I know it's the Fourth of July, and Americans want to feel good, wave the flag, etc, but, please understand why I can't join in. In a word, it's because of one thing: murder.

I am talking about the murder of millions of human beings the United States has killed since 9/11 in its so-called War on Terror. The number is definitely in the millions. Not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of people. We are talking about genocide.

The Physcians for Social Responsibiity, to which I belong, reported one million people killed in Iraq alone, and that was by 2011.

Here is a very well-reasoned analysis of the death count in Iraq, and it contains a link to a similar look at the death toll in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The researcher is Nicholas JS Davies, author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq, and he starts by pointing out that some studies have relied entirely on "passive reporting" which means just looking at government and media reports about casualties and not going on the ground in the war zone and doing an actual survey, where you ask people about the family and friends they have lost.

From looking at reliable studies, Davies claims that the death toll in Iraq is at least 1.5 million, and that's through 2018. But, he thinks that "the actual number of people killed (in Iraq) is likely to be closer to our main estimate of 2.38 million."

I hope you are having a great day, enjoying your family and friends, and may it last the whole weekend. But please: don't ignore what happened because ignoring reality has never done anybody any good, and you're better than that.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/22/how-many-millions-of-people-have-been-killed-in-americas-post-9-11-wars-part-one-iraq/

My Stretch of Texas Ground has been selected by another film festival, and this is the 3rd one.

And I am confident there will be more. It is a very daring and provocative film with an important message about the realities of the post 9/11 wars- realities that Americans have yet to face. But, it is also a very gripping thriller. 

So, if you haven't seen it, you can watch it on Amazon or Vimeo, the links for which are on our website:

https://mystretchoftexasground.com   

Active Now

Robert Glenn Half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses, over fifty, were never called before the Warren Commission because their testimony would have tanked the commission's pre-determined conclusion.... and of those who actually testified, many claimed their words were altered in the final draft. Bottom line...Oswald was in undeniable fact in the doorway, case closed as Gerald Posner would say.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 2h

• 

  Ralph Cinque Thank you, Robert. It really was a disgusting display of strong-armed statecraft, where the FBI was like the Gestapo or the KGB bearing down on witnesses. That anyone believes the official story today is inexcusable. You just have to be a slave to authority to do it.

At the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in Houston, defense attorneys Bill Simpich and Larry Schnapf claimed that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting, and I shall explain why that is impossible. 

It is based on the claim of a Dallas reporter, Earl Golz, who claimed in 1978 that he spoke to Carolyn Arnold, and she told him that she saw Oswald sitting at a table in the 2nd floor lunch room, apparently eating lunch, and this was about 12:25. 

It was over 5000 days after her original statement that she saw Oswald at the doorway, so did she recant? I'm not even sure Earl Golz spoke to Carolyn Arnold at all. He may have been the victim of an elaborate ruse. 

But, it definitely wasn't true, no matter whom he talked to, and what gives it away is the reference to Oswald eating there. Oswald said that he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, commonly known as the domino room. He ALWAYS ate there, and for three reasons:

1 It is where the warehouse workers ate. The 2nd floor lunch room is where the office workers ate. 

2 They had a shelf there where you could put your lunch in the morning when you arrived, and Oswald had the habit of doing that. He did it on November 22. 

3 There was usually a newspaper there which Oswald liked to read.

Oswald was very specific about where and when he ate lunch. He said he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and several of his interrogators reported that he said that, including Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty. And he said he did it when James Jarman (who went by Junior) and Harold Norman (whom he referred to as 'short negro') were there or in view. But, that was definitely early in the lunch break because they wound up going outside to watch the motorcade, and after  standing around a while, they decided to go upstairs and watch from the window. So, they walked down the entire length of Houston Street, going around the building, then thru the back door, then taking the elevator up to the 5th floor, and then having to walk the expanse of the 5th floor from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. It was a lot of walking, and it took time. And all that happened after they ate lunch. 

So, it was definitely early in the lunch-break that Oswald saw Jarman and Norman, as he was eating his lunch, and it was definitely the 1st floor lunch room in which he ate. He didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit, so he wasn't going to lie about where he ate lunch? 

So, there is NO CHANCE that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. Whoever made that story up (and I doubt that it was her) didn't think about those things.     

So, there is no reason to put any stock in the claimed hearsay story of Carolyn Arnold or whoever it was. 

But, let's return to what Attorney Bill Simpich told the jury.  He told them that Oswald ate in the 2nd floor lunch room and was seen there by Carolyn Arnold at 12:25, a claim that Professor Gerald McKnight thoroughly debunked in his excellent book, Breach of Trust. 

But, Oswald definitely knew that the President and First Lady were driving by. He didn't know it before getting to work, but when he saw people gathering on the sidewalk, he asked James Jarman why they were doing that, and Jarman told him why.  So, why would Oswald prefer to sit in the dank lunch room alone at 12:30 on this beautiful day in which the leader of the Free World and his glamorous wife were riding by? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

Furthermore, Oswald was no doubt hungry by Noon because he hadn't eaten any breakfast. Ruth Paine said that he only had coffee at her house.  And he worked all morning. They broke for lunch at 11:45, so why would Oswald wait until 12:25 to eat? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. He ate at the commencement of the lunch break, and it doesn't take that long to eat a cheese sandwich and an apple. He was surely done eating long before 12:25. 

But, there is more. There is absolute, solid, iron-clad proof that Oswald was NOT in the 2nd floor lunch at 12:30 when JFK passed, as Bill Simpich claimed. And it is derived from the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker who said that OSWALD WAS JUST ENTERING THE LUNCH ROOM WHEN HE FIRST SAW HIM AT 12;31. 

Baker first saw Oswald thru glass in the window when Oswald was moving through the anteroom to enter the lunch room. He hadn't entered the lunch room yet. He hadn't even gotten there yet. So, since Oswald was just reaching the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31, and we have that from a police officer, and one whom there is no reason to suspect of lying, how could Oswald have been there 6 minutes before?  

Now, I realize that it is physically possible to be there, and then get up and leave, and then do a 180 and go back, but there is no reason to assume that Oswald did that. It looks like he was just getting there at 12:31, and there is no reason to doubt it. 

And if you are going to claim that Oswald was there, left, and then went back, there is a friar named Occam whose got this razor, and let's just say that O.J. Simpson has got nothing on him. Occam could give O.J. lessons. 

So, it looks like Oswald was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker first  saw him. Ipso facto, you can't claim that he was there 6 minutes before. 

And knowing, as we do, that Oswald was aware that the President was coming, why would he put off eating lunch for 45 minutes only to miss the historic motorcade? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

What did Oswald have to do that prevented him from eating right away when lunch broke? There's nothing. He had no phone calls to make. He had no love letters to write- to Marina or Judyth Baker, depending on which you fancy. He had no crossword puzzles to work. He had no oragami to make. Get the picture? Lunch broke and Oswald ate. Period. 

Oswald was NOT in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30. He did not decide to skip laying eyes on JFK and Jackie. Why would he? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. He was standing in the doorway at 12 :30, and he saw them. 

We have to defend Oswald. We- you and I- have to do it. We have to do it like we are his lawyers. He was an innocent man, and he had an alibi. His alibi was that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." That is what we have to say because if we give him a bogus alibi, it will only hurt him. You might as well say that he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. 

Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository when President John F. Kennedy drove by and got shot.   





  

   

One of the most fallacious arguments that comes down the pike concerning Oswald is the idea that none of the TSBD employees reported seeing him in the doorway. 

First, it's not true. Carolyn Arnold reported seeing him at the doorway; still on the other side of the glass but at the threshold of the doorway. That materialized in her first statement to the FBI on November 26, and the agent writing it felt satisfied that as long as he designated the time as 12:15, that it left enough time for Oswald to get upstairs.  

But, when the higher-ups back at the office saw it, they realized that it still looked real bad. So they went back and got Carolyn Arnold to sign a statement stating that she didn't see Oswald at all.

Nobody could say that Oswald was in the doorway. It was not OK. He couldn't have been there because he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. I'm being facetious, but I assure you they weren't. 

You do realize that Warren Commission hearings were a Stalinist show trial. 

"A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors.^[1] Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes.^[2] The term was first recorded in 1928."

Show  trial, show trial, show trial. That is what it was. And at that show trial, they were not going to let anyone say that they saw Oswald in the doorway. And even though Carolyn Arnold recanted her original statement (and one can only imagine the grief they poured on that poor woman)  the Warren Commission still refrained from talking to her. 

It was a Stalinist  show trial. Just  think: Will Fritz testified that  Oswald said he was eating with other employees at the time of the shooting. Of course, it's not true; not true that Oswald did it, and not true that Oswald said it. But, Fritz said it. So, what was the logical thing for Joseph Ball to say? "Then, who were these other employees?... because we need to talk to them." 

But, Ball didn't ask i t, and Fritz didn't offer it. 

The point is that if the Warren Report had included a statement from somebody, anybody, that they saw Oswald in the doorway, it would have eviscerated the whole Warren Report. So, there is no chance they were going to allow it.

Stop thinking of it as a legitimate investigation. It was a show trial where the theory of the crime was completely decided upon before they started. And that isn't even in dispute. It is a historical fact that Lyndon Johnson told Earl Warren that he needed to find for the lone gunman or else it was going to be nuclear war with the Soviets and 100 million dead. 

Do you understand that that was the mission, to find for Oswald's sole guilt?

It doesn't bother me when defenders of the official story point to the lack of witnesses who saw Oswald in the doorway or who recognized Doorway Man as Oswald.  They are just automations, and they are stupid people, including John McAdams. He is just  smart enough to know better than to debate me or attack me on his website. As Dirty Harry taught us: a good man knows his limitations. But, don't assume John McAdams is good because he is not. 

But what  really irks me, what  really grinds my gears, is when a supposed Oswald defender makes the same argument, pointing to the witnesses at the show trial, as if the whole investigation had any legitimacy. It did not. 

Oswald WAS in the doorway. Image comparison alone proves it, without having to depend on anyone's testimony. And it has reached the point that any Oswald defender who can't see it and admit it should no longer be considered an Oswald defender. Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting, and there is no place else he could have been- not even theoretically.   

Trump did an interview with Tucker Carlson recently in which he said that he expects to leave a "strong intelligence force, and more than the few people you're thinking of" in Afghanistan permanently since it's a hotbed for terrorists. That's forever.  

But, the Taliban, in 7 negotiations has made it crystal clear that they will not accept or tolerate any U.S. presence in Afghanistan, that it is non-negotiable that we have to get the hell out of there.  

And throughout the media, it has been reported, over and over and over and over again, that that's what the Taliban wants, that we get completely out, and what we want in return are assurances that they won't let Afghanistan be used as a haven for terrorists.

But now, in one full swoop, Trump has made it clear that we have no intention of doing that, of ever leaving.  

And get this: now, after 7 negotiations in Qatar,  all on the U.S. taxpayer's dime (and I hear that those Taliban guys really go in for the Macadamia nuts at the hotel, and you know what that does to the bill)  they are moving the whole thing to Norway for the next round of talks. (I hope those Taliban guys like smoked fish.)

But, what is the point of it all if Trump thinks he is going to leave an intelligence force in Afghanistan forever? 

And why say it on national television?   Don't you think it could get back to the Taliban? Somebody just might tweet it to them. They have a Twitter page. And if you listen to the interview, you hear Trump saying over and over, "we've been there for 19 years, we've been there for 19 years." Actually, we have been there for 17 years and 7 months. It will be 18 years on October 7 of this year.  '

So, Trump can't count. But then again, Mathematics is overrated, and we all know that. 

Then, the other thing the Taliban wants is the complete dissolution of the current Afghan government. But, there may be some daylight there because recently, in calling for an intra-Afghan conference to discuss the future of the country, they said that some government officials could attend but not in any official capacity. They could just come as individuals, although I don't think that includes the current President Ghani. 

But, what's certain is that whatever the Taliban does, they are going to do it on their terms, and the current government of Afghanistan will have to dissolve. They are NOT going to budge on that. They say it is a puppet government. Sometimes they call them "stooges".  They are never going to relent on their demand that it has to go away. 

So, what progress is there? We have told the Taliban that we agree to get out, but we don't really mean it, and they may already be aware of Trump's statement.  And they have told us that they promise not to let terrorists operate in Afghanistan, but we apparently don't believe them, since we think we need to leave a force there. 

So, what is the real purpose of these negotiations? And remember: we pushed for it,  not them. We had to offer to pay them, and we have. We had to agree to exclude the Afghan government. NEGOTIATE THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN WITHOUT INCLUDING THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT. That's what we've been doing.  Consider the hypocrisy:

"They are NOT a puppet government. But, we told them they couldn't come." 

But, we also had to press Pakistan to release a Taliban leader who was in prison as a precondition for them to negotiate. 

Why are we doing all this for an organization that was deemed  terrorist by three previous Presidents? Why are we bending over backwards to get the Taliban to talk to us? 

I think I know why. It is to quell the critics who denounce us for being there by being able to say  that we're trying to get out. 

And it even happened to me in relation to my movie. One critic wrote the following:

"Director Erich Kemp wants filmviewers to know more about the aims and methods of jihadists. In a fictional account, Abdul Latif Hassan (played by Junes Zahdi) is recruited from Tunis by jihadists to assassinate Texas Senator Cruthers (Mike Gassaway) for a mere $10,000. The jihadists believe that the United States has killed far too many innocent children and women in Afghanistan, so revenge is a sharia imperative. Senator Cruthers is to be the victim because he is a strong proponent of the American intervention in Afghanistan. Whereas President Donald Trump wants to reduce the American footprint in Afghanistan, Cruthers is the chief sponsor of a bill to increase funding for the intervention by 15 percent."

Actually, $10,000 was just the first installment to get Hassan here.  They were speaking in Arabic, and apparently this reviewer didn't read all the subtitles. But notice that the guy spoke favorably of Trump wanting to reduce the American footprint in Afghanistan, as if he deserves credit for something, and as if the bare facts don't matter, that we crossed an ocean and two seas to attack Afghanistan, a third world country, where we have bombed them back to the Stone Age and killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans. But now, Trump is talking about wanting, in principle, to get out, so that settles it: he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.                            

The freaky image on the left is from the NBC footage of the Oswald jail transfer, and he is supposedly Jack Ruby, but, he is NOT Jack Ruby, and to hide that fact, they had to put that weird ink spot over his eye.  But, what were they trying to imply?  

I think they were shooting for sunglasses, but when it was realized that Ruby did not have any on him, they started saying it was shadow. But, shadow from what? A shadow is cast by an object that is located between a light source and the area in shadow. So, what object could be casting that shadow? I put the image of Jack Nicholson there to demonstrate that no such shadow could possibly form - not anywhere in the Universe. There is no object that could cast it, and even if there were, it wouldn't be so dark, dense, and demarcated. That is freaky. The image on the left is bogus. 

This is a smoking gun; a photographic one, and it reeks of malfeasance and evil.  There is no reasonable explanation for it, so don't make excuses for it. Don't even try. It can't be defended. They were faking an image of Jack Ruby, and it's because he wasn't there. Ruby reached the garage earlier and was swifted away, hustled up to the 5th floor, which is where he was when the Garage Spectacle went down.  The guy seen shooting Oswald was not Jack Ruby, but rather, FBI Agent James Bookhout. But, this guy wasn't Bookhout, and I don't know who he was. But, they really messed with his image; I can tell you that.