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.