I might as well finish the year with a song. This one is dedicated to my sister-in-law, Linda Apodaca, who died on December 16. Her husband Joe died last year. They were a great couple. They met as teenagers and stayed in love their whole lives. And they had 4 children, to whom they were very devoted. This song is perfect for them because it describes exactly how they felt about each other. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VBCRXa1EDc

Jim, I don't know why you are saying all that. I know about the hole in JFK's back, and the autopsy doctors probing it with their fingers, and the federal agents not letting Humes dissect it, etc. 

But, you need to listen to me when I tell you that it is NOT speculation when I tell you that JFK was hit in the back with a drug laced ice bullet. It is a matter of science. An ice bullet is the only kind of missile that could have stopped in his back that short. A metal bullet cannot go from a speed of 2000 feet per second on impact to zero velocity over a distance of one inch. It couldn't stop that fast. It's impossible! It would violate the laws of physics. But, an ice bullet could do it because ice shatters easily, and it can be formulated to shatter easily. 

And second, it is a matter of medical necessity because this image of JFK from Zapruder tells us that he lost control of his muscles, that he was in a state of tetanic spasm, and there is NO CHANCE that it was caused by any physical trauma.

He also experienced a complete mental collapse which wiped out his cognitive ability and his ability to communicate, verbally or otherwise. And his muteness was NOT due to laryngeal damage because his larynx wasn't damaged. The bullet struck the trachea below the larynx. It is completely irrational for you or anyone to fight this. Ther only possible explanation for these impairments is chemical assault, as he suffered no trauma to his brain or spinal cord. And yes, I know that you claim Dr. Bob Livingston claimed that the bullet from the throat shot hit a bone and sent a bullet fragment or a spicule of bone flying up into his cerebellum, but besides that being physically impossible, it would not have produced this clinical picture. JFK was poisoned! There is no other explanation. This conclusion is like an obligatory move in chess. You have to go there!   Ralph  

To: John Costella, 

The two biggest issues concerning the freeway sign in the Zapruder film are: 1) its location, the fact that it pops up so early, so high on the hill, and 2) it's angle to the road. 

Now, the angle which would make for the least visual obstruction was 90 degrees. Anything more or less than 90 degrees would make the sign more obstructive. But, the angle that it was was 90 degrees, but in the Zapruder film, it is less than 90 degrees. In other words, it is facing the road more than it should.

Now, I did read your article, and I watched some of your video series but not all of it. But, you should be able to see above that that sign is at most 60 degrees to the road, rather than 90, and it makes a big difference. It means that Kennedy is out of view for much longer.

It should be obvious in the image below that Zapruder standing on his pedestal and pointing his camera at the intersection at the top of the hill would not be intruded by the sign for a long time.

You can see the direction of the road, and if you follow it up in your mind's eye, you'll realize that the sign couldn't possibly get in the way for quite a while.

Look how unobtrusive that sign was to Zapruder.

 This next one is from an FBI reenactment in 1964.

Again, you can see Zapruder's pedestal, and what I ask you to consider is that NOTHING about the sign in the Zapruder film is real. It is a complete fabrication, in which the real sign got completely obliviated by the fake one. 

This next collage is interesting because it's supposedly the work of a skeptic, but, either deliberately or unwittingly, he corrected the angular error. 

On the left, with the splicing that he did, the angle of the sign looks about right: 90 degrees. But again, on the right, it is clearly turned towards the road, facing it at an angle that is significantly less than 90 degrees. 

The Stemmons freeway sign in the Zapruder film is the magician's curtain. It is the Before and After. It shows Kennedy smiling and waving "before" and then stricken "after," but, if you look at the Zapruder film closely, you'll see that he stops waving, and it starts getting weird before he disappears behind the sign. For example, here is frame 200, in which Kennedy appears to have his hand over his face. Now, he didn't do that. Officially, he hasn't even been shot yet. He has been, but officially, he hasn't. And I believe that they put that hand over his face to hide the startled, distressed look that was on his face from being hit in the back with the drug-laced ice flechette. They couldn't let us see his face, so they covered it. 

But, they needed that sign to obstruct the view long enough to claim that that's when the Magic Bullet happened, that it all happened behind that sign. 

So really, that sign is the cornerstone of the Zapruder film that supports its phony story. 

And I'll leave you with this: In the late 70s when Zapruder's son informed the National Archives that he wanted the film back, that's when he found out that it wasn't his; that the government was not letting go of it. So, an arbitration was set up, and I think they settled on a price of $16 million for it. But, the government was not going to give that film back to him under any circumstances. Because: if he got it back, he could have had it analyzed, and the massive alterations that were done to it would have been revealed. And the irony is that he wasn't even inclined that way. Still, they couldn't risk it.  

 

 

 The changing look of Umbrella Man and his pal.

So, above, the pal is all in white and is wearing a black French beret and Umbrella Man has a light shirt. Bottom right, the pal's jacket is green, and he has a high-top, flathead haircut with no hat. Umbrella Man's shirt is dark.  Bottom left is Bronson, and now, Umbrella Man is wearing a hat, and his friend's jacket was light blue and white. Harold Wiesman thought the Bronson images were fake. 

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/HW%20Manuscripts/Inside%20the%20Assassination%20Industry/Itai-32.PDF

 This is another bogus image, supposedly from November 22, 1963. The Stemmons freeway sign is in the wrong location; it's too east; it's too small; it's the wrong shape; and the inner pole is leaning. 

The sign was oblong; it was twice as wide as it was tall. It was 8 feet wide and 4 feet tall. And it was at the center of the pergola, about 2 feet from the sidewalk. It was equidistant from the two pedestals. 

Here is another bogus one.

The sign should be visible, but it isn't. Let's consider the story of this image, and remember, I am a screenwriter. So, you have a woman running frantically holding a child, but a man in a Fedora hat seems to be stopping her. Where could she be running to? And where is she running from? The Newmans are still on the ground. I believe that is supposed to be James Altgens with the camera. It sure looks like him. Then, there is a man behind him who appears to be running, but isn't he going to run into Mrs. Newman? And he's got a bald spot at the top of his head.  

I have never seen such a thing before. 

And I don't know who their set director was, but he stunk.  

Here's another one. Now, we've got kids in the act. Where'd they come from? Poor Newman. He's really broken up. Head down to the ground; writhing in pain. Why, why, why? Nice touch. 

What's Altgens doing now? Supposedly, he left immediately and ran to the Dallas Morning News Building to get his film developed, such that the Algens6 photo hit the wires at 1:03. So, why is he dawdling? 

The JFK assassination is the most photographically faked and falsified event ever. And nothing else comes close. 

 Does anyone know the source of this photo, who took it? Actually, I just found it. It's from the Charles Bronson film (not the actor). And it's very weird. First, the freeway sign: I don't see the sign at all. I see the post. But, the sign actually had two posts. 

Then, Zapruder. He stood in front of his secretary. So, why does she seem to be in front of him? And why is their image so terribly crude? 

So in Moorman on the right, his legs are entirely in front of hers. So, why do her two legs seem to be in front of his in Bronson?

Here's a comparison to Betzner.

I don't like it. It does not ring true to me. Why would it be so crude on the right? Why would her legs be so visible and not his? Why is his head higher than hers when she was taller? 

In Willis, you can see the two posts of the sign, and Umbrella Man has his umbrella low, and he is located behind the sign. 

In Bronson, he has his umbrella high; he is in front of the sign, and the Willis spectators are absent. 

So now I will tell you that I think this is a bogus image. It must have been a reenactment.

But, why did they do it? It may have been to establish all those approaching spectators, to hide the sparseness of the crowd. 

We know that the Stemmons freeway sign was removed relatively soon after the assassination. By June 1964, it was gone, as proven by an aerial photo, and it may have been gone well before that. This phony image must have been made after that. 

 

People have asked me what I think about Tucker Carlson having said on the air that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination. What I think is that anyone who realizes that should derive from it that Oswald could not have been a shooter. That's because the CIA would never have put Oswald up to shooting Kennedy. Oswald was neither a marksman nor an assassin. The only shooting he did since leaving the Marines was to go rabbit-hunting with a shotgun in Russia. And actually, it was in Belorussia, since he was in Minsk.

Other than that, he worked at a radio factory for 3 years, which does not prepare you to be a sniper. He lacked the skill, the temperament, the experience- everything. The CIA didn't need Oswald to kill Kennedy. They just needed him to take the blame for killing Kennedy.

But, you have to remember that this was Fox News. They are willing to go out on a limb, if it will help ratings. But, they'll only go so far. Several times before this, they did specials on Oswald going to Mexico City, and who did he meet there, and what did they conspire about? That's where the plot was hatched, don't you know? In reality, Oswald didn't even go to Mexico CIty, and Mark Lane figured that out before December 7, 1963. That was when he issued his "Lawyer's Brief" in defense of Oswald, and in it, he stated that Oswald never went to Mexico City. And lucky me, I had the privilege of discussing that with Mark Lane on the phone.

So you see, Fox News' problem is that they like going out on limbs, but they also want to seem patriotic. And that's why they could never allow it to be said on air that Oswald was innocent, that he didn't shoot Kennedy at all, that the "national security state" killed Kennedy, as expressed by the late great Vincent Salandria, whom I also had the privilege of knowing.

So, I advise you not to get your hopes up about Tucker Carlson's pronouncement. I'm sorry, but it's going nowhere.

 I had a yen to record a song last night. It's from 1929 by Richard Whiting and Neil Moret. It started as a makeup letter that Whiting wrote to his wife. They had had an argument, and he wanted to apologize. So, he wrote her these self-deprecating lyrics, and it became the basis for this enduring song. 

There's a line in it: "Still I am sure she would follow me west." That referred to him wanting to move to Hollywood because the nascent movie industry was burgeoning, and he thought it would be good for his career as a songwriter to get out there. 

So, what started as a real-life apology and plea became a jazz standard that people are still performing a century later. It's called: She's Funny That Way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkMSbq93GBE

 

This is so ridiculous. Jack Ruby did not have hair like this, with long strands combed back. 

This is Jack Ruby in 1960.

Nobody has hair like that either. How many men do you know that go bald on top but keep a thick tuft right in front? That's not how male pattern baldness goes. This image is from some parade footage in April 1960. You see Jack Ruby remove his hat and comb his hair. But, he only combs it on the sides. He never passes the comb over the top at all. That's how little hair he had. The top picture and really both pictures are ridiculously fraudulent. But, why did they do it? Why did they insist on imparting hair to Jack Ruby? It's because James Bookhout wore that thick rug during the Garage Spectacle. He displayed such thick hair that a bald Jack Ruby just wouldn't mesh with it. So, they immediately undertook the enhancement of Jack Ruby's hair, which was done relentlessly, but in countless different ways. People need to wake up and realize that he was innocent. 

More on why Dr. Alen Salerian may be right. This is from the Global Research website:

Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.

Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.

Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.

Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.

Why is there so much discrepancy in what we see of the spectators on lower Elm Street? Here's the Willis photo:

 And this is from another film. I don't know which one. 

That can't be far apart in time or place. In Willis, Umbrella Man is behind the freeway sign; in the other, he is in front of it. The umbrella is also behind the sign in Betzner.

So, you see the umbrella behind the sign. But, here it is well in front of the sign in the other. 

Let's look at a collage of it:

Do you notice any disparity? Do you notice that he's holding the umbrella higher on the left? He is really holding it up there. Look how high his hand is. But, on the right, his hand is lower. It's not up by his face; it's much lower. And so the umbrella is lower. But, this all was very close in time, so are we supposed to believe that Umbrella Man was walking; relocating himself; and also adjusting the height of his umbrella? 

I will tell you that I don't know what to believe, but I know I can't trust any images of Umbrella Man. And what happened to his trusty sidekick in white?

As Forrest Gump would say, those guys were like peas and carrots. So, why is the guy in white missing from Willis?

So, all bets are off about Umbrella Man in Willis. It can't be trusted. Maybe he had the umbrella down and pointed at JFK, and they painted over it. We know that they did have a weaponized umbrella. The man who was contracted by the CIA to make it came forward. His name was Senseney. I am not claiming to know that Umbrella Man pumped a dart into JFK, but look how close and easy that shot would have been compared to other shots that have been suggested, such as from a cubby hole way over beneath the bridge at Commerce? And shooting it through glass, no less? From way over there hitting the bullseye at the bottom of JFK's throat? No damn way. I'd put my money on Umbrella Man before I bet on that  cockamamie idea. NO MARKSMAN WHO EVER LIVED COULD HAVE MADE THAT SHOT! So, Dr. Alen Salerian may be right that Umbrella Man did it.   

This is Mary Moorman in 2013 demonstrating how she took her picture. And ironically, it is exactly how I believe she took it. 

And, it's exactly how anyone would take it because the goal is to capture the faces of your subjects. She couldn't wait until they were even with her because then Jackie would block her view of JFK, as you can see here:

Mary had to shoot them in advance- before they got to her. And that wasn't the only time she demonstrated it that way.

Mary did NOT take this picture:

They replaced her picture with the one above, and they did it that weekend. Mary said that after letting her go home with her picture on Friday evening, the police stormed her house at midnight and demanded her picture back. Now, why would they have to do that? They'd already made copies of it. They even made a negative of it, so they could make unlimited copies. They needed it back because they were going to replace it, and they did. 

It occurred to me that there might be more to this story of Viktor Bout than meets the eye. That's because if Viktor Bout really was an arms dealer, providing weapons to terrorists, why would Putin want to help him? I get it that Putin is very much disliked, but what evidence is there that Putin has ever wanted to provide weapons to terrorists? 

So, I started searching, and I found a cached copy of Viktor's website. He claims that he has never been an arms merchant, that it was a private fleet of airplanes but nothing to do with arms. He said he was railroaded by this one man, a Belgian, Johan Peleman, who was paid. He said that at the time of his arrest, that no arrest warrant existed for him anywhere in the world. He said the U.S. government issued one 4 days after he was extradited to the US. He denies ever having been involved in drug trafficking. 

He said that, at first, the Thai government refused to turn him over to the U.S. for lack of evidence. But then, the U.S. got the government of Columbia to implore the Thai government to turn him over. But, all this happened without there being any existing arrest warrants for him anywhere in the world. Here is the link to a cached copy of his website. There's a lot to it, but it makes for some interesting reading.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090930183529/http://www.victorbout.com/index.htm

Frequently Asked Questions

For the last 10 years the media reported too many allegations against Victor Bout for being the largest arms dealer in the world, what do you say to that? Victor Bout is reported to be the largest arms dealer in the world for more than 10 years now; however, nobody during all of these years was able to show evidence to support this allegation or to bring charges against Victor.

 

But isn't it true that the American government has charged Victor Bout for alleged conspiracy to sell arms to Colombian rebels? It is true that the Bush administration brought charges against Victor for an alleged conspiracy to sell arms; however, the US government has failed to substantiate these allegations in Thai court, and therefore, failed to have Victor Bout extradited to the US.

 

The American government stated that Victor made a deal through Andrew Smulian with undercover DEA agents whom are referred to as CS1, CS2, and CS3. Is that true? No that is not true. All the people the US government is relying upon are "Paid Informants" as stated in the official US government complaint pages 3-5. See documents page.

 

Isn't it true that Johan Peleman, the UN expert on arms trafficking stated in his report to the UN Security Council that Victor indeed is an arms trafficker, and provided charts and copies of evidentiary documents in each of the reports he submitted to the United Nations? Johan Peleman made  hundreds of allegations against Victor Bout in his reports to the UN; however, neither his allegations were proven to be true, nor his alleged evidence were genuine. All the material presented in the UN reports was reinvestigated and proven false, and that is why it was never used to bring charges against Victor.

 

Was Victor on any "wanted" list, or was there any outstanding warrant of arrest issued for him prior to March 2008? No, Victor was not wanted by any entity anywhere in the world, nor was there any outstanding warrant of arrest for him prior to March 2008.

 

Is it true that Victor's arrest in Thailand is being challenged for being illegal because the Americans acted without the knowledge or authorization of  Thai authorities? Yes, this is true. Victor was arrested without a warrant or any legal grounds. The US warrant against him was issued 4 days after his arrest. The American agents acted without the knowledge or authorization of Thai authorities. Thai police was called into the scene by the hotel management, and they arrived and took control of the situation as the American agents were trying to kidnap Victor Bout to the US.

 

The media report that Victor had a warrant of arrest against him prior to March 2008, is that true? No, that is false. A warrant that was issued once for Victor by a Belgian court for failing to appear before the judge to testify was cancelled and dropped by the same court because the allegations against Victor were groundless.

 

Was Victor Bout a Major in the KGB? No, Victor served as a Lieutenant in the army of the Soviet Union as a translator.