This is an excellent article by Professor Donald E. Wilkes Jr. in recognition of the 53rd anniversary of the JFK assassination, and it was sent to me by OIC senior member Hugh O'Neill. 

http://www.flagpole.com/news/news-features/2016/11/30/the-american-press-covers-jfk-s-murder-and-the-impossible-comes-to-pass

This is a musical composition of my own. It is the musical score to the movie I wrote called Vinland. It's the story of Leif Ericson and the Vikings who discovered America in the year 1000, almost 500 years before Columbus. The music is meant to capture their drive and determination to find new land in order to save their people. 

Conditions on Greenland had deteriorated; the climate had gotten colder, and it was becoming increasingly harder to produce food. They were slowly going to starve to death, and they knew it. 

So, they had to do this, and failure was not an option. They would suffer any hardship and endure any risk.  Their determination, their perseverance, is what I tried to express. But, it occurred to me that it could also express the drive and determination of JFK truthers to expose the truth about what really happened and vindicate Lee Harvey Oswald. And that is the spirit in which I am posting it here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwHYCF7XeFM&feature=youtu.be

In this image from the Dorman film, Toni Glover and her mother were facing Houston Street, and Toni has her hands high in the air, and she's waving them. They were not atop the pedestal. Have you ever been atop that pedestal? Well, I have. And when you're up there, you feel like you are on a diving board. Not Toni, and not anyone else would jump around boisterously from atop that pedestal. They were standing on the ground, on the grass. And notice that Toni is waving with her arms apart. 

That looks natural and normal. But, in Hughes, Toni's back is to us, which means that she is facing Elm Street at a time that JFK wasn't there. And instead of waving, she is joining her hands together above her head, as in doing a jumping jack.

So, they are certainly NOT the same thing, and the idea that Toni and her middle-aged, frumpy mother hastily climbed atop that pedestal is ridiculous. It's fake. I tell you, it's fake. 

From OIC senior member Tom Cahill:

Friends,

Watch this video concerning 9/ll "cognitive dissonance." The very same thing could
be said of the JFK assassination. It is that obvious that the official story is false. 

Tom


https://youtu.be/Z1SU4dVbeLM

Consider the story of this ridiculous image. Toni Glover is standing there behind her taller mother, so it's hard to imagine how this 11 year old girl could see anything. But suddenly, she starts waving, even though she can't see anything. But, is that a wave? People don't wave like that. They wave with their hands. Each hand waves. She looks like she is at the top of a jumping jack. 

And, who is she supposed to be waving at? JFK's limo is still way off to the right. You can see it just starting to make the turn from Houston to Elm. It is nowhere near Toni Glover.  Look closely at her. Is that even a human form? Is it even photographic? 

The idea that her middle-aged mother would climb up there on that high pedestal is as preposterous as the idea of my middle-aged mother climbing up there. And it makes no sense for the mother to be in front and the child behind. First, the child can't see that way while she could see the other way, with the mother behind. Second, the mother can't secure the child with the child behind. Arms don't go backward, at least not very far. If they had done it at all, they would have done it the other way, with the child in front and the mother behind, with her arms going around the child to secure her. This is fake.  The purpose of Toni Glover being on that pedestal is to block the view of the doorway. And look at the size of those street signs.

Do you have any idea how small they were?

It is ridiculous. The Hughes doorway is fake, and it was faked to hide Oswald in the doorway, who was in the center of the doorway. What clowns to think they could get away with this shit. 

That Will Fritz was some piece of work. He hears a gunshot right behind him, and he doesn't react. He doesn't startle. He doesn't bolt to turn around. Think about it. If you weren't expecting it, if you had no idea that it was coming, then any shot you heard means that the next shot could be for you. You would think that out of self-preservation alone he would have reacted quickly. 

So, the shot has gone off. We know that because Oswald is going down. That cringe came AFTER the shot. But Fritz is not reacting. Note the time: 17 seconds.

Now, the shooter has scooted in front of Oswald to get his back to the camera, and there is a scuffle going on. Note the time: 18 seconds. So, another second has passed. But, Fritz still hasn't reacted. He still hasn't turned around. And remember that when you're startled by a shot because you didn't expect it, the reaction is instantaneous. It's like BOO! times 100. 

Now, we're up to the 19 second mark, and Fritz still hasn't turned around, and from what we can tell, he still hasn't reacted. And remember what the reaction should be: to swiftly turn around to see who has the gun and where the shot came from, in other words, to locate the shot and sort out the whole situation. Fritz isn't doing it. And imagine how loud the shot was in that confined space. Remember where they were. They weren't out in an open field. 

Now, we're up to the 20 second mark, and Fritz still hasn't turned around. It's incredible. It's unbelievable. How could anyone act like that? And especially a police officer. After that, Fritz is lost from view. We don't see him any more. We don't see him during the 10 seconds of pandemonium, and we don't see him afterwards when order is restored to the garage. Fritz is gone. So, where did he go? How did Fritz get out of there? Did he go back through the same door he came out of? If so, why didn't we see him? So, we lost sight of Oswald; we lost sight of "Ruby"; and we lost sight of Fritz; all in a 20 foot confined space honed with cameras from multiple angles. Never before or since in the history of photography has filming produced so little information; just noise; just wildness. And then when it's over, the principals are gone, like Poof!

You're buying this, are you? You figure that's just the way it turned out, do you?  Well, if so, you're a blithering idiot. The whole thing was staged, and the part of Jack Ruby was played by James Bookhout. 

It's December, a new month, so let's start it off with a song. This is another classic by Harold Arlen, from 1931. I can tell you that it's fun to play; it's fun to sing; and it's partly because of the catchy lyric, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. It didn't actually originate with the song. It originated in 1607 in the writing of Scottish General Robert Monro, who in his memoir of the Thirty Year War, wrote that, in a certain battle, he and his men were "betwixt the devil and the deep blue sea." I wonder if he realized that he had coined a phrase. But since then, there have been other songs with the title, books with the title, and even a movie with that title. But, the most enduring use of the phrase has got to be Harold Arlen's forever-hip song, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Ghgo7RSfI&feature=youtu.be