This is a great article by a retired Lieutenant Colonel who fought in Afghanistan, Daniel L. Davis. He was responding the recent talk show claims of former National Security Advisor HR McMaster, who has been going around plugging his book  and saying that what Trump is doing in Afghanistan is wrong, that we should stay there and fight it out to the end. And realize that we are in our 20th year of fighting there. 

But, I support what Trump is doing in Afghanistan to get us out, and I hope he follows through by withdrawing all our troops from that country by April. Of course, if Biden wins, all bets are off. Just as Trump chucked Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, Biden could chuck Trump's peace deal with the Taliban. But regardless, it would be a terrible shame for any more Americans to die there. It would be a terrible waste. Here is the article by Lt. Colonel Davis.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/30/evidence-demands-america-end-the-afghan-war-and-wi/ 

The footage of Oswald arriving by ambulance at Parkland Hospital was shot on a different day. The way I know that is because the ambulance driver, Michael Hardin, had different length hair in the Parkland footage than he had at the DPD. His hair was much shorter at Parkland.

This image is really not OK. Amanda Andrews pointed out that there isn't even a bridge to the nose. It's all nostril. 

It's the bridge that holds the nose up, to the extent that it does. But, it's a constant struggle against gravity, and over a lifetime, the tip of the nose tends to fall. But, on  Oswald, it really looks like all nostril. Where's the bridge? You can see a distinct bridge on all these sleeping men.

You can see a bridge on all of them. But not here:

It really is yet another freaky JFK assassination image. And why does his ear look so freaky?

There is no way to defend this. It doesn't happen when you and I take pictures. 

 I know I have previously said that they have never shown us Oswald at Parkland, but I now think that this may be him. They just enlarged his nostril, for some reason. And, it is anatomically impossible. His nostril is almost as big as his mouth! I am providing a comparison photo. And notice that you only see one nostril on him. From the angle that we're seeing him, we should definitely see part of the other nostril. But, we don't. It's like he had a one-nostril nose; one freaky gigantic nostril. 

Nobody could have such a big gaping nostril like that, and Oswald certainly didn't.  I think that most likely they painted that. Paint is how they altered photos back then since they didn't have photoshop. And they were good at it too. I was told by a professional photographer that they could do anything that we can do today with Photoshop and every bit as well. Why did they want him to have such a large nostril? I don't know. I could only speculate. So, maybe this is the real Oswald, but regardless, it is a heavily doctored photo. 

I am using an element from the Oswald assassination in my movie. You may have heard that I am making a movie, my second movie, which is the sequel to my first movie, My Stretch of Texas Ground, which won awards all over the world. The sequel is His Stretch of Texas Ground, and it continues the saga of Sheriff Joe Haladin, the very independent sheriff of Vatacorda County in the Texas Hill Country, with the county seat of Arlettsville. (names all fictional) 

But, the element from the Oswald assassination that I am going to use is: video noise. In the story, that is, my story, a man is going to suddenly do something, and then it's going to cut to video noise, in which all you can see, for some seconds, is chaos, commotion, pandemonium,  And then when it returns to clarity, you see the outcome of what he did. 

And that's what they did with the film of the Oswald assassination. First, Oswald gets shot.  Then, we see the detectives, whom I call the Penguins, huddling around the Shooter, protecting him- from cameras, as they scurry him away inside. They did not handcuff him because he wasn't a real shooter. But, after showing us a little of that, it went immediately to video noise, in which all we see is wildness, franticness, and pandemonium. Finally, it clears, and presto: everyone's gone. "Ruby"is gone; Oswald is gone; the detectives are gone. We see some other detectives cordoning the area, and acting like it's all over, that everything is back under control. 

Video noise. How cool is that; to show something without showing anything; where your real purpose is to cover up what is going on. They did that at the Oswald assassination, and I am going to do it in my movie. Except, the difference is that, I admit that mine is fiction and fabricated, but they try to pass theirs off as real. But, it isn't real. The whole thing was a televised spectacle; pablum for the masses. It was a dog and pony show. If you believe it, you're a sucker. Jack Ruby wasn't even there. He was already tucked away on the 5th floor, and they wove him into the story later. How much later? Right around 3:00. That's when they brought him down from the 5th floor to the 3rd floor to be questioned by Captain Will Fritz. And that's when reporters and cameramen saw Jack Ruby- the real Jack Ruby- for the first time. 

It's the truth. Jack Ruby was innocent. Framed and innocent. Drugged, framed, and innocent. Drugged, framed, manipulated, and innocent. And they kept him drugged via Dr. Louis Joylan West, the CIA's  Maestro of Mind Control who flew out from California. Did you know that "Jolly" also saw Sirhan Sirhan? Yup. There are a lot of parallels between Jack Ruby and Sirhan Sirhan. You see, Lee Harvey Oswald was the last time they used a mentally competent patsy. And that is not to say that they didn't try to do some mental manipulation on him. But, Oswald was not drugged, and it may be because he wasn't into drugs, that they couldn't get him to take them. And he was of sound mind. And he did a lot of damage to his killers, who were also Kennedy's killers, and I don't mean the shooters because they were just instruments of the plotters. I mean the ones pulling the strings.

People should have known better than to fall for their tricks even in 1963. But, in 2020? There is no excuse whatsoever to fall for it.  

Oswald was definitely not shot in the garage. There was no blood. And he did too much moving around, including going up on his toes, when he would have gone straight down because the trauma was instantly catastrophic. So, Oswald was not shot before our eyes. He was shot and killed that day, for sure, but not in the garage. So when and where was he killed? 

But first, was that Oswald in the garage? It was definitely him in the Jackson photo, which was done at a photo-shoot about 45 minutes before the televised spectacle, after Ruby was tucked away on the 5th floor.  But, what about during the televised spectacle?  I presume it was him during the televised spectacle as well. This is an image of him from the 2nd KRLD film. I doubt they could have found a double who looked that much like him. 

That is much more clear than any of the films, which were deliberately blurred. Here's a frame from NBC.

Notice that the definition is much poorer. But, I am still satisfied that that's  him. 

And that leaves just two choices: either they shot him in the PD or they left for the hospital with him unshot and shot him on the way. I am inclined to think they shot him in the PD. 

Others before me have suggested that he wasn't shot in the garage. They usually say that he was shot in the ambulance. That seems very unlikely to me. Leavelle and Dhority, the two detectives who rode in the ambulance, were definitely in on it, but the other three in the ambulance were not. They were Michael Hardin, the driver, Harold Wolf, his assistant, and Dr. Fred Bieberdorf. They would have had to kill them all. Both Hardin and Wolf did die untimely deaths in the 1970s when only in their 30s, Hardin by "heart attack" and Wolf by "suicide." So, that's suspicious. But, Bieberdorf lived until 2009 dying of prostate cancer after having a long practice as a gastroenterologist. 

So, imagine if Leavelle or Dhority had done that in the ambulance, and then what? They turn to the other three men and say, "You didn't see that"? I just can't see it. And the other thing is that the shot had to be very precise. So, I think it's likely that they shot Oswald in the PD. 

They needed to get a bullet in him pronto so that he could start bleeding. And the bullet was carefully placed; from left to right and downward in is trajectory, so that it would burst the aorta and vena cava and also go through the pancreas and right kidney, which are highly vascular organs to make him bleed, bleed, bleed. I'm sure it was done with great precision; a surgical shot. 

You have to remember that they knew that after he was shot, they would have to make it look like they were trying to save his life by getting him to the hospital. They also knew that at the hospital, doctors would really try to save him. So, they couldn't turn him over to doctors until it was hopeless for him. That meant that he needed time to bleed. It meant that the sooner they got the shot into him the better. 

I think the most likely thing is that they shot him in the PD. They probably had a room set up for it, and they used a silencer, and I presume they sedated him first. 

Oswald cooperated. They must have told him that they believed him, and they were going to get him out of it, but they had to fake his death first so that no one would go gunning for him. 

The story goes that Leavelle and Combest picked Oswald up and carried him into the PD. But, how could the cameras have missed that? No, I think Oswald scurried inside on his own power, but he kept low, and they had plenty of men doing the pandemonium thing and blocking the view.

So, Oswald gets shot.

Then you get to the Penguins, who are really covering up Bookhout. The bald guy puts something over Bookhout's head. 

And then, after that, it's just video noise; pandemonium. 

Supposedly, a fatally wounded man was lifted up by two men and carried inside, and another man was pounced upon by police and dragged inside WITHOUT HANDCUFFING HIM FIRST which is inexplicable. But, all we see is pandemonium. In other words, we don't see anything. It's like a magician's trick; a sleight of hand.  

This was all a spectacle; it was pure theater. Oswald was definitely not shot in the garage, but most likely he was shot very soon afterwards inside the PD. 

Check this out. This is going to be a rip-roaring tale. 

 

To the people who think Jack Ruby worked for Richard Nixon, this is the document that supposedly proves it, except it was written in 1947, and it has a zip code, and zip codes did not come into use until 1960. And you can be sure that it was the real killers of Oswald who spread such lies about Ruby. 

 Ralph Cinque

So much for global warming. We're having below average temperatures for September too here in Central Texas.

• Like
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 14h

• Leslie Pontarelli

  Ralph Cinque

   Global warming creates an imbalance in weather and environment which creates extremes. So I know you were joshing and not saying GW is not a thing 

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 5h
• Ralph Cinque

  Leslie Pontarelli

   But, the thing is, Leslie, it's a "heads I win; tails you lose" situation because if it was warmer than normal, then you'd say it's global warming, and if it's cooler than normal, then you say it's due to the extremes from global warming. Like loaded dice, global warming wins every time.

I was given an 1893 Indian Head penny in change today. Just think of how long and how far it had to travel to get to me. And think about everything that happened during its journey. It started circulating before the Spanish-American War. I don't know how valuable it is, but I know it's worth more than a penny.

What is the guy who is supposed to be Blackie Harrison on the far right doing with his right arm? He must be reaching for something, right? But what? Is it the gun? But, you can see where the gun is, and his hand was nowhere near it. And when people reach for things, they lean with their whole body. They don't just stick their arm out. But, he is not leaning; not stretching; and he hasn't even interrupted his smoking. Who does two things at once when the two things are foil a gunman and smoke a cigar? But, he can't possibly get to that gun without moving his whole body, yet, he doesn't look the least bit mobilized to move his whole body. It seems like he just couldn't be bothered to move his whole body. It's pretty comical. And really, what's more in keeping with his body language, is that he was just holding microphone. The idea that he is performing a police intervention is a joke. And look at Tom Petit in the white long coat, showing not the slightest bodily response to the noise, the chaos, the commotion. The natural reaction in that situation would be to get away from it; to back off. But, he's just watching it, cool as a cucumber. I tell you, this photo is other-worldly. It is the weirdest, wackiest thing that ever won a Pulitzer Prize. It is so bizarre. it is ludicrous. And the shooter is obviously not Jack Ruby. He's too short; too pudgy. His hair in back is very different than Ruby's. And notice how it looks like a toupee. It was a toupee. Do I have to point out that Jack Ruby didn't go out that day wearing a toupee? 

Mark Menn is going to be appearing in the very opening scene of His Stretch of Texas Ground. But, the idea for this scene did not come from me. I was gong to start the movie with Sheriff Joe's opening scene, featuring Jeff Weber, Horacio Abaroa, and two other actors. But, a filmmaker and editor who contributed mightily to the editing of My Stretch of Texas Ground, Jeff Stolhand, advised me to include this other scene. And I am very glad that he did because I can see now that Jeff was right, that this scene will set the stage and enhance the scenes that follow and create the right aura for the whole movie. I don't want to tell you anything about Mark's character because that would give too much away. But, I will tell you that he is perfect for it. His look is perfect, and his voice is perfect. So, thank you, Mark Menn, for joining us, and thank you, Jeff Stollhand for all that you've done, especially for working doggedly on My Stretch of Texas Ground to elevate the film.

 

Comments

• Ralph Cinque

  Yeah, it's terrible they are doing it to the police. But the Mlitary? All they do is cross the ocean and start unnecessary wars that kill millions of innocent people. You know: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. So yeah, they can quit honoring them.

I accidentally broke a glass this morning. I was putting it on the counter after drinking, but I was looking the other way, and I wasn't as close to the counter as I thought. Apparently, I was just at the edge of it. I remember feeling the counter. I didn't just release it in the air. But apparently, it was just at the edge of the counter. And so it fell to the ground and burst. And when it burst, I was looking the other way, but I jumped. I startled. I was spooked. This is the broken glass. 

Now, how could someone in a garage when a shot goes off not be startled? How could he be still clasping his hands in front after the shot or smoking a cigar? It's insane. It's the Bizarro World. It's the Twilight Zone. 

The Jackson photo isn't just wrong. It is insanely wrong. You understand that it's AFTER the shot, right? 

The Jackson photo is a screaming out loud fraud, and anyone should be able to see it. It was taken, supposedly, a fraction of a second after the shot went off. BUT, NOBODY IS STARTLED. You've got a guy there, Detective Lowery, who is standing relaxed clasping his hands in front. After the shot? People have nervous systems. They have stress hormones. They can't suppress them. This photo is ridiculous. 

Wiggins in the white hat isn't even looking at what is going on. He is looking past the people in front of him at the camera, as one would do at a photo-shoot. How do we know? Because he seems to be looking at you, doesn't he? Well, you are seeing this from the perspective of the camera. And there is Blackie Harrison on the right puffing away on his cigar and looking very relaxed too. But, as Mary-Ellen showed us, that isn't even him; it's FBI Agent James Hosty who was not present at the televised spectacle. This photo had to be taken BEFORE the spectacle. 

I realize that this preposterous photo won the Pulitzer Prize. But, that was 1964, and this is 2020. People aren't supposed to be so naive and gullbile any more. People don't accept the fake news spewings of the government and the media any more, right? We've wised up, haven't we? This photo is too impossible to be real. It is a staged photo. It certainly wasn't staged afterwards, so it must have been staged before. 

 

This is my review of Darling Lili from 1970, starring Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, and he definitely played second fiddle to her. She was the star. And if you're a Julie Andrews fan, like I am, you won't be disappointed. She was as beautiful, dazzling, and lustrously voiced as ever. And there is some very nice music by Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer. It's not like The Sound of Music or Fiddler on the Roof where practically every song is memorable. But, the top song, Whistling Away the Dark, is certainly a gem. It is one of my favorite songs in the world. It's a sad waltz, but sad music can be hauntingly beautiful, and it is. And there is another great song, I'll Give You Three Guesses that is simply delightful. It is upbeat, a dance number that is fun and catchy. And, there is a very clever dramatic element that goes with the song, for which I hail the writer, Blake Edwards, as well as Julie Andrews for the way she did it. It is will surprise the heck out of you, and you won't see it coming.  

But, in some ways, Darling Lili is a very strange movie. It's a period piece about World War 1, in which Lili Smith is a well known and very popular British singer and entertainer. But, in reality, she is half English and half German. Her real last name is Schmidt, and she is a German spy. 

I happen to be keenly interested in World War 1 because it was such a senseless catastrophe, and it set the course for the entire 20th century, and I mean its very bloodied course- by far the most bloodied and most savage century ever. So, any movie about World War 1, I would expect to have very tragic undertones. But, this movie is light, and at times, slapstick. For instance, there are two French intelligence officers who will remind you of Inspector Clourseau from The Pink Panther.  

So, she's a German spy, and she gets assigned to romantically lure an American flying ace, played by Rock Hudson, who is commissioned with the British, and pry military secrets from him. I have to wonder why they didn't just make him British because there are no references to him being American. He never talks about America or his life in America. I have to wonder if Rock Hudson just couldn't handle the British accent. OR, perhaps, they just wanted him to sound like Rock Hudson. 

So, they have this romance, and it's hot and cold because they are both being dishonest to each other, yet, they are both sincerely drawn to each other. And then it gets really treacherous for both of them, but the weird thing is: you know she's a German spy, and this is a war movie. So, all the while, I was dreading the expectation of seeing Julie Andrews riddled with bullets or somehow meeting her demise. Isn't that the way such stories have to end? 

Well, I'm not going to tell you how it ends.

Attitudes about World War 1 are different from World War 2. The Germans were the enemy in both wars, but there is no comparison between the two in the way they are conceived and portrayed. World War 1 doesn't have the polarity of World War 2. The good and the bad aren't as black and white. This movie is pretty light and playful compared to World War 2 movies, although they did try to ratchet up the danger and suspense at the end with some success. But, the greatest appeal of the film can be summed up in two words: Julie Andrews. And that's the other enigma of the film: how do you root against Julie Andrews? She is so enchanting, appealing, and angelic that you just don't want any harm to come to her. They could never have made this movie in a World War 2 setting. In other words, supporting the Kaiser is very different psychologically from supporting Hitler. 

Every movie has implausible elements, and this one has more than its share. But still, I give it 4 stars out of 5, and that's because of Julie, Julie, Julie. 

https://www.amazon.com/Darling-Lili-Julie-Andrews/dp/B001KQ4KYU/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Darling+Lili&qid=1600560386&sr=8-1