OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
www.oswald-innocent.com
Sunday, March 31, 2019
The Taliban website is down again, i.e., it is unavailable in the U.S. But, they still have a Twitter page, and that's where I go now. They have this article about 5 former Guantanamo Bay inmates who were freed in a prisoner exchange in 2014, where the Taliban released 1 U.S. soldier in exchange for 5 of theirs: these five. And now these 5 former Guantanamo Bay inmates are sitting across from American generals and admirals at the negotiating table in Qatar.
Were these guys ever terrorists? We wouldn't be negotiating with them if they were, would we? I'm sure they were fighting us back in 2001. I don't doubt that. But, we crossed an ocean to attack their country. We may have crossed two oceans. Our ships had to cross the Atlantic, but then what? Did we go all the way around the horn of Africa to enter the Indian Ocean to get to them? Or did we traverse the entire length of the Mediterranean Sea and then go through the Suez Canal and down the long length of the Red Sea and then through the Arabian Sea to get to them? I don't know which route we took, but either way, it was one hell of a long journey. It was half-way around the world. And that's as far away as you can get because if it was any farther, you could just go the opposite direction. We went all that way just to start a war. No war existed, but the nightmare, the horror, and the unspeakable misery and death of war was what we wanted. And we don't let anyone question our right to have a war if and when we want one. No nation gets to judge us. We get to judge anyone else who starts a war. We get to condemn other nations for starting wars, but no one gets to condemn us because, well, we are the United States, and the United States can have whatever war it wants. And even though we know beforehand that the killing and maiming are going to be horrific, we reserve the right to decide that it's "worth it." Some people will just have to die so that we can accomplish our objectives, whatever they may be, and even though the vast and overwhelming majority of the people we kill never took any action against us and never thought to, we have dominion over their lives; we have dominion over all lives on Earth. That is what "American exceptionalism" is all about.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
OIC Chairman Larry Rivera made this MP4. The autopsy photo is real. It may "doctored" but it's real. It's not as though they had any spare dead bodies around. But that guy on the stretcher with the Pinocchio nose, he was not Oswald. That was taken later in a reenactment. What does that tell you? It should tell you that they were trying too hard to sell the story, the story of how Oswald met his end. That story is bogus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6NocbakzCg&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6NocbakzCg&feature=youtu.be
Someone pointed John McAdams to my collage of the two hairdos of Michael Hardin on November 24, 1963.
McAdams hasn't said anything. But, what can he say? What's the talking point for this? Perhaps there are several, but I guarantee you that none of them are worth a darn. But, what is McAdams' attitude about it? That I can tell you: he doesn't care.
He doesn't care about anything except defending the official story of the JFK assassination- no matter what; meaning: regardless of any evidence, old or new. If he doesn't have a good answer for something, he'll just ignore it. But, the truth is: he doesn't have a good answer for anything. There is no case against Oswald. There is no evidence against him that doesn't reek with doubt, suspicion, and subterfuge. Take the rifle, for instance. Oswald supposedly skipped out from work on March 12 and walked 9 blocks to the post office to buy the money order. But, the letter was postmarked at 10:30 AM, but the company records show that Oswald never left his job. And the record shows that he completed 9 printing projects that morning. How can you be working at print station and walking to the post office at the same time? And the letter wasn't mailed at the post office where Oswald supposedly bought the money order. It was mailed from "Zone 12" which was several miles away. But, why would Oswald do that? Why wouldn't he have just mailed the letter from the post office. And then, the letter reached Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago the very next day, even though the last flight out of Dallas was at Noon. You know as well as I do that a regular letter is not going to travel from Dallas to Chicago overnight. It's not even possible today when computerization and automation have sped up mail delivery a lot. But in 1963? And be aware that they didn't even offer Overnight Delivery. It wasn't available at any price.
I mentioned yesterday Oswald's complete lack of any motive to kill Kennedy. On the contrary, he liked and respected Kennedy. And the only recourse is to say that he snapped, that he became a monster. But, that doesn't make sense either because even monsters will plan their murders with some palpable purpose. And monsters also plan their murders with a plan and expectation of getting away with it; of not getting caught; of being able to go on with their lives afterwards. But, what about Oswald? David Belin said that, after the shooting, Oswald planned to run away to Mexico, holding up people with his gun, as needed for travel money. Where the hell did Belin get that from? And anyone with the intelligence of 6 year old can tell you that Oswald would not have had the slightest interest in that life, that what he lived for was his family. And he was going to give them up? For what? The satisfaction of killing Kennedy? Satisfaction???? What satisfaction????? And the irony is that the very ones who were depicting Oswald as a monster were the real monsters. Belin, Dulles, Ford, Rankin, Ball and all the rest of them; the were the real monsters- not Oswald.
We have arrived. We have finally arrived. We have arrived at the point that our lives, that is, the world in which we spend our lives, has become an utterly bizarro world. It's like the Twilight Zone except worse than the Twilight Zone. And people like John McAdams are like characters from the Twilight Zone. They have no conscience and no soul. They vilify Oswald as monster, but if it's a monster they wish to see, they need only look in a mirror.
Klip-Klop: make yourself useful and get this to McAdams.
I mentioned yesterday Oswald's complete lack of any motive to kill Kennedy. On the contrary, he liked and respected Kennedy. And the only recourse is to say that he snapped, that he became a monster. But, that doesn't make sense either because even monsters will plan their murders with some palpable purpose. And monsters also plan their murders with a plan and expectation of getting away with it; of not getting caught; of being able to go on with their lives afterwards. But, what about Oswald? David Belin said that, after the shooting, Oswald planned to run away to Mexico, holding up people with his gun, as needed for travel money. Where the hell did Belin get that from? And anyone with the intelligence of 6 year old can tell you that Oswald would not have had the slightest interest in that life, that what he lived for was his family. And he was going to give them up? For what? The satisfaction of killing Kennedy? Satisfaction???? What satisfaction????? And the irony is that the very ones who were depicting Oswald as a monster were the real monsters. Belin, Dulles, Ford, Rankin, Ball and all the rest of them; the were the real monsters- not Oswald.
We have arrived. We have finally arrived. We have arrived at the point that our lives, that is, the world in which we spend our lives, has become an utterly bizarro world. It's like the Twilight Zone except worse than the Twilight Zone. And people like John McAdams are like characters from the Twilight Zone. They have no conscience and no soul. They vilify Oswald as monster, but if it's a monster they wish to see, they need only look in a mirror.
Klip-Klop: make yourself useful and get this to McAdams.
Friday, March 29, 2019
The JFK assassination is a sewer of photographic lies and manipulation. I believe it is the most photographically falsified event of all time.
I have been saying, for years, that when Jack Ruby arrived at the basement earlier than we have been told, and Dallas Police jumped him and dragged him up to the 5th floor, the reason he accepted it when they told him that he shot Oswald is because he was drugged, and I think this image is proof of it. He is staring blankly. His affect is totally dissociated from having just killed a man and destroyed his own life. If you look closely, you can see that his pupils were dilated. God, was he out of it.
And I think I know what drug they gave him, scopolamine, a South American drug that the CIA learned about from the Nazis. And in South America, scopolamine has frequently been used in the commission of crimes, to get victims to cooperate. You can read about it here. I believe that this drug is the reason Ruby didn't fight it when they told him he shot Oswald.
http://thescienceexplorer.com/brain-and-body/scopolamine-mind-control-drug-most-dangerous-world
http://thescienceexplorer.com/brain-and-body/scopolamine-mind-control-drug-most-dangerous-world
Look how much weight Marina Oswald lost between November 22, 1963 and February 3, 1964. We are talking about 2 months and 11 days.
You have to admit that she really looks thin on the right. And remember that clothes work both ways: they can help mitigate both fatness and thinness. She looks practically skin and bone on the right.
So, she dropped a lot of weight. But why? Was it because of her grieving over Oswald? Hardly. She didn't sound the least bit grieving in her testimony. She didn't express the least bit of feeling for him. She sounded emotionless in talking about him. But, she was MK-ULTRAed, and that included drugs. The most commonly used drug in MK-ULTRA was LSD. And it causes weight loss. It kills the appetite. It also makes a person forget their usual routine, including meals. Look how much weight John Lennon lost after he started taking LSD. He became practically emaciated too.
So, she dropped a lot of weight. But why? Was it because of her grieving over Oswald? Hardly. She didn't sound the least bit grieving in her testimony. She didn't express the least bit of feeling for him. She sounded emotionless in talking about him. But, she was MK-ULTRAed, and that included drugs. The most commonly used drug in MK-ULTRA was LSD. And it causes weight loss. It kills the appetite. It also makes a person forget their usual routine, including meals. Look how much weight John Lennon lost after he started taking LSD. He became practically emaciated too.
Another wild thing about the official JFK story is the way that it depicts Oswald as the most psychotic person who ever lived. And that's because of the speed that he supposedly went over the edge. And I mean that he went over it instantly.
What did Oswald's life consist off that third week of November 1963? He was working at the TSBD and seeing his wife and children as often as possible, usually on weekends. Oswald was a family man. His family was his life. There is no reason to doubt that.
And we know that his goals at the time were to obtain a driver's license so that he could improve his job prospects. And he wanted to resume living normally with his wife and kids- under one roof.
Now, that was his life. And with that as the context of it, what could have made him, while browsing the newspaper and seeing that the President would be driving by, get the sudden urge to kill him? THAT IS INSANE. IT AS INSANE AS IT GETS. IT DOESN'T GET ANY WORSE.
Whatever Oswald had on his mind the day he was supposedly browsing the newspaper and saw the motorcade route, there is no reason to think it was anything malevolent. So, how could he get such a perverse thought as to kill Kennedy when there is no basis to claim that his mind was in such a hellish condition? And there is nothing about seeing a motorcade route that would trigger such a murderous thought. It had to be a burst of insanity from out of nowhere, and I mean without any bridge.
It would have been a long mental journey for him to become so monsterized. And that is exactly why they conjured up the Walker story- to give him an antecedent. But, there is NOTHING to the Oswald/Walker story. It wasn't even the right caliber bullet. THE ENTIRE CASE AGAINST OSWALD FOR THE WALKER SHOOTING IS THE TESTIMONY OF MARINA OSWALD, WHO WAS THE STEPFORD WIFE OF THE WC AND THE FBI.
I can't tell you exactly how they got Marina to say the things she said for them, but I strongly believe it involved both drugs and specific mind control/brainwashing techniques. It was MK-ULTRA. It is best to think of her as someone who was thrust into a cult situation, who underwent intense indoctrination, and super-rapid socialization, immersing her in a new cauldron of intimates, including sexual intimates. If I had to compare her to someone, it would be to Patty Hearst who was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army with their "Field Marshal Cinque" and before you knew it, she was robbing banks with them and wielding a gun.
But getting back to Oswald, we have multiple testimonies from Russians who knew him when he was over there who said that he was not violent and not psychotic. And one would have to be completely psychotic to be browsing the newspaper and get a sudden urge to kill the President of the United States.
LET'S BE FRANK: THERE IS NOTHING ELSE LIKE THIS IS IN THE ANNALS OF CRIME. THERE IS NO ONE BESIDES LEE HARVEY OSWALD WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SUCH A SUDDEN, UNPROVOKED, AND UNEXPLAINED LOSS OF SANITY AND MURDEROUS IMPULSE.
It wasn't one in a million. It wasn't one in a billion. It was just Lee Harvey Oswald alone in his own specter of psychopathology with no parallels and no comparisons.
What did Oswald's life consist off that third week of November 1963? He was working at the TSBD and seeing his wife and children as often as possible, usually on weekends. Oswald was a family man. His family was his life. There is no reason to doubt that.
And we know that his goals at the time were to obtain a driver's license so that he could improve his job prospects. And he wanted to resume living normally with his wife and kids- under one roof.
Now, that was his life. And with that as the context of it, what could have made him, while browsing the newspaper and seeing that the President would be driving by, get the sudden urge to kill him? THAT IS INSANE. IT AS INSANE AS IT GETS. IT DOESN'T GET ANY WORSE.
Whatever Oswald had on his mind the day he was supposedly browsing the newspaper and saw the motorcade route, there is no reason to think it was anything malevolent. So, how could he get such a perverse thought as to kill Kennedy when there is no basis to claim that his mind was in such a hellish condition? And there is nothing about seeing a motorcade route that would trigger such a murderous thought. It had to be a burst of insanity from out of nowhere, and I mean without any bridge.
It would have been a long mental journey for him to become so monsterized. And that is exactly why they conjured up the Walker story- to give him an antecedent. But, there is NOTHING to the Oswald/Walker story. It wasn't even the right caliber bullet. THE ENTIRE CASE AGAINST OSWALD FOR THE WALKER SHOOTING IS THE TESTIMONY OF MARINA OSWALD, WHO WAS THE STEPFORD WIFE OF THE WC AND THE FBI.
I can't tell you exactly how they got Marina to say the things she said for them, but I strongly believe it involved both drugs and specific mind control/brainwashing techniques. It was MK-ULTRA. It is best to think of her as someone who was thrust into a cult situation, who underwent intense indoctrination, and super-rapid socialization, immersing her in a new cauldron of intimates, including sexual intimates. If I had to compare her to someone, it would be to Patty Hearst who was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army with their "Field Marshal Cinque" and before you knew it, she was robbing banks with them and wielding a gun.
But getting back to Oswald, we have multiple testimonies from Russians who knew him when he was over there who said that he was not violent and not psychotic. And one would have to be completely psychotic to be browsing the newspaper and get a sudden urge to kill the President of the United States.
LET'S BE FRANK: THERE IS NOTHING ELSE LIKE THIS IS IN THE ANNALS OF CRIME. THERE IS NO ONE BESIDES LEE HARVEY OSWALD WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SUCH A SUDDEN, UNPROVOKED, AND UNEXPLAINED LOSS OF SANITY AND MURDEROUS IMPULSE.
It wasn't one in a million. It wasn't one in a billion. It was just Lee Harvey Oswald alone in his own specter of psychopathology with no parallels and no comparisons.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Someone made a cogent point to me, that the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2001 was a theocracy. Their whole government, their whole system of law was based Sharia law from the Quran and Hadith, the holy books of Islam, and attacks on civilians are forbidden.
And then it occurred to me that Osama bin laden was a devout Muslim too. So, did he really plan attacks on civilians? And then I started thinking about the idea of him living in a cave in Afghanistan and planning the 9/11 attacks, and it occurred to me that, even if he was willing to kill civilians, and even if he was driven to kill American civilians, how could his mind have conceived of something as grandiose and far-fetched as the 9/11 attacks? What would have made him think it was even possible? What would have made him think that it was at all practical? Why would he have thought that it had a high probability of success?
I doubt that that he would have ever conceived of anything as grandiose as 9/11. But, even if he did, it's the kind of thing that, upon reflection and examination, he would have realized that it was fraught with too much risk, too much uncertainty, and too many obstacles and hurdles. And then think about the fact that the plan didn't even start with having trained pilots. It started with having to send these guys over here to attend flight schools at these piddly airports, in order to learn to fly- from scratch- Cesnas, so as to eventually commandeer colossal airliners and fly them into buildings?
What I'm saying is that it was too far to go; the plan had too far to go. The distance from A to Z was too great, and so many things could go wrong. It would have involved making so many unlikely assumptions.
Of course, we have been down this road before with the JFK assassination. Supposedly, Lee Harvey Oswald brought a rifle to work in a self-made bag made and presumed that no one would notice him carrying such an unexpected and unusual object thru the building. Then, he presumed that he could shoot Kennedy from the 6th floor and that nobody else would be up there or burst in on him. Then, he presumed that he could hit Kennedy even though he had never done that kind of sniper shooting before, ever, and hadn't been shooting of late, at all. And even though he was just going to leave the rifle there, knowing that it would be found, and knowing that once found, it could be traced to him, he did it anyway. According to WC Attorney David Belin, Oswald's plan after the shooting was to run away to Mexico, using his pistol as an ATM. But, what about his wife and two children, whom he was very fond of? He had no qualms about giving them up, did he? Letting them starve? And what was he going to do when he got to Mexico? I don't think Belin thought it through, but don't you think Oswald would have before he shot Kennedy?
The point is that even if Oswald had a sudden urge to kill Kennedy (and you'd have to be as pink in the head as Mark "Pink" O'Blazney to think that) he'd have thought about it some and quickly talked himself out of it. And, I am saying that the same thing is true of Osama bin laden concerning 9/11. Because, let's face it, it's a cockamamie idea. Nobody in his right mind could think that he could do it. And Osama bin laden was a civil engineer. If he was alive today, he'd probably be a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And as an engineer, he was familiar with and had practice with "feasibility plans." This plan wasn't feasible.
Oh, but it did happen, you say? Oh no it didn't. It happened, but not that way. And regardless, the point is that no one would have had the expectation of being able to pull it off. And that includes Osama bin laden.
There is a childish naivete' to both the official JFK story and the official 9/11 story. It's like the whole country has lost its mind, except, of course, for the truthers.
And then it occurred to me that Osama bin laden was a devout Muslim too. So, did he really plan attacks on civilians? And then I started thinking about the idea of him living in a cave in Afghanistan and planning the 9/11 attacks, and it occurred to me that, even if he was willing to kill civilians, and even if he was driven to kill American civilians, how could his mind have conceived of something as grandiose and far-fetched as the 9/11 attacks? What would have made him think it was even possible? What would have made him think that it was at all practical? Why would he have thought that it had a high probability of success?
I doubt that that he would have ever conceived of anything as grandiose as 9/11. But, even if he did, it's the kind of thing that, upon reflection and examination, he would have realized that it was fraught with too much risk, too much uncertainty, and too many obstacles and hurdles. And then think about the fact that the plan didn't even start with having trained pilots. It started with having to send these guys over here to attend flight schools at these piddly airports, in order to learn to fly- from scratch- Cesnas, so as to eventually commandeer colossal airliners and fly them into buildings?
What I'm saying is that it was too far to go; the plan had too far to go. The distance from A to Z was too great, and so many things could go wrong. It would have involved making so many unlikely assumptions.
Of course, we have been down this road before with the JFK assassination. Supposedly, Lee Harvey Oswald brought a rifle to work in a self-made bag made and presumed that no one would notice him carrying such an unexpected and unusual object thru the building. Then, he presumed that he could shoot Kennedy from the 6th floor and that nobody else would be up there or burst in on him. Then, he presumed that he could hit Kennedy even though he had never done that kind of sniper shooting before, ever, and hadn't been shooting of late, at all. And even though he was just going to leave the rifle there, knowing that it would be found, and knowing that once found, it could be traced to him, he did it anyway. According to WC Attorney David Belin, Oswald's plan after the shooting was to run away to Mexico, using his pistol as an ATM. But, what about his wife and two children, whom he was very fond of? He had no qualms about giving them up, did he? Letting them starve? And what was he going to do when he got to Mexico? I don't think Belin thought it through, but don't you think Oswald would have before he shot Kennedy?
The point is that even if Oswald had a sudden urge to kill Kennedy (and you'd have to be as pink in the head as Mark "Pink" O'Blazney to think that) he'd have thought about it some and quickly talked himself out of it. And, I am saying that the same thing is true of Osama bin laden concerning 9/11. Because, let's face it, it's a cockamamie idea. Nobody in his right mind could think that he could do it. And Osama bin laden was a civil engineer. If he was alive today, he'd probably be a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And as an engineer, he was familiar with and had practice with "feasibility plans." This plan wasn't feasible.
Oh, but it did happen, you say? Oh no it didn't. It happened, but not that way. And regardless, the point is that no one would have had the expectation of being able to pull it off. And that includes Osama bin laden.
There is a childish naivete' to both the official JFK story and the official 9/11 story. It's like the whole country has lost its mind, except, of course, for the truthers.
This is an interesting paper written by a university student concerning whether the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was legal or illegal under international law. After much wrangling, he concludes that it was illegal. I give him a C for this paper because he is way too respectful to the U.S. What this paper lacks is outrage. The United States committed genocide.
https://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/
But still, he made some good points. For instance, did you know that immediately after 9/11, the Taliban government of Afghanistan condemned the attacks, offered sympathy, and pledged to help in any way possible to find the culprits? You could be cynical about it and say they were putting on aires, but you don't know that, and there is no basis to say it. You can't just claim something because you feel like it.
The United States declared Osama bin laden to be the culprit behind 9/11 within hours of the attacks. It reminds me of how the FBI traced the 6th floor rifle to a sporting goods store in Chicago within hours of JFK's murder. That wasn't credible, and neither is this.
And no evidence against bin laden was provided- to anybody- and certainly not the Taliban. Bush went hyperbolic about it, but that doesn't count for anything. You've got to remember that anybody can say anything. And anybody can hit any keys on the keyboard. George W. Bush made a firery declaration about bin laden being behind the 9/11 attacks, but so what? Why should anybody, and I do mean anybody, including every American, put any stock in it? What makes George Bush's spewings bankable? Nothing does. Nothing did. And the idea that they were bankable enough to justify launching a war against Afghanistan is insane. It's insane because of what war is: mass destruction, mass poisoning, and mass murder.
The 9/11 attacks were not the action of another government against the United States. Therefore, to respond to the 9/11 attacks by attacking another government made no sense at all. And I spoke of attacking another government, but all you can do is attack people, which is to say that most of the people you wind up attacking are not the government. The 9/11 attacks were a crime, not an act of war by a government. Wars are between governments, but regular people die in droves. The United States had no right to start a war in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The big question is: when is the world going to stand up to the United States? It's true that we are the world's 800 pound gorilla, and I'm sure there are plenty of small countries who live in fear that they are going to be our next victim. But, Russia and China don't have to be intimidated by us. We are not going to engage against them militarily. Putin put down Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia, and we didn't stop him. Putin retook Crimea in just a few hours, and we did not stop him. Putin went into Syria, foiling our plans to take out Assad, and we didn't stop him. Putin offered sanctuary to Edward Snowden, so why didn't we demand that he hand Snowden over the way we ordered the Taliban to hand over bin laden? We don't want to go up against Putin militarily. He's not afraid of us; we're afraid of him. So, why doesn't Putin condemn us for our crimes? I'm sure he does condemn us, but why doesn't he condemn us publicly, and in very strong terms? But, at least he went to the aid of Assad, and at least he denied categorically that Assad used chemical weapons, and he even questioned the authenticity of the first aid films that were released. Better be careful, Vlad, because they're going to start calling you a conspiracy theorist.
https://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/
But still, he made some good points. For instance, did you know that immediately after 9/11, the Taliban government of Afghanistan condemned the attacks, offered sympathy, and pledged to help in any way possible to find the culprits? You could be cynical about it and say they were putting on aires, but you don't know that, and there is no basis to say it. You can't just claim something because you feel like it.
The United States declared Osama bin laden to be the culprit behind 9/11 within hours of the attacks. It reminds me of how the FBI traced the 6th floor rifle to a sporting goods store in Chicago within hours of JFK's murder. That wasn't credible, and neither is this.
And no evidence against bin laden was provided- to anybody- and certainly not the Taliban. Bush went hyperbolic about it, but that doesn't count for anything. You've got to remember that anybody can say anything. And anybody can hit any keys on the keyboard. George W. Bush made a firery declaration about bin laden being behind the 9/11 attacks, but so what? Why should anybody, and I do mean anybody, including every American, put any stock in it? What makes George Bush's spewings bankable? Nothing does. Nothing did. And the idea that they were bankable enough to justify launching a war against Afghanistan is insane. It's insane because of what war is: mass destruction, mass poisoning, and mass murder.
The 9/11 attacks were not the action of another government against the United States. Therefore, to respond to the 9/11 attacks by attacking another government made no sense at all. And I spoke of attacking another government, but all you can do is attack people, which is to say that most of the people you wind up attacking are not the government. The 9/11 attacks were a crime, not an act of war by a government. Wars are between governments, but regular people die in droves. The United States had no right to start a war in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The big question is: when is the world going to stand up to the United States? It's true that we are the world's 800 pound gorilla, and I'm sure there are plenty of small countries who live in fear that they are going to be our next victim. But, Russia and China don't have to be intimidated by us. We are not going to engage against them militarily. Putin put down Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia, and we didn't stop him. Putin retook Crimea in just a few hours, and we did not stop him. Putin went into Syria, foiling our plans to take out Assad, and we didn't stop him. Putin offered sanctuary to Edward Snowden, so why didn't we demand that he hand Snowden over the way we ordered the Taliban to hand over bin laden? We don't want to go up against Putin militarily. He's not afraid of us; we're afraid of him. So, why doesn't Putin condemn us for our crimes? I'm sure he does condemn us, but why doesn't he condemn us publicly, and in very strong terms? But, at least he went to the aid of Assad, and at least he denied categorically that Assad used chemical weapons, and he even questioned the authenticity of the first aid films that were released. Better be careful, Vlad, because they're going to start calling you a conspiracy theorist.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 really was criminal, and by that I mean that it violated international law. Hear me out:
The attack was based on the Taliban government refusing to turn over Osama bin laden to us. They agreed to turn him over to another country, but not the U.S. But, that wasn't good enough for George W. Bush. And think about it: if Bush and his cronies really thought the Taliban was involved in the 9/11 attacks, they wouldn't have settled for just getting bin laden, would they? Of course not. So, the very fact that Bush was going to leave the Taliban alone if they handed over bin laden tells you that he knew the Taliban was not involved in 9/11.
But, did Bush have the legal right to attack and invade Afghanistan just because they wouldn't turn over bin laden? Well, he sought approval from the UN, and they wouldn't grant it. So obviously, they didn't think it was legal. But more important, THE UNITED STATES DID NOT HAVE AN EXTRADITION TREATY WITH AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME. So, we had no right to attack them. Does the UK have the right to attack Ecuador because they won't turn over Julian Assange? How would you like it if they bombed the Ecuadoran Embassy?
What makes it worse is that Bush didn't provide one iota of evidence to the Taliban against bin laden. They politely asked for it, but he refused.
So, they were shown no evidence. They had no extradition treaty with the U.S. And they were a sovereign country. So, did they have the right to not turn bin laden over? Yes, they most certainly did. They had every legal right.
And consider this: George W. Bush bought a huge spread in Paraguay. Why Paraguay? Because Paraguay doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. So, if he has to make a hasty retreat out of here, say, if pressure mounts to arrest him for his war crimes, he's not worried that the U.S. is going to attack Paraguay to get him because we don't have an extradition treaty with Paraguay. He bought nearly 300,000 acres. Here's a pic. Nice land.
So, did George W. Bush have the legal right to attack Afghanistan and start a war? Of course not. He had only the right that every bully has.
So, why didn't the U.S. Congress stop him? The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. But, when Harry Truman put the U.S into in the Korean War without Congress declaring war, that put an end to that Constitutional provision. From that point on, Presidents have put us into every war. It's almost as though the Constitution got instantly amended. The last country Congress declared war on was Nazi Germany.
We have killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. But, the whole war was justified on the basis of one thing: 9/11. So, even if you believe the official story of 9/11, including the part about bin laden (and I and 3000+ architects and engineers don't), how many of the hundreds of thousands that we've killed had anything to do with 9/11? I hope you realize that, even granting everything the U.S. government claims, the number is so small that it is statistically equal to zero.
The attack was based on the Taliban government refusing to turn over Osama bin laden to us. They agreed to turn him over to another country, but not the U.S. But, that wasn't good enough for George W. Bush. And think about it: if Bush and his cronies really thought the Taliban was involved in the 9/11 attacks, they wouldn't have settled for just getting bin laden, would they? Of course not. So, the very fact that Bush was going to leave the Taliban alone if they handed over bin laden tells you that he knew the Taliban was not involved in 9/11.
But, did Bush have the legal right to attack and invade Afghanistan just because they wouldn't turn over bin laden? Well, he sought approval from the UN, and they wouldn't grant it. So obviously, they didn't think it was legal. But more important, THE UNITED STATES DID NOT HAVE AN EXTRADITION TREATY WITH AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME. So, we had no right to attack them. Does the UK have the right to attack Ecuador because they won't turn over Julian Assange? How would you like it if they bombed the Ecuadoran Embassy?
What makes it worse is that Bush didn't provide one iota of evidence to the Taliban against bin laden. They politely asked for it, but he refused.
So, they were shown no evidence. They had no extradition treaty with the U.S. And they were a sovereign country. So, did they have the right to not turn bin laden over? Yes, they most certainly did. They had every legal right.
And consider this: George W. Bush bought a huge spread in Paraguay. Why Paraguay? Because Paraguay doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. So, if he has to make a hasty retreat out of here, say, if pressure mounts to arrest him for his war crimes, he's not worried that the U.S. is going to attack Paraguay to get him because we don't have an extradition treaty with Paraguay. He bought nearly 300,000 acres. Here's a pic. Nice land.
So, did George W. Bush have the legal right to attack Afghanistan and start a war? Of course not. He had only the right that every bully has.
So, why didn't the U.S. Congress stop him? The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. But, when Harry Truman put the U.S into in the Korean War without Congress declaring war, that put an end to that Constitutional provision. From that point on, Presidents have put us into every war. It's almost as though the Constitution got instantly amended. The last country Congress declared war on was Nazi Germany.
We have killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. But, the whole war was justified on the basis of one thing: 9/11. So, even if you believe the official story of 9/11, including the part about bin laden (and I and 3000+ architects and engineers don't), how many of the hundreds of thousands that we've killed had anything to do with 9/11? I hope you realize that, even granting everything the U.S. government claims, the number is so small that it is statistically equal to zero.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
There is a very iniquitous thing that occurs in the JFK world: an unholy alliance between Oswald accusers and Oswald defenders.
For example, Mark "Pink" O'Blazney is an Oswald accuser. He calls himself a "personal researcher" and says that has been his occupation since 1978. That's what it says on his Linked profile. But, he says that's been his job, so how does one make money as a personal researcher? I figure, either you' are being paid by someone to do it, or you are writing a book which you intend to sell. Well, Mark "Pink" O'Blazney hasn't published any books between 1978 and 2019, or at any other time, for that matter, so it's not the latter. He's pretty much a full-time JFK troll, which is to say that he hangs around the various forums and batters people he doesn't like, particularly if they defend Oswald. He says things that aren't funny, and then puts "LOL." Oh, he's a big LOLer. Loves the LOL. Can't get enough LOL.
You know, I look at that face, and I don't see him laughing at anything. Laughed at? Sure; that's a given. But not doing the laughing.
So, for Pink O'Blazney, the LOL isn't about laughing. It's about loathing. That's what he's about. He does not laugh.
But then, there's Joseph Backes who claims to be an Oswald defender. Well, let me qualify that: he never actually defends Oswald. And, he never gives the impression that he likes Oswald or feels any compassion for him. But, he does dispute the official story. He faults the Dallas Police. He says that the Dallas Police made up Oswald's whole odyssey of how he left Dealey Plaza. He actually said that rather than travel by bus and cab, that it's more likely that somebody pulled up in front of the TSBD in a private car, and yelled up at Oswald, "Get in the fucking car, Oswald!" He actually wrote that, and it makes me laugh. But, I am not going to say LOL, since it's been so horribly pinkified.
And Backes accuses the Dallas Police of coercing witnesses like bus driver Cecil MacWatters and cab driver William Whaley to lie. And he accuses Dallas Police of conjuring up Mary Bledsoe out of thin air, that she didn't exist. And that's really strange considering that she testified to the Warren Commission and brought a lawyer with her. But, Backes accuses the WC of fabricating pages and pages of Billy Lovelady's testimony, especially when he talked about his "trek to the tracks" with Bill Shelley.
So Backes hurls a lot of accusations at the principals in the case, and one gets the impression that that's his main purpose, but every so often he will say that Oswald was framed, that he didn't kill Kennedy.
But, what I want you to consider is this: Backes and I both say that Oswald was innocent, while Pink O'Blazney says that Oswald was guilty. And Backes is even comfortable with Oswald being in the doorway, but as Prayer Man rather than Doorman. He has spoken well of the Prayermanites.
All right, it's not exactly a stirring endorsement, but he is respectful to those who makes the claim that Oswald was in the doorway as Prayer Man, and he expresses a willingness to consider that they may be right.
So, my point is that you would think that, in this situation, an alliance between Backes and Pink would be impossible. They are as polarized as polarized can be. Their positions are as distant and diametrically opposed as they could be. So, why are they friends? How is it that they get along? How come there is never a disparaging word between them when they do not agree at all, and that's putting it mildly?
The guy on the left doesn't look like he has LOLed since he was 6. And, it only goes to show that the JFK world is a dark, dirty, sleazy world, an underworld, and there is no LOLing going on. The intensity of the animosity rules out any LOLing. Disagreements about history should not engender this much animosity. But then again, this is the JFK assassination we are talking about.
For example, Mark "Pink" O'Blazney is an Oswald accuser. He calls himself a "personal researcher" and says that has been his occupation since 1978. That's what it says on his Linked profile. But, he says that's been his job, so how does one make money as a personal researcher? I figure, either you' are being paid by someone to do it, or you are writing a book which you intend to sell. Well, Mark "Pink" O'Blazney hasn't published any books between 1978 and 2019, or at any other time, for that matter, so it's not the latter. He's pretty much a full-time JFK troll, which is to say that he hangs around the various forums and batters people he doesn't like, particularly if they defend Oswald. He says things that aren't funny, and then puts "LOL." Oh, he's a big LOLer. Loves the LOL. Can't get enough LOL.
You know, I look at that face, and I don't see him laughing at anything. Laughed at? Sure; that's a given. But not doing the laughing.
So, for Pink O'Blazney, the LOL isn't about laughing. It's about loathing. That's what he's about. He does not laugh.
But then, there's Joseph Backes who claims to be an Oswald defender. Well, let me qualify that: he never actually defends Oswald. And, he never gives the impression that he likes Oswald or feels any compassion for him. But, he does dispute the official story. He faults the Dallas Police. He says that the Dallas Police made up Oswald's whole odyssey of how he left Dealey Plaza. He actually said that rather than travel by bus and cab, that it's more likely that somebody pulled up in front of the TSBD in a private car, and yelled up at Oswald, "Get in the fucking car, Oswald!" He actually wrote that, and it makes me laugh. But, I am not going to say LOL, since it's been so horribly pinkified.
And Backes accuses the Dallas Police of coercing witnesses like bus driver Cecil MacWatters and cab driver William Whaley to lie. And he accuses Dallas Police of conjuring up Mary Bledsoe out of thin air, that she didn't exist. And that's really strange considering that she testified to the Warren Commission and brought a lawyer with her. But, Backes accuses the WC of fabricating pages and pages of Billy Lovelady's testimony, especially when he talked about his "trek to the tracks" with Bill Shelley.
So Backes hurls a lot of accusations at the principals in the case, and one gets the impression that that's his main purpose, but every so often he will say that Oswald was framed, that he didn't kill Kennedy.
But, what I want you to consider is this: Backes and I both say that Oswald was innocent, while Pink O'Blazney says that Oswald was guilty. And Backes is even comfortable with Oswald being in the doorway, but as Prayer Man rather than Doorman. He has spoken well of the Prayermanites.
All right, it's not exactly a stirring endorsement, but he is respectful to those who makes the claim that Oswald was in the doorway as Prayer Man, and he expresses a willingness to consider that they may be right.
So, my point is that you would think that, in this situation, an alliance between Backes and Pink would be impossible. They are as polarized as polarized can be. Their positions are as distant and diametrically opposed as they could be. So, why are they friends? How is it that they get along? How come there is never a disparaging word between them when they do not agree at all, and that's putting it mildly?
The guy on the left doesn't look like he has LOLed since he was 6. And, it only goes to show that the JFK world is a dark, dirty, sleazy world, an underworld, and there is no LOLing going on. The intensity of the animosity rules out any LOLing. Disagreements about history should not engender this much animosity. But then again, this is the JFK assassination we are talking about.
Even without the Altgens photo, we could know that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting. There is no place else he could have been. He was not in the 1st floor lunch room at 12:30 because he was there when Jarman and Norman were there, and they were there early in the lunch break. By 12:30, they were up on the 5th floor. And he was not in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30 because he was just getting there at 12:31 and 1/2 when Marrion Baker first saw him. The fact that he was just getting there tells you that he wasn't there a minute and a half before. So, if you realize that Oswald was not up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy at 12:30, then there is really no place else but the doorway that he could have been.
So, let's look at the people who oppose this. There are those who say he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, but that is ridiculous. You had Bonnie Ray Williams there on the 6th floor until 12:20 eating his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper. Plus, there are multiple witnesses who reported that Oswald sought to go downstairs at 11:45 when they broke for lunch. He asked them to hold the elevator for him. They didn't, but the point is that it's evident that Oswald had no intention of staying upstairs. Then, there were also multiple people who reported seeing him downstairs. And supposedly, he had to retrieve the rifle, assemble it using a dime as a screwdriver, and construct the Sniper's Nest. How long do you think all that would take? Don't you think he would have gotten started right away?
Plus, there is no chance that Oswald was up on the 6th floor because when Baker first saw him, Oswald was entering the lunch room from the office side, and there was no access to the 6th floor from the office side.
So, there is no chance that Oswald had come down from the 6th floor when Baker first saw him. But, what about the people who admit that but still refuse to accept that he was in the doorway? Where do they say he was? Most of them don't. Most of them just ignore the issue, as if it's unimportant. But, those that do provide an alternative usually say that he was either in the 1st or 2nd floor lunch room.
Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was "eating lunch with other employees" at 12:30. That was a lie. Oswald never said that, and he certainly never did that. Oswald was anti-social at the TSBD. He did not eat with anybody. He was not friendly to anybody. He wasn't hostile or belligerent. But, he was not interested in being friends with anyone, white or black. And I don't think it is correct to say that Oswald was friends with Frazier. He used Frazier. His ONLY interest in Frazier was to get the rides to Irving. He never did anything else with Frazier. And the point is that there is no chance that Oswald was eating lunch with other employees on November 22 or any other day. Furthermore, we know who Fritz was talking about. He was talking about Jarman and Norman. But, Oswald never said he ate with them. He just said he saw them while he was eating. Plus at 12:30, Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th floor, and we have two photos of them. So, Fritz lied through his teeth.
So, Oswald ate lunch early, by himself, in the 1st floor lunch room- AS HE ALWAYS DID. He did not get to the 2nd floor lunch room until after the shooting, and he did not get his Coke until after his encounter with Baker and Truly. And that leaves no chance that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room eating or drinking at 12:30 or at 12:25, as per the alleged revision of Carolyn Arnold in 1978. I say "alleged" because all we have is hearsay, the Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz claiming that she said it. It couldn't be admitted in court. You couldn't have Earl Golz testifying for Carolyn Arnold. But, as a 19 year old girl on November 26, 1963, she told the FBI that she thought she saw Oswald standing at the doorway shortly before the shooting. And there is absolutely no basis to think that she was lying then. As Professor Gerald McKnight explained so thoroughly and convincingly in his book, Breach of Trust, the Carolyn Arnold story that you go with is her first one. It's the first thing she said - before she was affected by pressure and fear - that counts.And she said that she saw Oswald at the doorway.
So Oswald was not on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy at 12:30. He was not in the 1st floor lunch room eating and reading the newspaper at 12:30. And he was not in the 2nd floor lunch room eating or drinking at 12:30. So, all that leaves is the doorway for him to have been at 12:30. There is no place else.
So, with that information plus the Fritz Notes which reveal that Oswald told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" we can correctly surmise that Oswald was in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository at 12:30. And that's before we do any of the riveting photo analysis that cements him to the doorway. You just can't fight it: Oswald was in the doorway.
So, let's look at the people who oppose this. There are those who say he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, but that is ridiculous. You had Bonnie Ray Williams there on the 6th floor until 12:20 eating his fried chicken and drinking his Dr. Pepper. Plus, there are multiple witnesses who reported that Oswald sought to go downstairs at 11:45 when they broke for lunch. He asked them to hold the elevator for him. They didn't, but the point is that it's evident that Oswald had no intention of staying upstairs. Then, there were also multiple people who reported seeing him downstairs. And supposedly, he had to retrieve the rifle, assemble it using a dime as a screwdriver, and construct the Sniper's Nest. How long do you think all that would take? Don't you think he would have gotten started right away?
Plus, there is no chance that Oswald was up on the 6th floor because when Baker first saw him, Oswald was entering the lunch room from the office side, and there was no access to the 6th floor from the office side.
So, there is no chance that Oswald had come down from the 6th floor when Baker first saw him. But, what about the people who admit that but still refuse to accept that he was in the doorway? Where do they say he was? Most of them don't. Most of them just ignore the issue, as if it's unimportant. But, those that do provide an alternative usually say that he was either in the 1st or 2nd floor lunch room.
Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was "eating lunch with other employees" at 12:30. That was a lie. Oswald never said that, and he certainly never did that. Oswald was anti-social at the TSBD. He did not eat with anybody. He was not friendly to anybody. He wasn't hostile or belligerent. But, he was not interested in being friends with anyone, white or black. And I don't think it is correct to say that Oswald was friends with Frazier. He used Frazier. His ONLY interest in Frazier was to get the rides to Irving. He never did anything else with Frazier. And the point is that there is no chance that Oswald was eating lunch with other employees on November 22 or any other day. Furthermore, we know who Fritz was talking about. He was talking about Jarman and Norman. But, Oswald never said he ate with them. He just said he saw them while he was eating. Plus at 12:30, Jarman and Norman were up on the 5th floor, and we have two photos of them. So, Fritz lied through his teeth.
So, Oswald ate lunch early, by himself, in the 1st floor lunch room- AS HE ALWAYS DID. He did not get to the 2nd floor lunch room until after the shooting, and he did not get his Coke until after his encounter with Baker and Truly. And that leaves no chance that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room eating or drinking at 12:30 or at 12:25, as per the alleged revision of Carolyn Arnold in 1978. I say "alleged" because all we have is hearsay, the Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz claiming that she said it. It couldn't be admitted in court. You couldn't have Earl Golz testifying for Carolyn Arnold. But, as a 19 year old girl on November 26, 1963, she told the FBI that she thought she saw Oswald standing at the doorway shortly before the shooting. And there is absolutely no basis to think that she was lying then. As Professor Gerald McKnight explained so thoroughly and convincingly in his book, Breach of Trust, the Carolyn Arnold story that you go with is her first one. It's the first thing she said - before she was affected by pressure and fear - that counts.And she said that she saw Oswald at the doorway.
So Oswald was not on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy at 12:30. He was not in the 1st floor lunch room eating and reading the newspaper at 12:30. And he was not in the 2nd floor lunch room eating or drinking at 12:30. So, all that leaves is the doorway for him to have been at 12:30. There is no place else.
So, with that information plus the Fritz Notes which reveal that Oswald told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" we can correctly surmise that Oswald was in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository at 12:30. And that's before we do any of the riveting photo analysis that cements him to the doorway. You just can't fight it: Oswald was in the doorway.
I am pleased to share the announcement that CAPA will be assuming responsibility for the Lancer Dallas in November conference. This year's conference co-chairs with be Brian Edwards, Chris Gallop, Bill Simpich and me. If you have ideas for topics, please forward to me for consideration by the co-chairs. #CAPA #LancerJFKConference
Ralph Cinque Please consider having Larry Rivera speak on Oswald in the doorway. You're a lawyer, Larry, and I presume know that a defendant's alibi is crucial to his defense, and Oswald's alibi was the doorway. And if you won't do it out for respect for Larry, then do it out of respect for Mark Lane who is a posthumous member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. Or do it out of respect for Jim Marrs, who is also now a posthumous member of the OIC. Of course, they were living members before they died. Mark Lane spoke to me on the phone from his home in Virginia. Attorney Vincent Salandria is also a longtime member of the OIC, and so are Professor David Wrone and Professor Gerald McKnight. Feel free to check with any one of them. You insult all these people when you fail to include a speaker from the OIC. If you want more names, there is Jack White, Doug Valentine, Phil Nelson, Peter Janney, and many more. And remember, the TSBD was a very finite place, and there weren't that many places Oswald could be. And anyone who tells you he was somewhere other than the doorway has much less to base it on than what we have. And what Bill Simpich did at the trial, which was to imply that Oswald was in the second floor lunch room the whole time is FALSE. And to know that, all you have to do is read the testimony. .Marrion Baker testified that when he first saw Oswald, he was in the vestibule walking into the lunch room. So, he was just getting to the lunch room at 12:31 and a half. He was just arriving there. Therefore, you can't assume that he was there at 12:30. He was in the doorway at 12;30, and he left and ascended the elegant front stairway in the southeast corner of the building and walked across the 2nd floor to get to the lunch room just a few seconds before Baker. And the timing for it works perfectly. No one has any grounds to complain about having an OIC speaker there because they can champion whatever they want during their speech. How about some freedom of speech because that's what it comes down to at this point. You know that in this country being an Oswald defender is politically incorrect. And that's true no matter how you go about defending him. So, you are politically incorrect. But, you're going to reject us because we're not politically correct within your political incorrectness? It's ridiculous, Larry, and it's hypocritical. I am formally requesting that you accept a speaker from the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
Monday, March 25, 2019
The Taliban website is down again, but their Twitter page is still up. And on it, they reported an atrocity in which 13 civilians were killed in a government raid in Kundoz, with many more injured. It said that the bodies were taken to the capitol this morning by locals in protest. You can see that some of them are children. This is from March 23, just 2 days ago. The photo was taken by a representative of Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan whose name is Patricia Gossman.
This song was written in 1974 by Billy Preston and made famous by Joe Cocker. I think it is one of the most tender and touching songs ever written. It affects people emotionally, including me. It's called: You Are So Beautiful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmpD46jbxLw&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmpD46jbxLw&feature=youtu.be
I'd like to point out that they had multiple doubles for the living Oswald, but finding a double for a dead guy isn't nearly as easy because your stock of dead bodies isn't that great. So, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Oswald autopsy photo. And that's not to say that it couldn't have been altered some, but it has to be him. And it jumps out at you that the nose on Stretcher Oswald is very different. And because of its gaping nostril and simplistic, childlike geometry, it doesn't even look real; it looks like something that was drawn. But regardless, it is definitely not the same nose and therefore not the same man.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
You've seen this image of the fat-faced, younger Osama bin laden featured in the video that was supposedly found in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and I have no trouble believing that it was indeed found in la-la land, where all such films are found.
But now, I want you to think about something. The film is fake. You know that. But, why would they fake evidence? There can only be one reason: because they didn't have any real evidence.
So, the very existence of this ridiculous video tells you that the Bush administration had nothing on Osama bin laden in connection with 9/11. And therefore, the entire basis and justification for the invasion and decimation of Afghanistan was a lie.
And, I hope you realize that even if it were true that Osama bin laden had planned the 9/11 attacks, and even if the Bush administration had real evidence for it, it did not give the United States the right to start a war. We have got to get the idea out of our heads that anybody has the right to start a war. Wars kill people, and they kill a hell of a lot of innocent people. And nobody has the right to decide that it's "worth it" to kill innocent people to avenge a crime. Nobody has the right to kill innocent people, period. 9/11 was a crime, but the attack on Afghanistan was a much bigger crime- if you measure it by the number of victims. The United States' response to the 9/11 attacks has been to kill well over a million people.
But now, I hope you realize that the Bush administration could not have really believed that OBL did 9/11 if they conjured up a phony video of him. It means that they just wanted a war with Afghanistan. It means they just wanted Afghanistan. It means that they were just using OBL as an excuse, as a pretext for the war. And that makes what they did even more monstrous.
We can't let this one slide. George W. Bush needs to go to prison. I think there may be a basis to send others to prison as well, but he definitely needs to go. You can't kill a million people and get away with it, not if there is any justice in the world.
For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee, Mr. Bush. The prison bell.
But now, I want you to think about something. The film is fake. You know that. But, why would they fake evidence? There can only be one reason: because they didn't have any real evidence.
So, the very existence of this ridiculous video tells you that the Bush administration had nothing on Osama bin laden in connection with 9/11. And therefore, the entire basis and justification for the invasion and decimation of Afghanistan was a lie.
And, I hope you realize that even if it were true that Osama bin laden had planned the 9/11 attacks, and even if the Bush administration had real evidence for it, it did not give the United States the right to start a war. We have got to get the idea out of our heads that anybody has the right to start a war. Wars kill people, and they kill a hell of a lot of innocent people. And nobody has the right to decide that it's "worth it" to kill innocent people to avenge a crime. Nobody has the right to kill innocent people, period. 9/11 was a crime, but the attack on Afghanistan was a much bigger crime- if you measure it by the number of victims. The United States' response to the 9/11 attacks has been to kill well over a million people.
But now, I hope you realize that the Bush administration could not have really believed that OBL did 9/11 if they conjured up a phony video of him. It means that they just wanted a war with Afghanistan. It means they just wanted Afghanistan. It means that they were just using OBL as an excuse, as a pretext for the war. And that makes what they did even more monstrous.
We can't let this one slide. George W. Bush needs to go to prison. I think there may be a basis to send others to prison as well, but he definitely needs to go. You can't kill a million people and get away with it, not if there is any justice in the world.
For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee, Mr. Bush. The prison bell.
It's amazing to me that we live in a country that, to a great extent, has banned controversy. Oh, you can debate Trump and Kavanaugh, if that's your thing, but that's about it. There are many controversies that are completely ignored by the mainstream media. It's as if they don't exist.
For example, on television, radio, and all mainstream magazines and newspapers, antivaxxers are given no voice. And if a celebrity becomes an antivaxxer, his career is in jeopardy, such as Rob Schneider from Saturday Night Live. He makes statements that are true, such as, "The idea that vaccines don’t injure people is a fallacy. Two billion dollars have been paid out to people who have been vaccine injured or killed in the United States. This is a real thing." He might have added that that two billion dollars came from U.S. taxpayers because that's the law: that you can't sue a pharmaceutical company for vaccine damage or death; you can only sue the government.
But, let's move on. Global warming is another thing that can't be debated. Here we are having the coldest March ever in Texas, at least since I've lived in Texas, and I've lived here since 1978. There are many respected scientists who not only do not believe in man-made global warming- they don't believe in global warming, period. They think it's global cooling that's on the menu. So, why not have a television debate between a climatologist who believes in global warming versus one who believes in global cooling? Sounds interesting, don't you think? Sorry, it ain't going to happen. It's global warming 24/7/365.
Obviously, 9/11 is off limits to debate. Even though there is an organization of 3000+ architects and engineers who say that the Building 7 could not have collapsed from "office fires" as NIST said, you don't hear a word about it. The 9/11 truth movement is huge, and it is world-wide. But, you don't hear a word about it in the mainstream media.
And naturally, another example that is appropriate for me to point out is the JFK truth movement in defense of Lee Harvey Oswald. You would think from the mainstream media that not one American doubts that Oswald did it. According to them, some Americans think he acted alone while others think he was part of a conspiracy, but nobody doubts that he shot JFK. But, the truth is that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository during the shooting, and we have a photograph of him there. There is NO CHANCE that he shot Kennedy.
But none of these examples are what I really want to talk about. What I really want to talk about is the absence of debate about the ugliest topic of all: WAR. That is another controversy that has been banned.
Return with me now to 2002--2003 in the run-up to the U.S. invasion and decimation of Iraq. There was public discussion of it, such as Bill O'Reilly calling for changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" because the French were dragging their feet about supporting the war. But, freedom fries, Bill? Killing an Iraqi, whether he was a civilian or some 19 year old inductee in the Iraqi Army was not going to free him- unless you think that life itself is a burden from which we should all be freed. According to Johns Hopkins University researchers, the U.S. killed 650,000 Iraqis by 2006. That's just 3 years. The total number of Iraqis we have killed or gotten killed is surely over a million. But, how about them freedom fries, Bill?
So, as the mainstream media was fanning the flames for war, there was a lot of discussion of it, but who did they bring on to argue for peace? And I mean to debate with pundits, generals, think tank blowhards, etc. They brought on actors. And don't get me wrong, I have great respect for actors. They are very interesting; very diverse; and very multi-talented. Mike Farrell and Janeane Garofalo were repeatedly brought on to represent the peaceniks. And they did fine. They held their own. They did what they could to try to stop the insanity, but to no avail. But, my point is that by bringing on actors, the media implied that there were no professors, no historians, no credentialed academics, researchers, and experienced diplomats or, for that matter, military people who opposed the insane, criminal and monstrous invasion of Iraq. But, you see, there were, and they just didn't want to admit it. So, they brought on these activist actors to imply, "Who else but these leftist actors would oppose our kick-ass war?"
But, I don't recall there being any debate with anybody over the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. That war wasn't even debated with actors. George W. Bush said that Osama bin laden was behind 9/11, and he demanded that the Taliban turn him over. He provided no evidence- to us or to them. And even though they offered to turn bin laden over to a third country for trial, where presumably, we could have presented our evidence, the megalomaniac, and really just plain maniac Bush crossed the ocean to launch his war that is still going on to this day.
That George W. Bush walks around a free man today is amazing. We put people in prison for killing just one person. We put people to death for killing just one person. His death toll is over a million people easily.
The point is that we live in an Orwellian world. Political correctness has run amok to a nightmarish degree. Why do I say nighmarish? Because there are other countries left to decimate, I mean, liberate; that's why. Obama took care of Libya the American way, but there is still Syria. We have already killed thousands in Syria, but our blood thirst has yet to be quenched over there. And what about Iran? Don't you find it bizarre that the one nation that actually dropped nuclear weapons on two population centers in Japan gets to threaten war to another nation over its nuclear technology, even though that nation has never attacked or threatened to attack anyone? The only war that Iran has been involved in, in the modern era, is the Iraq/Iran War, which was started by Saddam Hussein at our behest. He attacked Iran; not vice versa.
The American culture is dying. Hey, when rational thought is disappearing, being replaced by mindless talking points, such as citing something that happened in 1988 to justify starting a war in 2003, it means the rationality of your culture is gone. I don't know if it can be brought back, but I do think the lives of the people who are next up to be killed by us ought to be saved. So, when the next big drive for the next big war revs up, I am going to scream bloody murder. That's a promise.
For example, on television, radio, and all mainstream magazines and newspapers, antivaxxers are given no voice. And if a celebrity becomes an antivaxxer, his career is in jeopardy, such as Rob Schneider from Saturday Night Live. He makes statements that are true, such as, "The idea that vaccines don’t injure people is a fallacy. Two billion dollars have been paid out to people who have been vaccine injured or killed in the United States. This is a real thing." He might have added that that two billion dollars came from U.S. taxpayers because that's the law: that you can't sue a pharmaceutical company for vaccine damage or death; you can only sue the government.
But, let's move on. Global warming is another thing that can't be debated. Here we are having the coldest March ever in Texas, at least since I've lived in Texas, and I've lived here since 1978. There are many respected scientists who not only do not believe in man-made global warming- they don't believe in global warming, period. They think it's global cooling that's on the menu. So, why not have a television debate between a climatologist who believes in global warming versus one who believes in global cooling? Sounds interesting, don't you think? Sorry, it ain't going to happen. It's global warming 24/7/365.
Obviously, 9/11 is off limits to debate. Even though there is an organization of 3000+ architects and engineers who say that the Building 7 could not have collapsed from "office fires" as NIST said, you don't hear a word about it. The 9/11 truth movement is huge, and it is world-wide. But, you don't hear a word about it in the mainstream media.
And naturally, another example that is appropriate for me to point out is the JFK truth movement in defense of Lee Harvey Oswald. You would think from the mainstream media that not one American doubts that Oswald did it. According to them, some Americans think he acted alone while others think he was part of a conspiracy, but nobody doubts that he shot JFK. But, the truth is that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository during the shooting, and we have a photograph of him there. There is NO CHANCE that he shot Kennedy.
But none of these examples are what I really want to talk about. What I really want to talk about is the absence of debate about the ugliest topic of all: WAR. That is another controversy that has been banned.
Return with me now to 2002--2003 in the run-up to the U.S. invasion and decimation of Iraq. There was public discussion of it, such as Bill O'Reilly calling for changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" because the French were dragging their feet about supporting the war. But, freedom fries, Bill? Killing an Iraqi, whether he was a civilian or some 19 year old inductee in the Iraqi Army was not going to free him- unless you think that life itself is a burden from which we should all be freed. According to Johns Hopkins University researchers, the U.S. killed 650,000 Iraqis by 2006. That's just 3 years. The total number of Iraqis we have killed or gotten killed is surely over a million. But, how about them freedom fries, Bill?
So, as the mainstream media was fanning the flames for war, there was a lot of discussion of it, but who did they bring on to argue for peace? And I mean to debate with pundits, generals, think tank blowhards, etc. They brought on actors. And don't get me wrong, I have great respect for actors. They are very interesting; very diverse; and very multi-talented. Mike Farrell and Janeane Garofalo were repeatedly brought on to represent the peaceniks. And they did fine. They held their own. They did what they could to try to stop the insanity, but to no avail. But, my point is that by bringing on actors, the media implied that there were no professors, no historians, no credentialed academics, researchers, and experienced diplomats or, for that matter, military people who opposed the insane, criminal and monstrous invasion of Iraq. But, you see, there were, and they just didn't want to admit it. So, they brought on these activist actors to imply, "Who else but these leftist actors would oppose our kick-ass war?"
But, I don't recall there being any debate with anybody over the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. That war wasn't even debated with actors. George W. Bush said that Osama bin laden was behind 9/11, and he demanded that the Taliban turn him over. He provided no evidence- to us or to them. And even though they offered to turn bin laden over to a third country for trial, where presumably, we could have presented our evidence, the megalomaniac, and really just plain maniac Bush crossed the ocean to launch his war that is still going on to this day.
That George W. Bush walks around a free man today is amazing. We put people in prison for killing just one person. We put people to death for killing just one person. His death toll is over a million people easily.
The point is that we live in an Orwellian world. Political correctness has run amok to a nightmarish degree. Why do I say nighmarish? Because there are other countries left to decimate, I mean, liberate; that's why. Obama took care of Libya the American way, but there is still Syria. We have already killed thousands in Syria, but our blood thirst has yet to be quenched over there. And what about Iran? Don't you find it bizarre that the one nation that actually dropped nuclear weapons on two population centers in Japan gets to threaten war to another nation over its nuclear technology, even though that nation has never attacked or threatened to attack anyone? The only war that Iran has been involved in, in the modern era, is the Iraq/Iran War, which was started by Saddam Hussein at our behest. He attacked Iran; not vice versa.
The American culture is dying. Hey, when rational thought is disappearing, being replaced by mindless talking points, such as citing something that happened in 1988 to justify starting a war in 2003, it means the rationality of your culture is gone. I don't know if it can be brought back, but I do think the lives of the people who are next up to be killed by us ought to be saved. So, when the next big drive for the next big war revs up, I am going to scream bloody murder. That's a promise.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
You know that My Stretch of Texas Ground is about Mujahideen warriors who track a U.S. Senator to a small town in Texas in order to kill him. But, along the way, there are some statistics that arise concerning child deaths in Afghanistan. We learn that 923 Afghan children died in 2016 and that it was almost as many in 2017 at 861. I didn't make those figures up. They are what the U.N. reported. And, after citing those numbers, the lead warrior Abdul Latif Hassan asks, "How many will it be this year?" referring to 2018. This is the actor Junes Zahdi asking it.
Well, it was July 2018 that we were filming, so the year wasn't over yet, and the dying wasn't done yet. But now, the U.N. numbers are in, and I regret to say that the child death toll in Afghanistan in 2018 rose to a new all-time record of 927 children killed. And, the total civilian death toll also rose to a new all-time record of 3804 civilian deaths in 2018.
It is my fervent hope and prayer that My Stretch of Texas Ground helps to end the war in Afghanistan.
Well, it was July 2018 that we were filming, so the year wasn't over yet, and the dying wasn't done yet. But now, the U.N. numbers are in, and I regret to say that the child death toll in Afghanistan in 2018 rose to a new all-time record of 927 children killed. And, the total civilian death toll also rose to a new all-time record of 3804 civilian deaths in 2018.
It is my fervent hope and prayer that My Stretch of Texas Ground helps to end the war in Afghanistan.
Friday, March 22, 2019
These are the two images furnished to show what the forensic anthropologists compared. Note that they are both flipped images, mirror images.
The image of Lovelady on the left had the notation "circa 1959-1963" but what was that supposed to mean? That that is how he looked from 1959 to 1963? The truth is that that was taken before 1959, and Lovelady looked nothing like that in 1963. Here he is the winter of 1964, just a few months after the assassination, as taken by Mark Lane. You can see that Lovelady was practically bald and had protruding ears.
But, the main point I want to make is that a photograph is a 2 dimensional rendering of a 3 dimensional object, and the angle and the distance from which it's taken affect the result. They claimed to take measurements, and remember what it means, to use a measuring stick of some kind to determine distance, but from photographs? It is ridiculous to do that with photographs.
Let's see what an honest comparison would have looked like:
Doorman's hairline doesn't match either of them. It matches the 1957 photo of Lovelady, but that's only because they moved it over.
They plopped Lovelady's crown over on top of Oswald. This is what Doorman must have looked like before they altered him.
Be aware that that was done in 1963 by the photo altering team that the CIA had, and it was probably done at Jaggars- Chiles- Stovall, where Oswald used to work. You know that that photo lab wasn't catering to the public because what photo lab would call itself that if they were? U.S. intelligence and U.S Military provided all the business to Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. And it means that they must have had the so-called "wedding" photo of Lovelady in 1963. They call it the wedding photo but there is no chance that it was Lovelady's wedding because he didn't get married until 1961, and he was obviously much younger in the picture. So, they had the wedding photo, but they never made it public in 1963, nor did they submit it to the Warren Commission. But, the HSCA went public with it in 1979. But, the disturbing thing is that Lovelady was alive, and they could have brought him in. They could have asked him to provide photos of himself from the time of the assassination. If nothing else, he surely must have had photos from his 1961 wedding. But though they coerced many people to come in and speak to them, Lovelady wasn't one of them. Then, when you consider that top HSCA attorney, Ken Brooten, actually resigned in order to represent Lovelady, the whole thing goes from the ridiculous to the surreal.
Then the kicker is that Lovelady died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 41 right before the HSCA Final Report came out. Here is an article describing the CIA's use of heart attack mimicking drugs to accomplish assassinations.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/644439/CIA-heart-attack-gun-Mary-Embree-Frank-Church-William-Colby
Here's another:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382
And another:
http://wariscrime.com/new/cia-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/
The image of Lovelady on the left had the notation "circa 1959-1963" but what was that supposed to mean? That that is how he looked from 1959 to 1963? The truth is that that was taken before 1959, and Lovelady looked nothing like that in 1963. Here he is the winter of 1964, just a few months after the assassination, as taken by Mark Lane. You can see that Lovelady was practically bald and had protruding ears.
Then the kicker is that Lovelady died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 41 right before the HSCA Final Report came out. Here is an article describing the CIA's use of heart attack mimicking drugs to accomplish assassinations.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/644439/CIA-heart-attack-gun-Mary-Embree-Frank-Church-William-Colby
Here's another:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382
And another:
http://wariscrime.com/new/cia-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)