This 1960 song by Jule Styne was introduced by Phil Silvers, but it's the Jimmy Durante rendition that won the biggest following, especially after it was used at the end of Sleepless in Seattle. I think there has never been a more effective use of song in cinema than this. It really hit the spot. Of course, I am talking about Make Someone Happy. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysjb_HFc7RE&feature=youtu.be

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth spent the 17th anniversary of 9/11 in Washington DC, holding rallies at both the White House and at the Capitol. It was all morning and all afternoon. They had various speakers, including technical experts, survivors, and the loved ones of those who didn't survive 9/11. This is from the White House; the other images are from the Capitol. 

I presume they had to apply well in advance to get permission to do this. And I presume there were D.C. police and other law enforcement observing it.  It wasn't covered or reported at all by the Corporate Media. 

But, I want you to think about something: If these experts are right, that the towers could not possibly have collapsed due to plane crashes and resultant fires, (and note that Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane) then it means that the official story that 19 Arab hijackers, wielding box-cutters, conducted 9/11 must be false. 

And, if the official 9/11 story is false, then it means the whole basis for attacking Afghanistan in 2001 was also false. It means that the invasion of Afghanistan, the entire thing, was a monstrous, evil war crime. 

Many Americans don't know this, or don't remember it, but when George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan turn over Osama bin laden, the Taliban didn't not respond with defiance. Their first response was to ask to see the evidence against bin laden. Bush's response was to refuse to turn it over. But even then, the Taliban did not tell us to go to hell. Instead, they offered to turn bin laden over to a neutral third country, one that was mutually respected, where the evidence against him could be presented in a court of law, where he could be tried and judged,  where a proper prosecution and a proper defense could both take place.  But, Bush wouldn't accept that either. Instead, he attacked, and here we are, 17 years later, still mired in war. 

Even if Osama bin laden was guilty of 9/11 (and I don't think he was) George Bush had to know before he attacked Afghanistan that a lot of innocent people were going to be killed. 

According to the United Nations, civilian deaths hit a record high in the first half of this year, 2018, with 1692 killed. How many have died since the war began? According to a study out of Brown University in 2016, the total death toll is 173,000.

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2016/08/costs-war 

Of course, today, the total has to be higher since 2 more years of war have passed.  But, all those deaths resulted from our presumed right to invade a country and start a war over wanting to take one man into custody. Our right to apprehend him gave us the right, (according to our thinking) to destroy any number of human beings, the vast majority of whom were innocent of any crime against us.   

What I am saying is that, even if the official 9/11 story were true, that those towers collapsed straight down into their own footprint at free fall speed due to plane crashes and fires (except for Building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane, which supposedly collapsed from fires alone)  the War on Afghanistan would still be crime against humanity. 

But, when you consider what the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are telling us, that the WTC buildings could NOT have fallen that way, that there had to be controlled demolition, then it makes the War on Afghanistan something far worse; something so dark, so evil, so monstrous, so wicked, that it is truly a nightmare that we live in such a world.   

For Oswald to be working at the TSBD, eager to get his family back under his roof, and feeling elated about the birth of his daughter Rachel, and for him to be having an ordinary work day, and then to nonchalantly see the President's motorcade route in the newspaper, and from that, to get the instant, uncontrollable urge to kill the man, would have required an extreme degree of psychopathology, of insanity. He would have had to be completely out of his mind. 

It is undisputed that Oswald had nothing against Kennedy. He never spoke ill of him. On the contrary, he only spoke well of him and defended him to others. He even read Kennedy's book (Profiles in Courage) and he read other books just from knowing that Kennedy liked them (James Bond novels). 

In other words, his pendulum hadn't swung even a fraction of an inch towards killing Kennedy prior to 11/20, or whatever day you think he saw the paper. So, for him to swing the whole way, instantly, just from seeing the motorcade route printed would require complete, total, utter madness. 

But, didn't he try to shoot General Walker 8 months earlier? No, he did not. There isn't one shred of evidence that he did. The bullet Dallas police found did not match the Carcano bullets. Witnesses saw two men fleeing the scene, not one, each getting into his own car, which Oswald didn't have, nor did he have a driver's license, nor did he know how to drive. The ONLY evidence against Oswald in the Walker case was his babbling wife. But, she didn't start to babble about it until the FBI worked on her for over two months. When first asked, she denied Oswald had anything to do with it. Marina Oswald became the Stepford Wife to the FBI, and by some reports, she became a conjugal wife to them too.  

But, there is no evidence that Oswald was insane. First, he didn't act insane in the last two days of his life. Neither Marina nor anyone else who knew him characterized him as being insane. None of his interrogators characterized him that way. The judge he appeared before didn't either. 

The "insane Oswald" theory only surfaced AFTER he was dead by people who were connected to the official investigation. Absolutely nothing exists for it prior to the assassination- no evidence for it and no claims for it.  Never did Marina or Ruth Paine or anyone else cite Oswald's insane behavior prior to the assassination. George DeMohrenschild described  Oswald as stable and intelligent. In Marina's case, she lived with him, and so did her daughter. If she knew he had sudden urges to kill, and acted on them, why wouldn't she be concerned for her safety and her daughter's? Why would she move from Dallas to New Orleans to move in with a lunatic? Wouldn't she use his move to New Orleans as an opportunity to get away from him? To escape?  And if she knew that Oswald tried to kill General Walker, she had a responsibility to inform the police. Instead, she traveled to another state to move in with him? We're supposed to believe that?

There is nothing in Oswald's statements or behavior after his arrest to suggest that he was insane. His self-control, his civility, and his rationality at the Midnight Press Conference were absolute, meaning that there was no one in the room who came across more sane than he did. There is nothing in any report of any law enforcement officer or any reporter that Oswald acted insane or spoke insanely.  No one, then or now, has the slightest basis to assert that Oswald was insane.       

There is not only no evidence of Oswald's insanity; there isn't even any evidence that it happened at all, his seeing the motorcade route in the newspaper. It is based entirely on presumption and supposition.  It's a "What if?" that rapidly became a "What was." And there is direct evidence that it never occurred. James Jarman testified that Oswald asked him why people were gathering on the sidewalk.  If he saw the motorcade route, he would have known why. Right?   

We know that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy because we have a photo of him standing in the doorway during the shooting.  And, if he didn't shoot Kennedy, he certainly didn't shoot Tippit.  Why on Earth would he shoot Tippit?  And, the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder must have been so weak, they couldn't even tell us Oswald's alibi for it. That was deliberately left out of every report- and I mean to this day. It is an unmentionable.  

The case against Oswald is based on nothing but phony evidence and outlandish reasoning, and, its acceptance comes from nothing but mental submission to the authority of the State. 

It's not reason that gets people to accept that Oswald's guilt; it's religion- the religion of Statism. 

When you think about what the Warren Commission did- started their investigation with the conclusion that Oswald did it and did it alone, and sought to prove it- with no consideration given to the possibility of his innocence-  it was not only the antithesis of a real investigation but was totally corrupt and criminal.  The Warren Commission committed an overt obstruction of justice. 

I assume that most of the men involved in the Warren Commission were not involved in killing Kennedy, the one known exception being Allen Dulles. So, why were they willing to be involved in such a corrupt and criminal enterprise?  

It's because, instantly, the immediate and unswerving acceptance of the official story that Oswald did it and did it alone became the litmus test for loyalty to the government and patriotism to the country. You didn't love this country unless you accepted that Oswald alone did it. You were attacking the foundations of America if you challenged it.  There was a polarization, an isolation, that took place immediately- if you breathed a word of opposition to it. You could either be on the side of democracy and freedom and decency and goodness by accepting that it was the act of a lone nut OR you could become a radical, an outcast, an untouchable, an extremist, a complete pariah- if you challenged it. The choice was overwhelming. It overwhelmed Robert Kennedy. And when it overwhelmed him, it overwhelmed the rest of the Kennedys. And when it overwhelmed them, it overwhelmed the friends, supporters, and colleagues of the Kennedys. It quickly overwhelmed everyone for whom acceptance in polite society mattered. The cost of not accepting it was gargantuan, and it still is today. If you work for the government, if you are in the military, if you work for a big corporation, if you work in education, if you work for the media, you are in very hot water if you publicly renounce the official JFK story.  You just can't do it.

But, the official JFK story is going to collapse, and when it does, the biggest scandal won't be the murder itself, but rather, the cover-up- the over half a century of lies and cover-up.   

The plot just thickened. Juanita Brodderick has resurfaced, asking: why do people believe Dr. Ford and not her when "I told you that Bill Clinton raped me?" She points out that she told three people at the time, immediately, whereas Dr. Ford didn't tell anyone until 2012.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/juanita-broaddrick-glad-believe-her-024811948.html

 In case anyone doesn't know it, Trump is an idiot. He has dementia, and it's probably due to years of taking statin drugs for cholesterol, which he has foolishly done. He sent the Navy Seals into Yemen where they slaughtered women and children in a remote village. But, all he talked about afterwards was the "success" of the mission, while mourning the one Seal who died. Here is a picture of one little girl who was killed in the raid. And note that the source is NBC News. Her name was Nora Anwar Al-Awlaki, and she was 8 years old. Her blood is on your hands, Donald Trump.

Denise Tatum Man-speak here

Ralph Cinque I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm not for him. To honest, I think anyone who wants to be a Supreme Court justice is just a blowhard. The U.S. Constitution was cut to ribbons long ago, and now it's just lip service that they pay to it. So, I'm not a Kavanaugh fan or supporter. It means nothing, less than nothing, to me whether he gets in or not. But, I'm just saying that the behavior she describes of continuing to attend parties in which she knew that drugging and raping of girls went on is inexplicable to me.

This is completely off-topic, but I just have to comment about something in the news. A new accuser has surfaced against Brett Kavenaugh. Her name is Julie Swetnick. 

She said she was raped at a house party in "approximately"1982, and that Kavanaugh was there. As I read it, she does not claim that Kavanaugh was among the boys who raped her; but he was there. And she added that on at least one occasion she saw him waiting in line for his turn with another girl who was being raped. 

And, she thinks she was drugged with Quaaludes, or a similar drug, when it happened to her. 

This information came from her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and the following statement is a quote from an article about it on Huffington Post:

"She said she attended “well over ten house parties” from 1981 to 1983. Between 1981 and 1982, she said at these parties she began to notice Judge, Kavanaugh and others would attempt to “‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No.’” 

But remember, previously, she said that she was gang-raped in "approximately" 1982.  And I will say that I would expect her to know the exact year she underwent rape. 

"In a sworn declaration, Swetnick — a Washington, D.C., resident — said she was a “victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present” at a party in D.C. in approximately 1982."

But, all we can do is go by what she said. And, if she said she was gang-raped at a house party in 1982, and yet she continued attending those house parties until 1983, it means that she continued attending the very same parties where the very same thing was going on, after she was raped. So, she went back to the parties after she was raped. She kept going back to the parties, knowing full well what went on there. 

You better read this again because it makes it very clear that she continued going back to parties in which she knew that raping commonly occurred. 

 "She said she attended “well over ten house parties” from 1981 to 1983. Between 1981 and 1982, she said at these parties she began to notice Judge, Kavanaugh and others would attempt to “‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No.’” 

So, she knowingly went to rape parties. Note that she said that as early as 1981, she noticed the Kavanaugh and others were spiking the punch to incapacitate the girls. That was before she got raped, but wasn't it enough reason for her to stop going to the parties?  Why did she keep going to parties at which girls were being drugged and raped? 

Is there any other way to read this? 






  

I was on The New JFK Show #211 the other night with Jim Fetzer, Gary King, and Larry Rivera, and it was very interesting- for me.  What I brought to the discussion was the article by Tim Cwiek from the Third Decade from 1995 in which he challenged the authenticity of the Bob Jackson photo of Oswald being shot. Fake, fake, fake. But, I was very interested in what Gary King brought to the table: a recent article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune about Jim Garrison. 

I knew, of course, it that it had to be derogatory. That was a given. But, why would they publish such an article now? 

The gist of it was that Garrison was a publicity hound, who was very adept at manipulating the media. No attempt was made to delve into the case, although one line jumped out at me. 

  Shaw, a retired business executive and gay man who was mercilessly outed at the time of his arrest, was alleged to have participated in an assassination-related discussion with two co-conspirators, Oswald and David Ferrie, both by then deceased. 

Deceased? By then? But, one got shot right in police custody after, supposedly, gargantuan and unsurpassed security precautions. And the other died mysteriously right after Garrison announced publicly his intention to go after him, David Ferrie, who left behind two suicide notes that were found in his apartment (although was more of a longing-for-death note). The coroner decided that Ferrie died of a ruptured aneurysm (stroke), therefore, natural causes, but how could Ferrie anticipate that? Garrison stated cynically that perhaps it was an odd coincident that Ferrie wrote two suicide notes and then promptly died of natural causes. So, he intended to kill himself, but then it turned out that he didn't need to, that Nature helped him out.  

Look at this utterly stupid reasoning by Professor John McAdams:


"It's possible that Ferrie was aware of his failing health, and wrote the (suicide) notes in the expectation that he would soon die — but not by his own hand. Journalist David Snyder reported that Ferrie told him that he had encephalitis, that Ferrie's voice was barely audible, his breathing unsteady and his "steps were feeble." Not only had he been complaining about headaches, when two Garrison aides visited him the Saturday before his death, he "moaned and groaned with each step he took up the stairs" and told them that he had not been able to keep food on his stomach for a couple of days."

Sounds pretty bad, but then in the next breath, McAdams says:

"The last person to see him alive, George Lardner, Jr., reported him to be in good spirits. And several people who talked to him in the last week of his life reported that, in spite of his health problems, he was in a combative mood, intent on fighting Garrison's charges against him. Indeed, he was preparing to sue Garrison."

How could he sue Garrison if he was dead? Law suits take months and sometimes years, and if he died, the suit would die with him.  If he really thought he was imminently dying, then the second paragraph makes no sense.  Good spirits, combativeness, fighting, and suing don't go along with imminent dying. You can't have it both ways, John. And, you can't tell me that Ferrie anticipated that he was going to have a stroke. That is ridiculous. Not even old people anticipate they are going to have a stroke, let alone young people, and Ferrie was young. And therefore, what did he expect to die of? 

But, admittedly, I digress. My point is that the author of the article, who is a female history professor from a Louisiana college, just glibly sauntered over the deaths of Oswald and Ferrie as if, "nothing to see here." 

My question is: why would they spew out another article about Jim Garrison now? What provoked it?

And here's something else to think about: How is it possible that not a single reporter, editor, or commentator at any major newspaper in the United States has not got the slightest doubt or reservation about the official story of the JFK assassination? Think about the mathematics of that. With so many Americans doubting the official story of the JFK assassination, how is it that none of them work for newspapers? How is it that every major newspaper in the country is monolithic in its support of the official story? Do you realize how controlled the press is in our country?

Here is the link to the show:

https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=SBOB2X9AK3WM   

This very lovely song was written by Johnny Mandel, who is still living, in his 90s. He was a great musician, playing piano, trumpet, and trombone, and at a top level. He was a conductor and an arranger, And he was  a composer, his most famous song being The Shadow of Your Smile which won Best Original Song at the 1965 Oscars. And he wrote this very pretty song, I Wish I'd Met You, made famous by the great vocalist, Lena Horne.  The duet of Lena Horne and Sammy Davis Jr. singing it is magnificent. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwgrt-snEVo&feature=youtu.be

Pete Hymans Marina was a scared woman (a stranger in a strange land with intimidating assholes questioning her and probably threatening to separate her from her kids and send her back to Russia). She "lied" out of a sense of survival. Lest we forget the KGB in the U.S.S.R. was oppressive and people knew how to craft their words and stay "safe." Marina's ability to leave Russia and her uncle's position are also large looming questions. Oswald probably never touched the Mannlicher Carcano attributed to him (while he was alive--that is).

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 45m

Ralph Cinque I agree with that, Pete. I don't doubt that Marina was scared. But, I don't think it was as simple and straightforward as her "lying" as in consciously, knowingly lying. I think they worked on her. I think they manipulated her mind, using mind control techniques, that a cult might use or what were used in the MK Ultra program. And the result was that reality was blurred for her. Normally, when a person lies, reality isn't blurred. He or she lies while knowing the truth. But, in Marina's case, I really think they did things to separate her from her past with Oswald, and to replace her real memories with ones they wanted her to have. Exactly how effective it was, I can't say. I have to think that on some level, she really did know what she was doing. But, I suspect that they trained her to suppress that, to not only lie to the Warren Commission but to lie to herself, so that, to a great extent, she remained "in character" even when she was alone and behind closed doors. They created her character, and they taught her to live as that character.. But, no way could the conversion have been 100%, and the result is, I suspect, that Marina Oswald is a very troubled woman, demonized by what she knows deep inside. And if you look at her in latter interviews, she really seems like a battered woman. And it's interesting that in later years she did reverse herself and defend Oswald and condemn the Warren Commission, but the fact remains that she was their star witness. And she has never reckoned with that, certainly not publicly, and maybe not privately either

This is a recent exchange between me and Tom Cahill, one of my favorites in the OIC. Tom is quite advanced in years. I don't know his exact age but probably late 80s. He is a U.S. military veteran and an active member of Veterans for Peace. He traveled to Iraq in 2003 to serve as a human shield to deter the bombing. He was one of many who did that, but of course, it didn't work. George W. Bush did his Shock and Awe and the atrocity/war crime known as Operation Iraqi Freedom ensued. But, this concerns the JFK assassination.  

Bonjour Ralph,

I like Roger Stone's encapsulation of LBJ's role in the JFK execution here, interviewed by Jesse Ventura's son Tyrell.  And Stone doesn't mince words about the CIA's involvement but doesn't go into detail like he does about LBJ.  

Might the CIA be throwing LBJ under the bus to protect itself from any more damage?

Tom

https://youtu.be/4FVsS2sDkpE

Hello, Tom. I have felt for a long time that the powers-that-be are preparing to throw LBJ to the wolves about JFK.  That is their escape route, should one become necessary- Johnson did it. They have given coverage to some of the books accusing Johnson, including Roger Stone's. They gave coverage to the Jackie tapes in which she said that she believed Johnson did it. I think they are very willing to sacrifice him and precisely because he is long dead, and he's not a very popular President anyway. He's just a step above Nixon, and they may throw in Nixon along with him, especially since Nixon is already perceived badly by the public.

But, it will basically just be another lie. They might end up saying that Johnson got Nixon to get Ruby to get Oswald to do it, which is a grotesque lie. It is lie piled upon lie.  Oswald, of course, was innocent, and that's the lie they just don't want to undo. They'll say that someone put Oswald up to it, which they don't mind saying, not at all  They really don't. They have offered it as an alternative story since 1979. But, it's ridiculous because anyone who wanted Kennedy dead, and his wife and the others in the limo unharmed, would never, in a million years, have wanted the gun to be in Oswald's hands. We understand in every avenue of life that whether you need surgery or legal advice or investment advice or a plumber, that you want to get somebody good, someone with vast knowledge and experience and a long history of proven success.  Wouldn't that be just as true when it came to assassinating the President of the United States? Why would anybody pick a guy who spent three years working at a radio factory in Russia and then worked various grunt labor jobs here in the U.S. at minimum wage but couldn't hold a single one of them?  Just because Oswald, who was never a combat Marine, did the minimal amount of target practice required by the Marines, that somehow made him an assassin? He couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun. And yet, he was the top pick to assassinate the President of the United States? The best of the best? It is just plain ridiculous. 

So, it's a bit of a circus, Tom. But, one thing is for sure: it's is going to end badly- for them. And by "them", I mean the government and media who have been lying about JFK's murder for over half a century. JFK truth and Oswald innocence are going to prevail, and here's hoping that we both live long enough to see it.  Con amore, mio amico. Ralph 

This is another article by Tim Cwiek from The Third Decade sent to me by my researcher friend, and it concerns something else I have written about: Marina's original statements about Oswald owning a rifle. 

Like me, Cwiek points out that Marina's earliest known statement referred to the rifle that Oswald owned in Russia, and she said nothing about him currently owning a rifle. 

This is the first sentence of her signed statement made on November 22. "When officers came to my house, they asked me if Lee had a rifle, and I told them that he used to have one to go hunting with in Russia."

Now, why would she say that?  Why would she bring up the Russian rifle (which was a shotgun) at all if there was a current rifle? Referring to the Russian rifle was her attempt to be helpful, to be able to talk about some rifle.  But, she wouldn't have needed it if she knew about a current rifle.  

Of course, Marina went on to tell elaborate stories about Oswald and his rifle, but that was months later, after intense FBI brainwashing and the helpful aid of a green poultice (money) which suddenly made her a rich woman. If I sound bitter and cynical, it's because I am. 

Cwiek points to the interesting fact that George DeMohrenschildt refused to say that he ever saw a rifle. His wife Jeanie said it, and she is the only one besides Marina who ever testified to seeing Oswald's rifle. 

Some of Marina's reported claims came from Ruth Paine (a suspicious source) and a White Russian from the Dallas community of White Russians, Ilya Manatov, who was not a police translator. He was just "some guy". So, why did they get him? And keep in mind what I have written before, that the Dallas community of White Russians were to Marina Oswald what the apartment dwellers were to Rosemary in Rosemary's Baby.  

Detective Guy Rose, who went to the Paine house on Friday, said that when first asked, Marina said that Oswald did not currently own a rifle; but later, she changed her story and said that he did. She took him out to the garage and pointed to the crumpled blanket on the floor, and Rose made it sound like it was hard to tell if there was a blanket in it or not. 

"She pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and leaning against the wall. At the time, I couldn't tell if there was one in there or not. There appeared to be. It was in sort-of an outline of a rifle." 

Are you buying that? Do you really think a rolled up empty blanket could look like it contained a rifle?

And Rose is the only policeman who claimed that Marina pointed to the garage or the blanket. Even Ruth Paine acknowledged that it was she, Ruth, who pointed Rose to the garage, not Marina. And Ruth went on to testify that when they opened the blanket, they saw a "portion" of the rifle. A portion of it? Well, that quickly got dropped from the official story. Officially, the blanket was empty, and Ruth Paine's statement about seeing a portion of it is "inoperative." 

Here is the last paragraph of what Cwiek wrote:

"Clearly, Marina's HQ statement was a sham, and most likely, Marina had no idea what she was signing. We can see from Mrs. Paine's and Mr. Manatov's statements that Marina said that Oswald owned a rifle back in Russia. But, the initial and sketchy HQ statement was the beginning of the unending exaggeration about LHO and his rifle. It is my hope that researchers will recognize the distortion and manipulation of Marina's first words about the rifle, even before she was placed in government custody, and that her husband (possibly) never owned a rifle in this country at all."

Well, I take exception of Cwiek's use of the word "possibly." Oswald definitely did not own a rifle in this country at all. John Armstrong has demonstrated unflinchingly that the paper trail to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago was fabricated, and even the Post Office records prove that Oswald could not have received, at his alleged P.O. Box, a rifle addressed to A. Hidell.  And remember who you're reading: I'm the guy who denies that Oswald even had a P.O. Box. He never admitted having one. He was never asked if he had one, which is strange. He had no need for one. The claim that he was paying to have Russian newspapers mailed to him from Russia is preposterous. The P.O. Box claim is screaming out loud false. 

Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT own a rifle. He said he didn't, and he had no reason to lie about it. And he was also the first JFK assassination photo alterationist in telling investigators that the Backyard photos were faked. 

The things that Marina Oswald eventually said about Oswald and his rifle are among the scariest elements of the whole assassination saga- the very idea that they could get her to say those things in the murky, manipulated, mental state that she was in, the result of intense brainwashing, intense carrot waving (although a better analogy would be lettuce waving since that's the color of money) and even intense sex, according to some reports. Were drugs also involved? I bet they were. 

Here is the link to Cwiek's article:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48727#relPageId=3&tab=page

A prominent researcher, whom I shan't name, sent me the link to an article that was published in 1995 that has left me stunned. It turns out that much of what I have been saying about the very suspicious Bob Jackson photo of the Oswald shooting was observed and noted a generation ago by one Timothy Cwiek and published in The Third Decade, which was a skeptical journal of JFK assassination research published out of State University College in Fredonia, New York.  The Third Decade was also an activists organization with prominent members, including celebrities, such as Ed Asnor and Dick Gregory. 

The article is entitled, The "Oswald" Pulitzer Prize photo: Is it a fake? and the quotation marks around Oswald were Cwiek's doing.  I learned a lot from this article. Did you know that Robert Jackson was an active Texas Army National Guardsman at the time of the assassination?  It's a division of the U.S. Army, so Jackson was in the U.S. Military.  Did you know that? I did not. 

So, here is the link. It's on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.  And it's a gem. I thank the researcher who sent it to me.  

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48732#relPageId=9&tab=page

When You're Smiling is a great song from 1929, made famous by the great Louie Armstrong. It came along just in time to cheer people up after the stock market crash. After all: it was only money, right? Three guys actually wrote it in 1928: Larry Shay, Mark Fisher, and Joe Goodwin. All the greats sang it, male and female: Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Judy Garland, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, and more. This is my own arrangement of it in G Major.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpX1MfMedPo&feature=youtu.be

Evidence against Oswald? What evidence? There is none. It is plainly and manifestly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, that he did not kill President Kennedy. The claim that he did exists ONLY as a rote, spewed, state lie, and it is based on nothing but phony evidence. There is NO legitimate evidence against Oswald- only false, planted, fabricated evidence. 

Didn't he order the murder weapon? NO. He didn't. It's false documentation. Do you realize that his alleged money order reached Klein's in Chicago the day after he mailed it from Dallas? That's impossible. It's impossible today, even when computerization and automation have quickened mail delivery tremendously. But, in 1963? They didn't even offer overnight delivery as an option.  

Didn't he pose with the murder weapon? NO. He didn't. It's a fake photograph which can be proven fake. In his new book, The JFK Horsemen, Larry Rivera lays out the reasons why the Backyard photos are most certainly fake. Did you know that among them, Oswald's ring changes hands? What are the odds that Oswald would fiddle with his ring between shots? Of course, the big things are that the man is too short to be Oswald, and there is no continuity between the face and the body. It's exactly what Oswald said: that his face was put over the body of another man. The Backyard photos aren't just fakes; they are bad fakes. 

Weren't Oswald's prints found on the murder weapon? NO.  There are multiple reasons to reject the FBI claims that they were.  The evidence against Oswald is really evidence against the FBI for framing him, for fabricating false evidence, and every bit of it would have been exposed as such in court. That's why there couldn't be a trial. Why do you think they killed Oswald before he could speak to an attorney? If they waited until after he spoke to an attorney, then they would have had to kill the attorney. 

There are multiple dealbreakers which exonerate Oswald in one full swoop. One of them is the fact that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and we have a photograph of him there with conclusive identification of his person and his clothing.  

As if Oswald and Lovelady looked and dressed that much alike... Come on; it's absurd. 

But, even if we didn't have this, there are other things that absolutely rule out his guilt. There is the total lack of motive. If you stop thinking of it as the act of removing JFK from power, and start thinking of it as the act of installing LBJ in power, why would Oswald want to do that? For Oswald to have sought to kill Kennedy, he would have had to be completely and totally insane. But, was he? You know very well that he wasn't. Watch and listen to him at the Midnight Press Conference and ask yourself whether he sounds insane. He came across as the most sane and rational person in the room. It's why they had to add all that noisy racket- to diminish him.  

There is the complete absence of any evidence that Oswald knew that JFK would be passing the building that day. It has been speculated that he could have seen the motorcade route in the newspaper, but there is no evidence that he did. And there is evidence that he didn't because he asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. And he wasn't setting up an "ignorance alibi" for himself because if that was the case, he would have used it, and he didn't. We learned about it not from Oswald but from Jarman. Do you realize how damaging Jarman's testimony was to the official story? It torpedoed it.    

Oswald did not subscribe to a Dallas newspaper, and he was never known to buy one. He was known to read one on his lunch break- if one was available.  But, people don't read the newspaper, word for word. People browse newspapers; they flip through them, glancing at this and that; noting headlines; reading a paragraph or two and and then moving on.  So, even if there were solid proof that Oswald picked up a newspaper which featured the motorcade route- and there is no such evidence, let alone proof- it would still be highly presumptuous to conclude that he must, therefore, have seen and noted the motorcade route. 

What about the rifle? The rifle is highly suspect. Oswald denied owning it, ordering it, or ever seeing it. It made no sense for him to order such a rifle from Chicago when he could have gone into any K-Mart in Dallas and bought one- and with no more hassle than buying a blender.  A. Heidel wasn't even listed as an owner of the alleged P.O. Box.  So, why would they have turned the rifle over to Oswald at the counter? And did Oswald even have a P. O. Box? They said he used it to subscribe to Socialist and Russian newspapers, but consider how expensive it was (and is) to have newspapers mailed from Russia. You really think Oswald did that? Why would he do it? He wasn't living in Russia any more. And how could he spend money on that when he barely had enough money to feed his family? And there is no evidence that he read Russian newspapers even when he was in Russia. The idea that he would have done it from here is ridiculous. How would he even have the means of paying for it? Did he pay for that by money order too? Then let's see it. He also supposedly paid for Socialist newspapers, so let's see his money orders for them. And why would he bother getting a P.O. Box for that? Why not have the newspapers mailed to his home? Oswald supposedly started with the P.O. Box in his list of emergency instructions to Marina, in the event that he was killed or incarcerated, but since nothing of any interest or value to Marina was sent to that P.O. Box, why would he do that? Are you seeing the light? That the whole P.O.Box story is just another elaborate fraud? 

And let's think about the situation at the Paine house. Supposedly, Oswald dismantled the rifle in the garage. The rifle had to be stored intact, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. So, he would have had to disappear that evening and go out into the garage, find the rifle, dismantle it, and then pack and secure all the loose parts in the makeshift bag he supposedly made at the TSBD unobserved, and do all that without being missed or noticed by his wife or by Ruth Paine.  So, they didn't see him do all that; they didn't hear him do it; and they didn't miss him or notice his absence while he was doing all that, even though he was a visitor in that house and didn't live there. That is ridiculous. We are talking about two adults in a small house being oblivious to a third person. How is it for you when you have a guest or visitor in your home? Aren't you aware of where the person is all the time? How often does a guest disappear in your house? 

And then, the next morning, there was Frazier, who claimed to see a bag that was no longer than 2 feet, which was 11 inches too short to be the disassembled rifle. But, inherent in the official story is the idea that Frazier was wrong, that the bag was a foot longer. So, we are supposed to believe Frazier, as a State witness, but also not believe him. And, it's a bottleneck for the story. And, think about all that's missing from the story. Length isn't the only characteristic of a bag. Obviously, the objects in a paper bag will affect the shape and contour of the bag. So, did the 2 foot long bag that Frazier saw look like a rifle? Did he see something long and hard and wedge-shaped in the paper bag that looked like the butt of a rifle? He has never claimed that. He has never addressed it. And if Frazier saw the stuffed bag on Friday, how could he not see the empty bag on Thursday? The bottom line is: there are so many holes in Frazier's story, there is no reason to give it any credibility at all. 

And what about at the TSBD? Frazier is the only one who claimed to see the bag. It was a building full of people. Oswald and Frazier were late. Plenty of people were already there. Nobody in the building reported seeing Oswald carrying a long bag. Jack Dougherty saw Oswald right as he walked through the door, and he denied seeing it. And not even a hammering from Statist lawyer Joseph Ball could get Jack to budge. Jack was nice about it, but he was unyielding. Me, I wouldn't have been nice or yielding. 

There were already numerous men up on the 6th floor working, so how could Oswald have hidden the rifle up there unseen? And if you are going to claim that he took it to another floor to hide it, I will tell you that you can't do it; you can't say it; you can't go there. Even speculations have to be tied to known facts. This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarten. 

There wasn't even a screwdriver found with which Oswald could have assembled the rifle. So, the story became that he must have used a dime to do it. But, when could he do it when Bonnie Ray Williams was eating fried chicken and drinking a Dr. Pepper on the 6th floor until shortly before the motorcade arrived? Is there any reason to doubt Bonnie Ray? 

Officer Marrion Baker's testimony completely exonerates Oswald because Baker saw Oswald enter the lunch room FROM THE OFFICE SIDE OF THE SECOND FLOOR. The anteroom, through which Baker saw Oswald, was a passageway containing three doors: a door to the office side, a door to the stairwell side where Baker was, and a door in-between to the lunch room. 

Baker was only able to see Oswald in the anteroom because Oswald entered it from the office side. And from that side, there was no access to the 6th floor. There was only one flight of stairs, which was from the first to the second floor. So, it was physically impossible for Oswald to have come down from the 6th floor, and not just because there was no time for him to do it but because there were no stairs. A bird couldn't have flown it never mind Oswald walked it. 

What about the shooting feat? Oswald nearly flunked his last shooting test as a Marine in 1959, assuming that was him, which I doubt, and the only shooting he did after that was to go rabbit-hunting with his friends in Russia- using a shotgun- and very ineptly at that, according to them. And that was definitely the Oswald of fame. He had NO experience as a sniper. The whole 6th floor setup was completely foreign to him. Only with added shims could the rifle be rendered functional for testing.  No marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat- and keep in mind that even if one did, the fact that the vast majority could not, renders the likelihood of Oswald doing it extremely remote. We are talking about expert marksmen, which Oswald was not.  Remember: Oswald was never a combat Marine. He was just a guy who did the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines.  

What evidence is there against Oswald? A partial fingerprint and a palm print? The latter wasn't found until after Oswald was dead, and the former wasn't found until after the Dallas PD announced that there were no usable prints. So, you can be certain that Oswald's lawyers would have challenged and disputed that evidence, vigorously.

What else is there? Witnesses claiming to see Oswald in the 6th floor window? That's worth nothing. The Innocence Project has 351 post-conviction exonerations of men who were convicted on the basis of false eye witness testimonies. 

The fact is that there is no evidence against Oswald that is not highly contestable. The Backyard Photos? Oswald denied that was him, and if he was tried, his wife would have been on his side, and she never would have vouched for them either. 

And when first asked (on 11/22) Marina denied knowing anything about a rifle, referring only to the shotgun rifle that Oswald used to have in Russia. It was only afterwards that she changed her story and "remembered" the rifle, like the good little Stepford Wife of U.S. Intelligence that she became- the result of intense brainwashing and a heavy dosing of green money, and probably a pile of drugs too.  

And what about the phony trip to Mexico City? At trial, Oswald would surely have established what he actually did when he  supposedly went there. How hard would it have been for him to do that? Note that when first asked, Marina denied knowing anything about any trip to Mexico City. 

And I could keep going with more dealbreakers on why Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly be guilty. And remember that it only takes one.  

But, I won't keep going because it's not really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is a country in which an impossible theory exists as the tale of the realm, in which a phenomenon of national denial is going on, in which all organs of officialdom support the lie, in which all organs of the corporate world support the lie, in which all organs of the educational system support the lie, and all organs of the media (except maverick ones) support the lie that Oswald killed Kennedy. And even though it is absolutely certain that Oswald didn't do it, all these societal factions cling tenaciously to the official JFK doctrine- as if for dear life- and the result is a national state of denial, delusion,  and blank-out.  This is the state of the nation concerning the JFK assassination:

There is no JFK debate except on the internet because none is allowed. On television, they just repeat the same refrain, that many Americans continue to doubt that Oswald acted alone- the implication being that no one doubts that he acted. Did he do it alone or within a conspiracy? That is how the debate is framed- cutting off at the knees the idea that Oswald was innocent, an idea that is unspeakable on television. 

Unless, of course, you are Vladimir Putin, who in his world-renowned interview with Megyn Kelly, said that "There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by U.S. intelligence services. So, if this theory is correct, and it can't be ruled out..."   

Putin didn't say it with an aggressive tone, but the statement was very aggressive. It was one of the most aggressive things he could have said. And let's face it: if he was capable of saying that, he is capable of saying a great many things that are equally aggressive.  I don't think the U.S. corporate media is going to do any more live, unedited, un-time-delayed interviews of Vladimir Putin again after he dropped that bomb. 

It is plain as day that Oswald was innocent, but the U.S. corporate media fluctuates between a hard-line Warren Commission stance (by the networks)  and a more flexible stance in which Oswald did it, but he was up to something fishy in Mexico City, which is really ridiculous considering that Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, and at the time he supposedly went there, he had no prospects or expectations of getting within a hundred miles of Kennedy. So, the idea that he conspired with someone in Mexico City to kill Kennedy is really just plain stupid, but it is a favorite theme of Fox News. Again and again, they have someone on with eye-popping revelations about Oswald's doings in Mexico City. "Who did he see there? Who did he talk to? What is the government hiding from us? We demand the truth!" It's enough to make you vomit. They don't want the truth.  They just want to tickle people's conspiracy bones. The truth is that Oswald was completely and totally innocent, and he did not go to Mexico City. The only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. That's what he told investigators, and he had no reason to lie.  

So, what exists today is a fraud and a charade. JFK assassination discussion is on lock-down in the U.S. There is just the fiat that Oswald did it, but with the pressure relief valve of tolerating vague suspicions that others may have been involved, so long as you cloak it in mystery and wonderment and unanswered questions. So basically, you can go with Government Story #1 (WC) or with Government Story #2 (HSCA), and by offering both, the government tries to control both sides of the debate.

But, the evidence is clear and abundant that it is impossible for Oswald to have done it, and that evidence is not going to disappear. It's out there, and it can't be destroyed.  The country is on a collision course with the truth, and it is inevitable that Oswald's innocence will prevail. 

So, it is going to blow up, and when it does, the big question will be, not who killed Kennedy, but how a systematic, government/media cover-up was orchestrated lasting over a half a century. 

There won't be a soft landing for the JFK assassination. It seems they are prepared to throw LBJ to the wolves since the media has covered, to some extent, claims of his involvement. So, if they have to abandon ship, that's probably what they'll do: blame LBJ, and perhaps Nixon too.  

But, it's not going to work. The truth, that US intelligence services, particularly the CIA, were behind the assassination, with the FBI  managing the framing of Oswald, is going to emerge. And it's not going to be pretty.