Look at the far side of this image on our left. You see the two street lights down from the obelisk. It does not show the freeway sign, but mentally, you can see it in your mind's eye. It's just a little further down and a little deep to the sidewalk. 

Zapruder is further down the road yet and deeper yet, and he's pointing his camera up the street. 

So, on the street, it goes obelisk, light post, light post, freeway sign. That's the order. Obviously, Zapruder could not capture the first light post and the freeway sign- not by zooming and not by anything else. And if he positioned his camera to start with the second light post, it wouldn't look like this because the second light post was not up by the intersection.  

 I'll circle the second light post. 

So that circled light post can't be the one in the Zapruder frame because the one in the Zapruder frame is close to the intersection. 

It has to be the first light post. But then it gets to the freeway sign.

So, it goes from the first light post to the freeway sign with the second light post vanished? That is a physical and photographic impossibility. What explains it? 

What explains it is a gross manipulation of the Zapruder film, in which, if you divided it up into segments, it went Segment A, Segment B, Segment C, and they cut out Segment B and cinched up A and C. 

It was extremely difficult to do. Here is a picture of Saigan nightlife.

I selected this because it is so visually cluttered and noisy, I thought it might be easy to get away with it. And, I removed just a little sliver, not a big chunk, like they did. 

It isn't all that bad. At the top and in the middle, it blends and transitions quite nicely. But, it does have problems, particularly at the crosswalk. That's where you really see the break. It screams at you. 

And this is just a still picture. They had to blend disparate pieces not of a still image but a movie. It probably took them years to do it. That's why they couldn't show the Z-film to the public until 1975. 

On November 25, 1963, after watching the Zapruder film, Dan Rather went on national television to describe it. Now, did he see the real, unaltered Z-film or had they already done things to it? That I do not know. 

But, he began by saying that about 35 yards from the intersection JFK got hit for the first time, and that's exactly what I'm saying. 

 He said that JFK brought his hand to his temple, and he demonstrated.

 We don't see that in Zapruder film today. Rather said, and I quote:

"Just as President Kennedy put his hand to the side of his head, you could see him lurch him forward. The first shot had hit him."

THAT WAS THE BACK SHOT! THE Z-FILM CAPTURED JFK BEING SHOT IN THE BACK. NOW, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAD TO CUT IT OUT AND DO THE ELABORATE, PAINSTAKING, SURGERY ON IT? 

So, Dan Rather and I agree that JFK got hit in the back high on the hill, just 35 yards from the intersection. But, Dan Rather was describing a part of the Zapruder film that they later cut out. 

And remember that the official story became that JFK wasn't hit until he was hit, supposedly, with the Single Bullet, but really it was just the throat shot. And his reaction to that, as seen in the Z-film, was nothing like what Rather described. JFK was in a state of panic, and he brought his hands up to his throat to clear his airway. 

Rather said that Mrs. Kennedy was looking another direction when JFK was first hit. And we know what direction it was. She was working the other side of the street, the south side. So, she was looking over there. And when she did turn and look at JFK, she saw that he had a "quizzical look." That's according to her Warren Commission testimony.

But, getting back to Rather, then he talked about Connally. He said that it appeared that Connally sensed that something was wrong. He turned  around to look at the President or ask him something, exposing his white shirt. Rather said that that's when Connally was shot. And of course, it was a separate shot. In other words, Rather said that he saw Kennedy and Connally react to being shot at different times. 

Then, Rather described the third shot which struck JFK's head. According to Rather, JFK's head could be seen to move "violently forward" in response to it. (But, what about "back and to the left"? How did Rather miss seeing that?) Then, Rather said that Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately. He said that JFK leaned her way and might have brushed her legs. Then, he described Jackie getting on the trunk on all fours and "reaching out for the Secret Service man" who pushed her back into the car. Then, Rather described seeing the Secret Service man in the front seat on the phone as the car picked up speed and disappeared beneath the underpass. 

You can watch it for yourself here. Notice that Rather had something in front of him that he was looking at. I don't know if it was text or images. 

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

But, the bottom line is that Rather described JFK being shot for the first time high on the hill, and that had to be the back shot. He said nothing about a throat shot and JFK reacting by bringing his hands up to his throat. So, how did he miss that? Then he described the last shot as hitting JFK in the head but without describing the back and to the left motion that we see in the Zapruder film today. 

So obviously, what Rather saw was very different from what we see today in the Zapruder film. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they altered it already before showing it to him. But, undoubtedly, vast changes to the Zapruder film were yet to be done. There is no way to reconcile what Rather said then with what we see today.   

 

Since the gap is just a little too wide to capture the lightpost and the sign in one view, the solution is to use something as a marker to bridge the gap. So, in the top image, you can clearly see the green lightpost on the left, and on the right side, we'll use the woman in the red and blue plaid shirt as the marker. Then, I just progress the film slightly until the sign appears. And wahlee, that clinches it, showing the span between the lightpost and the sign in the Zapruder film, using that woman as the link.

This is a very big deal. If Zapruder captured the sign when he shot the top of the plaza, then he had to capture everything betwen the sign and the top of the plaza. And that means there should be two lightposts.

Now, I have a frame that proves that there was just one street light above the sign in the Zapruder film. The light is in the upper left corner, while the sign is in the lower right corner. So, just one street light, and then it gets to the sign, but only in the Zapruder film. In reality, there was another street light before you got to the sign. Remember that the sign was below the second light in the lower image, and that's why you don't see it.

So, that other street light was within the red swath that they removed from the Zapruder film to eliminate JFK reacting to being shot in the back high on the hill, long before he reached the freeway sign.

So, as Zapruder was tracking the limo down the hill, we should see two lights posts before it gets to the freeway sign. But, you don't. You see only one. What happened to the other one? It was cut out. That big piece they cut out, in which JFK was showing visible signs of having been shot, contained it. And that's why you only see one. They cinched it up.

If we had an honest government, I should be able to take this collage to the Attorney General and get him to open a criminal investigation into the murder of John F. Kennedy.

U.S. taxpayers paid the Zapruder family over $18 million for the Zapruder film, and it's a fraud. And I don't say that they, the Zapruders, phonied it up. They had nothing to do with it. It was out of their hands for 12 years, from 1963 to 1975. And even when they got it back in 1975, it didn't go back to them. It went to the National Archives. They just got to benefit financially from it. It was rented out to various groups entities for extremely high fees or modest ones, depending. The National Archives did the work, and the Zapruders got the money.

But eventually, the Zapruders said that since they owned it, they had the right to possess it, and therefore, they wanted it back. But, guess what? They found out that they didn't really own it. The government owned it.

And then it became a battle over how much the government had to pay them for it, and an arbitrator came up with the figure of $18 million.

The Zapruder film was kept out of public view for 12 years. Why? Because it wasn't ready to be seen. They had to get it to tell the right story, that JFK was smiling and waving until he reached the freeway sign, and then, it all happened behind the sign (except for the fatal head shot). It probably took them the better part of 12 years to figure out how to make the film say that.

But then, it was like a hot potato. Time/Life didn't want to own it because if anyone screamed bloody murder over the massive alterations that were done to it, they didn't want to be blamed for it. But, no one would suspect the Zapruders of foul play, so, it would look good if they owned it. And that's why Time/Life sold it back to the Zapruders for a dollar.

But, there was no way they were ever going to let the film fall into private hands that could have it analyzed and expose all the things they did. It's a very safe bet that it is the most altered film in film history.

The corruption involved in all this is mind-boggling, but it was a matter of covering up the murder of President Kennedy by the national security state, as Vincent Salandria told us.

 If we had an honest government, I should be able to take this collage to the Attorney General and get him to open a criminal investigation into the death of John F. Kennedy.

It proves that the Zapruder film was drastically altered. And the Zapruder film is evidence in the case, so it was obstruction of justice.

U.S. taxpayers paid the Zapruder family over $18 million for the Zapruder film, and it's a fraud. And I don't say that they, the Zapruders, phonied it up. They had nothing to do with it. It was out of their hands for 12 years, from 1963 to 1975. And even when they got it back in 1975, it didn't go back to them. It went to the National Archives. They just got to benefit financially from it. It was rented out to various groups entities for extremely high fees or modest ones, depending. The National Archives did the work, and the Zapruders got the money.

But eventually, the Zapruders said that since they owned it, they had the right to possess it, and therefore, they wanted it back. But, guess what? They found out that they didn't really own it. The government owned it.

And then it became a battle over how much the government had to pay them for it, and an arbitrator came up with the figure of $18 million.

The Zapruder film was kept out of public view for 12 years. Why? Because it wasn't ready to be seen. They had to get it to tell the right story, that JFK was smiling and waving until he reached the freeway sign, and then, it all happened behind the sign (except for the fatal head shot). It probably took them the better part of 12 years to figure out how to make the film say that.

But then, it was like a hot potato. Time/Life didn't want to own it because if anyone screamed bloody murder over the massive alterations that were done to it, they didn't want to be blamed for it. But, no one would suspect the Zapruders of foul play, so, it would look good if they owned it. And that's why Time/Life sold it back to the Zapruders for a dollar.

But, there was no way they were ever going to let the film fall into private hands that could have it analyzed and expose all the things they did. It's a very safe bet that it is the most altered film in film history.

The corruption involved in all this is mind-boggling, but it was a matter of covering up the murder of President Kennedy by the national security state, as Vincent Salandria told us.

Now, I have a frame that proves that there was just one street light above the sign in the Zapruder film. The light is in the upper left corner, while the sign is in the lower right corner. So, just one street light, and then it gets to the sign, but only in the Zapruder film. In reality, there was another street light before you got to the sign. Remember that the sign was below the second light in the lower image, and that's why you don't see it.

 Here is more proof that what I am claiming is true about hacking up of the Zapruder film. If you look at this picture, you see two light posts on the north side of Elm Street. They are both above the freeway sign., which is out of view because it was lower on the hill. So, as Zapruder was tracking the limo down the hill, we should see two lights posts before it gets to the freeway sign. But, you don't. You see only one. What happened to the other one? It was cut out. That big piece they cut out, in which JFK was showing visible signs of having been shot, contained it. And that's why you only see one. They cinched it up.

Now I have compared the phony arrangement in the Zapruder film with the real one in Dealey Plaza. Notice in the top photo that you can see the cars on Houston Street which haven't even turned yet. The idea that the sign was that close to the intersection is ridiculous. Then, in the bottom photo, the sign is circled, and there is a red swath that represents the part of the Zapruder film that they cut out. And their cutting it out is why the limo gets to the sign so fast in the Zapruder film. 

Why did they cut it out? They cut it out because JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and he was reacting to it. It was a strange reaction because it was a strange shot: an ice fleschette containing a nerve agent. As the drug seeped into his system, his mind started shutting down and his muscles started seizing up. It was meant to immobilize and incapacitate him so that he would be a sitting duck once the limo entered the Kill Zone. 

Over 20 adults and children hit by an SUV that sped through police barricades in a Milwaukee suburb tonight. Some of them have died, although they haven't released a number. It was a Christmas march. This is as monstrous as it gets. It seems to me that it has reached the point that you have to wonder whether attending any such functions is worth the risk. It's horrific that modern life as come to this.

This is in response to Ron Schuster who believes what he sees in the Zapruder film, that JFK rode down the hill smiling and waving and then was shot twice behind the sign, once in the back and once in the throat.

Of course, the official story has it that it was all one shot, but let me tell you: if you want to believe it was two separate shots, they don't care. You will still be doing their bidding. The truth is that there was a lot of separation between the back shot and the throat shot, and I mean both temporal separation and geographic separation.

So, what's the proof? First, there is the fact that they cut out the swath in the Zapruder film of JFK riding down the hill. And what I mean is that the steepest descent in Dealey Plaza takes place right as you pass the obelisk. That's where it starts. You had to go down that steep hill before you got to the freeway sign. But, in the Zapruder film, the limo gets to the freeway sign soon after it leaves the intersection. That is bull shit. This image that I am attaching from the Zapruder film is bull shit. They cinched it up. They removed a big part of Dealey Plaza.

So why did they do it? It's because JFK got shot in the back and he reacted to it as he rode down the hill. But, they wanted the story to be that he was fine until he reached the freeway sign. So, they removed the part I'm talking about, and they moved up the freeway sign.

Even though the Zapruder film shows JFK smiling and waving until he reaches the freeway sign, the photo evidence contradicts it. The Crofts, Betzner, and Willis photos all show that JFK stopped waving. And remember that he was a politician, and this was a political trip. He was there to work the crowd; to secure Texas for the Democrats in '64. Something had to be wrong for him to stop waving.

In her WC testimony, Jackie said that the first thing she knew that something was wrong was when she looked at Jack and saw that he had a quizzical look on his face. And that was her word: "quizzical." What would have caused that? And it had to be before he was shot in the throat because we know what his reaction to that was: panic and fear as he raised his hands to his throat. That wasn't quizzical. That was alarm and fright. So, it must have been before that that he looked quizzical. Why?

Well, no one would respond to being shot in the back with a bullet with a quizzical look. But, he wasn't shot in the back with a bullet. He was shot in the back with an ice flechette which felt like nothing more than a mosquito bite. It caused only a very superficial wound in his back. And, it contained a drug, a nerve agent, which started to affect him, changing the way he felt. He felt like he was losing control of his muscles, which were seizing up, and he felt that his mind was going. He felt doped, and he was doped.

There are good grounds to believe it because, post-sign in the Z-film, JFK was completely out of it mentally. Why would a shot to his back that barely traumatized him at all impair his mind? It wouldn't. It couldn't. It didn't. But, he became totally incapacitated mentally even though there was no damage to his brain until the fatal head shot.

So, what accounts for his complete loss of mind? A nerve agent. And we know what nerve agent it was because CIA Director William Colby, who went on to be murdered, told us. He said it was shellfish toxin. He was describing the novel weapon that was examined at the Church Committe meeting in 1975, the so-called "heart attack gun."

Of course, he didn't say it was linked to the JFK assassination. But, he was the Director of the CIA, so he couldn't say that. But, everything he said about it fit the JFK assassination.

The other thing that supports that JFK was not shot in the back with a bullet is that no bullet was ever found. There was no bullet there in his back when Humes autopsied him. And no bullet was found in his clothes or on the seat or on the floor of the car. There was no bullet, period. But, if he was shot in the back with an ice flechette, then the ice melted, and there was nothing left. It fits perfectly.

Don't believe what you see in the Zapruder film. It tells a lie. It's story that JFK was smiling and waviing until he disappeared behind the freeway sign is a lie. The truth is that he was shot in the back high on the hill with an unconventional weapon; one that had never been used before; and one that has never been talked about except that one time at the Church Committee. But, the JFK community needs to start talking about it.

Let's look at how Oswald did at defending himself. He was in custody for 45 hours before they shot him. And I most certainly do mean "they" meaning the same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. Jack Ruby was just a witless patsy who didn't know up from down. Mentally, he was gone.

But not so Oswald. Oswald proclaimed his innocence 13 times on tape, where it got recorded and we can hear it to this day. And he sounded good, and I mean persuasive. And at the Midnight Press Conference, he was outstanding. He sounded like the most lucid person in the room and not at all like a double murderer. 

You know that Kyle Rittenhouse just got acquitted. But why? It was because of him; because his lawyers put him on the stand where he sounded very decent, respectful, humble, and upstanding. I watched the proceedings. He made a very good impression to the jury. There is no doubt about it. He sold himself to them, and they believed what he said. 

Well, Oswald would have been just as effective as Kyle Rittenhouse, and even though he only spoke for one minute at the MPC, he did himself a lot of good- not just in what he said but in how he said it. 

And just think: to this very day, they won't let us watch the MPC without putting this strange background noise in there. There are slamming sounds, and then you hear a man yelling "At ease" which is the final order given to a firing squad after they're finished shooting. That is score; film score. I'm a filmmaker, and I'm also a composer of film score. I composed all of the score to My Stretch of Texas Ground, and I composed some of the score to His Stretch of Texas Ground. I know film score when I hear it.

And note that the first part of his remarks, in which he complained repeatedly about not having a lawyer, are usually left out. This is one of the few links that has the whole thing. 

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

And the whole thing was very strange. It's the one and only time in the entire history of law enforcement that a suspect was given a microphone to speak to the press and to the world. There have been plenty of high profile murder cases, but nothing comparable to this has ever happened before or since. And it's unlikely that it will ever happen again. 

So, why did they do it? Did they really want to give Oswald a voice? The excuse they gave was that the press was demanding more access to Oswald, but that is such bull shit. For goodness sake, it was the very day of the crime. And on the very day of the crime, you don't give the criminal a chance to speak to the press.  It's ridiculous, and again, it's never happened before or since. 

So, why did they do it? I have to think that they hoped it would be an opportunity to kill him, to do it that night. Ruby was there. He came to deliver sandwiches. But, maybe they couldn't get him to the right place at the right time. And I don't mean that he was conspiring with them. Ruby wasn't conspiring with anyone. But, maybe they couldn't manuever him into the room. There are NO valid images of Ruby from the Midnight Press Conference. Every one we have is bogus. 

What I think happened is that Oswald was doing so well, that somebody pulled the plug and said "abort." He was doing every bit as well as Kyle Rittenhouse, and you know what happend there.

They were under the gun. The clock was ticking. Oswald was imploring the world that he wanted a lawyer, but they couldn't give him one. Because if they gave him one, he would have Kyle Rittenhoused the lawyer, and it would have been all over for them.

Ironically, it was just a few months before that the Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants were entiteled to a lawyer and must be provided one by the State.  It was the case of Gideon v. Wainright in 1963 that led the Supreme Court to say that the Sixth Amendment meant that you had to provide a lawyer to indigent defendants. 

So, that's why I say they were under the gun. And that's why they came up with that phony visit between Oswald and Attorney H. Louis Nichols in which Oswald supposedly turned down his offer to get him a lawyer. I don't say that Nichols was corrupt. They must have had an Oswald double there who bamboozled him.

Now I realize that when I say that, a lot of people recoil. But, I am not asking you to believe in me. I am asking you to believe in Oswald. You can hear him begging for a lawyer repeatedly, all afternoon and evening. He devoted practically his whole speech at the MPC to request someone to come forward and provide him with legal assistance. Do you really think that after that, when an offer came through, that he would turn it down? That was damage control. They had to undo the damage that he did at the MPC. It was fake, fake, fake. And I can tell you when it happened too. It was on Saturday evening. Right after they removed Oswald from his cell and took him down to the 3rd floor for another interrogation with Fritz and company, that's when they did it. That's when they got an Oswald double in the cell and brought up Nichols. 

So, Oswald did very well defending himself, and at trial in court, he would have been magnificent, and I mean better than Rittenhouse. And they knew very well that they could never let him go to trial. They knew very well that they could never even let him speak to a lawyer. They needed him dead, and right away. Every minute that ticked away just added to the pressure. Soon, it was going to be obvious to the world that they were denying him a lawyer. And then what happened? You think they just got lucky that Jack Ruby came along and saved their asses? Luck had nothing to do with it. The whole, entire purpose of the jail transfer was to kill Oswald. There was never any intention of transferring him.  And they didn't conspire with Ruby. They conspired against Ruby. They figured out a way to get Ruby there, and once he got there, they swifted him away. And then they enacted their theatric spectacle. 

The killing of Oswald by the Dallas Police and FBI was the most shrewd, cunning, Machiavellian plot in human history. There has never been anything more devious. To this day, it fools people, and I mean people who should know better.  

  

 

Oh God, please don't let there be riots.  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-bombshell-end-181508214.html

My very good friend Paul Popa is battling metastatic cancer, and he is heading to Houston this weekend to begin treatment at the famed Burzynski Cancer Clinic. The standard chemo almost killed him, landing him in the hospital. It's been a nightmare for him and his family. Karen Mitchell and I have done this song for Paul, and I am asking everyone to write an encouraging note to him in the Youtube comments. Do it even if you don't know him. You can take my word for it that he is a terrific guy. I would greatly appreciate this. Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYWoa0AfOo

There is a story about someone named "Lee" who contacted the FBI about the upcoming attack on JFK.  I don't know if there is any truth to the story at all, but I know for sure that it wasn't the Oswald of fame. So, how do I know it?

Well, let's look at the facts. We know that about two weeks before the assassination that the Oswald of fame went to the Dallas office of the FBI and made a scene. He was angry. And we know what he was angry about. He was angry that Agent James Hosty went to Irving and conducted a long interview of Marina. Oswald was mad that Hosty did that without his knowledge or consent. 

Hosty reportedly wasn't there when Oswald did it. But who knows: maybe he was hiding in back. But, Oswald left a note for him with the secretary. 

Many people have jumped to the conclusion that the note contained a warning about the assassination. There is no chance of that. Some things you don't put into a note. This is one of them:

Remember: it was a note that he handed to the secretary. He wouldn't have handed her that. He might have said: "I have some important information for you about a grave danger." But, if he had left a note like that, Hosty would have followed up on it, and he didn't. He destroyed it. So, most likely, the note said something like, "Don't you ever visit my wife again." The story went on to say that he ended it with a threat to blow up the FBI office. But, who knows.  There is no reason to put any stock in any of it. Hosty said he destroyed the note because his superior, Gordon Shaklin, ordered him to. But, Shanklin denied everything. "Note? What note?"

Oswald definitely went there, and he definitely was in a foul mood. There's a 99.9% that it was about Hosty's visit with Marina, and that's all.

So, who was the "Lee" who did warn the FBI about the assassination? Probably nobody. It's probably just a lie. But regardless, it definitely was not the Oswald of fame. Nobody told him anything about what was coming. There was no reason to tell him anything and plenty of reasons not to. For one thing, if they did tell him, maybe he would have gone to the police. For two, maybe he would have not gone to work that day. And maybe he would  have suspected that he was going to be framed. But then, even though they hoped very much that he was going to die in a gun fight with police before he could say a word, they knew that that wasn't guaranteed, and as you know, it didn't happen. So, if you endow him with damning information against you, and then you try to frame him, it's certain that he would use it against you. "You think I killed Kennedy? I didn't kill him. But, so-and-so told me that the CIA was going to kill him today." Why would they give that to Oswald? They couldn't. They wouldn't. They didn't. Oswald wasn't told anything. And I mean not a damn thing. He wasn't part of it. He had no role in it other than patsy.   

I've discussed several times lately Oswald's claim that he brought a lunch to work in a brown bag: cheese sandwiches and an apple. And he said that he ate the lunch prior to the motorcade. Now, I like to eat as much as the next guy. But, would I feel like eating if I knew that in 30 minutes, the President of the United States,Leader of the Free World, is going to get his brain blown out in the street? I don't eat cheese, but I do eat apples, and that would have put me right off my apple. The very fact that Oswald calmly ate his lunch whle brosing through the newspaper 30 minutes before the assassination should tell you that he knew nothing about it

So, the next time you hear someone tries to claim that the Oswald of fame tried to warn the FBI about the assassination, the proper response is: "You're full of shit." 

  

Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in killing Kennedy. A case for it cannot be made. And we know he had interests. His family was his greatest interest. The very night before the assassination, he implored his wife Marina to let him find an apartment in Dallas for the four of them. She turned him down. She said she wasn't ready- yet. There was never any talk of divorce between them, and even their separation was half-hearted. Are you separated if you are spending weekends with your wife and sleeping with her? 

I'm sure some people would be tempted to say that her turning him down is what pushed him over the edge to kill Kennedy the next day, but according to the official story, he had already decided to kill Kennedy, that his purpose in going to Irving that Thursday night was to get the rifle to do it.  

But, let's return to Oswald's interests in life. We know he wanted to find a better job. And we know he thought that getting a driver's license would help him do that. I don't know if he was thinking that he would get a job as a driver, or if he just thought that it would look better if he had a driver's license. Because: over 99% of men had a driver's license, and he may have thought that his inability to drive was a general sign of incompetence, and it was an embarrassment.  

Now, what does killing Kennedy have to do with any of that? Nothing. Why would he have any desire to kill Kennedy to get to those goals? He wouldn't. He definitely didn't hate Kennedy. His own wife said that he liked Kennedy and defended him. So, why would he want to kill someone he liked, where it would not only not further his goals, but destroy them?  He wouldn't. He would have to be crazy to do it. I mean: stark, raving mad. 

So, was Oswald crazy? Was he insane? Was he out of his mind?

Now obviously, they tried to make a case for that, chiefly by proferring the Walker shooting incident. But, linking Oswald to that never had any credibility since the bullet dug out of Walker's wall was not compatible with the Carcano rifle (that Oswald didn't even own) and witnesses at the scene said that there were two culprits (and Oswald's only friends were the White Russians in Dallas, particularly George DeMohrenschildt) and both culprits drove off in separate cars, and Oswald had no car and no ability to drive. Do you see how ridiculous the "Oswald shot at Walker" story is?

Then, they tried to dress it up with other things, like Oswald was going to go shoot Nixon in April until Marina locked him in the bathroom with her brute strength, except that Nixon was not in Dallas in April 1963. The Warren Commission tried to get her to change it to Johnson, since LBJ did make a trip to Dallas that April. But, she stuck to her guns that it was Nixon.  

The whole "Oswald was crazy" narrative was not only as riddled with holes as swiss cheese, but it stunk of malfeasance by the ones telling it. Just think: WC lawyer David Belin claimed to know that Oswald's intention after killing Kennedy was to flee to Mexico, and when asked how he was going to finance it, Belin said with his gun, that he was going to rob people, as needed, for money. That evil Belin actually claimed that that's what Oswald was doing when he ran into Tippit at 10th and Patton, that Oswald, at the time, was on his way to Mexico. How does walking down Patton Street get you to Mexico? Where specifically was he headed on foot that was going to get him to Mexico? Have you ever heard anything more preposterous in your whole life? And the thing is: Belin just made it up; he brazenly and unabashedly made it up. 

But now, let's look at the evidence that Oswald was not insane, and he could not have been the person that they, the Warren Commission, painted him to be. 

First, many of the TSBD employees described Oswald as being a recluse, but no one ever said that he was belligerent, short-tempered, uncivil, unstable, etc. He kept to himself. He was not interested in making friends there. And it's in sharp contrast to what people in Russia said about him.  There, apparently, he was very social and engaging and outgoing. So, why the difference? I suspect it's because he was very uncomfortable at the TSBD. I think he must have realized that the place wasn't what it was cracked up to be. They were supposed to be distributing books to schools, but schools order books by the boxful, not the handful. So, those "order-fillers" should have been given, not clipboards, but carts or wagons. There is no evidence that any school-size orders were being filled. I could go on about this, as to why the TSBD was a CIA front company for espionage that was being done under the guise or facade of book distributing. 

But, the point is that nobody described Oswald as crazy. And if you listen to Buell Frazier, even to this day, he describes Oswald as a nice guy, who was very devoted to his kids, and who liked kids in general, who enjoyed playing with kids, and was good at it. And not everybody is. 

But, let's return to Oswald's weekend sojurns at the Paine house. You realize that if one has the capacity to commit the violent act of killing Kennedy, that that violent side of your nature would surely manifest elsewhere. You wouldn't be able to keep it bottled up to just that. The Paine household was a household of just women and children. If Ruth Paine had had any sense that LHO was violent, that he was dangerous and maniacal, she would not have let him stay there. She would not have let him come there. And it's obvious that that Michael Paine, if he had picked up any violent side to Oswald, that he would not have allowed it, as he was the one paying the bills, and they were his kids too. 

And what about Marina? After Oswald supposedly shot at Walker, he soon afterwards moved to New Orleans. Supposedly, Marina knew about it. Remember that Oswald supposedly wrote her a failsafe note in case it all went south, her "to do list." The first thing he put on the list was to check that P.O. box in Dallas. Why would he have cared about that when, according to Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, the only thing that came to the box were Russian and Socialist newspapers? You know that was a lie because if it was true, then Oswald's room would have been strewn with Russian and Socialist newspapers, which it wasn't. They just put that in the phony letter to establish that Oswald had a P.O. Box, and it's a red flag that he didn't! Remember that there is no record of Oswald ever saying that he had a P.O. Box. 

But, after he went to New Orleans, he got a job at Reily, and then he found an apartment for the family. And Ruth Paine was present when he called Marina to tell her that she and June could come down. Ruth described Marina's reaction as ecstatic. She exclaimed to June in Russian, "Popa loves us." How could she feel that way if she knew he was a homicidal maniac who almost killed a man? 

And what about George DeMohrenschildt, Oswald's closest friend in Dallas? He described Oswald profusely, but never once did he describe him as explosive, heated, antagonistic, deranged, etc. It was just the opposite. He was amazed that he could speak Russian so well, that he could read the classics in Russian, that he could carry on intelligent conversations about a variety of subjects, etc. 

When you look past the claims and the rhetoric, you realize that there isn't a stitch of evidence that Oswald was insane. Yet, you can't make sense of him shooting Kennedy without him being insane. He would have had to be insane to do it. And I mean stark raving mad because we're talking about sitting eating lunch at work and seeing the motorcade route in the newspaper and deciding instantly to kill Kennedy. It doesn't get any more insane than that.

The official story of the JFK assassination is a disgusting and appalling atrocity against Lee Harvey Oswald that reeks of the evil of the evil men who concocted it. It was plainly true at the time and even more plainly true today, with all that we know. 

But today, it is certainly true that anyone who accepts the official story of the JFK assassination, that Oswald killed Kennedy, is nothing but a minion of the Leviathan State, in which they are motivated by self-interest, for either being paid directly for doing it, or indirectly for having a government or corporate job that demands loyalty to the State. Saying that Oswald killed Kennedy is a litmus test for loyalty to the State.  

But admittedly, there are also Americans who accept the official story of the JFK assassination for free, where it's the result of the mind-numbing effect of public education and the inability to think that comes from it. 

But, whether you live in a ratty trailer park or you are John Kerry hopscotching the world in private jets leading the charge against global warming, if you accept the official story of the JFK assassination, you are essentially brain-dead with no ability to be alert and aware of anything.      

 

 

 A piece by Norman Francis Sykes about Ken O'Donnell is very good. And I agree totally with Norman that there is no way that O'Donnell had foreknowledge of the assassination. Having been part of Kennedy's "Irish Mafia" at the White House, and having been Robert Kennedy's roommate at Harvard, there is no way that anybody tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Psst. We're killing Kennedy on Friday."

But, immediately following the assassination, O'Donnell started doing LBJ's bidding, starting with stealing JFK's body and swifting it off to Washington, in violation of Texas state law. So, why did O'Donnell do that? He did it because, instantly, LBJ had become the man to please. There was instantly a new political landscape, and doing well in that landscape meant pleasing the new ruler, LBJ.

Spurred by Norman, I went back and read O'Donnell's WC testimony. And it is quite amazing that Kennnedy's Appointment Secretary (that's all he was) would start exerting such authority as to take possession of JFK's body in defiance of Texas law, and essentially telling the doctors who were trying to stop him to go fuck themselves. Where did he get the nerve to do that? He got it from LBJ. He was acting as a surrogate for LBJ. He was empowered by LBJ. Immediately following the assassination, he, like many others, did a rapid-fire calculation that pleasing LBJ was in their self-interest. I find it very interesting and significant that in his testimony, in recalling exactly what happened, and relating what he was thinking, that he referred to LBJ as "the President" even in that immediate timeframe. LBJ wasn't even sworn in yet, and you would think that, psychologically, it would have taken a bit longer to think of him as President. But, this was a case of hailing Caesar instantly out of self-interest. So, the redirecting of loyalty from JFK to LBJ took place instantly in people like O'Donnell, and it was true of many.

But, it was different for Robert Kennedy. It's true what Norman said, that RFK did nothing to stand up for his brother. The story goes that he was swimming laps at his pool in McLean, Virginia when JFK was shot. Right away, Hoover called him and informed him, and they talked for 20 minutes. I think Hoover must have communicated, tacitly, that RFK had better go along with the story they were telling-if he knew what was good for him.

I suspect there wasn't an ounce of sympathy in Hoover's voice. It was more like, "Your brother is dead. Now here's what's going to happen." He must have communicated to RFK that there would be no tolerance of dissent, that what was needed now, more than anything, was solidarity. And RFK got the message.

But, he wasn't stupid. He must have known that his brother's enemies finally got to him. RFK must have realized that to do anything but support Officialdom would have meant instant radicalization and alienation- of himself. And he didn't want that. So, abandoning his brother was a very selfish act, but he may have reasoned, either consciously or subconsciously, that his brother was dead, and there was no bringing him back to life. Hoover must have intimated to him that the preservation of his brother's reputation required him, RFK, to play ball. Otherwise, the dirt about his affairs and his ill-health, etc. would come out- which it did anyway. But, RFK probably reasoned that his brother's reputation and legacy were all he had left.

I don't say it was an easy decision for him. Maybe he did consider going rogue by denouncing the official story. But, if did consider it, it wasn't for long. Robert Kennedy laid down his weapon to his brother's slayers.

Like

Comment