I'm so glad you came to the wedding and I hope all is well. I wanted to briefly clarify my position with regard to the JFK assassination (a) because I think it's an important issue and (b) I want you to know that my position is well thought-out. So, with no stridency, let me say:
1. One has to know the facts of any case to venture anything more than a guess with regard to the truth. A dozen experts, specialists, even physicists cannot shed much light on a case without knowing specific facts. In other words for you or me or anyone to formulate a theory of this case, the specific facts of this specific case must be known and are of greater importance than, if you'll excuse me, a mere invocation of "the physics of it."
For example, one has to know that:
a. coroner's reports all indicated that the throat wound was an ENTRY wound;
b. coroner's reports all indicated that the back of JFK's head was blasted out, meaning entry for the final head shot was in FRONT;
c. the first shot fired at the president was the worst shot; the last shot was the best. This is completely anomalous. The rule is the first shot is ALWAYS the best shot;
d. many witnesses claimed to have seen smoke rising from the white guard rail at the grassy knoll;
e. many witnesses actually ran in that direction ---toward the guard rail---after hearing the report;
f. by any all and indications, Oswald was at best a mediocre shot and yet this shooting was executed almost perfectly; and
g. the best shot would have been the front shot as the limousine approached the depository, but the shooter(s) waited until the procession was in a triangulated crossfire. In other words, if Oswald alone fired from the depository, he would certainly have taken the front shot as the motorcade approached him; he wouldn't have waited and taken a shot from the BACK as it drove away from him.
There are other facts, but let me just set forth a few more. There's the matter of witnesses claiming to have seen Oswald and Ruby together way before November 1963; the suppression of the Zapruder film; suppression and exclusion of much evidence and quite suspicious to me:
The fact that Dan Rather and other journalists claimed intially, on Nov 22, that the president's head jerked violently backward. Later, Rather claimed that the head jerked violently forward, contradicting his own statement and the Zapruder film.
2. Let's talk briefly about the the motion of the head.
No matter what your background in physics or even ballistics, you'd have to have more than a little direct experience and first-hand knowledge to come up with a scenario that contradicts what many people can plainly see in the Zapruder film.
So: do you have this experience? In other words, can Chuck Hahm say without hesitating that he's seen many cases in which a man was shot in the back of his head and his head jerked violently backward? Can you cite something specific? If not, then we have yet another anomaly. Can you say without equivocation that if we were to shoot at a cadaver from such and such a distance ---if we were to shoot from the back ----that the head would jerk violently backward? Can you say this conclusively? Without hesitation? I doubt it.
As you saw in the Zapruder film, Kennedy's head was initially propelled backward, then jerked forward ---exactly what (I believe) one should expect: Action, reaction, balance.
Forgive me for saying that without a serious study of this case, all one can hope to do is venture a guess or guesses about it. To employ a sexy, talismanic, sort of conversation-chilling phrase like "the physics of it" cannot take the place of serious study--of this specific case.
Are you absolutely sure that the motion of JFK's head was perfectly consistent with other known cases involving shots from the back?
Are you implying that you know something that many many scientists, physicists, witnesses and lay people don't know?
The information is out there. There's no real mystery. I'm not the mystifier in this case . . .
3. Here are one or two reasons why I believe the news media are controlled by corporate and other powerful interests:
a. there are enough facts in this case that contradict the official version. Even if I'm wrong, even if we kooky conspiracy theorists are mistaken, an unbiased media would implicitly say "yes, there are many anomalies and strange twists in this case. You are NOT kooky for having doubts and misgivings about the official story. But, here, we're going to tell you what really happened . . ." (yes, the History channel and some others will run conspiracy stories occasionally, but the official story remains the lone gunman theory);
b. all throughout history, information above almost anything else, was controlled by the powerful and doled out, as needed, to "the masses." The Catholic Church had an entire department tasked with "the propagation of the faith" or propaganda. In the 1920s or so, Freud's nephew, Bernays, started calling propaganda "public relations." As ALL of the common law comes from the Church and as the Corporation was modelled on the Church hierarchy (Pope=CEO; cardinals = executive vice-presidents and so on; this isn't conspiracy prattle, this is taught in law school), it is obvious to me that the current of history hasn't changed. Not much.
This is all my argument: the current of history hasn't changed. Court intrigue, coups d'etat, assassinations, false flag operations, election-rigging, extortion, psychological warfare, propaganda, wars for profit, contrived shortages of resources, national banks printing a nation's currency to profit the few ---this is the stuff of history, and yet our news media would have us believe that all of this is "over" or occurs only in Third World countries or among Mafiosi.
I believe the assassination of JFK was a military execution; a coup d'etat. Kennedy had signed an executive order, effective Dec 1963, for the withdrawal of the first thousand US troops from Vietnam and he was absolutely going to pull all US troops from Nam by 1965. The documentation is all there, signed by the appropriate ministers. From early on, LBJ had his political enemies eliminated. This is well documented. Was he complicit in this murder? I'm not sure, but he did completely reverse JFK's Vietnam policy on Nov 26, 1963, the day after Kennedy's burial. The war was NOTHING during JFK's presidency. Under Johnson, it became . . . The Vietnam War. A war DIRECTLY profiting his Texas oil-banker-aeronautics and Brown & Root buddies.
Kennedy called for the joint US-Soviet space missions and a general end to the Cold War (in his famous speech at American University in the summer of '63). He also promised --this is a direct quote --- to "break the CIA into a million pieces." Interestingly, on December 21, 1963, former president Harry Truman wrote a column in the Washington Post.
Here's the link:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html
Here's an excerpt:
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it."
Interesting that Truman wrote this a month after JFK's assassination.
Kennedy was also going to end the Federal Reserve, or at least appeared to, when he directed the Treasury Dept in 1963 to begin printing Silver Certificates. Of course, some disagree with this conclusion (although the Executive Order was signed by JFK--- E.O. 11110):
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 9, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): '(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
SECTION 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy,
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 4, 1963.
Funny thing: Lincoln wanted to do the same thing.
My question to you, Chuck: after viewing the Zapruder film, can a RATIONAL person conclude that a gun shot came from the FRONT? OR . . . does the Zapruder film show and prove conclusively that all shots came from the BACK? Conclusively? If not, then there's room for reasonable people to disagree. How, then, is one a "kook" or irrational or unreasonable for having doubts and misgivings about the original story?
Chuck, you may not use these words ("kooky," "whacky"), but the news media dole them out like candy. Even journalists who are assuredly proud of their expansive vocabularies ---Garry Wills, for example---will use the word 'whacky' ONLY when discussing conspiracy theorists. It's their preferred adjective, although some use 'kooky' and 'silly' as frequently as 'whacky.' Look for it! Look for these words and notice how they're employed ONLY when discussing conspiracies and nutty comedians.
Happy Birthday and Happy New Year,
Bo'b
No comments:
Post a Comment