This is going to be a first for the OIC blog: a movie review. And the movie is the recently released Allied which I saw. 

I had the misfortune of reading a review which revealed way too much of the story, and I am going to try hard not to do that. It's a WW2 story about two undercover operatives, who are operating in Nazi-occupied Casablanca in French Morocco, who have to pretend to be man and wife. Then, they fall in love for real. It doesn't hurt that I tell you that because it happens very early in the story. But, after that, the story takes a very unexpected turn, and it puts Brad Pitt's character Max in the worst possible dilemma, a nightmare of a dilemma. 

First, I went to see it even though the reviews were mostly bad. They said that Brad Pitt seemed stiff and wooden. That's an exaggeration, but it's true that he's not going to be nominated for an Academy Award for his acting. But, mark my words: his film cohort Marion Cotillard is going to be nominated for Best Actress. She is magnificent. You're going to fall in love with her yourself. And, you quickly get used to Pitt's reserved, subdued affect, and it does not hurt your appreciation of the story. 

Parallels have been made to Casablanca, which is one of my favorite movies. If you recall, Humphrey Bogart's character faced a dilemma, as Brad Pitt's character does here. But, Brat Pitt is no Humphrey Bogart, so on that basis, there is no comparison. However, there is practically no action in Casablanca; it's mostly talking; while there is a lot of action in Allied. And without a doubt, Allied has a much richer and more complex plot. And Marion Cotillard has a much more demanding and complex role than Ingrid Bergman had, and she is every bit as dazzling and beautiful. 

What I keep reading is that Allied tried to reach the brilliance of Casablanca and failed, but I would say that it exceeded Casablanca in some ways. And I'm a Casablanca fan. Listen to me: Allied is a great movie, one of the best to come along in years. 

What the movie is about is the idea that war is about committing abominable acts- acts that would certainly be considered abominable in any other situation except war. But, is there a limit?
Killing JFK, slaughtering him in the car right next to his wife, was an abominable act, and it certainly wasn't Oswald's. And you can be sure that the ones who killed JFK had a war mentality. I'm sure they regarded it as a military strike. War makes monsters out of men. War makes monsters out of men. There are no good wars. But, there are good movies, and Allied is one of them. 

Wizard:

By the way, on one recording, I heard the French guy say 'I saw the flash against the black sweater' four times in quick succession. It would seem that your instinct was right.

Ralph Cinque:

You counted them, huh, and it was 4. That seems excessive and very deliberate to me, like he was instructed to hammer the point. 

OIC member Richard Miodownick pointed out to me that the guy in black with the unusually wide arm who is on our right in the Jackson photo is not a reporter, as I assumed. He is Dallas Detective Blackie Harrison.

Well, in that case, what is he doing in the Jackson photo? When I thought he was a reporter, I presumed he had a microphone that he was holding close, hoping to get a comment from Oswald, perhaps after asking him a question.

So, what is Detective Blackie Harrison doing with that ridiculously wide arm of his? 

I asked the Wizard to bottom-line the mic/no mic issue for us, and he did. This is what he wrote:

Ralph

 

Just to clarify: when I said ‘The object dangling from a wire in the middle of the ceiling is, I think, the same microphone as we see in the Beers photo hugging the wall’, I meant the same make of microphone (and possibly physically the same one at a different time), but there is no way the Beers wall microphone can be passed off as being the ceiling mic at a different angle, etc.

 

There is no innocent explanation for the Beers photo. That microphone is unequivocally absent in all other visual records. There is nothing in that area. The Beers photo (along with two others taken by Beers which show the offending mic and the wire from which it is suspended) has to have been taken on a different occasion. The only other explanation is that someone faked the photo(s) by inserting the microphone into the photos for some reason, but I can think of no logical reason to do this, unless they were fixated on justifying one particular (possibly fake) sound track. It would draw attention to photo-fakery for no real gain.

 

I was anticipating that somebody would try to say that the (central) ceiling mic was moving around, and this was why I examined the WFAA footage. That mic does not move.

 

So, the Beers photo and the films may represent at least two events.

 

I suspect that the overall event was rehearsed many times in the absence of Oswald and Ruby, because they did the ‘curtain of invisibility’ (hiding Bookhout) so very well, and he was spirited away in seconds. Wasn't it fast? On the other hand, the rehearsal showed itself in the sense that, even after ‘Ruby’ had gone, and they could stop pressing each other to block sight of him, they were still grabbing one another by the shoulder, arm, etc. for some time afterwards.

 

I mentioned the other curious ‘object’, in the corner of the ceiling (above and to the right of the wall mic location) because, again, I thought that this could be confused with a microphone, when it is just a trick of the light. However, it does look like an object in the NBC and KRLD films.

 

I have been trying to match the KRLD film with the Jackson photo and would suggest the frame below.

(RC: I do not assume that the Jackson photo was taken during the televised event because there is no film frame that matches the Jackson photo. And remember, it does not suffice to be kinda/sorta like it. It has to be exactly the same.)

I followed the movement of Fritz’s hands and, in particular, the fingers of the cigar-smoking cop. The figures seem to match well. However, I’m not so sure about the shadows. Fritz’s shadow in the Jackson is very close to the corner of the wall, whereas at that moment in the KRLD film that spot on the wall is occupied by the shadows of Leavelle, the plain clothes cop, the shooter, etc. I don’t see a very powerful camera flash at that point, and I’m not sure that Jackson’s flash bulb would completely overwhelm the other light sources. In addition, the shadows from Jackson’s camera seem a bit off-center. The light source seems to be a klieg light, above and to the left.

 

I’m wondering whether Bob Jackson was not closer to the KRLD camera than I previously thought. He blocks the camera’s view just after the shooting and is pulled down by Huffaker, and just before the shooting you can see Huffaker looking near the camera and whispering: ‘Bob!’ If this is correct, the angle of the photo is not right.

 

I’m still considering the Beers/Jackson comparison. At the moment,  the Beers suggests a different event, even if it is just by the amount of time taken to put up a microphone.

WWW

There is no doubt that the Establishment is scared shitless about Trump becoming President, and it's not just for the reasons that are widely reported. Consider his position on vaccinations.

I happen to agree with him, but you have to understand how politically incorrect that is. It is as politically incorrect as saying that Oswald was innocent.

Here he is talking about it at one of the Republican debates. You can start at the 3 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQqTP4auSgA

He claims that 35 years ago, if you look at the statistics, it's not even close. The rate of autism is now 1 in 69 of live births. He says he wants smaller doses of vaccines spread out over a longer period of time. Hmm. I wonder how he claims to know that that would make a big difference and solve the problem and render the vaccines safe. It seems like wishful thinking to me. But, he recalls the case of an employee of his who took their healthy 2 year old in for vaccines, and the child got deathly sick with a high fever, recovered, but then became autistic. And note that that is an M.D. standing next to him, Dr. Ben Carson, and interestingly enough, he doesn't react the way M.D.s are supposed to react, which is, "How dare you? Did you go to medical school? Do you know anything about vaccination science? No, you don't. So, shut your trap, and leave it to the fucking experts." But, I've got to hand it to Ben; he doesn't seem to be reacting that way. He took it all in stride. 

But, for a celebrity of any kind to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is NOT OK, and they are invariably tarred and feathered for it.  

The point is that questioning vaccination officialdom is like questioning JFK officialdom; it's not OK. It's just another "conspiracy theory" to the powers-that-be.  And yet, one of these conspiracy theorists is about to become President.  

I watched a tv show last night about hunting for former Nazis, how it has been a worldwide endeavor, the methods they use to track them, etc. And of course, it was because of the well known atrocities committed by the Third Reich. Of course, the Allies committed atrocities too, targeting civilians, such as firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and more. And many people, including me, believe that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities. 

But, as I watched the show, and hearing about the importance of rounding up anyone who had even a peripheral role in the crimes against Jews and others in German concentration camps, I thought about the Nazis that Allen Dulles protected after the war.

Chief among them was Reinhard Gehlen, who was the head of German Intelligence under Hitler. 

  
We all know about the prosecution and conviction of very low-level guards and workers from the concentration camps- even if they had no direct involvement in committing any atrocities. Then, how do you grant a reprieve to a guy who was the head of German Intelligence? I should think that any Jewish person would be appalled in knowing about this. 

Of course, it's not surprising about Dulles because he was in Switzerland for most of the war, which was a neutral country in which Nazis moved around as freely and openly as anyone else. Dulles had friends who were Nazis, attended parties with them, etc. 

Michael Paine's boss at Bell Helicopter was General Walter Dornberger, who was the head of the Nazi V2 rocket program. After the war, Dornberger was held for two years by the British, under comfortable conditions, and then he came to the U.S. under Operation Paperclip, which was Dulles' brainchild. Odd, isn't it, that Michael Paine answered directly to him at Bell? 

You should read about: The Nazi Connection to the JFK Assassination

http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/NCTJFKA.html

Here, the Wizard addresses the perplexing issue of mic/no mic at the Oswald shooting:

Ralph

I spent some time on the microphone, etc. See collage and photos.

Oswald and his escorts walked from west to east down that hallway.

The object dangling from a wire in the middle of the ceiling is, I think, the same microphone as we see in the Beers photo hugging the wall. However, it is not in the Jackson photo at all, and this is (reportedly) a split half-second after the Beers. Even more tellingly, in the WFAA film, from behind Oswald, just before the shot, it is clearly dangling high up in the center - to the right (south) of the ceiling lamp (from behind Oswald) (and also, possibly, some distance in front of Oswald and the lamp - to the east), whereas in the Beers it is some distance away to the left (north) of the ceiling lamp (viewed from behind Oswald) and casting a shadow on the wall. 

After the shot and the reset, there is a still picture which looks upward and shows the mic miles from the lamp - to the east of it.

Another picture of Ruby shooting shows the lamp from below but with no mic.

The microphone was tied to a pipe in the ceiling, with no obvious means of movement either up and down or from left to right, etc. It could not have been on the ceiling in front of and above Oswald in the WFAA film a split second before the shot, and, simultaneously, several feet away on the wall, casting a shadow, in the Beers, also a split second before the shot. It could also not then have been pulled up within 0.6 seconds.

Most importantly of all, the microphone can be seen to stay there during the whole shooting sequence from behind via WFAA. See attached.

The other 'strange object' in some films is not the microphone. It is at the corner of a ceiling unit at the end of a pipe but in some pictures looks just like the corner of the pipe.

WWW

The Wizard discovered that Frank Sturgis was there, inside the Dallas PD too. 

It sure looks like a match to me.

Now, think about it. If this was just a case of psychotic Oswald shooting Kennedy for no reason- just because he saw the motorcade route in the paper- which is the official story, then what would Frank Sturgis be doing there? He traveled from South Florida to Dallas just to watch Kennedy ride by him, did he? He was that much of a fan, was he? Frank Sturgis' being there is, by itself, a smoking gun that the official story is a despicable lie. 

I received this interesting letter from a supporter: 

I congratulate you on the research and thoroughness of the subject covered. I've been a 

long-time believer that Oswald was a patsy (scapegoat) and innocent at least of the shooting(s). 

I have been to Dealey Plaza a few times. Cannot believe I had not heard of Doorman, etc? I

thought I had known it all before, but now I am convinced that Lee was in the doorway at that 

time. Was any of this brought out in the movie JFK? What makes me think it is Lee is the 

presence of the face of the Carl guy and the extended hair of the black woman, which I believe 

are covering up both the watch and the tattered shirt down low, as seen in the police station 

photos! Good job Ralph!  Cannot  believe this piece is not out there as proof positive it was not

Oswald on the 6th floor. Great job, and thanks for a great read! James Files" interview and 

admission are quite compelling as well. I think both of these things together have to be a 

slam-dunk for Oswald being innocent. It was likely a CIA/Mafia hit, with Oswald as scapegoat, 

and Johnson knowing about the general plan. That's my opinion.

          What we see of Carl Jones in the Altgens photo is fake. Fake, 
fake, fake. They put it in there, as my correspondent said: to cover up
the tattered shirt of Oswald, as seen in the police photos.

Realize that if that tatteredness had shown, the jig would have been

up. It would have been obvious to everyone that he was Oswald. 

It's not like Lovelady's shirt was also tattered. 

Carl Jones was snug against the wall, and he was facing west

throughout- just as we see him in the Wiegman film. He was never

looking east. That came hours later when he was leaving, as 

captured by Phil Willis.

                  James Altgens and Phil Willis were on opposite ends of 
Dealey Plaza, shooting from opposite angles, so how could they 
both capture the exact same angular shot of Carl Jones? They moved

the Willis image into the Altgens photo in order to cover up that

tattered shirt of Oswald. I have no doubt about this. 

We can use the image of the hand on the left in front of Oswald to compare to the ridiculous and grotesque "hand" in the Jackson photo. Look first at the image on the left. Can you see how the thumb doesn't reach very far compared to the fingers? It starts much closer to the wrist and doesn't go as far. It only has two digits instead of three. What we are seeing on the right is a monstrosity. It is absolutely impossible, anatomically speaking. It is absurd. It is a phony thing. It is laughably stupid, like the people who believe in it. The award-winning Jackson photo is a fake image of a fake shooting.  

Backes, you stupid fool, these are entirely different situations:

Remember how for months, Backes claimed that this guy was Bookhout?

So, after being woefully wrong about that, now he's claiming that the short guy in the hall, to whom Oswald was talking, was Pinkston. But, he was not Pinkston. He was Bookhout.

And, Oswald was definitely talking to him. In fact, I am getting a clearer sound of the last word. It sounds like, "What have you got against Broby?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04aL80prg7U


You're an idiot, Backes. Stupid to the core. 

I have another problem with the Jackson photo: the thickness of this guy's arm. Isn't it a bit too thick? His arm couldn't have been that thick. So, was there that much surplus capacity in his sleeve? I doubt it. Take a good look. Doesn't it look like an extra dimension was added on, widening his arm? 

Compare it to other reaching arms:

Get the picture? It is too wide. It can't possibly be the thickness of his arm. He wasn't the Incredible Hulk. And the idea that his sleeve was that capacious doesn't seem likely either. So, I think the right explanation is: more photographic fakery. There must have been something they wanted to cover up. 

Backes. Idiot. Moron. Nincompoop. 

Now, he thinks James Angleton wrote Farewell America. Let's see: the CIA framed Oswald, yet their head of Counterintelligence wrote an expose' explaining that the official story is all a lie, a scam, that Oswald was just a patsy, as he said, and that really the powers-that-be in government, banking, the military, etc. did it.

Hey, Backes. I think I've got something for you. James Angleton must have thought up the phony bus and cab rides. Sure, that's the ticket. Somebody had to do it, and it was probably him. You stupid moron.

Then, the idiot posted this image of FBI records and presumes that they are the same thing as a telegram.

Then, Backes is back to saying that Bookhout was Nat Pinkston. That is really stupid because Oswald didn't know Nat Pinkston at all. So, why would he go up to him in the hall and start talking to him?  It was Saturday evening just before the 6:30 interrogation. We have the list of people who attended it. Pinkston isn't one of them. Bookhout is. 

Then, the imbecile posts this image, claiming that it's another view of the same scene with the same man. It's not. Why can't Backes see that this other man below in a Fedora hat was taller? Look how his hat towers over Oswald's head. 

I'm sure Backes can't see the arrangement differences between the Beers and Jackson photos either. Why? Because he is, and always will be, an idiot.

So, in Jackson, there is a guy sucking on a cigar with his black-robed arm stretching across in front of Tom Petit, while in Beers, it was a guy in a white trench coat in that spot, but Backes doesn't care. What he cares about, moron that he is, are the phony bus and cab rides. The phony bus and cab rides; the phony bus and cab rides. 

Then finally, he put up this image, claiming once again that it's the same man, presumably Pinkston.

Well, I know very well that isn't Bookhout. How do I know? Because if he was Bookhout, they would have zeroed out his face, just like they did here:

Now, if Backes were a smarter man, that is, if he had an ounce of smarts at all, he would realize that this isn't the result of any resolution problem because we can see Oswald's features just fine. Any techno-problem would affect the WHOLE fucking image, you dolt. That was a deliberate obfuscation because that guy was Bookhout, and they didn't want us to see him. People who fake bus and cab rides do that, you see. It goes with the territory. 

Backes, you're stupid. You were born stupid. You stumble stupid. You stagger stupid. And you spittle stupid. That's all you do, and you do it stupidly. 

This Hughes Doorway is fake. Toni Glover's movement are fake. She was, supposedly, standing pressed to her mother on the pedestal, her face pressed to her mother's back. So, how could she wave like this?

The limo wasn't even in front of her mother, never mind her. So, why the hell would she wave? And it's not even a wave. It's more like the movement in a jumping jack. 

What it is is a cartoon that somebody added to the film to hide Oswald in the doorway. He was in the center of the doorway, just as he was in Wiegman. But to distract and divert attention, they added another Doorman to hover above Carl Jones. The whole thing, every God-damn bit of it, is fake. Fake, fake, fake. 

So, on the left, the black x marks the corner, and you see Petit's shadow on the fore-wall. On the right, the white x marks the corner, and you see his shadow on the after-wall. And while you're at it, notice that on his left, there is a man in a white trench coat in Beers, and a man in a black sweater extending his arm in Jackson. So, they are different scenes, different takes. At a spontaneous shooting that no one knew about but Jack Ruby, and not even him since he brought his dogs along? Folks, it is a joke. A very sick, twisted, bloodied joke.  

Ralph

I just saw the blog entry. Very good. Petit's shadow falls in different places on that wall, on the left of the corner in the Beers and to the right of it in the Jackson. He is definitely in two places (almost) at once. 

What a madhouse. It reminds me of the demented atmosphere reported on Air Force One described recently by Lifton. The crowd outside should have rushed in and carried out a citizens' arrest of all the police.

WWW

W, it has reached the point of undeniability. In Jackson, Petit's shadow is on a different wall than it is in Beers. In Beers his shadow falls on the wall before the corner; in Jackson, his shadow falls on the wall after the corner. W, we haven't just won; we have floored the opposition. We've decked 'em. Ralph 

We know now, for absolute certain, that the Jackson and Beers photo were different takes of the Oswald shooting. But, did they mark the floor with chalk to show people where to stand? The Wizard Who's With Us found what appears to be a chalk mark around the foot of Tom Petit in the Jackson photo.

Here it is close up:

"OK, now you stand here, Mr. Petit. There, that's good. Now, raise the mic a little higher. A little more. That's it. Perfect, perfect. Now, just hold that position."

  

We are told that "experts" have determined that there was .6 second between the Beers and Jackson photos, with the shot occurring between them. But, that is impossible because they are two different takes. The scenes are different. 

In Jackson, you've got the guy on the right sucking on a cigar. Try to find him in Beers.

In Beers, there is instead a different guy in a white trench coat. 

And there are many other subtle differences, such as Tom Petit being in a different location, such as the guy in profile in Beers being missing from Jackson. The guy on the left against the wall has his head turned more in Jackson than in Beers. And so on. And no, these differences are NOT just a matter of perspective. They are different scenes, that is, different takes. 

Hey, Robert Jackson. I hope you enjoyed your Pulitzer Prize money. You were part of a bloody scam, you fool. Different takes means the whole thing was fake. My thanks to OIC senior member Paul Stevens and the Wizard Who's With Us.