This is one of my favorite songs in all the world. You've heard of comfort food; well this, to me, is comfort music. It's the classic song from 1934 by Harren Warren and Al Dubin, I've Only Got Eyes For You. For writing such a pretty song, those guys should be remembered forever. 

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

' 

Remember this? An Afghan father on August 19 hoisting his baby up to a U.S. Marine because, of course, getting to America is more important than being with your mother and father.

So now, there's a Marine who attended a Trump rally who claims to  be the Marine who abused that baby by lifting it by one arm, which you should never do. 

But, he told the crowd that it was the greatest thing he ever did. Rather than saying that, I wish he told us what he did with that baby. The Marines came with an infant care division, did they? They had everything: infant formula, diapers, baby wipes, baby powder, etc. They brought cribs did they? And, they had a medical division too for them, did they, a mobile neonatal ward? 

He didn't say a word about what happened next, just that he was the guy in the picture, the "iconic" picture. But, lo and behold, the DOD is denying that he's the guy in the picture, and I'm not surprised. And they ought to know because, most likely, they're the ones who staged it. Because you see: we like iconic photos. Ever since Iwo Jima, where they raised an American flag at a spot that wasn't American, we go for them. They tried to do one on 9/11. They thought that, in the midst of all that was going on, taking time out to raise an American flag was just what was needed. 

That is even named "the iconic photo from 9/11" although I don't think it stuck like Iwo Jima. I wonder what that guy on the left is looking at because his head way back like he's looking high in the sky, but the flag is right in front of him.

But, returning to the Afghan infant, how was that father going to reclaim his child? And does his wife know that he gave their baby away? Let's see: if they put the baby on a plane, where, of course, they had everything to meet the infant's needs, and took it to, America? Then, when it got there, they did what with it? Put it in a military hospital? For how long? Then what? Foster care? So, how were the Afghan parents going to reclaim it? At that point, they didn't even know if they were going to make it out. So, if they didn't, and they had to realize that they might not, they were literally giving their baby away to America because life is so good in America that it's worth losing your parents over?  But, it doesn't look like that situation allowed any time for paper work. so how were they ever going to find and reclaim that child? Imagine the conversation when they finally got themselves on a plane. "Look: we gave our baby to this Marine who hoisted him over this fence. Do you know where he is? Would you help us track him down? How do we start the process?" 

So, the Marine didn't say what happened to the baby, and neither did the DOD. They denied that the guy at the Trump rally was him, but they didn't say anything about the baby. So: What happened to that baby? Where is it????  Doesn't anyone want to know? 

There never was a Prayer Man. He's just a fabrication; a smokescreen to draw attention away from the real Oswald in the doorway: the Doorman in the Altgens photo. 

The whole clip of Prayer Man is bogus. So, this is bogus:

It is supposed to be from the Darnell film, but like the Lovelady clip whish is supposed to be from the Martin film but can't be found in the Martin film, this clip cannot be found in the Darnell film. See for yourself. Here is the Darnell film. Check it yourself. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHTdTF7YbE

That should settle it right there. But, when you analyze the story of the Prayer Man clip, you realize that it is ridiculous. It's supposed to be 10 seconds after the last shot, so who are all those people? And what happened to all the people who were there 10 seconds before? Where is Lovelady and Shelley and the other employees? And why are all these people filing into the TSBD at that time? You can't tell me they worked there. Were they seeking shelter from the gunfire? They don't act like it, and there are no reports of it. And why is the guy with the cowboy hat looking up? Is he looking for the source of the shots? That is ridicuous. There were no shots taken from up there. Here he is in the Wiegman film.

This was, presumably, a few seconds earlier, like maybe 5. Obviously, the people are aware that something is wrong. Attention is on what is happening west on lower Elm, including by that guy. So, why 5 seconds later would he be looking up? You can't tell me he heard a shot from up there in the interim.

I don't hear anything from the Prayer Man people any more, Greg Parker and them. And I have no respect and much contempt for them for being the fakes and phonies that they are. Not only was Prayer Man not Oswald, he wasn't anybody. There was no Prayer Man. Oswald was the Doorman in the Altgens Photo, and that is as certain as Christ on the Cross. 

 

This is Vincent Bugliosi waxing on about why Oswald supposedly killed Kennedy. Every bit of it is pure speculation and fabrication. He bases it on his interpretation of writings attributed to Oswald, for which we have no rason to be sure Oswald wrote them, and things that Oswald supposedly said that likewise are unverified. But, in the end, he decides that Oswald killed Kennedy not because he hated Kennedy but because he hated America and Kennedy was a proxy for America. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4dAkn839Ac

But, it makes no sense at all. Before killing Kennedy, Oswald would ask himself: "Who becomes President if Kennedy's gone? Johnson. Hmmm, let's see: he's more aggressive towards Cuba and the Soviet Union, further away from socialism, which I like. Therefore, I sure hope nothing happens to Kennedy." 

Oswald never said he hated America, and it is ridiculous to think he would have killed Kennedy because he did. 

Bugliosi's attempt to impart a motive to Oswald totally failed. It was just an exercise in imagination by Bugliosi. 

Oswald had a wife and two kids, and he was very devoted to them. Obviously, one's family should be more important to a person than one's political ideology. And that was true in Oswald's case. The bizarre satisfaction that Oswald supposedly got for killing Kennedy would have been at the cost of his family- him losing them. Warren Commission lawyer David Belin invented the idea that Oswald planned to run away to Mexico- using his gun as an ATM.  And then do what? Live happily ever after? How? The Stupid Belin didn't recognize that Oswald loved his family as much any man did. 

The whole thing is so bizaare, so totally divorced from reality, logic, and reason and even common experience of human behavior that it is astounding that they could say such things- let alone believe them.

People like Bugliosi and Belin just flipped a switch in their brains. Out of lawyerly inclination, they just started walking the walk and talking the talk, as if they knew what happened AND WHY.

In reality, nothing that they said made any sense at all. And do not doubt that both of them acted to a very great extent out of self-interest.  

Now, I am going to give you my take on the Gabby Petito tragedy. As soon as it broke that Brian drove home in her car, alone, I knew that she was dead. And that's because: it was her car. If they were going to split up, and she was alive, surely, she would have retained the car, since it was hers. The fact that he drove home alone in HER CAR, meant that he did away with her. 

I am going to share some information that I only heard from one source: the celebrated Dr. Drew. 

He said that both Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie were on psychiatric medication, and that both vowed to come off it on their road trip. I don't know where he got that from. I haven't heard it from any other source.  

However, both of them admitted to Moab police at the infamous stop that they both had mental health problems.  Laundrie denied that either of them were on medication. 

Much has been made of the mistake of not arresting Laundrie in Florida. They could have done so. Not for murdering her, since at the time she was just missing, but how about grand theft auto? He was in possession of her car, and there was no reasonable explanation for it. If he tried to claim that she offered it to him, then he would have had to explain the circumstances of that, including their location, etc. They should have arrested him and let him be arraigned. A good judge would have known how to handle him. 

So, that was a huge mistake. But of course, it wasn't going to bring Gabby back because she was dead. So, the mistake that cost Gabby her life was the one made by the Moab police, and they will be living with it for the rest of their lives. 

They received a report that Laundrie was battering Petito, and more than once. And there was no reason to doubt it. When they got to them, they observed that Gabby was distraught and hysterical, and Laundrie they described as hyper. Because Laundrie had some visible scratches, while Petito, apparently, had no visible signs of trauma, they concluded that Petito was the aggressor. That was a mistake. For one thing, she was extremely flushed from the emotional upheaval, and that flushing could have covered up traumatic flushing, say, from a slap.  They may also have been affected by Petito blaming herself, but my Good God, that is classic for a battered woman. 

So, what should the Moab Police have done? They should have realized that she was in grave danger from him. And then, they should have done everything in their purview to protect her. 

They didn't let them drive off together. They assumed that if each had a cooling off period overnight that then it would be OK. So, they arranged for that. But, it was wrong.  They should have realized that the very next day, when they reunited, that the extreme danger to her would resume. 

So, what should they have done? They should have taken them both into custody and kept them separate. They could have charged them with something, if only reckless behavior. And once they got her separated from him, they should have had one or more female officers impress upon her that continuing this road trip with him was extremely ill-advised and dangerous. 

And here's what else they could have done: called her parents. Even though she was a legal adult, if she was behaving erratically and uncontrollably and clearly wasn't thinking straight and was a danger to herself, they could have contacted her parents, and I'm sure they would have flown out there and gotten her. 

In other words: they should have realized that the danger to her was great enough that it warranted pulling every trick in the book to detain her in order to protect her. She needed protective custody. Cops can arrest a person if only for her own good. And even if he knows that the charges won't stick, at least they will bide time. You do what you have to do. And you err on the side of caution. If their gut feeling didn't tell them that she was in great peril being with him, then they were incompetent. 

 Dirty Mudderrucker. He wanted to do to Julian Assange what he did to Qasam Soleimani. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html

Pompous Pompeo, who was CIA Chief at the time, followed in the tradition of the agency that murdered John F. Kennedy and numerous others. No law. No courts. You just kill who you want. They have no limits. They are the Executioners, and they decide who to execute at will. 

We tend to think that the CIA was "rogue" back in the day of Allen Dulles but not today. Actually, it's worse than ever today. Look at how many people we have killed with drones, including American citizens. 

The stuff that Pompeo did under Trump, like killing Soleimani, and I don't doubt that Pompeo was the prime mover on it, shows that the culture of killing ran rampant through the Trump administration. And, if Pompeo got his way, we probably would have invaded Venezuela, started a war with Iran, tried to kill Assange, and more. He, Pompeo, is just bad, and I mean as bad as Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover, and that's as bad as it gets.  

  

 

The first image shows where Mary Moorman was according to the Zapruder film, which was directly across from Zapruder. 

But, Mary placed herself higher on Elm Street,  which was further east and closer to Houston Street. She was farther from the Triple Underpass. 

Here is a conservative estimate of where she really was, and I say conservative, because she may have been higher than this. 

And she certainly did not wait until they passed her and then shoot them from behind. She was interested in their faces, not the backs of their heads. In fact, if you look at the photo, you can see a car on the right edge, and it is approximately where the limo was in the Zapruder film when Mary, supposedly, took her picture. So, you would have to believe she waited all those hours only to let them creep by her and then shoot the backs of their heads. 

The picture that Mary took captured JFK when he was already shot in the back but not in the throat. So, his look was like nothing we see in the Zapruder film. It may have been like what the original Zapruder film captured, but they took 12 years to get it in condition to show the public. I suspect Mary's real picture showed JFK looking distraught and confused, and it looked nothing like the so-called "Moorman photo." So, how did they get Mary to accept it? 

Money. I'd be willing to bet that they paid her money; a lot of money, and I mean for damaging her historic photo with their thumb print.  They paid Marina Oswald a lot of money to spew their lies about Oswald.  They got an Italian film company to pay her $125,000 for the rights to make a movie that would include her story, but they didn't have to pay her anything. It was public domain. It was just an excuse to pay her. And they never did make the movie. And the company was a flash in the pan; it vanished. $125,000 in 1964 was like a million today.

Mary has always said that she took her picture at the time of the first shot and that she heard at least two more shots after she lowered her camera. The Zapruder film has her taking her picture at the time of the fatal head shot, with no other shots following. What a major discrepancy! How do they explain it? They don't! She's a nice lady. She's a loyal American. You be nice to her. You show her a lot of respect. So, you never say to her: "Mary, you've always said that you took your picture at the time of the first shot, but the Zapruder film shows you taking it at the time of the last shot. And since we don't doubt the Zapruder film, we have to doubt you. Therefore, you did NOT take your picture at the time of the first shot. You took it at the time of the last shot. You got that, Mary?" 

No, you don't say that shit to her. You just ignore it. Most people aren't awake enough to recognize the discrepancy anyway. So, just let the sleeping dog lie. Sit back and watch the green grass grow. No harm/no foul. 

But, for the record, I think she took her photo a little before the ice flechette hit Kennedy in the back.  Because: her picture must have shown his reaction to it. If it didn't, then it would not have been a problem. If it was taken before, then presumably, he was still smiling and waving, and all was well.  But, all was not well. She captured JFK doing something that was not part of the story: reacting to the back shot before he entered the Kill Zone.