This is the famous photo that won the Pulitizer Prize, but it is ridiculous. You need to realize that this was AFTER the shot. So, the shot has already gone off, and Oswald has reacted to it. He has screamed and moaned, And then, for some reason, he has slapped his arm to his chest. Who does that after being shot? And why?  

That is a lot to happen in that cramped, crowded space, and it's a lot to react to, and I mean in a startled way. But who looks startled in that picture? Nobody. Let's analyze it from left to right. On the far left is Fritz, and even though Oswald has been shot, has screamed, and has slapped his arm to his chest, Fritz hasn't even turned around. Let me tell you: if somebody in your space got shot right behind you, you would jump, flinch, and turn around, and I mean fast. And remember that Fritz is the one in charge there. He's the top person there. I have a feeling that he didn't want to turn around, and that way if he was asked what happened, what he saw, he could say nothing because he was turned around.  

But, let's move on. Next is Detective Lowery who is clasping his hands in front of his body, like a Jehovah Witness standing at your door. So, even though Oswald has been shot, has screamed, and has slapped his arm to his chest, Lowery is still clasping his hands and looking perfectly relaxed? Are you buying that? But, let's move on. 

Next is that officer in uniform standing behind Oswald. Can you see that he is not looking at Oswald or at the Shooter but rather at the camera? Remember that you are, in effect, the camera, and he is looking at you. Can you see that he is looking at you? How can he be doing that when someone right in front of him just got shot?

Next is the top NBC reporter that day: Tom Pettit. Look at his expression. Is it the expression of someone who has just witnessed a violent act and a very extreme situation? No. He looks as cool as a cucumber. Both his facial expression and his body language tell you that he is not startled. 

Then, the guy on the far right is supposed to be Detective Blackie Henderson, but I don't think it is. But, that's who he is supposed to be. And he is smoking a little cigar, as Blackie liked to do. But, a man has just been shot, and he's screamed, and the shooter still has the gun and is pointing it. So how could Blackie continue smoking that cigar and preoccupying one of his hands to do it? 

You notice that his right arm is extended. What is he supposed to be doing? Believe it or not, he is supposed to be reaching for the gun to disarm the shooter. So, he did that with one hand, so that he could continue smoking like Groucho Marx with the other? That's what we are supposed to believe. In real life, how quickly would the officer discard the cigar in order to go into action? He would do is instantly. 

So, what's Oswald's arm-slapping all about? It didn't happen, it was an afterthought, a photo manipulation. You see, this wasn't a real shooting. Oswald wasn't really shot. This was a staged photo-shoot they did beforehand. And the only way they could hide the absence of trauma is by covering up the whole area where the bullet supposedly entered. 

So, that is the purpose of Oswald's arm-slap and Leavelle's goofy hand-in-the-pants. They didn't have any trauma to show, and that meant they had to cover up the whole area.

And they gave this the Pulitzer Prize? God Almighty. We have been living in a manipulated  and controlled world  telling us what to think for a very long time. 

 Here's another very weird thing that can't be brushed off. When the Dallas Police wrestled the shooter to the ground, they should have handcuffed him on the spot, before taking him anywhere. That is standard police practice everywhere: when you have a violent offender to get him in restraints-immediately- so that he can't hurt you or anyone else. Instead, they dragged him into the jail office before cuffing him. And how did they know what they were doing? Doesn't it seem like some of them would have gone to handcuff him there? And of course, once he's handcuffed with his hands behind his back, then you can just stand him up and walk him away because he is no longer a threat. That's what should have happened. But instead, the Penguins, as I call them, just swarmed him for the purpose of hiding him from view, and then they crowded him into the office. And by the way, there were two doors to the office. There was a narrow door in the corner, and big wide double doors right behind them. Considering how crowded it was, wouldn't it have been easier to take him in through the double doors? But no one yelled anything. No one gave directions. Yet, it was very coordinated, and everyone knew just what to do. How? Because it was all planned in advance. They got away with this for 50 years. It was in 2013 that someone first noticed that there was something terribly wrong about the whole narrative of the Oswald shooting, and it wasn't me.

 I received this message from Robert Pietrantonio, and what he says is absolutely true. Yes, it had to be Johnson who put the Dallas Police up to killing Oswald. Two of the detectives were in tight with him because he paid them to be his bodyguards whenever he came to Dallas, and that's Boyd and Sims. 

There's something I can cite that proves that Oswald's killing was planned in advance, and I don't mean by Ruby, and that is: the fact that the FBI and Secret Service took custody of Marina on Saturday.

How could they do that when Oswald was still alive? Recall how Oswald reacted when he found out that FBI had sent Hosty out to Irving to talk to Marina. He went ballistic. He stormed into the FBI office and complained. And he complained again about it to Hosty's face at the first interrogation. 

So, if Oswald didn't like it, how would he have reacted when he found out that the FBI had taken her into custody? He would have been furious, and they knew it. But, they also knew that he was going to be shot on Sunday, so it didn't matter. 

Remember that in our system of justice, wives can't be forced to testify against their husbands. It's called spousal privilege. They should have had the good sense to wait until after Oswald was dead to confiscate her. Doing it the day before exposed the fact that they were planning to kill him. 

It's amazing how they made sure we did not see the face of Oswald's shooter. Only his back and a little from the side. Then everyone who tackled Oswald's shooter to the ground right after, made sure his body and face were covered. Ruby was being held in a retaining room on the 5th floor while Oswald was in the basement. They were two different people (Oswald shooter and Ruby). It's just amazing the depth of the deception. And the public fell for it. I'm so outraged. It's one of the biggest coverups of the 20th century. Along, oif course, with Oswald not killing JFK.

Enter

Robert

The Oswald shooting had to look like a night club owner, lone looser, mafia-tied killing, Ruby did it - and absolutely not implicate the govt or a conspiracy within gov't, FBI, or Dallas Police. This went all the way to LBJ. Now they want to delay the release of JFK gov't document regarding the JFK assassination. Anyway, even if they were released they'll all be heavily redacted.

The stand-up comedian Mort Sahl has died. Most of the tributes didn't mention the fact that he was a speechwriter for John F. Kennedy. He was hired specifically to write jokes for Kennedy, and they became friends; good friends. And after the assassination, Mort publicly denounced the Warren Commission and that got him blacklisted- for years. 

As I said, most of the reports didn't say a word about any of that, but the Los Angeles Times did.  

"Sahl, whose on- and off-stage preoccupation with a conspiracy theory on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy slowed his career in the late 1960s, died Tuesday."

Notice that it doesn't say a word about him having known Kennedy and worked for Kennedy. And the only reason his career slowed is because he was blacklisted. It was a political persecution, not a grass roots rejection.

This is from Variety:

"After Kennedy’s assassination, Sahl began reading from the Warren Report onstage; he was soon labeled a conspiracy kook, and he didn’t have much of a standup career from 1966 to 1976 except for appearances on college campuses. Sahl said he was blacklisted from TV. In the late 1960s, Sahl worked, without compensation, for New Orleans District Attorney and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist Jim Garrison."

How they love that term conspiracy theorist, don't they? 

You can't overstate Mort Sahl's courage and heroism. He was a friend of John F. Kennedy, but John F. Kennedy had a lot of friends. At least, he thought he did. But how many of them stood up for him after he was murdered by the National Security State? Very few. Practically none. Not one member of his large family was willing to fight for him; not even his brothers. But, Mort was loyal to him to the end. And he paid the price; he willingly paid the price.    

Biden delayed the release of the remaining JFK documents, pushing back further the delay ordered by Trump. 

https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-delays-release-records-jfk-assassination/

So, it doesn't matter who is in the White House; government will always protect itself. 

And in Biden's case, I'm sure it wasn't even his decision. He just did what he was told. 

If the JFK assassination really was just what they claimed- Oswald shooting Kennedy, and Ruby shooting Oswald- there would have been no need to seal anything, let alone keep it sealed 58 years later. 

The Official Story of the JFK assassination is a grotesque lie. It is SO obvious that Oswald didn't do it, starting with the fact that you can see him standing in the doorway during the shooting and even recognize his clothes. 

In the case of Ruby, there's been no universal clamor for his exoneration, but the evidence for his innocence is just as strong, including the photographic evidence. 

The evil that was the JFK assassination is now on the hands, not of the perpetrators who did it, but on the legions of government and media who have perpetuated the lie for over half a century. That's what is really at stake: not villifying Dulles and Johnson and them, although that's warranted. But, the fact is that those guys are long gone while the cover-up continues unabated. But, it is going to collapse. The truth genie is out of the bottle, and she is not going back in. There is going to be a reckoning. Oswald will be vindicated, and Ruby will be pitied as the poor victimized sap that he was. 

This debate that I had with David Von Pein about the Garage Shooter was brought to my attention again by a supporter. And after reading it again, I have to say that I think I did very well, that I prevailed, and I made him look foolish. 

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR1Jt2GpZ6Pf-Wtxp-ZBJTV8yPgM7nbYbnEEp3lrkhCrwReGX49lm7Le_Lg

Ruby NEVER admitted killing Oswald. Even in his final interview, done two weeks before he died at Parkland Hospital, he said he had no memory of doing it. How can you admit to doing something that you don't remember doing? What he conceded was that Dallas Police told him that he did it, and since he didn't have it in him to dispute what the Dallas Police, his heroes, said, he therefore had to accept that he did it. But, there is a big difference between accepting that you did something and admitting that you did it. He accepted that he did it without having any memory of doing it, without having any knowledge of doing it, without having any intention of doing it, and not even having any inclination to do it. He accepted it simply because he was not one to challenge Authority. Many times he said that all he remembered was going to the garage and then suddenly the police were pouncing on him, and he did not know why. And think about his quoted words during the melee: "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby. You know me. I'm not a criminal." He admitted saying that, and others said that he said it. But, why would he say it if he knew he shot Oswald? Ruby didn't have any awareness of shooting Oswald until police told him that he did on the 5th floor. 

And he really was impaired mentally. Because: a normal person with no memory of having done such a thing, and with no tendency or capacity to do such a thing, would ever accept it- no matter how many police told him that he did.  His attitude would be, "Fuck you all! I didn't do it!" You see, that's normal. That's healthy- in that situation. 

And it applies to you, the person reading this. Unless you are a soldier who killed in war- and that's a whole other subject- I presume you've never killed anyone. I presume you've never thought about killing anyone. I presume you are someone who has lived his or her whole life with a perception of yourself that, except in dire self-defense, you wouldn't kill anyone. In other words: you're not a murderer. So, if you were standing in a crowd, and police jumped you and told you that you shot someone, you would trust your own experience, your own cognitive faculties. If you know you didn't do it from your own awareness, no amount of lipflapping by others that you did it would move you. You would just assume that you were being framed. And you would be strong. You would believe in yourself and continue believing in yourself- despite what others were saying.

And the Dallas Police were most certainly corrupt. Jim Leavelle was a liar. He lied his head off. He never saw the Shooter coming, let alone recognized him as Jack Ruby. He never jerked on Oswald to try to protect him. He didn't react in any way until after the shot was fired. The films tell us that. He was looking the other way. He was looking right as "Ruby" (really Bookhout) shot from the left. 

This was a tiny fraction of a second before the shot went off. Leavelle had no awareness of "Ruby". He was not looking in his direction. He was not reacting in anyway to save Oswald. He did not begin to react until after the shot was fired. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and it is the most pivotal truth of the whole JFK assassination saga, that and the fact that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. And they were under the gun because Oswald was clamoring about not having a lawyer. How much longer could they continue denying him one when it was his Constitutional right? And if he spoke to a lawyer even once, it would have been all over for the perps. He and the lawyer would have had them by the throat. They had to kill Oswald. and they didn't just get lucky with Jack Ruby coming along. It was their operation from start to finish. Like Oswald, Ruby was another patsy. The difference was that Oswald was of sound mind, and Ruby wasn't. 

The Oswald family Thanksgiving 1962. The three sons were there; their kids; and their wives. It was a grand family reunion. But, where was the matriarch, Marguerite? She wasn't there. And she couldn't be. Because if the real Marguerite came, she would not have recognized Lee as her son. And if the short squatty Marguerite of fame went, John Pic would not have recognized her as his mother. Robert Oswald would have gone along because he was in on it. But, Pic wasn't. As it was, he didn't recognize Lee. He told the Warren Commission that Lee didn't look anything like he remembered him, that he was like a stranger. But, if they had tried to heap the short, squatty Marguerite on him, he would have shook his head, waved his hand, and said no way; you are not my mother. The jig would have been up. And that's why this grand family reunion took place without the matriarch. It really is true that there were two Oswalds, and the one we know, wasn't the real one. He was the impostor, most likely an East European or Russian orphan who excelled at language in New York City, learning English at a young age to where he sounded like a native. The CIA got wind of him and the idea arose to merge his identity with a native-born American. Thus, the Oswald Project was born.  

 It was reported today that more than one million Afghan children are facing starvation. The U.S. is blaming the Taliban while the Taliban blames the U.S., for refusing to release Afghan government funds to them.

There are aid centers where the only things being distributed are flour and salt. People are flocking to them, but one can't live on flour and salt. 

If flour and salt were all l had to eat, I would definitely not eat the flour. It would be less strain on my body to fast than to have nothing but flour. I might take a little bit of salt.  

The article states: The Biden administration has already frozen about $9 billion in Afghan government assets. World leaders have now pledged $1.2 billion dollars of aid to Afghanistan, but those funds won't do much to bring the beleaguered economy back from the brink, and they won't be enough to help children like Sofia - the smallest, most vulnerable victims of the crisis that they had no part in creating.

The humanitarian crsis is the result of war, and who started the war? The United States did. There being little difference between war and terrorism, the U.S. is not only the biggest terrorist nation on Earth but also the most self-deluded nation on Earth, as it turns a blind eye to the consequences of its own genocideal rampages. 

 

A plane crashed into a field near Houston yesterday.

 Then, there's the plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

Planes don't crash and disappear into holes in the ground. Why do people believe this shit? 

I just got back from Parrot Tracks Studio where we laid down the instrument tracks to It's Precious We Have It Today for Joe Haladin: The Case of the Missing Sister. We had great musicians from George Strait's Ace in the Hole Band, and one of them, Rick MacRae, offered to lay down a mandolin track. He did, and it came out great. It is such a sweet, happy instrument.

I did the vocals here but only to give the musicians a vocal cue. As soon as we can, we are going to get Carlton Caudle, who is a leading actor in the film, to come in and do a proper vocal track, and he has the voice for it.

So, this music will begin at the end of the final scene in which Joe and Laura are sitting outside, and he is watching her darn this colorful quilt for their first grandchild. So, a few seconds of that, then it fades to black, and the song continues through the Closing Credits.

https://soundcloud.com/ralphcinque/its-precious-we-have-it-today

Today, October 18, is the birthday of Lee Harvey Oswald, but not the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame. It's the birthday of the LHO who was born and raised in New Orleans, and you know that the LHO of fame wasn't born and raised there. You know it just from his voice.  He hadn't the slightest hint of a New Orleans accent. 

So, we don't know his birthday, and, as far as I know, this is the earliest picture of him that we have. All of the younger pictures of LHO are of Lee. This picture of Harvey was taken at the Bronx Zoo, reportedly in 1953.

Going by Lee's birthday, he would have been 13 years old. But, how old was he, Harvey? 

First, I'm satisfied that the two guys in the collage are the same person. So, how old was he on the left? You can see that he had quite a lot of muscle tone and definition in his left arm. It seems more than average for a 13 year old. But, he does seem small and short. So, considering everything, I'm content to say that he was 13 too. Of course, I can't be certain, but I am very confident that it had to be within a year of that, either way.

So, where was he born? We don't know, but we do know that he was born in a household that spoke Russian. Russian must have been his first language. Either he learned Russian and English simultaneously or he started learning English soon afterwards. The reason I say that is because he spoke English without any foreign accent. He sounded American. You realize that Russians who learn to speak English as a scond language do so with a strong and conspicuous Russian accent. He didn't have that accent when he spoke English. So, he must have learned English pretty soon after he learned Russian, if not at the same time. 

There are no concrete facts about his origin; nothing that's bankable. John Armstrong has spoken of a woman who told somebody that she knew Oswald's father and uncle in New York City, and that they were from Hungary. That is not bankable. I don't put any stock in it at all. Hungary has its own language, Hungarian, which is unrelated to Russian. It's a completely different kind of lanugage. Over 99% of Hungarians speak Hungarian. Only 1.6% of Hungarians speak Russian, which is much lower than the percentage that speak English (16%). During Harvey's formative years, the early 1940s, there is no explanation for why Hungarians would be speaking Russian. 

I have to think that Harvey's origin was either Russian or Ukrainian. Unlike Hungary, Ukraine has a long history of being Russian-speaking. It goes all the way back to the 16th century (the 1500s). And realize that Russia politically dominated Ukraine for centures too- long before the Soviet era. 

I visited Ukraine in 2005, and everywhere I went, people spoke Russian, and that included Kiev and Odessa. I never heard anyone speak Ukrainian. I had an English-Ukrainian dictionary with me that I threw away.  

The situation is similar for Belarus. So, I think the odds are great that Harvey's parents were from Ukraine or Belarus or from Russia itself. 

But, what happened to his parents? I think the odds are great that they were dead; that he was an orphan. Why do I say that? It's because parental devotion is strong. They wouldn't just give him away.  I have to think that his parents were completely out of the picture, that is, dead. 

There was a program set up after World War 2 to bring war orphans to the United States. 

"The children did not have to have individual sponsors in the United States, but could be sponsored by charitable organizations, who would have to pay for their visas, their tickets, and guarantee that they would not become public charges (be on welfare) once they came to America."

"It took the patience and know how of the United States Committee for the Care of European Children to surmount the red-tape and to obtain visas for children who were supposed to bring their birth certificate to the consulate and who did not even remember their name or place of birth. The first group of 67 young war victims left Europe in May of 1946 for the United States. Eventually under the 1945 Truman directive, which was in force for 2 ½ years, 1387 children came to America."

"Our mandate was that we were to find homes for the children. In order of preference the home was to be with relatives, in a foster home, or in a place in which the young person could live if not legally adopted. This was not an easy assignment. Various agencies helped us to accomplish this directive, but even with that help many children were hard to place. They were the ones that would stay three months with us instead of the more usual six weeks. Life for those left behind was very difficult. That their friends found homes, but they did not was further confirmation of their nightmare."

"Our children came from Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and many other countries." 

RC: So, this was a program that involved agencies of the U.S. government, agencies that had connections to other U.S. government agencies, including the CIA. Harvey may have been one of those orphan refugees, whose Russian-speaking parents didn't survive the war. If he was brought here then, and put in a situation where he started to learn English, he was young enough to learn it without imposing a Russian accent on it. And he must have excelled at it. 

Meanhile, it occurred to someone at the CIA that a child who was Russian-speaking could potentially be a spy for them. Harvey may have shown much greater proficiency than most and stood out for his gifted linguisitic ability. 

"Included in my varied daily routine was to teach English to the recent arrivals. I will never again have students so eager to learn, to master the language of their newly adopted country. " Renate G. Justin, author of Children of War.  

So, what if Harvey was in that group and he stood out for how well and how rapidly he was picking up English and not sounding foreign when he spoke it?  They may have been looking for someone like him, and they found the person they were looking for in him. 

So, it started with finding him, and then they had to find his doppelganger. How did they do it? It may be that they mined elementary school class photos. You know how it was and still is that a class photo is taken every year. Or, they could have circulated Harvey's image among the intellgence commnity, and someone responded with knowledge of Lee.  It was having both boys in New York City in 1952/53 that merged their identities. 

So, don't get too excited about today. It's not the birthday of the LHO of fame. But, it is time for everyone to realize that he was not really Lee Harvey Oswald. Note that in Russia, Harvey went by the name Alek. Then there was the Alek Hidell identity. Was that his real name? I don't know, but maybe it was. 

 

    

 

 

Listen to Oswald's voice at the MPC. I use this one from David Von Peinhead because it's includes all of it. Most renderings omit his first statement about his arraignment before the judge in which he protested being denied a lawyer. 

But, what interests me at this time is his voice. Notice that he doesn't sound like a guy who was born and raised in New Orleans and also lived in Texas. I would describe it more as an East Coast accent. Start at 25 seconds. 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/oswald-midnight-press-conference.html 

Now listen to Robert Oswald. This is the only recording of his voice that I can still find. I've heard others in which his Texas/Louisiana accent sounds even stronger. But, you can still hear it, and it's very different from LHO's. Start at 1:42.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq0tjSwdm9Y

Now, remember that theoretically, Robert Oswald and LHO grew up in the same household, and in the case of LHO, one of the voices that would have influenced the formation of his own speech was that of Robert Oswald. Yet, they sound nothing alike. You hear the Texas and Louisiana in Robert Oswald's voice, but LHO's voice, again, sounds East Coast. 

They were were not brothers. They did not grow up together. And what happened to RO's real brother Lee remains a mystery. He could still be alive. 

All you have to do is look at this photo, and it tells you that there were two Oswalds. That's Oswald on the lower left. But, look how stocky he is. He is the biggest, tallest, stockiest boy in that 2nd grade class. But, how could that possibly be true of the Oswald of fame, who was scrawny? This undoubtedly was "Lee" and not "Harvey" the Oswald of fame. Lee and Harvey were very similar in the face, but not the body.

Now, a reference to my ongoing film life, as we are in pre-production for Joe Haladin: The Case of the Missing Sister. I composed this music for a scene in the movie in which Joe Haladin has been beaten up and badly by two thugs, and his wife Laura is taking care of him, like she's a nurse. So, the music represents her care and compassion for him while tending to him. 

I wanted to do it with a trumpet because the film takes inspiration from the classic film noir Chinatown from 1974, starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway, whose haunting love theme by Jerry Goldsmith features a trumpet prominently. 

So, I brought in Ukrainian trumpet player Oleg Tarasenco from Kiev to lay down a trumpet track for the piece. It's me on piano, and it's my composition, which you can hear by clicking the link. And below it is an image that captures the essence of the scene. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyz0Zh-kHbo

 

After people started clamoring about seeing Oswald in the doorway, authorities announced that, no, that isn't Oswald, it's Billy Lovelady, another employee who has an uncanny resemblance to him. 

How uncanny? Well, they told stories to demonstrate how uncanny. One was that Lovelady's kids saw Oswald on tv being taken away in shackles, and they started crying because they thought he was their dad. (And keep in mind that they were actually his step-children). Another was that one time Lovelady's wife Patricia came to the TSBD, and upon seeing Oswald from behind, she called to him, thinking he was her husband. Do you buy that, do you? 

In this collage, I have used the only image of Lovelady that we can trust; the one pirated by Mark Lane. Every other image of him is either outright bogus (not him at all) or highly altered. And that includes the final images of him taken by Robert Groden. I'm sure it was him, but you can't rule out manipulation. This image by Mark Lane is the only one that can be trusted. 

So, the stories were wild and unbelievable. But then, the worst thing was that, after telling them, THEY DIDN'T SHOW A PICTURE OF LOVELADY. Seriously, they just flapped their lips. The February 1964 photos of Lovelady were never published in the newspapers. Nore were they published by the Warren Commission. They were just left in the "document pile." It was Harold Weisberg who found them and published them. 

When the government wouldn't let the media publish any images of Lovelady, and when the Dallas Police issued an order to the press that photographing Lovelady was forbidden, that you would be charged with a crime if you did it, that's when the researchers and the public should have released that they were "fleeing the interview" and they, the government, were the real killers.  

I notice that the United States has pretty much "moved on" from the war in Afghanistan.  At least, it thinks it's moved on from it. 

Perhaps the Soviets thought that too when they pulled out, after a war and occupation that lasted only half as long,  But, it's widely recognized that the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan was a major factor in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union.  

Over here, there is still some bickering about how it ended: the final actions that led to the deaths of 13 young Americans. That tragedy was followed by another a few days later when we killed a family of 13, including 10 children. But, that's happened a lot of times throughout the 20 year war. How about the time we killed 30 pistachio nut harvesters? 

So yeah, there is still a little Biden-bashing going on, but that will settle down, and we'll go on thinking that we are the greatest military might on Earth, and we will blank out on how the Afghanistan War came about, which was that we attacked and invaded another country over an extradition- and we didn't even have an extradition treaty with that country! It's the only time that's happened in the history of the world. We demanded bin laden; they said no, but in a nice way and offering alternatives. It's not as though they said: fuck you. But, we responded with: fuck you, and we sent our armada across an ocean and two seas to attack them over an extradition. 

Keep in mind that at the time, there was no court-ordered arrest warrant for bin laden in any country, including ours. He was not wanted by Interpol. Nothing within the U.S. judicial system had been activated to charge him with the crimes of 9/11. It was just a claim of the Bush administration that he was responsible. 

Let's compare it to what is going on right now with Julian Assange. He is in jail in England, stemming from sex charges in another country that got dropped. But, even though they got dropped, and he's not going to be charged with sex crimes in England, he's being charged with skipping bail and evading arrest. And the U.S. wants to extradite him for espionage and more- a big long list of crimes relating to his Wikileaks revelations. But, UK hasn't agreed to extradite him so far, and now that it's been revealed that the Trump administration considered assassinating him- the way they savagely assassinated Solemani- his lawyers are obviously going to use that to get the Brits to refuse the extradition. 

It just might work, and what are we going to do if it does? Bomb and invade England? No. We're not going to do anything but bellyache. 

Look at all the years we tried to extradite Roman Polanski, and from several countries, including Poland, Switzerland, and France. Not one of them would do it. Did we invade? No, of course not. And those countries we had extradition treaties with. 

International law does not allow a country to attack and invade another country over an extradition. And in this case, there were no formal charges against bin laden: just lipflapping from the Bush administration. 

The point is that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan was a crime from the beginning. We had no right, no justification, no legal basis to do it. There is no basis to think that the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11, and there is no basis to think that Osama bin laden had anything to do with 9/11 either, since the only "evidence" against him that has ever been put forward is the video tape of (F)atty bin laden (a different guy).

So, the U.S. may want to move on from the Afghanistan disaster, but it may not be able to. The consequences have only begun to be felt from what we did: a 20 year murderous rampage, marked mostly by the numerous times we had to apologize for killing civilians. 

This war has been a disaster for our reputation as a civilized country, and also for our reputation as a military force. We have only just begun to feel the consequences of it. 

There is an attorney named Lin Wood who is a Trump activist, who is very vocal about 9/11 truth- even at Trump rallies. 

It's interesting because Trump has never endorsed 9/11 truth. He's made some quips about the Saudis, but that's just noise. Lin Wood goes the distance, saying the George W. Bush is a criminal who belongs in jail. He says it was a missile, not an airliner, that hit the Pentagon, and no plane crashed in Pennsylvania. He doesn't pull any punches. 

But, what's amazing is that Newsweek did an article about his 9/11 truthing, in which they published a lot of his statements. Of course, their intention was to disparage him, but at the same time, they gave him a lot of exposure. It is unusual for the mainstream media to do that. Mostly, they ignore the 9/11 truth movement. They act like it doesn't exist. But, they granted him a full airing.

https://www.newsweek.com/lin-wood-claims-no-planes-hit-twin-towers-pentagon-9-11-we-got-played-1634989?fbclid=IwAR0oyaFgd6YiUTsn4jwqEtWFv05-SoYm1gQZo1qrnT-k2q5HtNQ5RhOjNBI 

Of course, he is not a politician. He is not in office, and he is not running for office. An elected or appointed official could never get away with this. There would be calls for his or her resignation or impeachment. 

Even Ron Paul, when he was put on the spot during the Presidential election campaign, either in 2008 or 2012, by Chris Douglas, who pointed out to him that many of his supporters were 9/11 truthers, so will he renounce, once and for all, the 9/11 truth movement? And Ron pretty much did. I have to think that Ron knew better. And the same went for Robert Kennedy, who was put on the spot about his brother's murder, and publicly, he always supported the Warren Commission. 

So, this visibility given to Lin Wood was unusual, especially since it involved Newsweek. But, I have to think that he is pleased about it. He didn't come off bad- not at all. I don't think the article had the effect they were looking for. In other words: it was a big mistake for them to do it.