Monday, December 16, 2019

I would like to begin talking about the relevance and ramifications if Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was assassinated. But first, I'll make one more point in the circumstantial case I have been building about this. And that is: the claim that he "volunteered" for the mission. It was top secret. The word "secret " is so associated with the project that if you do a search for it, you'll find it repeated everywhere that  it was a  "secret" drone program.  It was so secret that they immediately declared the details about his death to be classified. They wouldn't even give them to his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.  

But, if it was so secret, then how did JPK Jr. know about it? How could he have volunteered for it if it was secret?  If it was secret, then they didn't put an announcement up on the barrack bulletin board seeking volunteers. It means that somebody must have gone to him, in secret, and asked him to volunteer. He must have been recruited. 

But, why would they need him? All they needed was for someone to take off; to get the plane in the sky. And not even that high in the sky: 2000 feet. Then, he just had to push the button to turn control over to the remote operators and enjoy the ride until it was time to bail. So, any pilot capable of flying the plane could have done it. 

They knew that he had completed his service. They knew that he was going home. He may have already been packed. There was absolutely nothing that made him indispensable. 

They did a total of about 25 of those Aphrodite missions, and his was the only the one that blew up. And get this: THEY KEPT DOING THEM RIGHT AWAY. Even though they didn't resolve what went wrong on his flight, they just kept doing them. 

OK, let's start talking about the ramifications if he was murdered. It would mean that the mind-set that "we need to kill Kennedys" goes back two decades before the JFK assassination.  And it has a direct bearing on the JFK assassination. Why? Because of Umbrella Man. 

You can see him in the Willis photo. 

There are other images of him, including in the Zapruder film. So why was this guy standing under an open umbrella on a warm, sunny afternoon? A man came forward claiming to be him: Louis Steven Witt. And remember that he didn't just have the umbrella, he suddenly raised it high above his head and started spinning it around over his head. Who do you figure he was signalling? That is to say: which shooter or shooters do you think he was signalling? Any ideas? 

Of course, that's not the official story. The official story, as per his testimony to the HSCA in 1978, was that he was sending a message to Kennedy, and not about anything that Kennedy had done, but rather, for what his father had done. You know what I'm talking about. Don't you? Doesn't everybody know by now that that fascist-loving Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was an anti-Semite who adored Hitler and Nazism? According to Witt (and by the way, he lived all the way to 2014) the umbrella represented Neville Chamberlain's umbrella, the umbrella he had with him when he met with Hitler in Munich in 1938 and conceded to him the Sudetenland.

For those who are not up on their WW2 history, the Sudetenland was part of the new country of Czechoslovakia which was formed after World War 1. But, it was given to Czechoslovakia by ripping it out of Germany.  It was German-speaking Germans who lived there. And, as you might imagine, there was a lot of hostility between the Czechs and the Germans, and those Sudeten Germans very much wanted to go back to being Germany. They pleaded with Hitler to rescue them. And even though it violated the Versailles Treaty, there were plenty of people in the West who agreed that the Sudetenland really should go back to Germany, saying that it was only right, for example, George Bernard Shaw. In his 14 points, Woodrow Wilson called for giving Alcase-Lorraine back to France because it had been taken from France by Germany after the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870s, which Germany won. But, that was the only dismembering of Germany that Wilson endorsed. But, Wilson wasn't even a player at Versailles. As one British diplomat put it, "Even Almighty God only had 10 points."

But, let's get back to November 22, 1963. We are supposed to believe that on that day, a generation later, that someone in Dallas, Texas, who happened to be born in Rockport, Texas, which is a charming little town on the Gulf Coast that I have been to several times, was still fuming about the "appeasement" of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain in 1938? And he was taking it out on JFK? We are supposed to believe that, are we? 

Well, Tink Thompson believes it.  He said that it's so wacky that it has to be true, and that's why he accepts it as true.

But, here's the thing, Tink: If you want to accept that some guy went there to protest, to JFK, his father's appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, even though that war was long over and National Socialism had been defeated, and we had a new enemy, the Soviet Union, fine. But, how did he wind up right-smack-dab in the Kill Zone?

The distance from Love Field to the Trade Mart was just about exactly 10 miles. We're talking about a man going to watch a motorcade where he occupies what? Two square feet? And, he just happened, by chance, to pick this tiny little spot in the road where the shooting went down? Mathematically, what are the odds of that that this man, who had on his mind the intention of protesting JFK's father's behavior in 1938, that he should just happen to pick the Kill Zone? 

I'll have more to say about that, but it's getting late. I have a retreat guest coming in the morning, and I have to get to bed. But, the last point I want to make is about the Kill Zone. I am convinced now that they absolutely did NOT want to kill JFK in upper Dealey Plaza. It's not that they missed. They could have easily shot him on Houston Street. They could have easily shot him at the intersection when the limo, ever so slowly, made that 120 degree horseshoe turn, which was a violation of Secret Service protocol. They first hit him in the back, and it was right here.

I don't think they were aiming for his head and hit him in the back by mistake. I think they were aiming for his back. And I think the shallowness and the minimal damage from the shot were deliberate too. They didn't want the scene to go down in upper Dealey Plaza. They wanted to wait until the limo got down the hill to the grassy area. Why? Because it was unpopulated. They didn't want hundreds of eyes looking at the shooting up close. Look at the abrupt change in population density from upper to lower Dealey Plaza. They must have done their best to keep people out. They wanted a few because if there were none, that would have been suspicious. And it does make me wonder about the few who were there. For instance, Babushka Lady was there, and I am absolutely certain that she was sent by the plotters to record the shooting with her camera. She was NOT Beverly Oliver. The Babushka Lady was, obviously, a frumpy, middle-aged woman, not a 17 year old strip-tease dancer.  She was an Op. And as I have explained many times, she is the one who took the Moorman photo. That photo was taken at a diagonal angle, which was confirmed to me by a physicist with a specialty in optics. Mary Moorman said a zillion times and from Day 1 that she took her photo squarely, meaning exactly when the Kennedys were passing her and she was facing them. 

It was a straight shot. She was not angled, unless you want to call perpendicular an angle. The Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, just as we see the Babushka Lady doing. Whatever photo Mary took was destroyed. They swapped it out during one of the borrowings. Apparently, it showed something that they didn't want us to see. 

So, BL was allowed to go there because she was in on the operation. I don't think that's true of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. They just happened to get there hours earlier, probably before the cordoning began. If there were just a few regular spectators, that was OK because they could keep their eyes on them, monitor them, control them. For instance, Jim Featherstone approached Mary right away and urged her to take her film to the Sheriff office, which she did. But, as for the others, who knows: some may have been "accidental tourists" while others were put in place. But, the point is that that Kill Zone was determined in advance. That was where they were going to hit him with the barrage.  

And remember that Kennedy got shot in the throat behind the sign, probably about Z220 and Connally, according to his own doctor, got hit at Z235. So, that's less than a second, and I don't doubt that that shot was meant for Kennedy. So, they waited until they got down there. 

So, what was the purpose of the back shot? I know this is going to affect a lot of people as wild speculating, but I think it contained a drug. I think it was either an ice bullet or some other dissolving bullet. I think the drug had a numbing effect on JFK's mind, because he does seem mentally out of it in the Z film, like he's doped up. But, it also caused muscle spasticity so that he couldn't move around a lot. For instance, after he raises his hands to cough to clear the obstruction of the bullet in his throat, he was unable to lower his arms. Here he is at Z260 still with his deltoid and biceps muscles flexed rigidly holding up his arms, but why? Why couldn't he relax them at that point? And why didn't he just do so spontaneously, without even thinking? He is also hunching his trapezius muscle and tensing his posterior cervical muscles. Why was he doing all that? He had no control. It was beyond his will. I really think it was pharmaceutical. 

So, Lower Dealey Plaza was the bulls eye. That was the Kill Zone. And this guy, the Umbrella Man, just happened to be there? By chance?

Tink ridiculed the idea that the umbrella was a weapon that shot a flechette, which was suggested by Richard Sprague, complete with a complex drawing that looked like it could have been done by Leonardo DaVinci. I agree with that, Tink, but why couldn't the umbrella have just been a signal to shooters?  Furthermore, why should we believe Louis Witt's claim of being Umbrella Man? I don't believe Beverly Oliver's claim of being Babushka Lady; I don't believe Judyth Baker's claim of being Oswald's lover; so why should I believe him?  



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.