure to act. What should they do?
So that's the mental exercise I would like you to engage in, to try to put yourself in those men's shoes.
And then the perps killed Oswald. And at that moment, 80% of America, says Walter Chronkite, concluded that there was a conspiracy
And then the perps send the same army of operatives, and a few dozen more, to tell Johnson he should shut down this threat of WWIII by forming a commission and ramming down the throat of the perps that Oswald was a lone nut. All three men believed that this would be a real thumb in the eye to the perps. And to rub it in, RFK insists that they put Dulles and McCloy on the commission.
Now. Someone in the CIA sent Hoover the tapes of Oswald in Mexico. Who? Why? Johnson, when he spoke with McCone, the head of CIA, about McCone's conclusion, based on the tapes, that Oswald was working for the Russians, Johnson didn't ask for a copy of the tapes. He didn't ask that a copy be sent to Hoover. But someone sent a copy to Hoover. And then someone released the photo of "Oswald" in Mexico, demonstrating clearly that it was not Oswald, but a hoax, no doubt perpetrated by men involved in Kennedy's assassination. WTF?? Who released this photo? Who sent Hoover the tapes? I am open to the suggestion that this is a triple or quadruple-cross. Oswald wasn't the assassin. He wasn't in Mexico. It is not him on the tapes. But the tapes were only made, and released, in order to persuade RFK, LBJ, and JEH that the perps were intent on provoking an invasion of Cuba.*2 But this was all a fraud. To pressure Johnson into acting recklessly, to jeopardize his own credibility and innocence, by forming this commission to reach this false, but world-saving conclusion: that Oswald acted alone, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. The perps didn't want WWIII*2; they didn't give a big turd about Cuba: hell! Cuba served to fire up the cold war and justify insane defense budgets (and national security state profits) like crazy. Why get rid of them?*2 So I'm very open to the suggestion that this was all a ruse to pressure Johnson into doing what he did.
Now. Back to the mental exercise for a moment:
Johnson had a very real-looking threat of WWIII to worry about.
The papers were playing this up big time He had the fact that he couldn't round up the perps because he had no solid evidence.- which made him look guilty. He had the fact that the perps had set him up with these false rumors that he was going to be dropped from the ticket. He had the fact that the perps had their operatives running around screaming "Johnson did it!" And, on Sunday, he had dead Oswald.
He had everything and more to lose if he didn't resolve these issues.
And he had nothing to lose, but his own credibility and innocence, by accepting the "Oswald acted alone" scenario.
It is easy to imagine how he got pushed into this decision. I don't think there can be any doubt but that RFK at least went along, if he didn't advocate for it.
Now. You have misinformers like Chomskey who say that there is nothing at stake in a Presidential election, because the Democrats and Republicans are the same. Kennedy was not that great. The strategic hamlet program was a horror. He invaded Cuba; and never apologized; he failed to reign in the CIA immediately afterward, which carried on a reign of terror, moving Castro to ask for nukes, moving Khrushchev to provide them; and bringing us to within a hair's breadth of nuclear extermination . Thinking he was on the brink of being removed by a coup, he supported the production of "7 Days in May," but left Johnson out of the loop on everything of substance, especially NSAM 263. He not only left out Johnson, he left out the rest of us as well. If it wasn't for Prouty (and Peter Dale Scott) we'd know nothing about it. HE IGNORED HOOVER'S WARNING about going to Dallas. !!*&%$#!@!! Jesus!!! He didn't tell Johnson about his secret negotiations to make peace with Castro, but he had Bundy sitting in!! I'm telling you. Johnson was a better man.
But that's not the point. The point is that virtually ANY Democrat (well, not operatives like Leiberman and Kerry) is better than virtually ANY Republican; because Republicans are Capitalists, (with their roots deeper in the Nazi party than any German's, who think that government should represent the interests of big Capital, and the rest of us benefit from what trickles down. And Democrats, who aren't secret operatives, are in fact "socialists", who, like FDR, think the government should serve the interests of the society as a whole; and not just, or primarily, the interests of big Capital.
The socialists in Germany failed to unite; and Hitler got installed, with 30% of the vote, running as a phony socialist. Elections matter. The bad guys recognize this. If their operatives are in charge of the police and military, they have MUCH more ability to rape and pillage than if they don't. I don't think we quite realize how much is at stake. We are encouraged/brainwashed/lied to and in all ways manipulated/ to think this way.
And we don't have criminal brains. The perps are not just career criminals. They are dynastic criminals: they inherit a centuries-old way of doing things, rooted entirely in crime. And they have, therefore, a different point of view. When they anticipate a crime, they ALWAYS, inherently, also consider who is going to take the blame. And for the last two-hundred years the answer has always been "the left". It reminds me of the scene in the Maltese Falcon, where Bogart has to remind the perps that they can't just walk off from the crime scene. Somebody has to take the fall. I would guess that 99% of the people in prison failed in this regard, to set someone else up to take the blame, so that the cops could close the books on the crime. But the National Security State does not make such oversights. It's in their blood not to. Breathe in, breath out. Plan execution of crime; set up the fall guy. Never the first without the second.
*I am open to the suggestion that John Jr's murder was something of a dry run for 9-11: a test of the reliability of key personnel who were then used on 9-11. Richard Larrabbee, in charge of the Coast Guard no-search and no-rescue, was made the head of the Port Authority, located in the World Trade Center. He survived. If you've followed my work, you know that Todd Bergun was the Coast Guard chief petty officer in charge of communicating with the press. Bergun announced, early Saturday, that John's plane had communicated to the Martha's Vineyard tower that John was on final approach. This means 1) that a search of the approaches should have begun 5 minutes later when he failed to land (it took 15 1/2 hours) and 2) that they would have known where he went down within 3 feet. Bergun has disappeared from the face of the earth. I called Larrabbee. He said he never heard of Bergun. They worked together on a daily basis. But he never heard of him. Dirty dog.
*2 Fabian Escalante, the head of Cuban security, says that his operatives told him that the Mafia paid the CIA $50,000,000 1963 dollars (more like 5 billion today) to get them back into Havana; that is, to kill Kennedy and set Castro up to take the fall, and then invade. But the perps didn't want WWIII. And as I've said, I don't think they gave a big turd about Cuba, except as a strawman / boogeyman to justify their war profits. So, for the sake of the Mafia observers, they set Oswald up to look like a Russian agent, so they could tell the Mafia, "Look we tried"; but then they secretly undercut this work, by sending Hoover the tapes, and the picture of certainly-not-Oswald in Mexico city.