Whether you are my supporter or not, you really should watch this video because something is terribly wrong with the story they are telling us about the nurse in Florida who died of Coved-19. 

Her name was Aracia Illagan. Age 63. She went to work at the hospital on Tuesday. I don't know if she worked the whole day or just part of the day. But, after that, she stayed home because she was sick. So, she stayed home Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday,  and she died Saturday morning- of Coved. 

But how? How could it have progressed that fast? It could not have been bad on Tuesday because she went to work. Look: she worked at a hospital with sick people. So, if she was sick herself on Tuesday morning, she would not not have gone in, right? And all the more so if she suspected Covid.  But, she could not have had a positive Corona test by Tuesday because she would not have gone to work at all if she did.  She would have quarantined, right? 

So, when did they do the Corona test on her and find out that she was positive?  Did they swab her on Tuesday and find out after that?  And what exactly happened to her between Tuesday and Saturday? We are told that she went home, where she lived alone, and she died on Saturday morning.

But, how could that happen? She was a nurse. She knew what to look for. If she started worsening, plummeting downward, say, developing fulminant pneumonia, she would have recognized it. She would have known that she was in trouble. And she would have called 911. HOW COULD SHE JUST GO HOME AND FOUR DAYS LATER DIE?  She had family.  She had friends. She had colleagues. And didn't she have a doctor? How is it that nobody was checking in on her when they knew that she had Covid and was alone?   

And what exactly caused her death? You can't just say the virus killed her. That is ridiculous. Did she smother to death from the pneumonia? Did her heart fail? Did her kidneys fail? What exactly caused her vital functions to cease? Please watch this video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp7sfa2lODw&feature=youtu.be

This was an incredible weekend for My Stretch of Texas Ground because late last night, Cinemafest World announced their awards, and we won two acting awards (Junes for Best Actor, and Jeff and Junes for Best Acting Duo; we won for Best Crime Drama; and then, for the first time, we won some technical awards, for Best Coloring and Best Lighting. 

The Coloring Award means an awful lot to me because some of our night scenes were shot "day-for-night", and we had to color them to make them look like night, and it is extremely difficult. We ended up hiring a Disney colorist, Michael Luceri, who was like a relief pitcher, put in to save the game. And he explained that we pushed the limits because you should only shoot "day-for-night" at dawn or dusk not in the middle of the afternoon in blazing Texas summer. So, it was a very big task to get those scenes looking decent. 

I am just going to put up the one laurel for Best Coloring along with a screenshot that was taken in blazing afternoon sun. Not bad, huh? 

This was shot around 2 PM in late July in Central Texas, with blazing sun and blue sky.

Allied Vaughn has made the DVD of My Stretch of Texas Ground available for purchase on Amazon. The price is $19.99, and I was not consulted about that. But, I know they did a beautiful job creating it. The art on the case and the disc is very classy, and the film quality is perfect. It really is superb what they did, and I hope you will want to own it, and have it and gift it. So, here is the link, and as an "extra feature" it includes a 15 minute discussion of the making of the film by yours truly.

https://www.amazon.com/Stretch-Texas-Ground-Erich-Kemp/dp/B085K5S4WP/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2UGV0XEBNM55R&keywords=my+stretch+of+texas+ground&qid=1585509797&sprefix=My+Stretch+%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-2

Bob Dylan has recorded a new song commemorating President Kennedy and mourning his savage murder. It is a very long song, and it's perspective is crystal clear, that JFK was murdered by the powerful elite. And it sounds to me, as I listen to it, that Bobby Dylan is quite well informed about the JFK assassination.  It's called Murder Most Foul. What a title, huh? 

Recall Jack Nicholson's introduction of Bob Dylan (a personal friend of his) at the Farm Aid concert, as one of America's great voices for freedom; as the one who speaks for his generation, and he can be only one man, the transcendent Bob Dylan. 

So, what does it amount to, this song? The release of it is a great cultural phenomenon. To JFK Officialdom; be afraid. Be very afraid. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=3NbQkyvbw18&app=desktop  

Does it bother you that nobody is questioning the validity of the Corona virus test, where even if you have no symptoms and no known source of infection, that if the test says you're positive, you're positive? It bothers me. 

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

In the midst of everything, My Stretch of Texas Ground continues to shine at the film festivals. Jeff Weber has two acting awards, one at the International Independent Film Awards and the at the Golden Earth Film Awards. Both awards were received today, March 27, 2020.  And in the name of our director, Erich Kemp, the film has won for Best Narrative Feature at the International Independent Film Awards. 

I appeared on Truth Jihad with Dr. Kevin Barrett to discuss the Corona crisis, and it includes a slide show that I put together. If you're interested, here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wET6J6YA4pI&feature=youtu.be

I have put up my 3rd video on the Corona crisis, this time distilling the work of Canadian researcher David Crowe, who has been analyzing viral epidemics for decades and makes some compelling points.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnEGinNa2o

Officially, they call this SARS-COV-2. Therefore, SARS2 because SARS1 was a corona virus too.  And SARS1 was reportedly much deadlier with 9.6% fatality rate. That's many fold higher than SARS2. 

So, why did SARS2 turn into a pandemic and not SARS1? There was as much international travel then as there is now, wasn't there? So, why did this one go everywhere in the world? The answer lies in the diagnostic criteria. For SARS1, you had to have the positive PCR test, but also specific symptoms, plus an epidemiological link. But for SARS2, all you need is the positive PCR test. Nothing else. You can have any symptoms or no symptoms. And there doesn't have to be a person-to-person link. And especially the way things are now, they're not going to do any tracing. It's just the test, a test that does not prove the presence of even one virus, never mind the millions that it takes to cause infection. Are you aware that there are people who flip-flop back and forth between positive and negative tests?

And are you aware that it is not a "binary"  test? It's not a matter of whether duplication takes place or not because, apparently, if you repeat the test enough times, most everyone is going to show a positive result. So, they have, arbitrarily, set a limit on the number of cycles. So, it has to turn positive by that number of cycles. But different countries are setting the bar at different levels.   

With a false positive rate of only 1%, a city as big as Wuhon would falsely show 100,000 people infected, 

Playwright Terrence McNally died Tuesday due to complications from COVID-19. McNally, who won an Emmy and multiple Tony awards, was known for productions like Master Class, The Full Monty and The Ritz. He was 81.

McNally was diagnosed with LUNG CANCER decades ago (in the 1990s, and few lung cancer patients surviive that long)) and because of the disease, PORTIONS OF BOTH LUNGS WERE EXCISED. And since then, he has been living with severe CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE. The acclaimed writer passed away at Sarasota Memorial Hospital in Sarasota, Florida. He is survived by husband, Tom Kirdahy

Let's think about this, shall we? With the severe compromise and impairment of both his lungs, we can assume that he wasn't moving around much, right? That he wasn't going places? And that was true before the Shelter in Place order. The average incubation period for corona is 5 days. The longest reported incubation period is 14 days. So, where has he been, where has he gone, to whom has he been exposed to in the last 14 days that he could have caught this?

I am asking YOU, who is reading this, why YOU believe in the accuracy of that test. It doesn't find or identify a single virus particle. It finds a piece of RNA, converts it to DNA, and then does things to it which cause it to double repeatedly, and if it does that, they declare it's positive for the corona virus.

This is an outrage. How dare they attribute his death to Corona virus? This has reached the point of insanity.

https://www.lillooetnews.net/multiple-tony-winning-playwright-terrence-mcnally-dies-at-81-1.24104894

Here again is the abstract from the Chinese government where they talk about the false positives in the Corona virus testing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32133832/

And since then, they have announced that they will no longer count asymptomatic people who test positive as positives.
Here is the situation we are in now: Our government and our medical system are relying on a test for which the inventor of the test said it could not be used the way they are using it. And he won a Nobel Prize for inventing it. His name was Kary Mullis, and unfortunately, he died 5 months before this crisis began. So, they are doing this arcane test where they are testing one partial strand of RNA which they found, or think they found, inside you, and doing a shitload of stuff to it, in which they are changing it in composition and multiplying it in volume a billion times, and then, if the product they create fluoresces, they're saying it's the Corona virus.

But, even if it is, and I say there is no guarantee because they are only looking for 100 nucleotides out of 30,000 and maybe a similar virus has those 100 but is not the Covid-19, but since they only started with one RNA,how can they claim to know that an infection is present when they only established the presence of one single, solitary virus?

And, it's especially troubling when the person is asymptomatic, especially since they have given themselves an out, a talking point, that some people are "asymptomatic carriers who get infected but don't get sick." And the thing is: they don't even know that; they are just assuming it based on thinking that the test is infallible, that it can NEVER produce false positives.

And, it doesn't just apply to positives either. What if the patient has only mild cold symptoms? Remember, it could just be a mild cold. It's one thing to say that extremely sick old people are going to succumb to it because they're extremely sick and old, but what explanation is there for the variance among individuals where some get moderately sick from it while others don't get sick at all? I've heard their excuse for why children aren't getting it, that children get colds a lot which is protecting them, but I'm not buying that either because I think that a child who DOESN'T get sick a lot, with colds or anything else, is going to withstand a pandemic better than a sickly child who comes down with colds, one after another.

It is medical lunacy to claim that sickliness protects, and yes, I know about the vaccines and the antibodies. But, are you aware that even the CDC admits that many who took the flu shot this season came down with it? They're saying that the current flu shot is showing only 37% effectiveness against influenza-A. It means that for every 3 unvaccinated persons who come down with influenza A, 2 who were vaccinated are coming down with it. They're also saying that so far this season, 92 American children and adolescents have DIED from the flu. I wonder how many of them were vaccinated. They haven't said that none of the children who died were vaccinated, Don't you think they would have if that were the case?

And compare that to zero children deaths for corona virus. They are not giving us any credible reasons for the susceptibility and outcome variance among people. They are just spewing talking points, and those talking points serve mostly to defend the test that they are using to define the disease, regardless of symptoms and outcomes. And to me, that is nonsense.

This is a very succinct telling of the loopholes that exist in the current world response, and I find it refreshing because David Crowe voices something that few voice: the possibility of false positives. In fact, false positives have been DEFINED out of the picture because if they test you, and you're positive, but you don't have symptoms, and you don't develop symptoms, then they just say that you are one of the lucky ones who gets infected but doesn't get sick. But, if we were going to assume that every time, then if we, hypothetically, had a faulty test, how would we ever know?

David Crowe suggests testing 1000 people who are certain not to have it to see if any positive results follow. You could use 1000 healthy people from a part of the world that is completely untouched by this. I realize that that is a tall order now, and some will say that it is impossible, that no place is untouched. But surely a month ago there were plenty of places that were untouched, and it could have been done then. And even now, the population of Antarctica, mostly scientists, varies from 1000 in the dead of winter to 4000 in the summer. Has the virus gone there? If not, then you swab all the Antarcticans and see if you get all negatives results on them, as you should. But, you don't tell the labs. It's got to be done blindly.

Right now, we are waiting to see if Senator Rand Paul gets sick. What if he doesn't? How are you going to rationalize it? Is he Superman? We are in a situation where it's not the symptoms or the progression that defines the illness. It is only the test that defines the illness, and that test has instantly become sacrosanct.

http://healthinsightuk.org/2020/02/12/coronavirus-a-reliable-test-is-badly-needed-we-dont-have-one/?fbclid=IwAR08AuUBHhXBnZq-nh386NDvADKB4divik4Zc0lFIYfHHQuHajk0UUEyIzc

Senator Rand Paul has tested positive for the Corona virus. He feels fine. Not the least bit sick. And no doubt he has been as cautious as anyone the last 14 days. When are people going to start questioning the validity of this test? It's getting ridiculous.

How did a White House staffer catch the Corona virus? He is showing symptoms, which is why he was tested, but they're mild- like a cold. They claim that the incubation period, from the time of contact to the first appearance of symptoms is 2 to 14 days. So that means, that this staffer must have contacted someone with the virus no more than 14 days ago, and probably less. 

But, how is that possible? Because: 14 days ago, the White House was already on high alert. They were monitoring every person who entered the building, determining whether they had traveled anywhere that's stricken. They had hand sanitizer put out everywhere. Here's an article from March 6, which is over 2 weeks ago, detailing what they were doing then. 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/06/how-white-house-is-protecting-trump-from-the-coronavirus/ 

And this staffer worked for Pence, whom Trump assigned to head the Corona Task Force. So, the staffer's awareness and consciousness about the dangers and the need for diligence and caution must have been sky-high? 

So how, could he, in the last 14 days, have been infected by someone with corona virus? Whose hand did he shake? And remember, at the White House, they keep track of everything and everybody.  

This reminds me of Jack Ruby (supposedly) sneaking into the Dallas Police garage despite all the high-security that was imposed. So, how did the virus sneak into this staffer?  

Seriously, what do you think happened with this guy? Do you think he got lazy in his personal life? Do you think he shook hands with somebody at Walmart? Do you think he was talking with his neighbor over the fence and picked it up that way? You know he must racking his brain over it, right? Because, he believes in this stuff, doesn't he? So, he's got to be narrowing it down to leading possibilities, right? But, don't  you think we can be certain that it had to be somebody who was completely and totally asymptomatic?  Because, surely he wasn't shaking hands with anyone who was coughing and sneezing and complaining of being sick, right? So, it must have  been somebody who appeared to be well, right? But, do you think that person went on to become sick? And don't you think that the White House, with all its resources, would be determined to find out? Because after all, if this asymptomatic person could give it to the staffer, he could give it to others.  Right? Obviously, the person who gave it to the staffer was not in quarantine but should have been. Right? So, they are going to get on it to find him. Right?

That's one way of looking at it, but here's another: How about the test is bogus?  And before I go any further with that, let me ask YOU something.  On what basis do YOU accept the validity of the test? You haven't studied it technically and scientifically, have you? You've never analyzed it and appraised it, have you? You accept that it's valid for one reason, and one reason only: because "authority" tells you that it is. Isn't that true?

Well, maybe you should learn about the test and decide for yourself, using your own rational mind, whether it's valid. And I am going to help you by laying out what the test consists of.

So, please read what follows and do so with a critical mind. I don't mean critical of me because I'm just the messenger. 

So, it starts with them, that is, the Chinese, having determined the "genome" of the virus, all 30,000 nucleotides in its RNA.  They sent the list to the CDC. So, that's what they're looking for. 

Next, they collect the sputum sample, and when the lab gets it, they look for and find a piece of RNA looks like it could have come from the corona virus. So, they decide to test it. First, they convert it to DNA by using reverse transcriptase, an enzyme. So now, they have it as DNA. But, it's just a piece of the DNA. Then, they heat the DNA to denature it, which separates the double strands. So now, you've got single strands.  

But, let's go back to the 30,000 nucleotides in the RNA of the corona virus. They can't look for 30,000 nucleotides; it's too many. So, they decide that they're going to look for just a short stretch of nucleotides, one that they think captures the distinctive "genetic signature" of the corona-19 virus. They settle on a stretch of just 100 nucleotides. They're going to use that short stretch of 100 nucleotides as a proxy for the 30,000. That's .33% of the entire genome of the virus. You saw the dot there, right? Just checking. 

But, how are they going to pinpoint those 100? They pinpoint them by applying primers. A primer is a very short stretch of DNA that is synthesized. It's designed to have an affinity to bond with the DNA that is undergoing testing at a certain, exact spot on the chain. They also apply a second primer with an affinity to bond with the DNA at another spot on the chain that is 100 nucleotides down from the first spot. And that's how they pick out the 100 nucleotides they want to duplicate. Then, they cool it and apply the polymerase enzyme which copies the portion of DNA from primer to primer. The copying restores the single strands of DNA back to double strands. So, it goes from 2 individual strands to 4 strands that consist of two double strands. 

They keep repeating that process 45 or 50 times which makes it grow exponentially until you have billions of strands of DNA. That is: you have billions of little strands of DNA, just 100 nucleotides  long out of 30,000. And here's the clincher: they apply a florescent compound to the primers, and as the primers accumulate in the growing pool of substrate, it gives off a florescence, which their meters can read, and that's what constitutes a positive result.

So, before I go any further, what do YOU think? Do you think there is any possibility of error in that? Or does it sound iron-clad to you, that if they detect that florescence, then, bingo, you've got corona virus. 

Be aware that they do say, and often, that there can be false negatives, but they don't even whisper the possibility that there could be a false positive. But, just yesterday, the Chinese published a paper saying that there are plenty of false positives. And just today they announced that they are no longer going to count "positive test results in asymptomatic patients" as valid because of the abundance of false positives. This is by my good friend, Dr. Robert Sniadach. 

http://www.vidaclara.com/Assets/Covid-19_Test_Wrong.pdf  

So, let me ask you one final question: Let's say that you, yourself, get symptoms of a mild cold that feels in every way like the mild colds you've had before in your life. And let's say you haven't been to China, and you've not been around anyone who is sick, and you haven't shaken hands with strangers; you've just got a cold, like you've gotten before, and you don't know how. What do you think it mostly is? A cold or corona disease? And if they do that test on you, and tell you from it that you don't have a cold, that you've got corona disease because our test says so, are you going to buy it?  

I made a second Corona video because a report came out of China yesterday revealing that they have found a high level of false positive test results from the RT-PCR test for Corona virus that the whole world is using. Everyone in the U.S. is acting like the test is infallible, and there is no possibility of a false positive. If you realize what they are actually taking from a person, what they are doing with it, and the basis on which they say, "Bingo! A positive!" you just might think twice about trusting it. The bottom line for me is that: I don't trust it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV6KnymX02M&feature=youtu.be

 I have made a video expressing my thoughts on the Corona crisis. I think that government, media, and Medicine are fanning the flames of the panic that is going on, and if you consider the things I point out in this video, it may change your perspective. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFV3Ckde9s&feature=youtu.be

I have written a blog about the Corona virus test that I encourage you to read. I am not going to post it here, out of caution, but here is the link to it on my health blog. 

http://www.1to1vitamins.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=114

I just got wowed with an unexpected surprise. I knew that My Stretch of Texas Ground made it to the finals for Best Feature Film at the Blastoff Festival, and I knew that we didn't win. But, what I did not know was that they also had a "jury award" where the people attending the festival got to vote on what they thought the best film was, and they voted for My Stretch of Texas Ground. So tonight, they sent me a second laurel for having won that jury award, to go with the one of Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi both winning Best Actor. 

The story goes that once the detectives got "Ruby" inside the jail office that they finally pushed him down to the ground and handcuffed him. Why they didn't do that in the garage, they never said. But then, they said they just left him on the ground for two or three minutes, and not from Oswald. That's really what they said, and I mean Clardy, Archer, and McMillon.  Ruby never said anything about lying on the floor. He said he was taken up to the 5th floor and told that he shot Oswald. But, on the left is an image, allegedly of Ruby, from the WFAA footage. He is being led to the elevator to take him up to the jail. He and the detective walk by Oswald's supposed body on the floor, which we never see. The detective glances at Oswald, but Ruby does not. It was taken 2 to 3 minutes after the shooting. But, the image on the right was taken about 3 PM when Ruby was taken to the 3rd floor for his first  interrogation with Fritz. My question is: when did the makeover take place? Because: it's no part of the record. Nobody ever claimed that Ruby was groomed or allowed to groom. And let's be frank: this goes from Ted Kaczinski on the left to GQ on the right. He looks like he used a whole tube of Brycream on the right. So, when did this makeover take place, which has never been claimed or described? You can't make sense of it. It's all just part of the selling of the lie that Ruby shot Oswald. He wasn't even in the garage at the time. Jack Ruby guilt is a boat that don't float;  a dog that don't hunt; and it is high time for everyone to accept Jack Ruby innocence.    

Every time I hear this song Alfie, I think of Ralphie.  It sounds like it's being sung to me, and I take it personally. But aside from that, I think it's a very beautiful song, and one that demonstrates the immense musical genius of Burt Bacharach, whom I think is one of the greatest songwriters of the second half of the 20th century. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0TXsHJdVc&feature=youtu.be

For the second time, Jeff Weber and Junes Zahdi have won jointly for Best Actor, this time at the Blastoff Film Festival in Los Angeles. 

So, I have made the announcement of their joint awards the first feature on our website. And, I made this new collage of them to accompany the announcement about it on our website. 

So please take a look at it on our website. 

https://mystretchoftexasground.com

I am once again pleased that My Stretch of Texas Ground has been selected to be in a film festival, this time the Cinema World Fest Awards, which are out of Los Angeles. They sent me this beautiful laurel.

There really is no worry about the Taliban accepting elements of the current Afghan government because they are already doing it. They accepted nearly 700 of them in the month of February alone, and it's a short month. 

684 Kabul administration workers joined Islamic Emirate in February 2020

Over the course of the month of February 2020, the efforts of Preaching, Guidance and Recruitment Commission of Islamic Emirate in all provinces of the country resulted in in 684 personnel working in various posts of the Kabul based administration left the corrupt regime and joined up with the Islamic Emirate.

They also brought in various type weaponry, communication radios and other military equipment with them.

The countrymen who joined the Mujahideen vowed to break all ties with the foreign and internal enemies of Islam and homeland and strengthen our people and Mujahideen in order to cleanse the country from occupation and corruption and establish a pure Islamic government acceptable to all Afghans.

The officials of Preaching, Guidance and Recruitment Commission welcomed them, gave them gifts and prizes and considered their move a beneficial step for Afghanistan.

RC: So, they are going to accept a lot of those people, but not any of the top people. They are not going to accept Ghani or the other guy or Karzai.  That whole government is going to have to fold. And in the end, Afghanistan is pretty much going to go back to how it was in 2001. And even before 9/11, we were supporting the "Northern Alliance" to make war against the Taliban. So, let's not do that again. Let's just get out and go home. After 19 years, we lost. We killed a lot of people, including a lot of women and children, and every single one of the deaths, theirs and ours, was for complete naught, but the worst thing would be to keep the killing going on and lose more. And if we don't want to admit that we lost, fine, don't admit it. But, get the hell out of there. 

This is DNA staring you in the face. This is a better likeness of someone at different ages than is true for many people. On the left  is James W. Bookhout when he graduated from SMU Law School in Dallas in 1937 at the age of 23. On the right is the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. It's the only picture that exists of him without his hat and showing his face. Not only do the facial features match, but even the way he holds his head is the same, and that is a neuromuscular habit that is as personal and individual as your fingerprint. It's the same guy! 

If you haven't seen this video of Jack Ruby, you really should. He's surrounded by reporters who are asking him questions, but notice that no one is behaving like he is dangerous or violent. On the contrary, the reporters are being gentle with him, apparently because they thought he needed gentleness since he starts to cry. 

Ruby starts by saying that the word "angry" isn't in his vocabulary, and he said that to counter what the lying Dallas detectives said in the trial, that he was talking trash about Oswald, and with words, was spitting on him.  Let's be honestly observant: Ruby comes across in this video as genteel and practically effeminate. Another word that I think works is: childlike. The idea that he was a hot-head, a boiling over kind of guy doesn't register at all.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3frRy03qKV8&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3XtyO_iW_nELpD-V4sKx5exarPkImLNNkUt-vSnWlg-7eYzfOBGb6XKGI

Don't believe the false narrative about Jack Ruby, that he was a Mafioso, a hit man, that he threw people down the stairs, including women. He was a very nice man. He was extremely devoted to his family. He was a devoted to his faith, the Jewish faith. He was a devout Jew. And they have moral decrees in Judaism, just as they do in Christianity; Thou Shalt Not Kill. He was a guy who felt guilty for crossing a double yellow line in order to enter a parking lot when actually, it's not even illegal to do that in Texas. I do it all the time. And he was so adoring and worshiping of the Dallas Police. Since when do criminals adore the police? 

The real Jack Ruby was a VERY nice man and a very decent one. He was kind and gentle. He had less propensity to violence than most people. He had less propensity to violence than I have, and that dawned on me just the other night. I was visiting at a house where a  6 year old boy accidentally let this big yellow lab out of the house. So, I went running after him, and when I got to him, he was snapping at this other dog, and the dog's owner, a tall man who looked to be in his 50s, was mad as a hornet. He had a stick and he was pounding the dog. And, I didn't protest because I understood how he felt, and the dog had it coming. But, when I got hold of the dog, I began to apologize profusely, and I explained what happened, that it was an accident. But, he didn't want to hear it. His dog wasn't hurt, but he continued ranting, so I listened, and then I apologized again, and then I left.

It should have ended there. But, it didn't. He followed me, and he continued ranting and raving. He said he was going to call the cops. He said he was going to call a lawyer. He said some other things. As I got near the house, others had come out, and one of them took the dog from me. And that's when I spun around and s aid, "All right, that 's enough! You've said your peace. Now get the hell out of here." He responded by saying something else belligerent and coming towards me, and I responded by raising my fists and making like a fighter. Hey, I was done talking to this guy. I had apologized. What did he want from me? It's not even my dog. I'm going on 70 now. I'm old enough to be this guy's father. What happened to respect for the elderly?  He had 6 inches and 40 pounds on me, but at that point, I was sooner going to fight him than apologize again. But, he turned around and left. 

But, the point is that Jack Ruby was different. He was different from me and different from most people. Even when he was upset at his lawyer for telling the judge that he was mentally incompetent, Ruby didn't get angry. He did not have it in him to get angry. And the idea that he shot Oswald is preposterous. I know he accepted responsibility for it, but it's only because his beloved Dallas Police told him that he did it. He was so non-aggressive, he couldn't even defend himself against a false charge. That's how docile and submissive he was.                                                                     

                   

I have been saying for a long time that they had to fake hair on Ruby because he was mostly bald on top. So, they got the paint out, but the results varied. Sometimes, it came out looking pretty good and other times not, but it never looked the same way twice. Here are two examples from November 24 and November  25.  So, just a day apart. They were both doctored. On the left, they used short, wavy strokes and made it look thick. On the right, they went for length, and it's ridiculously long. It's like he had 8 inch strands going back, and he most certainly did not. Maybe it involved different artists, and probably so, since the image on the left was a mug shot, and the image on the right was a press photo. 

So, here is Ruby and the Garage Shooter. For Ruby, it's his mug shot from that afternoon, and for the Shooter, it was when he was huddled with the detectives on the 3rd floor about 2 minutes after the shooting. 

They are obviously not the same man. The Shooter had a rounder face. To rephrase: The shooter had a round face and Ruby didn't. Ruby had a longer forehead. It's hard to compare the eyes since the Shooter's were blackened out, but the fact that they were blackened out is a smoking gun. There is no photographic reason for it because Detectives Boyd and Hall, on each side of him, had distinct, sharp photographic eyes. Notice how pyramidal Ruby's nose was with the narrow bridge and wide base. The Shooter's nose was tinkered with for sure, but it was narrow and different. Look how short the Shooter's neck was. He had a very short neck. Ruby's neck was longer.

Everybody should be able to see this, that these were different men, including the Dallas DA and the Attorney General of the United States. 

This is an article written by me about the making of My Stretch of Texas Ground which has been published by Veterans Today. Thank you, Gordon Duff.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/03/10/only-fiction-can-tell-it-ralph-cinque-on-texas-ground/

I have made a 45 minute video on the innocence of Jack Ruby to counter the claims of Attorney Mark Shaw, who claims that Dorothy Kilgallen was killed because of what Ruby told her about his involvement in the JFK assassination. That is nonsense. Ruby had no involvement in the JFK assassination. And if he did, they wouldn't have waited and killed Dorothy Kilgallen; they would have just killed him, Ruby. Why wait until he tells someone? He didn't even have any involvement in the Oswald assassination except as patsy. Jack Ruby was innocent. Completely and totally innocent. And if you don't realize that, then you are stumbling in the dark with the JFK assassination. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILr1zjMdnOQ

Ruby was not as porky at the time as the Garage Shooter, who was like the Pillsbury Doughboy. In particular, Ruby had skinny legs compared to the Shooter.

Do you know how to look at evidence? Do you realize that there is a hierarchy, that some evidence trumps other evidence? Do you know that physical evidence trumps all the lip-flapping in the world? When we look closely at the features of the Garage Shooter and compare them to Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963, we can plainly see that they are different men. Do you realize that negates  and invalidates all other evidence that you might want to cite?

The Garage Shooter and Ruby had different hair. They had different necks, with the Garage shooter having a very short, clean neck, and Ruby having a longer and scruffier neck. It means they were different men, and there is nothing that can possibly override it. It doesn't matter what anybody said. It doesn't even matter what Ruby said, although the fact is what he said was that he had no thought of shooting Oswald and no memory of doing it, that he only accepted that he did it because Dallas Police told him that he did. This was a plot of the Dallas Police and the FBI, not only to kill Oswald and frame Ruby, but to convince him that he did it. And he was so impaired mentally that he believed them. 

If you have problem accepting this, it is only because it disturbs the comfortable world in which you've been living in which Ruby shot Oswald. Well, that is a phony world. It may be comfortable to you, but it isn't real. Jack Ruby was innocent. I am not suggesting it. I am telling you that it is as certain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. And what it takes on your part is: intellectual honesty, maturity, and being an adult. A is A. Jack Ruby was innocent. And what that means is that the whole nightmare of the JFK assassination was even worse than we thought, much worse. 

There is a journalist named Paul Szoldra who just wrote an article about how The Afghanistan Papers, which were published in the Washington Post in December, is being made into a documentary film, and it is going to involve Steven Spielberg. Paul is a contributing author to Task and Purpose, a military affairs website, and he is a former Marine infantryman. So, after having read his article, I decided to write to him about My Stretch of Texas Ground, and this is what I wrote:

Paul, in light of your recent article about the documentary in the works about the fiasco that the Afghanistan War has been, I thought you might be interested to know that there is an anti-war movie that I wrote and produced, a feature film, called My Stretch of Texas Ground. It deals with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more, and it makes a strong statement about the disasters these wars have been, and it is now streaming on Amazon. 

https://www.amazon.com/Stretch-Texas-Ground-Jeff-Weber/dp/B07RP4C92H/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?crid=2JOQQC9ZKFRAT&keywords=my+stretch+of+texas+ground&qid=1558243028&s=gateway&sprefix=My+Stretch+of%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-2-fkmrnull  

The film has been winning awards abundantly at film festivals, and you can see some of the laurels we have won on our website. 

https://mystretchoftexasground.com

This film has a task and purpose, and it is to enlighten people about how devastating and catastrophic these wars have been as it entertains them with a gripping thriller. I am an older man. I will be 70 on my next birthday, and I lived through the Vietnam War. When the student deferments were cancelled, I avoided being drafted only because I drew a high number in the lottery based on my date of birth. But, I had a close friend, who lived in the same dormitory that I did at UCLA, who got yanked out of college by the draft, and he got killed in Vietnam. He was going to be an architect. 

After the Vietnam War, I firmly believed that the American people would never let the politicians drag us into another such war again. But, I was wrong. Enough time had passed by the 2000s that they were able to do it. But, what about this time? By which I mean,:what about next time? Are the American people going to let the politicians do it to us yet again? 

I certainly hope not, but I wanted to do more than hope, and that is why I made this movie.

So, I hope you'll watch it, and I thank you for reading this.  

Ralph Cinque

Trump admits defeat in Afghanistan

By Andrew Bacevich

Saturday, March 7, 2020 | 2 a.m.

View more of the Sun's opinion section

• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers
• Letters to the editor - readers' views
• Write a letter to the editor

Is “peace in our time” in Afghanistan at hand? President Donald Trump thinks so. He described the agreement signed last week by an American diplomat and a Taliban official as providing “a powerful path forward to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home.” We must hope he is correct.

Yet the prospective end of the longest war in U.S. history does not find Americans dancing in the streets. With the spread of the coronavirus and the ongoing drama of the Democratic primaries, Afghanistan figures at best as an afterthought in news media and the public mind. Besides, the nation has long since grown weary of armed interventions that drag on and on as if on autopilot. No Gettysburg, no D-day — just sporadic reports of bombs dropped and people killed.

Even so, while the peace plan may not prompt Americans to celebrate, it ought to provide an occasion for sober reflection. At least for now, our instinctive urge to move on, to forget, can wait.

After nearly 20 years, the United States has accomplished exceedingly little in Afghanistan. The truth is, in this faraway Central Asian country, we have sustained a major defeat. The deal, which in the details began fraying almost immediately after being signed, amounts to an admission of failure. The Trump administration’s desire to call it quits has overridden what justified a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan in the first place.

Here are the facts. Despite the loss of more than 6,000 American dead and the expenditure of roughly a trillion dollars, U.S. forces have never come close to defeating the Afghan Taliban. Indeed, government figures put the enemy-initiated attacks in the last quarter of 2019 ata nine-year high.

Programs aimed at building Afghan military and police forces able to provide security have also failed. So too have efforts to install in Kabul a unified government that commands the support of the Afghan people. There are today two rival claimants to the Afghan presidency. As for the $9 billion in U.S. taxpayer money expended to reduce the cultivation of opium, that effort has yielded essentially nothing, as a detailed report in the Washington Post made clear in December. Afghanistan today reportedly produces more than 90% of the world’s opium supply. And efforts to curb rampant corruption have come nowhere close to success, with Transparency International ranking Afghanistan among the world’s most corrupt nations.

Each of these figured as major U.S. policy objectives. None has resulted in mission accomplishment. Only with regard to the education of girls — an estimated 3.5 million are today attending Afghan schools — can U.S. efforts be said to have achieved even modest success, with political dysfunction and inadequate security putting even that modest achievement at risk.

But wait, some will say: Since U.S. forces arrived in Afghanistan more than 18 years ago, the United States has not experienced a recurrence of 9/11. But this assumes a non-existent causal relationship. Taliban fighters have not been waging a global jihad targeting the United States. Their purpose remains what it was when Afghan mujahideen resisted Soviet occupation in the 1980s: They are determined to oust foreign occupying forces. If the peace deal holds at all, and Trump withdraws U.S. troops as he has repeatedly vowed to do, the Taliban will have achieved precisely what it has long fought for. That’s victory.

The central lesson for the U.S. in this long and futile conflict, compounded by our experience in the Iraq War, is plain: The proper mission of the U.S. military is to deter and to defend — a statement that ought to be inscribed over the main entrance to the Pentagon, if not added to the oath of office taken by the commander in chief. Never again should it be the purpose of American forces to overthrow regimes in distant lands with vague expectations of being able to install a political order more to our liking. That way lies only more “endless wars.”

If senior U.S. national security officials can absorb that lesson, then perhaps the war in Afghanistan will not have been a complete waste. Alas, that assumes a capacity for learning that in Washington is not much in evidence.

Andrew Bacevich is a contributing writer to Opinion. He is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of “The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory.”

The Other False Narrative

by Ralph C. Cinque

Many people realize that the Zapruder film was altered, but they don't realize the extent to which it was altered. The whole story of the Zapruder film is false. And that story is that Kennedy was smiling and waving until he reached the freeway sign; then behind the freeway sign, he was shot once, all the way  through his neck, and he emerged reacting to that one shot.  It's bogus. 

Obviously, there was no single bullet that traversed his neck, and many people have recognized that. But, they replaced it with another false narrative- the other false narrative. And that other false narrative is that JFK got hit simultaneously in the back and in the neck when he was behind the freeway sign and out of view to Zapruder's camera. That is NOT what happened. 

What happened is that JFK got hit in the back much earlier than he got hit in the throat. Temporally, the two are unrelated. And since he got hit in the back high on the hill, he stopped smiling and waving long before the reached the freeway sign. And that is in conflict to what we see in the Zapruder film, which shows him  smiling and waving until he reaches the sign.

So, how do I know that I am right? I know it because you can see in the Croft photo that JFK had stopped waving- already.

JFK is not waving there. He's not even turned and looking at the spectators, even though they are responding boisterously to him. And why are his eyes closed? They were probably opened and looked jarred. Notice the collar on his back right where he was shot. He was already shot in the back there. And it's high on the hill. You're seeing the TSBD behind the waving people. It's just a little past the obelisk. It's a long way from the freeway sign. And following this photo, there was the Betzner photo and the Willis photo, and he isn't waving in those photos either. 

Remember that the Zapruder film was taken in 1963, but it wasn't shown to the public until 1975. So, they had 12 years to work on it, edit it, and falsify it. This diagram shows the two shots, which were separated by time and space. 

So, the first shot, the back shot, occurred high on the hill, slightly before the Croft photo was taken. The throat shot occurred behind the freeway sign, which this diagram has designated as the location of the back shot. And note that the diagram doesn't provide a location for the throat shot because it assumes there was no throat shot. But think about how stupid it is because if there was no throat shot, then there was no back shot. Moving the shot up from the back to the neck is what Gerald Ford did, and his reward was to become President of the United States. Kennedy was shot in the back at the level of T3 and most certainly not in the neck.

There is no doubt about any of this because JFK was definitely shot in the Croft photo, but he was only shot in the back. He was not shot in the throat yet. If he were shot in the throat, we'd see him reacting to it in the Croft photo, but, we don't. Recall that his reaction to being shot in the throat was extreme startle and a panicked struggle to clear his airway, so that he could breathe. We see that in the Zapruder film. And apparently, he was successful at clearing his airway because his breathing was no longer a problem. But, he was gone mentally. He was like a zombie. He was in a fixed, stone-like, frozen state- the effect of the immobilizing drug. We can see it in the Zapruder film. After clearing his airway, he was stuck in this frozen muscle-bound state in which he couldn't put his arms down.  He lacked the ability to release it because of the nerve agent. 

This is a MEDICAL issue. It is for doctors to discuss. It is for doctors to determine whether this is the visible sign of pathology, of poisoning. And I defy any doctor to try to rationalize what he was doing at this point. It is freaky. He can't let go. Jackie can't even get him to put his arms down. He is just stuck, frozen. 

 And where is his mind? His mind is gone. He's a zombie. And he actually starts hunching even more, as his muscles tighten.

 Look at him! He's seizing up! How did so many doctors miss this? The answer is that doctors are people, and people are conditioned to look at the JFK assassination like it occurred in its own world, with its own rules, and its own unique phenomena.  

He really was frozen, and that was the purpose of the shot, to immobilize him so that he would not take evasive action, so that he would just sit there like a sitting duck. 

Kennedy's response and behavior in the Zapruder film can only be explained by his having been hit with a nerve agent. His behavior is inexplicable otherwise. It can't be explained. It can't be rationalized. It can't be accounted for. It needs to be assessed medically. And when you assess it medically, his diagnosis is clear. 

Trivial damage from a bullet could not cause these behaviors. We are looking at a global change in him. We need to stop thinking that JFK-land was its own world, its own realm, its own surreal landscape, its own reality. It happened in this world, and it must be explained according to real-world facts and real-world expectations. 

So, stop believing in the story of the Zapruder film. It is a false narrative that was designed to sell the Single Bullet Theory. Kennedy was immobilized with a nerve agent before he entered the Kill Zone. That is the true story. This is 2020, and I dare say that it is time that we embrace the true story.