Ralph Cinque Terrorists practice terrorism essentially as a way of waging war. It's a cheap, low-tech way of waging war. But, it's almost always shadowy groups that do it, groups that don't have an address. Iran has an address. And Iran is engaged in another business, the oil business. They want to sell oil to as many countries in the world as they can. And they know that countries do not want to buy oil from terrorists. So, Iran knows that practicing terrorism would severely hurt or destroy their oil business. And what benefits would Iran get from practicing terrorism? What's the plus side to them? Do you really think that just for the satisfaction of killing innocent people that they would jeopardize their oil trade? Why does anyone believe U.S. lies that Iran practices and supports terrorism? It is the same U.S. that told us that Saddam Hussein was harboring WMDs and buying yellow cake from Niger,etc. Why do you believe U.S. lies?

I know this is Memorial Day weekend, a time when Americans want to be patriotic, but here are at the brink of war again, this time with Iran, and I really believe that there could be nothing worse right now than to have another war. So, I am asking you to look back with me at some facts of history. I want you to see that there has been an aggressive streak in U.S. Military culture that goes back 175 years. 

The Mexican-American War was a land grab, and you know what we got: California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and much more, including parts of Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming. All of that was previously Mexico. Can you imagine? The war was provoked by a border skirmish in which they said we infringed, and we said they did. Mexico ended up losing 55% of its territory. Can you imagine? Future President Ulysses Grant called the was "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker one." 

Hawaii we just plain stole. Queen Liliulokalini of Kingdom of Hawaii was told that we can do this the easy way or the hard way, but, like it not, you are becoming part of the United States of America. And she went along with it just to save Hawaiian lives. 

The Spanish-American War was also a land grab, and you know about all the territories we got from it in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Philippines. And it is widely recognized today by military historians, ship experts, and others that Spain did not blow up the Maine. Most say that it was a spontaneous explosion due to internal conditions on the boat and not an act of sabotage. I don't have the knowledge to have an opinion about that, but I have no trouble believing that Spain didn't do it. 

World War 1: Woodrow was itching to get into it. The Germans took out full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers saying that they had no quarrel with us and did not want war with us, but if we sent munitions to Britain, that they'd have to blow up whatever ship they were on. Wilson deliberately had the Luistania stocked with munitions bound for England in the hope that Germany would fulfill its promise, and they did. The Germans should have been smart and ignored it. But, the point is that it was a direct provocation by Wilson designed to whip up support among the American public to enter World War 1. And really, it was such a catastrophe for humankind because there was no reason for any of it. One guy gets killed in Sarajevo, and the whole world goes to war? At the end of the day, we're all just human beings. No one is better than any one else. His life was no more valuable and no more important than any one else's. But because of him, tens of millions of people had to die? It's insane. And Woodrow Wilson? That stuffy bookworm from Princeton was just itching to play Commander in Chief. 

World War 2: I don't claim that war with Hitler could have been avoided because even before he invaded Poland in 1939, he had already annexed Austria and most of Czechoslovakia. So, he was on a tear. But, I do believe very strongly that war between the United States and Japan could have been avoided. We were already practicing economic warfare against them, ordering countries not to sell them oil, which is the reverse of today where we are ordering countries not to buy oil from Iran. We froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. We demanded that they liberate all their territories in the Pacific outside of Japan, even though we weren't liberating ours or asking others to. And about Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt deliberately moved the 6th Fleet from San Pedro Harbor to Pearl Harbor just to provoke the Japanese to attack. Read: Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett. 

The Korean War: My point man on that is Professor John Quigley of UC Berkeley who, in Ruses for War, makes the case that South Korea (our proxies) attacked North Korea, and not vice versa. He devotes the first 100 pages of the book to arguing that, and it's convincing. And Quigley isn't the only one who says it. Professor Mark Caprio of Rikkyo University in Tokyo says the same thing. Three million people died in the Korean War. 

With the Vietnam War, LBJ lied us into it over the Gulf of Tonkin incident where an engagement was conjured up out of thin air. The truth was the  USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy were involved in aggressive intelligence gathering to support the South Vietnamese who were bombarding the North, and after a brief engagement that resulted in no harm or casualties to either vessel, we claimed there was another attack by the North Vietnamese in international waters which never occurred. So, Johnson lied us into a war that got 58,000 Americans killed and over 3 million Southeast Asians. 

So, my question is: Why is the Johnson Space Center in Houston still called the Johnson Space Center? 

Invading Afghanistan was based on our presumed right to acquire Osama bin laden for planning the 9/11 attacks. I look to the 3000+ architects and engineers who say that the 9/11 towers were imploded, which OBL could not have done. But, I say that even if he had done it, that it wasn't right to start a war over one guy which has raged on now for 18 years, with no end in sight, and which has killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans and over two thousand Americans.  And believe me, all the hoopla about the recent negotiations with the Taliban is just spin. The Taliban will never recognize, accept, or work with the current Afghan government. They have made that crystal clear. So, unless you think the U.S. is going to renounce the current Afghan government, there is no reason to think that a peaceful settlement is anywhere in reach, and I say that with regret. 

Invading Iraq, of course, was based on lies. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, etc. The 12,000 page document he submitted to the UN, which Colin Powell denounced to the world, was essentially true. Saddam was a bad guy; I'm no fan of him or any other strong arm dictator. But if you asked some Iraqi widow who besides losing her husband also lost her sons in the war whether she'd put up with Saddam again if she could have her family back, I'm sure she'd tell you that she'd put up with him for a thousand years. 

Look, this Memorial Day, instead of the usual fanfare, how about if we all really try to prevent another unnecessary war? This is the situation: This is Iran, and these are all the U.S. military installations surrounding Iran: 

I am pretty sure they don't want a war with us. I am pretty sure that they are not a threat to us, that we don't need to have a war to prevent them from hurting us. We have let our political and military leaders, and our media, manipulate us into unnecessary wars many, many times. Could we please not do it again? Could we please just say no this time? ...as in "Hell No! We won't go!" 

Starting a war is always a crime. There is never a valid reason to start one. Take World War 1, which was precipitated by the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. The war resulting from his death got 37 million people killed, which includes not only combat deaths and traumatic deaths to civilians, but also deaths from war-born diseases. 

But wait. World War 2 was really just a resumption of World
War 1 after a 20 year reprieve. Estimates of total deaths in World War 2 range from 70 to 85 million. So, we are looking at over 100 million people dead from both wars, and that is equual to the entire population of the United States at the time of World War 1. 

Of course, many have said that the killing of the Archduke was really just the pretext for the war, that powerful men, particularly from Britain, wanted war with Germany any way they could get it. 

And maybe they would have gotten it anyway.  But, once you start rewriting history, you really don't know; all bets are off. I'd like to think that World War 1 could have been avoided. 

And look at the parallels to 2001 when George W. Bush started a war over the acquisition of one man, Osama bin laden. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed in that war, as have over 2000 Americans.  The war rages on to this day. According to the Taliban, on May 19, 6 women and children were killed in Helmand province, and 10 more were wounded. 

In 2001, the Taliban offered to turn Osama bin laden over to a third country for trial, but that wasn't good enough for George W. Bush. He was determined to have a war.  But, why didn't he think about World War 1? Well, that's probably too much to ask, but why didn't someone in his staff point it out to him? - that if you start a war over one guy, you are going to get hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. And in this case, there wasn't even an arrest warrant for bin laden, nor was there any evidence showing that he was responsible for 9/11. It wasn't until months later, during the fighting, that supposedly a video tape turned up at a remote house somewhere in Afghanistan showing OBL talking about planning 9/11. Except, it wasn't even bin laden; it was some fat guy.

The guy on the right is the bin laden from the tape, but by 2001, OBL was extremely sick with kidney failure, Marfan's syndrome, hepatitis, and diabetes, and he was wasting. There is no way that fat-faced guy was bin laden. And yet, that tape is the only evidence ever put forward that OBL was responsible for 9/11. 

Of course, you probably realize that I don't think bin laden was involved in 9/11. But, even if he was involved in 9/11, I still don't think it was justified to start a war. I will tell you very honestly that I don't think it is ever justified to start a war. 

And the amazing thing is that these bastards never learn. It's going on again right now with Trump, all the saber-rattling over Iran. Iran has never once said anything about wanting a war with the United States. What is the supposed justification for going to war with them? It's because the Ayatollahs who run Iran supposedly support terrorism. But, that charge is based entirely on the fact that Iran has  given money to Hamas and Hezbollah.  But, they are both LEGAL political parties in Gaza and Lebanon, and they both conduct vast social welfare programs, distributing food and medicine to the poor, and there are a lot of poor. That's what Iran says they contribute to. 

Iran would have to be insane to be involved in terrorism. That's because Iran depends on selling oil to the world, and they know that countries do not want to buy oil from terrorists. So, why would Iran support terrorism? What's in it for them? How could they be so stupid and so self-destructive? I don't think they are. I think Donald Trump is the one who is stupid, and John Bolton is just plain evil. He belongs in a straitjacket. To this day, he defends the decimation Iraq. "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy anyway (even without WMDs) and aren't the Iraqi people better off without him?" Well, not the dead Iraqi people, nor the loved ones of the dead Iraqi people either. Ask some Iraqi widow if she could have her dead husband back but have to put up with Saddam Hussein for a thousand years, and see what answer you get. But, the John Boltons of this world never think about what is precious to people like her. 

So, what is going to happen? I don't know. We have a mental midget in the White House who is being manipulated by people like Bolton and Pompeo. The U.S. media is as pro-war as ever. They aren't denouncing the war talk. 

The United States couldn't beat the Taliban in 18 years, and now we are pleading with them to negotiate with us. Do you have any idea how much stronger Iran is militarily then the Taliban? What would a war with Iran look like? No doubt it would start with Shock and Awe, but that would not be easy because unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has ample defenses to air attack, and they would use them. And, what would follow? A ground invasion of Iran? Oh My God... And here's the ultimate irony: just imagine if Trump was driven to use nuclear weapons against Iran? How did the United States, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and to use them against civilian population centers, get to be the world's cop concerning nuclear weapons? 

I say that it is NEVER right to start a war, and it is never right to threaten to start a war. It is monstrous to even think about starting a war. War is the worst thing there is, and the worst thing there possibly could be, and it is never, ever justified to start a war. Anyone who starts a war is a frickin' monster. 

This video of Oswald in the hallway is very illuminating. He is brought into the hallway through a door, the door to the elevator room. You see, they had two elevators, a public one which only went as high as the 3rd floor, which is the floor they're on, and a private one, exclusive to the PD, which went up to the 4th and 5th floors where the jail was. 

So, they had just brought Oswald down from his 5th floor jail cell for his Saturday evening interrogation in Fritz' office on the 3rd floor. As you came out of the elevator room, it was just a short walk down the hallway to the Homicide Bureau, where Fritz' office was, and that's what they're doing. 

So, Oswald enters the hallway of the 3rd floor, and what does he do? He walks up to someone to engage in conversation. 

Do you realize how unusual that is? Oswald had to know the guy. He didn't just walk up to a stranger. But, who could he have known in this situation? 

There is only one possibility: one of his interrogators. He certainly didn't walk up to talk to a reporter or a cameraman. It had to be one of his interrogators, someone he got to know well enough to engage in casual conversation with. But, who could he have gotten to know well enough? There were only two men who attended all of Oswald's interrogations: one of them was Will Fritz, and the guy he walked up to talk to wasn't Fritz. The other was James Bookhout. 

And be aware that there is a chance that Oswald knew Bookhout from before the assassination. The reason I say that is because Oswald definitely knew Hosty from before the assassination. Hosty's name and address were found in Oswald's address book. And you know the story about Oswald going to the Dallas FBI to speak to Hosty and then leaving a note for him. So, Oswald must have known Hosty, and therefore, he may have known Bookhout as well since Hosty and Bookhout both worked in the Dallas office of the FBI and often worked together. 

There is no one else but James Bookhout that Oswald could have gotten to know well enough to feel comfortable enough to go up to in the hallway to continue talking to. So, on the left, this has to be James Bookhout to whom Oswald is talking. 

And keep in mind that we already knew that Bookhout was short because Hosty said that Bookhout had to stand on a pedestal in the hallway (not on this occasion) to look for him (Hosty). That was right before the first interrogation. Also, Bookhout told the WC that he watched the motorcade on Main Street but he never saw JFK because there were people were in front of him. Obviously, if he was tall that would not have been a problem. 

So, what did Oswald go up and say to Bookhout? He asked him a question: "So, what do you have against Broby?" 

Now, keep in mind that with audio, as with video, it could easily have been altered. They could have dubbed in another word to replace one they didn't want us to hear. For instance, did he really say Broby? I don't know who that could have referred to, and who knows, maybe it's bogus. But regardless, we definitely know that Oswald went up to Bookhout and asked him what he had against somebody. And it must have been the continuation of a previous conversation in which Bookhout expressed some disdain for someone. 

So, what I'm guessing is that Oswald may have cited someone who would vouch for him, and Bookhout may have disparaged the guy. And Oswald was following up on that. 

Now there are other weird things about this video. First: the entrance that Oswald received was surreal. You could never imagine that a double murderer could be welcomed this way. You hear guys say as Oswald emerges, "Here he is; there he is..." And there's a lilt in their voices, like they're glad to see him. What I am reminded of is Ed McMahon welcoming Johnny Carson with "Heeerrrre's Johnny." Not as kidding around as that, but in that direction, in that tone. You would think that not one person in that crowded hallway really thought that he was a double murderer. 

Now if it was that way in the hallway, and it was, then I think we should assume it was that way in the interrogation room, and maybe even more so. This was the evening before the morning that Oswald was shot and killed. The decision to do that must have been made already, and they knew they needed some cooperation from Oswald. My thesis is that they told him that they believed him that he was a government agent and not guilty of anything, and they were going to get him out of this, but they had to fake his death first to protect him from all the wannabe vigilantes. So, they may have been already buttering him up for this, hence all the friendliness. 

It ends with Oswald's voice complaining about the lack of a shower and the lack of being provided a book to read. But again, we can't be sure about the authenticity of any of that. 

So, here's the video. I have downloaded it, in case it's taken offline. 

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

I went to Walmart today and saw my favorite inspector, this 88 year old guy who walks with a walker and has an oxygen tube in his nose. But, he was watching the comings and goings at that entrance like he was guarding the White House. You couldn't get out without showing him your receipt, and if you were coming in to make a return, he had business with you as well. He's a very nice guy, but he rules that place like Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. Getting past him without being seen? Less than a snowball's chance in Hell. 

But, we are supposed to believe that Jack Ruby slipped past 29 year old Officer Roy Vaughan at the Main Street ramp of the Dallas PD. You buying that, are you? 

And not just Vaughan. But, also Lt. Pierce and the two officers with him in his squad car. And not just them and Vaughan but another officer who was no longer active on the force but was unofficially there to help Vaughan.  So, none of these officers saw Ruby as he snuck in. 

That is preposterous. It is ludicrous. It is laughable. So, what really happened? Ruby got there early.  And I mean before Vaughan's watch ever began. That's when Ruby got in.  He went down the ramp; he immediately got jumped by cops; and he was hustled up to the 5th floor. And there they told him that he shot Oswald. And that's the first he knew of it. He had no intention of shooting Oswald. He had no plan to shoot him. And he had no memory of shooting him. And even after they told him that he shot Oswald, it did nothing to jog his memory. A normal person would have said: "Fuck you, I didn't shoot anybody." But, Ruby was not a normal person. He had this strange reverence for the Dallas Police.  They were his heroes, and it was beyond anything normal. I have to wonder if he was hypnotized to feel that way about them.  You know, like Captain Marco (Frank Sinatra) in The Manchurian Candidate: "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I have ever met." 

Ruby said that he got up early that Sunday morning. And all he did before leaving his apartment was get dressed and eat breakfast. Well, he had the tv on, and he browsed the newspaper as he ate, but that didn't add much time to it. And he only lived 3 miles from the Western Union office. So, do the Math on that, and you'll realize that he got there long before 11;15. He also said that he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines that morning, plus other pills, which he didn't specify. The Karen Carlin ruse was used to get him a block away. (she disappeared afterwards; went into hiding; and assumed a new identity. It's like she went into the witness protection program.) So, how did they get him to complete the last leg of walking from WU to the police ramp? Again, it involved suggestion, and he had been given drugs that made him highly vulnerable to suggestion.  Someone, anyone may have said to him, "Why don't you walk down and see what's going on at the ramp?"  That's all it would have taken, and I mean from a complete stranger. Once he got there, they had people there who kept the push going. "Walk on down. See what's going on down there."  A little head gesture was probably added. And Ruby did it. And when he got down there, they pounced on him, and his life, the life he knew and loved, was effectively over. 

Jack Ruby did not fool anyone. He even joked about it. "Nobody knew anything. Not even me." A young, strapping 29 year old policeman did not fail to keep Ruby out. It is ludicrous to think that, and that is my main point this evening, that there is no reason for anyone to think it. And the only reason anyone accepts it is because the Almighty Leviathan State says it. But remember: the Almighty Leviathan State killed Kennedy. Therefore, you have no reason to believe anything they say, especially not something as ludicrous and preposterous as this.  

Considering what happened at the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington in recent days, I'm thinking that I got off easy being allowed to conduct my Altgens reenactment in Dealey Plaza in 2012. It was two successive weekends in November, and both times, it was bit of a spectacle. One woman even asked me for my autograph.  It definitely attracted attention and altered the usual ambiance of Dealey Plaza, and very easily, police could have said that we were disturbing the peace, holding an event on public property without a permit, etc. 

And a lot got accomplished. For instance, I proved that the image of the headless man in the doorway of the Altgens photo is bogus, that it can't possibly be real.

That's what happens when you visor your eyes with two hands. You don't blacken out your whole face. You can plainly see that the guy has a face. It looks nothing like this:

Why would anyone accept that image? And really, it's funny because, so much light was reaching the guy's face that he had to visor his eyes with his hands. And yet, his whole head is like a black hole? It's ridiculous. There is no way it could happen. The Laws of Physics and Optics say it can't happen, and those are laws that can't be broken. 

So why, at the time, and since, did anyone accept that image of a headless man? Why didn't anyone and everyone say, "No fucking way!"? The answer is: Orwellianism. 

The Altgens photo was taken by the AP, but it quickly became the evidence of the State: the Almighty Leviathan State. And when the Almighty Leviathan State tells you that a photo is legit, that it has not been subjected to criminal alteration, then that settles it: everything in it is valid, and only the most defiant anti-government resistor will question it. 

And, I admit that at the time of the assassination, and for years and decades thereafter, virtually nobody questioned the authenticity of the Altgens photo. They looked at that guy, and the freaky guy in front of him, without blinking an eye. And really, it's baffling because on November 22, 1963, somebody questioned the authenticity of a photo and said it was fraudulent. That somebody was Lee Harvey Oswald, who said that the Backyard Photo that he was shown was fake. 

So, it seems to me that everyone who believed in Oswald's innocence should have listened to him and believed him that it wasn't him in the Backyard photo. And considering that that fakery was done BEFORE the assassination, then obviously the plotters already had the means and the mindset to alter photos before the event even happened, hence, they most certainly would have been prepared to do it after the event.

So, why didn't anyone question the validity of the Altgens photo? It's because that photo was the government's photo, and if you claimed it was criminally altered, you would be, in effect, accusing the U.S. government of complicity in Kennedy's murder. 

Just think: not even James Altgens, himself, questioned the validity of the photo, even though he was a professional photographer who took and assessed photos his whole working life. Surely, he never saw anything like this before:

There is so much freaky stuff there. From left to right: the weird kid who is wearing a wool cap pulled down over his ears on a 71 degree day while levitating in the air next to his mother, who can't possibly be holding him. There is Doorman whose left shoulder is cut off. He is not leaning. You can see that his head is vertical, right? It means that he is not leaning. His left shoulder is cut off. There is an impossible relationship there between him and the man behind him, where they are both covering each other up at the same time. But, that's impossible because Doorman was in front of the other guy. So, no part of Doorman should be covered by the other guy. But, they put that other guy in there. His entire image is bogus. And why exactly would he be turned and facing the east wall of the doorway? What could he have been looking at? Then, there is the headless man whom we call Black Hole Man since his head is like a black hole in outer space. Then, there is the short, portly guy in front of him who, apparently, has 3 arms: 2 which he has folded across his chest, and a 3rd arm with which he is visoring his eyes? But, keep in mind that this close-up has been Photoshopped. It doesn't look like that in the original photo, like the one published in LIFE magazine in October 1964, which I have, which just looks like a white blotch. 

Then, there is the African-American woman with the gigantic hair. It's like she has a very high afro, but she didn't. Her hair was in a bob.

It did not look like this:

 And then there is the African-American man who consists of a face in profile and a shamrock-shaped torso with no arms. 

It says that the Black Tie Man is fake, but so is the Black Man. That's actually an image of Carl Jones that was taken by Phil Willis taken 3 hours after the assassination.

Yup, no doubt about it; that's where they got it. They just stuck it in there, probably to hide the tear in Oswald's shirt that would have given away that it was him. But, of course, it's still obviously him. Same man; same clothes. 

But, the point is that that freaky doorway should have caused alarm bells to go off in everyone's head. But, it would have been like telling the Emperor that he wore no clothes. 

The Altgens Family

Da nah nah nah.

Da nah nah nah.

Da nah nah nah; Da nah nah nah; Da nah nah nah.

They're creepy and they're kooky, 

Mysterious and spooky, 

They're all together ooky, 

The Altgens Family. 

Their doorway's a museum 

When people come to see 'em 

They really are a scree'um 

The Altgens Family. 

Neat.

Sweet.

Petite.

So get a witches shawl on 

A broomstick you can crawl on 

We're gonna pay a call on 

The Altgens Family.

Their names are still debated,

Black Hole and Obfuscated,

Their histories are related,

The Altgens Family.

See Oswald is the Doorman,

He doesn't have a prayer, Man,

Lovelady's got no hair, Man,

The Altgens Family

Lee.

Shel-ly'.

Bil-ly'.

Lee's innocent, you dodo,

Scan Altgens' altered photo

For characters we all know,

The Altgens Family.

    

  

This is a great song by Harold Arlen and Ira Gershwin, written for Judy Garland’s 1954 comeback movie A Star Is Born. In which her performance of The Man That Got Away has been called the greatest vocal performance in film history. It is, for sure, a masterpiece. Frank Sinatra recorded it as The Gal That Got Away, and it is magnificent too. I very much wanted to do this song, but I knew that my piano playing could never do it justice. Plus, when you sing it, you have to give it your all. It takes everything you’ve got. So, I found an instrumental version of it online and I just sang it, which was a new experience for me. Also, I made it The Gal WHO Got Away because it’s much easier to go from “gal” to “who” than “gal” to “that.” So here now, in honor of Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Harold Arlen, and Ira Gershwin is The Gal Who Got Away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2nFZAV35AM&feature=youtu.be

This very sweet song was written in 1928 by George Gershwin, with lyrics by his brother Ira, and they gave it to Ginger Rogers to sing in their 1930 Broadway musical Girl Crazy. Fred Astaire wasn't in it, but they hired him to choreograph the dancing that Ginger did to the song, and that was before the historic teaming of Astaire and Rogers as a dance couple. Billie Holiday's 1944 recording of the song was inducted in the Grammy Hall of Fame in 2005.  I tell you, this song gets to me every time. 

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

The Jackson photo shows "Ruby" pulling the trigger with his middle finger. Supposedly, that was because his index finger was partially amputated. However, it was his left index finger that was partially amputated. Therefore, the story is that "Ruby" shot with his middle finger for no reason at all. You buying that?

I figure that they got confused; that they knew about the partial amputation and assumed it was on his right hand. They assumed wrong. And, this is ridiculous because not only does it have "Ruby" firing with his middle finger, which is something that nobody would do, not on purpose and not by mistake, but it leaves his right index finger up against the discharge space behind the cylinder. Remember, there are hot gases that explode out of that space, and you wouldn't want your finger there. The chances of anyone with an intact hand shooting a gun this way are zero. Absolute zero. This is just another piece of stupidity that made it into the lie about how Oswald got killed. He was NOT shot by Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby was not even in the garage at the time. Jack Ruby, who got there earlier, was already sequestered up on the 5th floor, and they brought him down later and weaved him into the story. The guy wielding the gun in the image above was FBI Agent James Bookhout, pretending to be Ruby. 

Paul Popa is leaving tomorrow, and we recorded one last song, a favorite of both of ours, Moondance by Van Morrison, the 1970 smash which turned him into an international superstar and deservedly so. 

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

Ralph Cinque Thank you, Jimmy Hardy. It's like a breath of fresh air to see that. And really, it's like holding up the cross to Dracula. It fights all the evil, all at once. It stands up to all of it; all the evil lies. 

The genius of Willie Nelson manifests in this song. It is so emotional. It's actually very sad, but in a good way. It seems to purge people to hear it. There is genius in the music and the lyrics, which are so visual. I tell you, the day we lose Willie Nelson will be the day the music died. This was difficult for me to sing, but Paul played the guitar beautifully and captured all the feeling of the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxj6RhKvX7s&feature=youtu.be

The Tale of an Idiot

Bill Evans: I do believe that Oswald was in the lunch room both before and after the shooting. 

Ralph Cinque: How could Oswald have been in the lunch room before, after, (and presumably) during the shooting, when he was just reaching the lunch room when Baker saw him? 

Baker saw Oswald passing through the vestibule to enter the lunch room. It means that Oswald was just getting to the lunch room when Baker saw him. And that means that he wasn't there a minute before. 

How can a person be JUST ARRIVING at a place they already were? If he was just getting there, then he wasn't there a minute before.

Now, I realize that it is physically and theoretically possible that he was there, and then he left, and then he came back. But, no one has the right to assume it. It's so unlikely and so absent from the evidence that it would be arbitrary and capricious to assume it. 

And there is this 14th century monk named Occam, Heaven help us, who will slit your throat if you dare propose such a thing.

So, Oswald was JUST GETTING to the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker first saw him, and that means that he was not there a minute before. 

So, at 12:30 sharp, if Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor; wasn't in the 1st floor lunch room; and wasn't in the 2nd floor lunch room, there is no place else he could have been but the doorway- unless you think he was in the crapper. But, Occam won't take kindly to that either. 

Paul Popa is back, and we have done a classic song by Irving Berlin: A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody. It was written in 1919 for the Ziegfield Follies, and it would come on when the chorus girls came out strutting and dancing. But, it went on to become the theme song for the Miss America Beauty Pageant, all the way until 1955. That's when they replaced it with the current theme song. But, in my humble opinion, that song isn't nearly as good as Berlin's. His song is really classy. In fact, at the historic Experiment in Modern Music Concert in New York City in 1924 which featured Paul Whiteman's Jazz Band, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue was introduced to the world, and then it was followed by a semi-symphonic version of A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H1iL2PoBEg&feature=youtu.be

What is the difference between Abdul Ghani Baradar and Julian Assange? The difference is that they are both enemies of the U.S., but Baradar we negotiate with while Assange we torture. (so says a retired U.S. Lt. Colonel) 

, 

Apparently, Baradar can be forgiven for his offenses, but Assange cannot. 

Baradar is the leader of the Taliban, and he is now sitting at negotiations with U.S. reps, looking to end the war and return the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Assange is sitting in a British jail awaiting extradition to the U.S. and is, reportedly, being tortured. You need to read this: 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/karen-kwiatkowski/pray-and-weep/ 

It's an extreme difference, don't you think? So, what did each of them do? Well, the Taliban is accused of killing people- not as many as the U.S. has killed- not even close. But, they have targeted and killed U.S. soldiers and Afghan government soldiers and officials in Afghanistan, and they continue to do so, although they deny ever targeting civilians and point to many civilian killings by the U.S., including women and children. Meanwhile, Assange hasn't killed anybody. But, he did report on killings, civilian killings, by the U.S. in Iraq. 

But, here is the point: right now, at this moment, the U.S. is seeking assurances from Baradar that the Taliban won't let terrorist groups operate in Afghanistan, that they won't do as they previously did, letting Osama bin laden have safe haven in their country. But, why don't they make the same offer to Assange? If he gives assurances that he won't divulge any more U.S. government secrets, are they going to let him go? 

Not a chance. Assange is probably facing life imprisonment. And it probably will involve very harsh treatment and conditions, especially if Karen Kwiatkowski is right that U.S. interrogators are already torturing him at a British prison. 

So, how can the U.S. negotiate with the leader of a militant group that the U.S., until recently, said was terrorist? Bush and Obama both frequently referred to the Taliban as terrorist, and Trump did too, until recently.  Now, he just refers to them as "the other side." 

So, this is an about-face for the U.S. government, and apparently, it was ordered by Trump. And there is a precedent for it: the Paris Peace Accords, which began in 1968 and were signed in 1973, which ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and essentially turned the country over to the North Vietnamese.

But, this time, we are seeking a merger between the Taliban and the current Afghan government, but the chances of it are worse than that the North Vietnamese government were going to merge with the South. 

So, what is likely to happen? What is likely to happen is that the Afghanistan War is going to end like the Vietnam War, with the U.S. losing. We have never admitted losing the Vietnam War, but does anybody doubt that we did? And I don't think the U.S. government under Trump minds losing, so long as they don't have to admit it. The only question is: how many more years will have to go by and how many more people will have to die before we get the hell out of there?  

• 

  Scott Kaiser Well, can't argue with you there, I'm not sure either why Shelley would've told Oswald to take off to the lunchroom, but of course unlike you, I didn't get a chance to hear Shelley tell Oswald that, you know, to take off, thanks for clearing that up!

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 30m
• 

  Ralph Cinque We don't hear anyone tell Oswald to go to the theater, yet, we assume that someone told him to. It's inconceivable that after what just happened that he would shrug his shoulders and go take in a movie just for fun. He had to have been guided there to the theater. And the same is true of his going to the lunch room. You see: unlike you, the plotters weren't stupid. They knew beforehand that they needed to get Oswald to a place that was accessible from the 6th floor.  Obviously, if he was watching the motorcade from Houston Street, they were never going to be able to claim that he did it. The 2nd floor lunch room was actually a good place to have him spotted. They certainly were not going to leave it to chance. They weren't going to just let him go anywhere he wanted. That could have easily spoiled everything. I'm sure he was monitored constantly. I'm sure they had someone at every exit to stop him from leaving, and it was Shelley at the front entrance.  And it's possible that he was told not to leave the building, and it may be that he didn't regard going out the door and standing on the landing to violate that. He wasn't leaving the building and going anywhere, so he may have figured, no harm/no foul. But, I'm sure they wish he hadn't done it.