I almost seem
To hear the birds speaking to me.
Is there a spell,
Perhaps, in the blood?
The curious bird up there—
Hark! he sings to me.—Wagner, Siegfried
First written in 2009
As you see, this paper was written several years ago. I have been sitting on it for over six years. But now, after publishing many other papers in the same line—on faked events—this one may be somewhat easier to promote. If the thesis is too far-out for you at first glance, read the other papers first. I especially recommend my paper on the Lincoln assassination, which has many parallels to this one. I also recommend my very long paper on the Tate/Manson event. The photographic evidence I compiled for that one exceeds even the photographic evidence here—which is extensive.
As usual, I offer this paper as an opinion piece, protected as free speech by the Constitution. It is my professional reading of the evidence, to be taken as such. When I say professional, I mean I have shown previous expertise in reading and de-spinning photographic evidence. As a professional realist artist, I have honed my eye over several decades. Part of my job has long included working from photographs, which I take myself. To turn these photos into portraits, I have to be able to read all the subtle shades and lines contained in the image. So I have been accustomed to look more closely at the world, real and imaged, than most people. I see things most people don't. You can understand how that skill would be useful in unscrambling the false history we have been sold.
In the last decade, a few people have awoken from their slumbers. Cued by the lies surrounding 911, Aurora, and Sandy Hook, they have learned to see through the bedtime stories they have been told. With this suspension of disbelief destroyed, they are now ready to reconsider the other stories of recent history. In this paper we will look at the Kennedy fairy tale. We will start by studying the assassination of JFK, but by the end we will see that all the stories about all the Kennedys are of a piece: nothing you think you know, all the way back to 1944, is true.
It has long been clear to almost all intelligent people who study the evidence that the Warren Commission was a cover-up. Something like 80% of those polled admit they don't believe the Warren Commission report, and we must assume that the other 20% are very gullible. Some have also studied the so-called conspiracy theories—the alternate theories, that is. But it should be equally clear that the alternate theories are, in most ways, just as full of holes and just as poorly constructed as the standard theory. Like the Warren Commission report, the alternate theories also read like propaganda. The style of all counter-stories, in whatever form, has been just as fishy as the Warren Commission story. To those of us trained to look at form as well as content, the counter-stories also read like a script, or like a transparent effort at mind control.
Let me suggest to you that both sets of stories were created mainly as misdirection and disinformation. This is not to say that all alternate theorists are controlled by the government or by anyone else. It is only to suggest that alternate theories—in all forms but one—seem to be encouraged by the government and the powers that be. We have always assumed that alternate theories would be frowned upon or discouraged, and yet we have never seen much real effort at suppression. In fact, in most cases, the dissemination of alternate theories would seem to be abetted by the mainstream, not suppressed. You should ask yourself if the alternate theories and theorists might be selling the main lines of the desired story just as fully as the standard theory. For the powers that be, it may not matter whether you believe there was one shooter or many, or even whether you believe that the CIA or FBI was involved. The only thing that is critical is that you believe Kennedy was assassinated that day, and the alternate theories sell that fact with even more emphasis and gusto than the Warren Commission. As it turns out, the alternate theories make a much greater hero out of Kennedy than the standard theory, and it may be that this is a welcome side-effect for the real conspirators.
The first desideratum of those controlling both stories is that you, the public, be kept monumentally confused, so that you can never ask the proper questions. This end is achieved by having many competing theories. In this way, the Warren Commission was only the official fake story. But the other fake stories are just as important in the long-running effort to make it seem that there is no right answer. The storytellers are quite satisfied to have an ever growing mass of speculation and opinion, which almost inevitably must overwhelm all investigators. The more diversions that are created, the less likely it is that anyone will discover the real clues.
As an example of how alternate theories have been disseminated by the Government itself, I send you to a recent paper of mine on Ramparts magazine. Ramparts was one of the first to publish alternative theories of the assassination, beginning in the late 1960s. Although Ramparts was considered to be a far-left or even anarchist rag at the time, it turns out it was another CIA front, like Encounter, Partisan Review, Paris Review, and most other "intellectual" magazines. By the 1960s, the CIA had infiltrated the entire media, including smaller, seemingly independent journals like Ramparts. The CIA was even good enough to admit this during the Senate Church Committee hearings in the 1970s, and you can read about it in my papers on the Cultural Cold War. You may also consult the books of Frances Stoner Saunders.
In this paper, I will tell you what really happened that day, and what has really happened since 1944. The JFK mystery is just one part of a much larger mystery, a mystery I will unravel for you in the second half of this paper. The JFK assassination is the key that unlocks more than a half-century of closed doors, allowing us to see behind the greatest curtain of all.
The problem from the beginning is that you have been given theories before you looked at the facts yourself. I will turn that on its head, giving you the facts before I tell you the whole story. You will have already built your own theory, most likely, before I even begin collating. The facts alone will take you there. I will present to you the most critical facts and clues and photos and other evidence, without at first looking at them as part of one theory or another. As Sherlock Holmes told us, it is dangerous to have a theory before you have the facts. And up to now, we have had two possible theories. Either Kennedy was killed by Oswald or he was killed by someone else. I will show that the facts, taken alone, point to neither of these two conclusions.
Those who have done any investigation at all know the many arguments against the standard theory. But let us now look critically at the alternate theories, not as apologists for the standard theory, but simply as rational people.
The alternate theories tell us that everything we have been told is a lie. We can accept that, I think. Then they begin building an argument by stating that Kennedy had many enemies. The main difference between different theories concerns which enemy actually got him. We are told that these enemies included Johnson, the CIA, the FBI, Hoover, the Secret Service, Texas oilmen, Castro, the Russians, the bankers, and the Mob. That's a lot of very powerful enemies. Every alternate theory, without exception, accepts that Kennedy had made a lot of very powerful enemies. Some theories may downplay some of the players above and play up others, but all theories begin with the idea that Kennedy was surrounded by enemies.
Now, I don't need to argue against that list or any part of it. I could try to pick it apart by showing that although Kennedy had made enemies in the CIA, for instance, he had control of another part of it, and that this part was also powerful—completely capable of gathering information. I could show that his brother, the Attorney General, was very powerful, and had some very powerful friends in the DOJ and elsewhere. I could remind you that Joseph Kennedy, his father, had Mob connections (to say the least) and that John also had direct connections. I could remind you of Frank Sinatra and Sam Giancana, for instance, who are known to have helped deliver the 1960 elections. And so on. But I don't need to do that. I can accept that Kennedy was surrounded by powerful enemies. I can accept the entire list above. In fact, the bigger and scarier the list, the better I like it. For it leads to my first question to you:
1) If Kennedy was surrounded by such a pack of jackals hungry for his blood, why would he go onto their turf, ride through it in broad daylight in an open car, among uncontrolled tall buildings? Why would it do it without stopping normal traffic in downtown Dallas (there was normal traffic going in the opposite direction on Commerce—you can see the cars in the background of Zapruder). The windows in the car were even rolled all the way down, although they had bulletproof glass in 1963 and we must assume the car was equipped with it. Look closely at the photographs of that day and you will see that the window on the other side is partly up, providing some protection for the ladies on that side.
But on JFK's side, the window is all the way down. Also according to Zapruder and other documents and films, people were allowed to line the street, only a few feet from the motorcade. We can see in these photographs that more than one person actually stepped off the curb and out into the street, uncontested by police. One lady claims to have stepped within an arm's length of the motorcade, shouting, "Look over here for a picture!" We know this is true from other evidence, such as the Daniel film taken of the car emerging from the far side of the bridge (where the two little boys are waving). The car passes only a few feet from the boys and the movie camera. I show further proof of it below, where I analyze photos from Bell and others.
Those alternate theorists who point out how odd it is for the Secret Service to have been pulled off the back of the car, and for the building windows to be open, don't mention that it is even odder for the route to be so completely uncontested. They imply, by omission, that it was normal in 1963 to have ladies with cameras stepping out into the street, and men with movie cameras milling around on the grass, and hundreds of daytrippers rubbernecking in whatever fashion suited them, with absolutely no effort at crowd control; but it wasn't. Compare the visits to Miami or Chicago weeks earlier and you will see that this protocol wasn't normal at all; not in 1963 or 1863. Common sense would tell you that you don't allow strangers that close to the President under any circumstances. It has nothing to do with the '60s "being a more innocent time" or any of that misdirection. Truman would not have been caught in that situation, or Wilson, or anyone else, much less a president like Kennedy, supposedly surrounded by a combination of enemies unparalleled in history.
People then try to blame his Secret Service, but Kennedy had eyes. Even if it is true that he could not have known about the open windows in the Book Depository until he got there, the other factors were clear to anyone who was awake. He didn't need to be briefed, or to rely on intelligence reports from good guys or bad guys. All he needed to do is look around. Whoever was riding in that motorcade could see that the public was lining the streets, that traffic was uncontrolled, that the car had no protection, and so on. Even if they lied to him about the route, he could see with his own eyes that he was a sitting duck. Do you think a man with so many enemies would be smiling and waving to the crowd, supposing he was ever stupid enough to get caught in that position? No, he would be hiding under the seat, ordering the driver to get him out of there as fast as possible.
In response to this question, people tell me that Kennedy was naïve, that he was an egomaniac, that he was controlled, and so on. But who is naïve here? Do these responses even begin to answer my question in a meaningful way? No, they are just more propaganda, put forward to keep us from looking at what happened without a preset explanation. An egomaniac would be the last person to get caught in that situation, since he values his own life so much. He would not give his life away just to enjoy a few cheers.
We know that Kennedy was not stupid. He was also not naïve. In that famous speech that the alternate theorists love to play*, Kennedy warns us of the secret government and asks us for our help. Does the same man who gave that speech allow himself to be put into an open car in an uncontrolled major city, with a bullseye on his head? Of course not.
One of the most influential alternate-theory films, after Oliver Stone's JFK, is a multi-part documentary first aired on The History Channel, called The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Notice that we have a mainstream channel selling the conspiracy theory, and that this documentary somehow obtained access to a lot of obscure FBI evidence. [Also note that The History Channel is a known Intelligence front, created specifically to propagandize its viewers.] I have no intention of critiquing this film point for point, or even as a whole. I only want to point out to you one scene from it. In Miami, the FBI had infiltrated plans for an assassination attempt similar to Dallas, we are told. Plotters were captured on audiotape, and in the film the agents themselves even show how they planted the recording devices, and in which house. Then we listen to the tape from October, 1963. The key moment is when the bad guy asks the spy, "Do you know how many body doubles the President has here?"
Most people don't pause on that, but it made my head turn. The man does not ask IF there are body doubles, but "how many?" Of course, the President travels with body doubles. The alternate theorists now push that idea with Saddam Hussein, since according to many of them Hussein is not dead. In fact, I think it is very likely that Hussein is not dead. The film of Hussein's death looked fake. It was fishy in many ways. But few remember that Kennedy would be expected to have body doubles, too, just like Hussein.
If Kennedy did decide that the motorcade should go on, simply as a PR move to get votes for the election of 1964, then he would certainly have nominated one of his body doubles to take the ride. Critics of my theory will say that people could tell the difference, but people are not as good as they think at recognizing small differences in the human face. In fact, without verbal clues, clothing cues, and familiar gestures, people are actually terrible at differentiating between people who look similar. Just recently, Conan O'Brien proved this on his late-night show by sending a body double that resembled him only distantly out into the streets to talk to people. No one recognized that it was not him, although he is 6'4" and the body double was under 6'. The double was way off in many other ways, the only similarity being the red hair, really. The voice was also completely different, and Conan is famous for his talk show. Afterwards, the audience pretended to be astonished that people could be so blind and deaf, but this is quite normal. In my experience, most people are blind to all but the most obvious differences, and the only reason they don't make more mistakes than they do is that they generally relate to a small group of familiar people, and do so with the help of voice, gesture, and clothing recognition.
But I should state that even more strongly. As we will see below, people are not good at seeing any clues, no matter how obvious, much less subtle facial differences. [As the premier example, see my analysis of the Bobby Kennedy pics below, in which photographs used on the front pages of major newspapers have glaring paste-up problems, and no one has seen them in 40 years.]
This is all to say that a large majority of people are fabulously easy to fool, regarding body doubles or anything else. Those who might be able to differentiate are pushed by context into refusing to ask the question. Almost no one is going to question if the man in the car is Kennedy, since subconsciously they think "who else is going to be in the car?" Almost no one was close enough to make a positive ID, and those who were would not be asking themselves the question. Others in the motorcade could also be fooled with very little effort. Simply let them see the real Kennedy waiting to get in the car, make the switch at the last moment, in the dark of a parking garage or something, and then drive on. He is front, so all they can see is the back of his head. Anyone who gets a clue can be paid off or coerced.
But even coercion would be unnecessary, since those in the motorcade are either friends or enemies. You don't care what your enemies think—you are using the body double to fool them. And your friends are not going to say anything anyway. They will understand the need for the body double, won't they? If they have to lie afterwards, so what? They are politicians. They lie for a living.
In what is considered to be one of the most outré theories concerning JFK, a researcher named Robert Morningstar has offered the idea that Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit was used as a body double for the President. If you will remember, Tippit was said to have been killed by Oswald as he fled downtown Dallas. Strictly, Morningstar would have Tippit used a corpse double, but the idea is much the same. Tippit was known among the Dallas police as something of a Kennedy look-alike. Additionally, Tippit's head wound was similar to the head wound decided on for Kennedy by the Warren Commission. Both very suggestive, as I think you will agree. However, on closer examination, Morningstar's argument begins to fall apart. A large part of his argument centers on moles, but features larger and easier to see than moles kill his visual proof. The most famous corpse photo is Robert Groden's "leaked" photo from Bethesda. Morningstar publishes this photo right next to a photo of Tippit's corpse. I was able to spot the problem immediately, which is the septum of the nose. That is the division between the nostrils. We are looking up at both heads, and the two septa are prominent. Tippit's nose is extraordinary for its very narrow septum. The Kennedy corpse, whoever it is, has a wide septum. It is not Tippit.
No, Morningstar's theory is more misdirection. It is possible that it is official disinformation, or it may only be a lucky near-hit from an outsider, allowed to thrive precisely because it is wrong. Either way, it is suggestive and remains so, even after it has been shown to fail. Even if it is purposeful misdirection, it can be turned, since it contains a grain of truth. For, although the Kennedy corpse in Bethesda is not Tippit, it is not Kennedy either, as I will show.
That said, it is possible that Tippit was used as Kennedy's double in a different part of the story. Tippit may have been used as an extra corpse double in Dallas, but he was not the corpse double in Bethesda, as you will see. As I was studying Morningstar's images of Kennedy and Tippit, as well as returning to the archives to look at all the famous pictures of Kennedy there, several very distinguishing characteristics jumped out at me. Moles can be covered up or penciled in, but other things are not as easy to cover or fake. In the Bethesda death photos, we cannot see everything clearly, but there are some things we can see clearly. We can see the upper teeth, we can see the forehead, we can see the septum and the shape of the underside of the nose, and things of that nature. So the logical thing to do is to take what we have, rather than try to compare things we may not have. We know the wounds have been manipulated, since even if they were not manipulated for sinister purposes, they would have been manipulated for medical ones. The doctors may have initially tried to close them to stop loss of blood, for instance, or for any number of other possibly valid reasons. So it is best to look at areas that could not and would not be manipulated.
The forehead is a good place to start, since a large part of it is pristine. We have the wound well above the right eye, near the hairline, and the right eyebrow has been shaved. It is true that Kennedy had a weaker eyebrow on that side, but it was weak on the outside, not the inside. We can see the inside part of the eyebrow here clearly, and there is nothing there. That is very curious.
The normal commentary on this photo is to point out that the wound does not match the huge hole of the Zapruder film, and I agree with that commentary. I am not here to contradict the given commentary in this section, but to add to it. I agree that the wound is fishy, but I think other things are even more fishy. To begin with, why is the eyebrow shaved but not the hairline? Shaving the eyebrow is a pre-op procedure, but there would have been no reason to operate on a wound of this sort. First of all, the man was already dead. Second of all, if the first doctors in Dallas were going to operate post mortem, out of some wild hope for a miracle, or to cover their asses (as some of the doctors have claimed), then they would have shaved both the eyebrow and the hair on top of the head. At the very least, they would have shaved the area around the wound. And yet we don't see that. Hair much nearer to the wound than the eyebrow is in place. So why was the eyebrow shaved? I suggest to you that the eyebrow was shaved simply because it didn't look like Kennedy's. Eyebrow arch and thickness is very distinctive, and it would be one of the first things anyone would go to for a likeness. The eyebrow of this guy didn't match Kennedy, so they shaved it. It is that simple.
From the side view, the shape of the eyebrow can't really be determined. All we can see from both photos is that the left eyebrow has not been shaved. We cannot determine much else about it. But an intact right eyebrow in the first photo would be one of the first things we would look to for a likeness. That is why it is gone. It is also worth noting that this frontal photo and the left profile were "leaked", but not the right profile. The right profile is much more important, since that is where the wound is; but instead we get the left profile, where nothing can be seen, not even the arch of the intact eyebrow. That is also a clue.
Now back to the forehead. As you can see, this forehead is very smooth. It has no wrinkles, even in the high, raking light we have here. The light is coming from below, as you can easily tell by the shadow above the upper lip and the even darker shadow above the nose. And the light is very bright, since we are looking at an autopsy table, and since the highlights are very white. And yet we see no wrinkles at all on the forehead. This should appear doubly odd, since corpses are not famous for taking on water. As everyone knows, corpses dry out. Wrinkles should be expected to increase, not decrease. Yes, corpses do some strange things, and bloating may occur in other parts of the body. But there would be no water retained in the head, especially a head lacking a brain.
To continue with that logic, study the eyes. Don't you think it peculiar they are open? This was many hours after death, remember. The corpse had been transported a long distance between cities. Apparently we are supposed to believe the eyes had never been closed. And yet they are still watery! How can that be? Your eyes will dry out if you don't blink every ten seconds, and you are alive. But we are supposed to believe this "corpse" has had its eyes open for many hours, and that its eyes are somehow miraculously full of liquid? Again, this is supposed to be a corpse with a head with no brain and no blood. Both have been blown out of it by a high powered rifle, we are told. So there should be nothing in that skull to keep the eyes moist. They should have shriveled up. Not only is that guy not Kennedy, he isn't even dead.
Some have claimed that the wax man had already arrived, preparing the corpse for the coffin, but this is absurd. Yes, mortician's wax is used for the purpose of filling wrinkles, but it is not used on the autopsy table. We are about a day early for that. These photos are supposed to be leaked from the autopsy, not from the embalming and coffin prep. In these photos we should see Jack's defining brow wrinkles, but we do not. Others will say that the bright light is drowning out the wrinkles, but this is false. Bright light makes wrinkles worse, not better. Do you look younger in bright morning light or in low evening light? You look younger in low light, and everyone knows that. To make someone who is not young look younger in a photo, you shoot in low light and make sure it is not raking. Here we have raking light that is very bright. The wrinkles should be worse.
I guarantee you that if you look worse in the morning, you will look even worse when you are dead. Getting shot in the head will not make you look younger, and I don't recommend it as a beauty treatment. And yet this corpse looks years younger than Kennedy.
Remember that Kennedy, although famous for being the youngest President, was 46 in 1963. In the middle photograph above, he is 42, but he already has deep brow wrinkles. The first photo was taken in 1963, and you can see that he has gained weight. He looks all of 46: slightly bloated, thinning and drying lips, and spots beginning to appear on his face. Take note especially of the prominent spot on his left cheek, and the smaller one on his upper right lip. We can see the spot on his lip in all three photos: it is probably a mole. And yet we don't see them at all in the Bethesda photos. The same is true of the crow's-feet and all other signs of age on the face. We see some very faint lines at the edge of the eye in the Bethesda photo, but these look more like the ridges of a man in his early 30s, not his late 40s. Again, the photos do not match Kennedy.
While we are studying these three photos, we can sharpen our eyes by practicing on other details. We can see that Jack got a nose job and an ear tuck sometime between the second and third photos. The bridge of his nose is much thinner and sharper in the older photos, and the ear tuck is clear to anyone who looks closely.
But let us move on. Another thing to look at is the folds under the eyes. We cannot see the folds over the eyes in the corpse photos, which are highly distinctive, especially with Kennedy, but we work with what we have. When Morningstar was comparing Kennedy and Tippit, one of the first things I noticed was that Kennedy had much larger folds under the eyes. Tippit has no underfold at all. He is smooth, and has only the beginnings of circles. But Kennedy has very pronounced folds, folds that he had had since he was younger. The corpse has a pronounced shadow from the cheekbone, but no folds under the eyes at all. With this raking light, the folds should have been accentuated, but instead they are gone. There is no medical way to account for this—except by remembering this isn't Kennedy.
The next thing to look at is the teeth. We can see Tippit's teeth clearly in his death photo, and these corpse teeth are not those of Tippit. Just as a starter, Tippit is missing his first bicuspid on the right side, and the Bethesda corpse is not. All the visible teeth are different, too. But what of Kennedy? As you can see from this photo, all of Kennedy's incisors (4 front teeth) are wide, while his cuspids (canines) are fairly sharp. The Bethesda corpse has smaller incisors than Kennedy, and cuspids that are almost like incisors (flat). In fact, all eight front teeth appear to be about the same size in the Bethesda photo, which is extreme rare.
The Bethesda corpse would appear to have perfected dentures or costume teeth, rather than real teeth. Had Kennedy gotten dentures or caps since this early picture of him? No; here he is as President, smiling. You can clearly see that pointy cuspid.
Another thing pushes us in the direction of false teeth, a thing I noticed the first time I saw the Bethesda photos. The corpse's upper lip is jutting out slightly, just as your lip does when you put in false teeth over your real teeth. The corpse is lying on its back, so gravity should be pulling the lip closer to the teeth, rather than farther away. Kennedy's mouth was nothing like this. Some people do have a lip like that, but Kennedy never did. I don't think this corpse does either. It appears that these very perfect teeth are false overlays. They aren't even dentures, since that would require pulling the real teeth. They are just expensive costume teeth, like they use in Hollywood. You can tell when actors have them in, even now that they are thinner and more advanced, since the upper lip always moves out a tiny bit to make room for them. Even the tiniest change in a mouth will be noticed by those familiar with a face. In a painted portrait, the tiniest alteration in a mouth can change the entire likeness, and the same is true in real life. Costume teeth have always done this, and they still do. For visual proof, go to the Friends DVD where Ross whitens his teeth. He has false fronts over his own teeth, and this is clear immediately. His mouth looks strange as soon as he comes on screen. And yet we may assume these false teeth were the best you could buy. Friends was not short of money in 2000, and the scriptwriters would not want you to think that Ross was wearing false teeth.
It would appear that those in charge of the "Kennedy autopsy" chose this corpse because it had a very good nose, and the general features of the head were close to Kennedy. The overall shape of the head, and especially of the jaw, is a close match. They tried to fix the teeth and the visible eyebrow, but the rest of the head was left as-is. The teeth were made almost invisible: they are all the same, and therefore evade notice. This was a good halfway solution, since it would require people to go to Kennedy photos to find small distinctions, and most people aren't going to do that.
But the biggest problem is that this corpse is of a man at least a decade younger than Kennedy. The public saw Kennedy with such stars in their eyes that most forgot he was no longer 30 or 35. He was fairly young and still quite handsome, but he simply did not have skin like this. He never did, even when he was 30, but most people do not notice things like that. Look at the younger picture of him as a junior senator, when he really was in his early 30s. Even then you can see the main forehead line and the fairly rough complexion and the folds under the eyes. By rough complexion, I do not mean that he had any blemishes; I only mean that he looks like a man who had always gotten a fair amount of sun. He does not have smooth girlish skin, as some men do have, even men in their 40s. But the Bethesda corpse does have this kind of smooth skin. It is not Kennedy. It is not even close, really.
For one final proof, look at the overhead shot. Here we look down and can see the corpse's body. We know that the President took pretty good care of himself, but this corpse is buff, by the standards of the day. The shoulders are very muscular, the pectorals do not sag, and there is no belly at all. That does not look like any 46-year-old man, but especially not Kennedy. Even a 46-year-old man who was an ex-athlete would not have skin like that. As with the face, this is the skin of a 30 year old. And Jack simply was not that thin and buff. He was in fairly good shape, but he was not training for the 200 backstroke in the Olympics. I return you to the large photo of him from 1963. Jowls like that don't go with a flat belly. These photos would be "leaked" only to a very ignorant and gullible populace, by people who had no regard at all for the intelligence of those they were trying to fool. Look again: are these two photos of the same man?
Another thing that most people don't know is that Kennedy wore a back brace. He had worn one for years. In addition, he had injured his groin in 1963 and was wearing a full shoulder-to-groin brace at the time of the "assassination." This not only prevented him from bending over to protect himself from Oswald's second bullet (we are told), of course it would also have prevented him from exercise. There is no way his torso would have looked like this in November of 1963.
Now let us leave Kennedy for a moment and look at Oswald. Oswald has been picked apart more than any man alive or dead, except maybe Shakespeare. And yet there is at least one piece of evidence that has so far been overlooked. When Oswald was taken from one cell to another, he was given a black sweater to wear. In the movie The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the officer interviewed is used as grist for the alternate theory, but his statement is still not fully analyzed. He tells us that Oswald had two sweaters there and was asked which he wanted to wear. We are told that at first he wanted to wear the gray one, but then he changed his mind and wanted the black one. Notice that it is desired that we believe Oswald chose the black one, and that it seems like a toss-up. It seems completely arbitrary: it could just as easily have been the gray one. Just a matter of Oswald tossing a coin in his head, and choosing on a whim. If we think anything about this—which is unlikely—we think maybe he chose for some very human reason, one that had to do with his grandmother or his baby daughter or his old dog Fido. The apparent randomness of the choice foils us from questioning it.
But we should ask four questions, at least. 1) Are we to believe that Oswald was arrested in the theater with a bag full of different colored sweaters, and that he was allowed to keep them in his cell? 2) Or are we to believe, alternately, that his wife Marina showed up with a suitcase full of clothes and it was sent directly on to Oswald, for his maximum comfort? 3) Or are we to assume that officers who had starved and punched Oswald into to the shape we see him in the famous footage suddenly became concerned that he might be a tad chilly, and offered him his choice of garments? 4) But, most importantly, we should ask why the sweater is black. We must assume that it was not Oswald's free choice, taken from his traveling wardrobe. Prisoners are not given choices like that. It was the choice of the handlers, whoever they were, Dallas police or FBI or whoever. And it was chosen for a reason. Why black?
If Oswald is wearing a light color when he is shot, people will see the blood and know he was shot. So what? People don’t mind if he is shot. Most people are in the mood for a lynching, and there would be no reason to hide the blood from the public. No, the whole point of having him shot on camera is to prove he was really shot. Those in charge of the events that day went to a great deal of trouble to be sure he was shot on camera, from moving him when he did not need to be moved, to doing it during the day, to doing it in an uncontrolled way, to calling the press and inviting them in, to clearing a path so that Oswald could walk straight toward the camera, to clearing a path so that Ruby could walk right up from the front with no questions asked.
But what if he is wearing a light color and shots ring out and there is no blood? People might ask questions, like "Where was he shot?" If he was shot in the head or torso, there would be visible blood immediately, and people don't die from leg wounds. Ruby would have to be an idiot to miss or hit him in the leg from two feet away. So obviously you want Oswald in a black sweater, not because it hides the blood, but because it hides the lack of blood. If you are going to fake a shooting, you put Oswald in a black sweater. Then all you need is the sound of the shots and Oswald being pulled quickly to the floor. No one will comment on the lack of blood, because, due to the black sweater, they wouldn’t have seen it even if it was there. It is the perfect cover for a fake shooting.
It is almost inconceivable that Oswald could be put in a black sweater and no one would comment on it for 44 years. Is it customary to see prisoners transferred in black sweaters? Have you ever seen any other prisoner transferred in a black sweater? No. It is sort of like transferring a prisoner in pumps and a floppy hat. It is simply not done. So ask yourself why the alternate theory never mentions it, or, if they do mention, they immediately spin it in an illogical way. When the whole world wants someone's blood, you don't put them in a black sweater to hide the blood; no, you put them in a black sweater to hide the lack of blood.
Another thing is very strange here, and it is a dead giveaway as well. It may have been commented on before, I don't know. Watch the film closely, and you will see that Oswald cries out and lurches forward even before the first shot is fired. He must have heard someone step on a bug or something. He is a good actor in other ways, but he misses his mark here by about a second. He goes umph and leans forward a bit, then we hear the first shot, and then he gives us a big Oscar-winning grimace and a little bit louder umph. Then he is pulled to the floor.
Some might say that this is because bullets travel faster than sound, but these people are fake physicists of some sort who have outsmarted themselves. Yes, if Ruby had been several hundred feet away when he shot, and had shot with a 30-06, then there would be a time delay. But he was only a few feet away. There is no time delay due to sound from a few feet. Oswald was shot with a bullet, not a laser. Plus, Ruby used a snub-nosed revolver, which actually has a bullet speed less than the speed of sound on the ground. But even with a bullet speed of 4000fps, at a few feet no time delay would be apparent. There is simply not enough time for a gap to evolve. Oswald could not have felt the bullet a full second before we heard the sound, or even a split second before. It takes a person some time to react, even to pain. The pain response is slightly faster than tactile response and slightly slower than muscle reflex, since it does not have to go through the brain, but it still takes time. It is not instantaneous. It is on the order of 100 milliseconds. At the elevation of Dallas the speed of sound would be about 1200fps. Sound traveling twenty feet, say (from gun to microphone), would take 16 milliseconds. So even if Oswald had been shot by a laser, with the speed of light, he still could not have reacted before we heard the sound of the shot. The shooting of Oswald was faked. It was a movie production, and Oswald was clearly in on it.
Not many people have seen this second photo of the Oswald shooting, since it has mostly been suppressed.
See a problem there? How about that microphone hanging down from the rafters? Don't you think it is suspicious that this scene was pre-miced, since it was supposed to be unpredicted and spontaneous? Don't you think it is suspicious that two separate cameras from two separate angles just happened to capture this unpredictable event? And where is this second cameraman supposed to be, hanging from the ceiling? Either that or he is twelve feet tall. Also, this is supposed to be in a parking garage in the basement of Dallas Police Station. There is a white car right in front of these guys. What basement is lit like this? Look at the shadows cast by the people as well as the shadow cast by the hanging microphone. There are powerful lights set up in front of these people. They are not lit from above, as you would expect in such a place. They are lit strongly from in front, so there were powerful lights set up on this scene. This is indication it was staged.
We already know that other Oswald photos were faked. For instance, the famous photo of Oswald with his gun, from LIFE magazine, was proved to be a fake by contemporary experts.
Malcolm Thompson, a 30-year veteran of the forensics science laboratory in the British Police Force and specialist in fake photos, stated in a 1978 BBC documentary these photos were fakes. In the same documentary, the head of the Canadian Airforce Photographic department came to the same conclusion. I could tell that immediately, since his head is too big for his body.
I will tell you a bit more about Oswald before we move on. One of Oswald's government handlers is known: his name was George de Mohrenschildt. Of Russian heritage, his father had been a major-general in the Tsar's army, before Lenin took over. He was raised in Poland, but emigrated to the US in 1938. Although we are told by mainstream sources that he was thought to have been a German spy, his brother Dmitri is admitted to have been OSS and a founder of CIA's Radio Free Europe. They never bother to explain why one brother was suspected of being a German spy while the other was hired immediately by the CIA. At any rate, the CIA soon got George involved with the oil business, as a cover. As an oilman he traveled widely, including trips to Costa Rica, Cuba, and Yugoslavia, where he was accused of being a US spy. He lived in Venezuela for a time, working for Pantepec Oil, which was owned by the family of William F. Buckley. Of course Buckley is now known to have been CIA himself. De Mohrenschildt was also a personal friend of Clint Murchison, H. L. Hunt, George Bush, Sr., and Ted Dealey.
But there's more:
In March 1963, de Mohrenschildt received a Haitian government contract for $285,000 to set up an industrial enterprise with other investors, which included surveying oil and geological resources on the island. In May, he met in Washington, D.C. with CIA and Army intelligence contacts to further his Haitian connections.All of this is admitted at Wikipedia, which is astonishing. They try to whitewash the information, but do it very poorly. To whitewash the information, they first have to give it to you, and once you have it there is no way to really cleanse it. It is obvious de Mohrenschildt was CIA. As such, he was assigned the job of handling Oswald in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.
But back to Ted Dealey. Does that name ring a bell? Dealey Plaza in Dallas was named after Ted's father. Both were publishers of the Dallas Morning News. So it was no accident the alleged assassination took place on Dealey Plaza. This was part of the plan and the script.
We have already seen that de Mohrenschildt was very connected, to say the least. He was not just a private person helping out Oswald because Marina Oswald happened to be Russian. Since all this is known about de Mohrenschildt (including extensive testimony he gave to the Warren Commission), it has to be spun. It is spun to this day even by alternative theorists. They commonly point to de Mohrenschildt as further evidence of conspiracy. Most often, they use his existence to imply that the CIA got Kennedy. But that is just another pushed reading of the facts. It is far easier and simpler to conclude that de Mohrenschildt and the CIA were controlled by Kennedy. Why? Because de Mohrenschildt was also a close personal friend of the Kennedys and Bouviers. Again, we can get that straight from Wikipedia, which admits that:
Jacqueline grew up calling de Mohrenschildt "Uncle George" and would sit on his knee. He became a close friend of Jacqueline's aunt Edith Bouvier Beale.How do you spin that? Well, people are still trying, including "cutting edge conspiracy theorist" Liam Scheff, who gives us much of this same information but then refuses to see what it means. He diverts us by telling us that Eisenhower warned of the CIA in 1960, when Kennedy was coming into office. He tells us Eisenhower was warning of the oligarchs who had taken over the country. But what Scheff forgets to remind you is that John Kennedy's dad Joseph was one of those oligarchs. In the 1950's he was one of the richest and most powerful men in the country, which the election of his son to the Presidency should tell us, if nothing else.
And who else was one of these oligarchs? Jacob Schiff. Schiff. Scheff. Schiff. Scheff. Hmmm. Why does Liam Scheff have no bio up on the internet? As with Peter Schiff, his history seems to have been scrubbed.
Now let us return to Kennedy. Many alternate theorists have proposed that the Bethesda corpse is not Kennedy, and they have explained this switch by saying that the murderers needed to be able to match the wounds to films or theories. But the wounds of the corpse do not match the Zapruder film. And besides, it would make more sense and be much easier to match the film to the wounds than the wounds to the film. Most alternate theorists think that Zapruder was tampered with, so why not tamper with it to make it match? Why tamper with both the corpse and the film, only to have them contradict each other? Both the film and the corpse were faked, so don’t imagine I am denying it. But they weren't faked to make the wounds match.
The other reason for switching the corpse is to match the Warren Commission theory of a single gunman and a magic bullet. But the Warren Commission is a fantasy from beginning to end, as the alternate theorists tell us. If the Commission could manufacture and sell such a lie, they could have manufactured and sold a similar lie that incorporated Oswald, magic bullets, and Kennedy's real corpse. In other words, they were obviously not limited to any facts, since they ignored facts whenever they wanted to. They had no need to switch corpses. All they needed to do was sell a slightly different lie. The wounds don't match Zapruder or the theory as it is. In that case, why not have the real corpse instead of a phony? The phony corpse does not solve any problem. In fact, as part of either the standard theory or the alternate theory, the phony corpse has no logical place. A stand-in corpse doesn't sell any part of the Warren commission's findings and it doesn’t make sense in a cover-up either. In a cover-up, you switch the perpetrators, not the corpse. In a cover-up, switching the corpse would cause more problems, not fewer, and that is what we see.
No, the only reason you would need a body-double corpse is if you don't have a real corpse. Those who argue that the corpse is not Kennedy never ask the correct question. The correct question is not, "Where is Kennedy's corpse?" If the Zapruder film is fake and the corpse is fake, then we have no evidence that Kennedy was killed at all. All we have is a bunch of eye-witness testimony that a guy in a car who looked like Kennedy appeared to be wounded, and a bunch of ear witness testimony of shots fired. That is not proof of anything. We have already seen that Oswald faked being hit (a second too early), with no blood, but because it was done on camera, with the world watching, we think we have a billion witnesses. Yes, we have a billion witnesses to a guy falling down after a shot is heard. We have witnesses to nothing. Likewise, with Kennedy. We have witnesses to absolutely nothing. It may have been the murder of a President, the murder of a body double, or a complete act. Without the President’s body, the correct question is, where is the President? Where is he hiding? That is the correct question. That has been the correct question for decades. And no one has ever asked it.
Mr. Morningstar does not ask it either. He presents us with a very detailed theory that provides us with a stand-in corpse. But he uses that only as further proof of a conspiracy. He does not follow his own lead in any logical way. Yes, a stand-in corpse does stand as further proof of a conspiracy, but that conspiracy must include Kennedy himself, since he is not accounted for. Because Morningstar stops so abruptly, one tends to assume that he thinks that because Tippit must be buried in Kennedy’s tomb, Kennedy must be buried in Tippit's tomb. What would the point of that be? Or maybe he wants us to assume that the enemies of Kennedy were so vicious they fed his remains to their dogs, or ate him themselves, as a final revenge.
That is what is strange about almost all the alternate theories: they are ludicrously pro-Kennedy. I can understand being anti-Castro, or anti-Mob, or anti-Johnson, or anti-CIA. But that does not mean you have to think Kennedy was a saint, battling these combined forces of evil. I am about as far from the Republican or big-money agenda as you can get, but I know something about Kennedy, too. I know something about American politics, and I know you don't get to be President by being a white knight of any kind.
Morningstar, by his own admission, worked for the Kennedy campaign in 1960, and all his theories are slanted toward Kennedy to this day. Other alternate theorists are even more one-sided, and if we were to believe them, Kennedy was turning America into a paradise, only to be thwarted by closet Nazis in his own cabinet, Nazis he had appointed himself. [Even Lyndon Larouche pushes this view of Kennedy, which is highly strange.] Johnson, we are told, wanted nothing more than to escalate in Vietnam, simply to get richer, and yet Jack had no inkling of this. In other words, Johnson, though Democrat, was a fascist swine, while Kennedy was a purblind idealist, ignorant of the most obvious facts around him. I have to admit that I don't like this sort of silly and transparent propaganda any more than I like the sort of propaganda I get from mainstream sources.
As further support of this, I send you to the full speech of Kennedy on the shadow government, the one I mentioned earlier*. The web is now stiff with excerpts from this speech, and the excerpts are used for two main reasons. 1) To show that Kennedy was fighting against this shadow government, in the way that Teddy Roosevelt is said to have done, 2) To show us that this shadow government has now taken over, after the false flag of 911. But the full speech does neither one. All you have to do is listen to the full speech to realize that the excerpts are taken out of context, and that the gist of the speech is the exact opposite of what we have been told. JFK is in fact speaking in favor of governmental secrecy. There is no doubt of this, no room for debate. He says it outright, in plain language. He is speaking before the press, asking them to censor themselves out of patriotism. He says that war has not been declared—so certain legal provisions are not in strict effect—but he asks the press and the American people to act as if they are in a declared war, and to therefore put up with heightened levels of governmental and official secrecy. Not only is JFK's speech not a contradiction of Bush's speeches after 911, it is a clear precursor. JFK has a better speaking voice, but he is saying the same thing. He is using the cold war as an excuse for secrecy and unaccountability.
The real meaning of the full speech kills #1, above, since Kennedy was already a member of the shadow government, asking for more shade. But notice that it also kills #2. The shadow government did not take over after 911. The shadow government always existed. We will see to what extent below.
That this speech should now be used by liberals to counter the neocon's agenda is amazing. We must assume that those who use it this way, including 911 Truthers and JFK alternate theorists, are either very ignorant or very dishonest, or both. I think it is possible, even probable, that disinformation is being purposely broadcast by all sides; and it is also possible, even probable, that those who hatched the Kennedy plot are in control of both sides and both theories, both for and against, both the standard model and the alternate model.
But let us return to Dallas, to deal with Zapruder and the other films, as well as other things going on that day. As others have pointed out, the Z-film was fishy from the get-go, due to the missing frames. It contains lots of other anomalies, discovered by hundreds of researchers. Some of these anomalies I would confirm here, if I cared to, but I don't. I don't, because in the end all these anomalies act as more misdirection. They get us focusing on details when we should be looking at the overall picture. The biggest problem with the Zapruder film and other film analysis has so far been focus. And I don't mean the focus of the film, I mean the focus of the analysis. We have to sift the more important facts from the less important facts. There are a lot of facts available in Dallas, but only a few of them will be crucial to any final argument. We don't need piles and piles of inconclusive findings, we need just a few conclusive findings. That would be enough.
To start with, "facts" that rely on testimony are never really facts. The other side can always dismiss testimony, calling it a lie or a mis-remembrance. So we need facts that do not rely on anyone's testimony. If they will not accept our witnesses, we certainly don't have to accept theirs. By the same token, if we think their witnesses are lying, there is no reason for them to take ours on faith. And then there is the very real possibility that no one is telling the truth except those who know nothing. So we must begin with a clean slate. All witnesses on both sides should be thrown out as unreliable.
Once we do that we are down to an analysis of the films and photos, and of other existing physical evidence. The guns and bullets may or may not have been planted, so we must treat them like the witnesses. Untrustworthy. That leaves us the films and photos. These can also be faked, so we need evidence that transcends any possible fakery. Is it possible to find evidence like this? Could it be possible to accept, without argument, that all the films are genuine and complete and still have perfect evidence of a plot to mislead? It is possible. In fact, it is very easy.
The world needs reminding that the burden of proof is on the side of the government here. They are the ones that are trying to sell a story. That story is that JFK was assassinated in Dallas. That story should be very easy to prove beyond any doubt. All we need is a body. Well, I have shown that we don't have a body. They didn't want to give us that. They gave us lots of really poor photos of other people, with wounds and stories that changed in spectacular fashion between Dallas and Bethesda.
Without that evidence, we must look to the films and photos from Dallas. We don't have to show they are fake or tampered with to show that they prove nothing. We can accept them as they are, as genuine and complete, and still show that they prove nothing. We do this by showing that they are not continuous.
We will admit that some of the films and photos from earlier in the route seem to give us a positive ID on the Kennedys. We will also assume they were actually taken that day, although even this is not certain (see below). But we have no film or photo from which is possible to ID the occupants of the car, once it reaches Dealey Plaza. Zapruder and all other films and photos from Dealey Plaza are not of a quality to determine if we are looking at the Kennedys or doubles. We can see lots of people taking pictures in Dealey Plaza, but they always manage to shoot from far away or behind. And Zapruder is the least clear of all. From Zapruder, it is hardly possible to identify the car in exact details, much less the occupants.
This is true even before we reach the Plaza. Altgens' photo on Houston St. (below), just before turning into the Plaza, is from behind. And Scott Hale's photo (just below) from Main St., although from the side, is inconclusive. If anything, Hale's photo is evidence of a body double, since this profile looks nothing like Kennedy. When did Kennedy get a jaw that jutted out like that? It looks nothing like Kennedy.
Also notice the date at the top of that photo. MAR 64. They are testing you.
It is both highly unusual and highly suggestive that we have no non-stop coverage of the entire tour of Dallas. A Presidential motorcade through a major city, in the open air on a sunny day: a very rare event, for any number of reasons, not the least of which was that it would be certain suicide, for Kennedy or any other President before or after. And yet we have no moving coverage by the big three channels? We have to rely on shaky cameramen like Bell and Zapruder and so on, who can’t even center the picture? Why? Why is that? And why does no one else ask that question? Why do the alternate theorists always ask questions that lead off into a mire or a bog, but never ask questions that lead somewhere? Why do we have 44 years of people getting bogged down in technical details, eyewitness testimony, and other dead-ends, while the crucial questions are never asked?
The question of tampering or faking of films is interesting, but it is not crucial. The central fact of all the films is that, taken as a whole, they don't provide continuity. The entire motorcade could have stopped just before Dealey Plaza for cold drinks and a bathroom break, and we would have no knowledge of that. You will say there would have been testimony to such a thing. But you should say, there might have been testimony to such a thing. If anyone had thought it was important enough to mention, and if that anyone had not been suppressed, then yes, we would know of it by testimony. Otherwise, we would not know of it. There are many things we do not know of from that day, and adding one more thing to that list is hardly revolutionary.
Suppose that, just before Dealey Plaza, the Kennedys did run into a department store really fast, surrounded by the Secret Service, and then ran out again, only a minute later. The crowd would think it was a bathroom break and think nothing of it. After a murder, who thinks to mention something like that? How could it be pertinent? If anyone does mention it, it is shrugged off as inconsequential.
You will say, we have no evidence that it did happen. And I respond, we have no evidence that it did not happen. Because of the strange video evidence that has come down to us, the possibility is wide open. That is all I need. I don’t need to prove anything. All I need to show is that we have no reliable evidence that the Kennedys are in the car in Dealey Plaza.
[Section added, March, 2015: A reader just pointed out to me there is Congressional testimony with Connally where he admits they stopped two or three times.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the automobile stop at any point during this procession?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it did. There were at least two occasions on which the automobile stopped in Dallas and, perhaps, a third. There was one little girl, I believe it was, who was carrying a sign saying, "Mr. President, will you please stop and shake hands with me," or some—that was the import of the sign—and he just told the driver to stop, and he did stop and shook hands; and, of course, he was immediately mobbed by a bunch of youngsters, and the Secret Service men from the car following us had to immediately come up and wedge themselves in between the crowd and the car to keep them back away from the automobile, and it was a very short stop. At another point along the route, a Sister, a Catholic nun, was there, obviously from a Catholic school, with a bunch of little children, and he stopped and spoke to her and to the children; and I think there was one other stop on the way downtown, but I don't recall the precise occasion. But I know there were two, but I think there was still another one.Knowing what we now know, you have to admit that is curious testimony. All three stops are curious. The first two read like a Hollywood script, inserted specifically for emotional effect. Children and nuns. I am just surprised we didn't have to hear about a three-legged dog and a veteran in a wheelchair and a Mom with an apple pie. But the third is the strangest: Connally can remember these children and nuns, but he can't remember the third stop? Any psychologist would tell you this reads like someone covering something. It's textbook. It has all the signs of poor lying. Someone telling a fib, and not doing it well at all. He thinks they stopped a third time, but can't tell us what it was. Why even mention it, then? Why not just say two times, or make up some stupid story about the third time? Because he is a bad liar, and his conscience is inserting itself right here. It's a huge Freudian red flag. I suggest this third time Connally is thinking of is the time they stopped to bring in the body double, just as I said. It is impossible to know, of course, but it proves my point. I said this could have happened, and—as far as the stopping goes—it did happen. According to this curious testimony they stopped at least three times. Three times, when—if this thing had not been completely controlled—they should not have stopped at all.]
The government is claiming something, not me. The government has some minimum burden of proof, not me. You and I are like the jurors, not the lawyers. We should be presented with real evidence, not expected to present it. Our primary job is to falsify claims, not make them. The government claims that Kennedy was killed, and it offers us as evidence the Bethesda photos and the films from Dallas. I only need to show that the government’s evidence proves nothing. I am not called upon to prove an alternate theory; on the contrary, the government is called upon to show proof the President was killed. It has not done that. Because of the lack of continuity in the films, and the lack of positive ID in Dealey Plaza, we have proof of nothing. The evidence only appears to point to a murder of Kennedy. But, logically, it absolutely fails to do so.
If you watch all the films that day, you are left with the impression that we have a complete record of the motorcade through Dallas. You think you are able to positively identify the Kennedys at the beginning, you assume continuity, and so you assume the Kennedys are in the Zapruder film. But, as I have shown, we have NO evidence that the Kennedys are in the car in the Zapruder film. Lacking continuity, we only have what we can see, and what we can see is people who look like the Kennedys from a distance. We know that the Kennedys traveled with look-alikes, so this is proof of absolutely nothing. Given the evidence we have, it is possible (and, I would say, almost a surety) that Jack Kennedy is not in that car in Dealey Plaza.
Given this, it simply doesn't matter if the films or photos were tampered with or faked. Even in complete and perfect form, they don't prove or even indicate anything. The only thing they indicate is that someone that looks like Kennedy got hit in the head by something. Given the quality of the films and photos, it could have been a bullet or a tomato. We have no way of knowing. I think the Zapruder film was tampered with, but even if we accept the final cut as genuine, the "fatal hit" still looks more like a man getting hit by a tomato from the front than it does a man getting shot from either the front or the back. As a matter of ballistics, the fatal hit doesn't look like a bullet hitting anything. Any honest firearms expert would tell you that. Entry wounds don't look like that at all, and exit wounds don’t have a spray pattern like that. A real exit wound from a rifle would have sprayed forward onto the Connallys, in a visible forward cone, not a circular little pouff. All the "expert testimony" you have seen on TV or read is planted disinfo. But it doesn't really matter. All specific and minute questions of fact are beside the point once you realize we have no strong or even leading evidence that anyone was killed that day.
We don't have to prove it was or was not Kennedy or that it was or was not a bullet or that it was one shooter or twenty shooters. All these things are beyond proof or disproof, given the evidence we have. The bottom line is that we have no evidence—that would hold up in court—that Kennedy or anyone else was killed that day. In fact, that is precisely why Oswald had to appear to be killed. The government couldn’t risk taking him to trial and giving him an attorney. They not only had no evidence against him, they had no evidence that the President was dead. Any good attorney would have found the gigantic holes that I have just found, and any honest jury would have had to dismiss for lack of a body.
Given that, the correct question is not, "Where is Kennedy's body?" or "Who killed Kennedy and why?" The correct question is, "Why did Kennedy fake his own death?" The lack of a body, the cover up, the tampering with evidence, the incredible amount of inconsistency, the lies told on all sides by everyone, the misdirection and misinformation, the continued misdirection and misinformation after 44 years, all point to a death that was quite simply faked. Neither the standard theory nor the alternate theory fit the facts or the evidence. Both accept the assassination without any proof or requiring any proof. Why? What kind of investigators accept a murder with no body? What kind of alternate investigators are "brave and honest" enough to propose that fake corpses were used, but never see that this means there is no real corpse? Why do alternate theorists rush to the initial conclusion—that Kennedy was assassinated—just as fast as the single-bullet people?
You will say they do so because Kennedy was no longer President, was no longer visible, was no longer living at his old address, was no longer found at Hyannisport or Martha's Vineyard, etc. But that is proof of nothing. I could say that it is proof that the US government chose to go underground on that day, November 22, 1963, and that this is the way they chose to do it. Kennedy wanted more secrecy and what better way to achieve that than to take the entire Presidency underground? This is not to say that Kennedy had to live in Iron Mountain and never see the light of day again, it is just to say that he had to quit making public appearances, had to hide his movements, and so on. Other people have done that for decades, people without the resources of the White House and the federal government.
Naysayers will argue that this is impossible. Naysayers make the same argument about 911, and it holds the same amount of water here as it does there: none. They say that things can't be kept secret, that people can’t disappear, and so on. Complete balderdash, of course, since we have any number of examples of both. Lots of things are kept secret for decades, and people that aren't dead disappear all the time. The official report of the assassination is proof of this itself. Even if you believe the Warren Commission, you must be aware that certain secrets still exist. The final documents of the WC are not to be released until 2017 (assuming that critical documents were not destroyed long ago). The House Assassination documents in the National Archive, some 848 boxes of sealed documents, are not to be released until 2039. This is common knowledge. Those are secrets being successfully kept, are they not? Another example is the Manhattan project, kept secret for years. Another secret is Lookout Mountain in Laurel Canyon, kept secret for decades. Another example is the current gag order on Sibel Edmonds. That is a secret being kept today, is it not? The government has many official means of keeping secrets, from gag orders and sealed documents, to redacted passages to various levels of classification. To assume that secrets cannot be kept is simply to admit to naivete. And the government may be assumed to have other methods of keeping secrets, ones that are not official.
Do you know what is going on in Iron Mountain, in the Pentagon, in Los Alamos, in Guantanamo, in Langley, VA, in Merida, Mexico, on every small island dotting the coast of North America? No. Taking the Presidency underground would be a small concern, compared to other things the government does everyday. You fake a death, put another guy in the White House as a front (Johnson), and then call in your orders on the phone. You could even hide Jack at Hyannisport or Martha's Vineyard, with no inconvenience to him or the family. Do you know what goes on at the Kennedy estates? Did anyone ever know anything that went on there, unless those who were there wanted them to know? No. Why, exactly, would it be difficult to take Presidency underground? You don't know what is going on in my house, or the house next door to you. What makes you think you know or could know or would know anything about the Kennedys, unless they wanted you to know?
The press wasn't even bright enough to show up to film the motorcade in Dallas. That is why we have to rely on Shakyhands Zapruder and Highshot Bell. The press wasn't bright enough to ask for evidence the President was dead. The press wasn't bright enough to see through the Oswald act. What makes you think the press is bright or self-motivated enough to penetrate the Kennedys' secrets? Has anyone ever searched for Jack, on Martha's Vineyard or elsewhere? No. There has never been any sort of investigation of that sort, even at the Kennedy compound. Jack could still be there, watching TV and eating Doritos, and no one would know the difference. You don’t find things you don’t look for, and no one has ever investigated the possibility that Jack continued to be President after November 22, 1963.
Before we move on, I want to point out that this explains all the "coincidences" between the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination. These coincidences include name and date coincidences and have been publicized for many decades. You have probably heard of them. One of them concerns Lincoln's secretary Kennedy and Kennedy's secretary Lincoln, for instance. Well, since I have shown both assassinations were manufactured, we now see that the coincidences weren't coincidences at all. They were parallels purposely inserted in both stories after the fact by storytellers. You can also think of them as clues. They were clues planted by Intelligence to test your intelligence. The storytellers want to fool you, yes, but they want to toy with you at the same time, since it makes them feel twice as powerful. We will see many more examples of that below.
But let us return to Dallas for more clues. According to the mainstream story, security was terrible that day: downtown Dallas was uncontrolled. According to the alternative theories, security was even worse, allowing multiple shooters and immediate free access to the street. I will show that this appearance that Dallas was uncontrolled is false.
Remember that the alternate theorists look at the open windows in the Book Depository and assume that means the Secret Service was not in control of the building. But then they assume later that the Secret Service was part of the conspiracy, or that a gun was planted in the Depository, or that Oswald was a patsy and/or was framed, and so on. In other words, they imply that the open windows were not an accident or oversight. The building was not uncontrolled; it was controlled by the bad guys, whoever they were, and they were part of the government.
Although I agree that the building was controlled, I make a different assumption about who was controlling it. I assume that since Kennedy was in control of the overall event, his men must have been in full control of that entire part of the city. That means that they were in full control of the crowd and all the buildings. If windows were left open, they were not left open to encourage snipers, they were left open to be conspicuous pieces in a play.
To say it another way, the whole motorcade was like a Hollywood movie. Yes, they were shooting a movie that day. In fact, they were shooting several. They hired multiple "amateur" cameramen to film their one-day movie, and a host of extras. Everyone there that day, including Zapruder and Bell and all the rest, were extras in the movie. In that sense, they were all conspirators. But, remember, they were not conspirators to a murder, which makes it somewhat easier to understand. It made it so much easier for all these people to lie, since there was never any blood on anyone's hands that day. They were not lying about the assassination of a President; no, they were only lying about a President "going underground for his own safety." They were protecting their beloved Commander-in-Chief.
We already have extensive proof that many of these people were insiders. Zapruder is the best example. Somehow he managed to bump into the Secret Service within moments of the shooting, and the film from his camera was taken by them to be developed. This is known, and yet it is not interpreted. As Sherlock would have said, "it is seen but not observed." Zapruder was an extra that day, probably a paid extra. Therefore nothing he did that day was an accident. It was all scripted. If he was too far away for a positive ID, that was no accident. If he had a companion to corroborate his story, that was no accident. If he ran into the Secret Service soon after the shooting, that was not serendipity. That was the plan.
Same thing with Bell. Why were both these cameramen shooting from a hundred yards away in Dealey Plaza, when we know people were snapping pictures from the curbside? It is not that Zapruder or Bell got there late. Zapruder tells us that he walked back to stand on the wall. But why would he do that? The crowds were so sparse in Dealey Plaza that he didn't have to shoot over anyone.
Zapruder is supposed to be shooting from that white wall back there. But no one is in front of him. Why not shoot from the curbside? And besides, people were stepping out into the street to take pictures, as we know from the pictures themselves (see below). We can see from Zapruder's and Bell’s own films that there were no ropes and no police presence to keep picture takers on the grass or at a safe distance. Zapruder had no need to back up a hundred yards. We must assume he did it for a reason, and the best assumption to make is that he did it under orders. From the curbside, he might have filmed something important. From back on the white wall, his film was useless except as propaganda.
By the same token, the windows in the Book Depository were just part of the script, part of the movie that was being shot. They were open to cue the audience, to make it easy for the viewer to finger the position of the villain.
More evidence in support of this is found by looking at the crowd in Dealey Plaza. This crowd has been studied in detail, but the big question has not been asked. That question is, "Why so few people?" You have blue skies and lots of green grass. This is the only open space, the only "park-like" area along the route. This would be the best place to camp out, waiting for the motorcade. We see no ropes, almost no police: the public appears to be welcome. We are given no indication that the public was kept away, since, if they had been, these "daytripping Dallasites" we do see would not be there either. No, we are to believe that the public was welcome, but only showed up in twos and threes. Kennedy was the most popular President since Teddy Roosevelt, and yet Dallas decided to stay home?
You might think that few knew of the motorcade, but the Dallas Morning Star had published a map of the route that morning. Both Dallas papers had published the route on the 19th, three days earlier, so people had time to make picnic plans and whatnot. You would expect that everyone who worked downtown would be taking a coffee break to run downstairs. Those who did not work downtown and did not need to be able to scoot back up to the office afterwards would naturally be drawn to the grassy open plaza, where the biggest crowds could gather. The slopes would allow even latecomers to see over those in front of them, as you can see from the stairs leading up to the grassy knoll. A knoll is a hill. And yet we see only a single broken line of watchers downtown, and a nearly empty Dealey Plaza. For clear proof of this, see the Marie Muchmore video, shot from the opposite side of Zapruder. Where is everybody? Why are there just a scattering of people here, where the best grass is and the most open space?
This makes no sense if you accept the standard theory. And the alternate theories make no effort to explain it either. According to them, it is just a coincidence or an accident. It is beyond explanation. But in the real story it is easily explained. This area was not open to the public. It only appeared to be open to the public. Actually, everyone there had been staged and scripted. They were told what to say afterwards, or told to say nothing.
And that is why you see so few people. The assistant directors of the movie had every reason to limit the number of extras hired, since every extra was a potential risk. They might blab later. This is the obvious explanation for why the crowds were only one-deep in the first part of the motorcade, and why they are almost non-existent in Dealey Plaza. All the extras further back in the route can be lied to. They can be treated almost like the ignorant public. Only the extras actually in Dealey Plaza have to be told larger parts of the story, and so the assistant directors would naturally want to limit their numbers as much as possible. You have just enough extras there to act as fake witnesses and cameramen, but no more. That is the explanation for the sparseness of the crowd in the best part of the route.
You can see that it makes much more sense to assume that Kennedy was in complete control of Dallas that day, than to assume that he was absurdly out of control of everything. What we saw was a motorcade that didn’t make sense. It seemed to be absurdly out of control. Both the standard story and the alternate story make no sense of it. They push the story in the direction of ever greater amounts of chaos. The standard story wants us to believe that Kennedy would ride through a major city with the crowds and buildings uncontrolled. We have people purposely allowed to stand on the curb without ropes or police, and we have buildings with open windows, and so on. Makes no sense. The alternate theory corrects this theory not by pushing it toward sensibility or control, but by pushing it into greater levels of chaos. Instead of one shooter in one location, we have multiple shooters in multiple locations. We have people carrying guns into the area of the motorcade from all points on the compass, and not just handguns but rifles, which are not so easy to conceal. We have the Secret Service being pulled from the car. We have breakdowns in every direction, all unnoticed by Kennedy. In fact, to accept the alternate theories, we have to assume that their hero Kennedy was an absolute idiot. According to the alternate theories, we have a city in such a state of chaos that only a tranquilized mannequin could fail to sense it.
But rather than push the scene in that direction, it makes much more sense to push it in the other direction. If we see apparent chaos, it is more sensible to assume that this chaos is faked. For instance, if we see the Secret Service being pulled off the car, we must assume that Kennedy can feel the weight being lost from the rear end. He is near the back of the car. Two grown men climbing off the car is not going to pass unknown to Kennedy. Therefore we must assume that he knew about it. He didn't look back and order them back on, so we may assume that he is the one who ordered them off. If they make elaborate gesticulated protests about it to their superior officers, we must assume that these protests are scripted.
In fact, they look scripted. In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, we see the agent shrugging three times, "each time more obvious than the last," we are told by the narrator. Yes, and why is that? Do you think the agent was drawing attention to himself? Is that what agents are taught to do? If they are about to murder the President, do you suppose they squabble in public about it, with huge gestures? No, it was part of the play, just like the open windows. Kennedy is about to fake his own death, so he has to clear the way for the fake bullet. He knows the bullet is supposed to come from the open windows, and he doesn't want anyone to ask questions later about the line of sight of Oswald. But pulling the agents off the car must seem strange, so Kennedy makes it part of the script. The agent is told to ham it up, as if he is asking the guys in the following car why it is happening. It can't be thought that Kennedy ordered them off, since that would be even more suspicious than the superior officers ordering them off. So the Secret Service plays its little part, and allows itself to look like part of the conspiracy. They knew they could never be prosecuted for a fake death, so what was a little acting? It was all part of the job. They were, in fact, protecting their President, as you now see.
"But was there a body double in Dealey Plaza or not?" I will be asked. I spent a page setting that argument up, but if the whole thing was a stage play, then there doesn't appear to be any need for a body double.
Yes, earlier I left open the possibility that a stunt double was used in the second part of the route, and even left open the possibility that this stunt double was killed. But an actual murder in Dealey Plaza is not a necessary part of the plot of this movie. No real shots were fired. That would risk losing a bullet in the grass, to be found later. Better to fire blanks and then plant all the bullets and damage later, right where you need it. You have control of the car afterwards, so you can fire any bullets you want into it later. Plus, you have the films. If you don’t want to shut down Dealey Plaza again in the future, in order to fix any gaps that show up later, you have the films you can retouch. In fact, that was the whole point of the films. You not only have a record to stand as proof to the public, you have a correctable record. The real conspirators are still correcting the Zapruder film, as we can see from the internet to this day. Most of the copies of the Z-film posted on the web have been pushed in some way, either by cutting the beginning or end, by running only in slow-mo, by clipping the edges, or by a "stabilizing" that conveniently purges this anomaly or that.
No one was killed: there was a body double in Dealey Plaza. I used the body double argument earlier mainly in order to show there was no proof of a murder. The simple idea of a body double, combined with the lack of film continuity, meant that we had no evidence that would hold up in court that anyone was murdered that day. But it is clear that Kennedy was not in Dealey Plaza at all. For several reasons. One, Zapruder and Bell and Daniels all shot from far away or panned away at the crucial moment. Moorman shot from behind. If Kennedy were actually there, we would have no reason to keep the films at a distance. Two, whatever happened to the Kennedy double, whether it was film fakery and heavy acting or a tomato or something else, was probably not pleasant. If we assume that we are seeing more than crude special effects at the critical hit, then even the least nasty thing—the tomato—would still be something Kennedy would want to avoid. Getting hit in the eye with a tomato is not a lot of fun, and it could cause injury. Three, once you start having blanks fired and deaths faked, you are in a touchy situation, no matter how in-control of the scene you are. All it would take is one traitor, substituting a real bullet for a blank, and your fake death becomes a real one. Yes, you would immediately have your man, but some traitors give their lives for a cause. It would be too risky for Kennedy to be in the car during the critical scene in the movie. At some point late in the route, the switch was made, although of course I can't say precisely how. If all the spectators were extras, it makes it a lot easier to explain, since no one has to be fooled. It is more likely, however, that most of them were fooled somehow. The more of them you fool, the fewer of them you have to pay or threaten or convince.
A possibility may be given us by two famous photos by Altgens. We have the photo from behind taken by Altgens on Houston Street, which I have already mentioned. Then we have a photo taken in front by Altgens on Elm, just after the fatal hit. In passing I will mention that in neither photo can we identify the passengers, which is convenient, but that is not my point here. My point is that Altgens must have had superhuman speed to outrun the car between Houston and Elm. Some will look to the route and say that he cut across the triangle, but that does not wash since there was a building in the way. While the motorcade was going around the corner, he would have had either to follow it around the corner, running into the crowds, or to run backwards, around the building, across the Plaza, beating the car to the point of the second photo. I find it difficult to believe that he could have done that. I find it even more difficult to believe that he would have gone to the trouble to do that, only to get in the second position and take another photo of no one. Why would anyone take a picture of the back of the President’s head, then go, "Oh darn!", sprint ahead, making sure to outrun the car, and then take a photo of the front windshield, with no one important in the frame?
Two other scenarios are much more likely, given the evidence. Either both shots were set up for Altgens by the assistant directors, making sure that nothing of importance was visible. Or, the motorcade stopped at some point between the two photos, allowing Altgens time to get ahead. The motorcade would have no reason to stop for traffic at the intersection of Houston and Elm, so possibly they stopped to switch the real Kennedy for the fake one.
The second Altgens' photo (just above) also stands as proof of one of my other contentions, that being that people were stepping into the street to take photos. The angle of this photo makes it clear that Altgens was right in the middle of the street, not too very far in front of the motorcycle cops. This is extraordinary in itself. It suggests that all normal rules of conduct were out the window that day, and it suggests that these "amateur" cameramen and photographers were not amateurs at all. They were paid to do what they were doing, they were paid to do it poorly, and they were allowed extraordinary access to do it.
Let's look closer at this shot of Altgens:
In these enlargements, we can see that Connally is looking to his right, but, as I said, we cannot identify Kennedy. He is behind the rearview mirror, and is said to be clutching his throat. In the further blowup, we see several more problems. Yes, we see a large hand up, but we cannot see what it is clutching, or if it is clutching anything. We can see for sure that his arm is being held by a white glove, which we assume is Jacqueline's hand. But it appears to me he is ducking, not clutching his throat. His head is under the hand. Why? Because the top half of a head we see does not belong to the man with the hand up. It is too small. Look first at how big the hand is compared to the head. Then compare that head to the head of the front seat passenger. Then compare that small head to the head of the men in the following car. That head is smaller than the heads in the following car! That is the head of someone kneeling behind the car. Also, it doesn't look like Kennedy anyway. If Kennedy is in the car, he is ducking behind Connally, not clutching his throat.
Well, if he is ducking, he must be in danger, right? Maybe, but not from gunshots. Mike Rivero has asked why the man in the following car, in the middle behind the rearview mirror, is smiling (see green line). He sees this man as a conspirator. But a better question is why all the people in the crowd are continuing to smile and clap. Notice on the far right, someone is in the middle of a clap. And on the far left, all the people are continuing to smile and look forward. Would they do that if shots had just rung out? If three shots had just rung out, the cars would have screeched to a stop, the motorcycle cops would have their feet on the pavement, and the Secret Service would be jumping toward the car. People would be screaming in horror or have their mouths open or would be falling to the ground. Whether staged or not, this is not a picture of shots ringing out. If I knew nothing of history, and were studying this photograph as a forensic expert, I would say that the man behind the car had just jumped into the street behind Kennedy, Jacqueline had warned him, and he had ducked his head under his arm as a precaution. Connally and the two secret servicemen have turned to monitor the minor threat, as has the policeman to the left. The crowd to the left also seems to be looking in that direction, but since they are smiling I assume the man behind the car is just clowning or running into the street to grab a memento or something. People are smiling or responding to a lowgrade threat because that is what is happening. I see no sign of either shots or intrigue.
Beyond that, I ask again why no one see Altgens as a threat to the motorcade, although he is obviously standing in the middle of the damn street to take this picture. Are the motorcycle cops just going to drive around him, and pat him on the back as they pass? An even better question is why we are told this is the point of the three shots, when it is clearly too early. There are still buildings to the left. We haven't even gotten to the sign, much less to the Zapruder film sequence point. Just look at the curve of the street! The motorcade is still in the turn. Oswald would have had to shoot through that tree from there.
Another thing to notice is the shadowed face of the front-seat passenger. Why can't we see his face? We can see his face in other photos, so it is not to prevent his identification that day. I would suggest it is to prevent our noticing that he is not the same guy as in other pictures of that day. As you will see in a moment, several takes were shot, perhaps even on separate days, and we have many continuity problems. It may be that they didn't even remember to get the right guy in the right role there, and had to shadow him out in the lab later.
Finally, notice the people hanging out the window in the second enlargement. Is that evidence of a route that has been properly secured? No. This isn't a real Presidential motorcade, this is some sort of Hollywood production, poorly managed for continuity and believability.
Here are two other pieces of photo evidence supporting my theory. The first photo** was last published by ABC in November 2007 with the caption, "The presidential motorcade through Dallas a few moments before John F Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, was shot. (Library Of Congress/ Getty Images)". The author of the accompanying story was Chuck Goudie of WLS TV. Do you notice anything odd here? Connally is in the back seat with Jack, where Jackie is normally seen. In addition, he is wearing a gray suit. In the other photos that day he is wearing a black suit. In the other photos, his hair is parted on the left side. Here it is brushed back. And look at the two ladies, whoever they are. Remember that Jackie is wearing a large, two-tiered pink hat that day, which would appear white in this photo. But neither of these ladies has on a whitish hat. It is highly doubtful that Jackie would have taken off the hat in an open car, since, like all ladies then and now, she would not want her hair messed up. It is almost certain that the hat would have been pinned on. She had it on earlier in the route and she had it on in Zapruder. Why is she in the front seat here with no hat? We must assume that is supposed to be her on the far side, not the near, since the near side seat was always occupied by Mrs. Connally. Further proof of that can be seen by looking at their collars. Jackie had a wide black collar on her pink dress. The near-side lady has an upturned collar the same color as her dress.
It would appear that this movie was shot in several different forms and that we have some continuity issues here. Later editors were not very careful, and photos have survived—amazingly still used as propaganda—that should have been destroyed. It is even possible that these bad photos are published on purpose, to test the continued stupidity of the American public. I can just hear the Kennedys, wherever they are, laughing it up, saying, "We could put a gorilla in a pink hat and a polka-dot brassiere in the back seat with Jack and no one would notice." Do you still think people could recognize the difference between Jack and a body double, when they cannot tell the difference between Jacqueline and John Connally?
We see a similar problem in this photo. The photo faker got Connally in the wrong spot again.
Here's another photo with major continuity problems:
I noticed immediately that didn't look like JFK, so I looked more closely at the photo. The car doesn't match. Compare the car to the previous photo. First of all, the flag doesn't have gold trim in this one. Second, this car has no side-view mirrors. It should have two on this side, but it has none. Third, the partial window in front of Connally isn't right. It is far too narrow and doesn't connect to the top bar in the same way. This one was faked to make you think we have photo evidence of the throat hit.
Here's another obvious fake:
Again, the first thing I noticed was the ridiculous fake Kennedy, with no head wound. So I looked closely at the car. The car doesn't match. Compare it to this famous one:
What to look at is the pattern on the back seat. In the second photo, the pattern is squares. In the first one, the pattern is stripes.
Turns out those photos are from a movie about Oswald, but since they don't tag them that way on a Google search, most people will assume they are looking at photos from the actual event. The photos from the movie then act as “proof” of the event, you see.
Here's another problem:
That's not from a later movie. Can you spot the problem here? The guy is front is the wrong guy. In other photos he is older and has gray hair. Connally also looks wrong here. His head is too small.
Connally had a big head. Compare Connally's head to the head of the guy in front of him. It looks like someone shrunk Connally's head. And look how big his hand is: it could cover his entire face. See if your hand can cover your entire face.
As one final piece of photo evidence for a movie set that day, let us look at the so-called "aftermath" photo of Bill Newman and his family diving to the ground for safety. This is the worst piece of acting ever, I think. First of all, we have no evidence this was even taken on the 22nd. Zapruder is not back there on his perch, for one thing. Then we have Dad and Son both looking directly at not one but two cameramen, one still and one video. Both cameramen are in blacks suits and don’t appear to be concerned by the flying bullets at all. Actually, neither do Dad and Son. Dad is supposed to be covering Son, protecting him from flying shrapnel, but Son's head is still provocatively out in the breeze, where the cameramen can see its beauty. Mom is several yards away, also unconcerned for Son. She appears to be looking back at camera number three, possibly wondering if her dress is wrinkled from behind. Notice that no one is running behind them, although in other photos of that time, we have lots of running people in that very area. In fact, if you are very observant, you can see two people sitting under a tree, in the shade. Look under the "No standing" sign, at the very edge of the photo. You have two people in red shirts, one wearing light trousers, the other wearing black sunglasses. Whoops! They forgot to trim that photo, I would say.
Another problem is the video camera we can clearly see in the man’s hands. That is no crappy Bell&Howell Zoomatic. That is a professional video camera like the TV stations use. It is also what the Hollywood filmmakers used at the time. This is supposed to be footage right after the shots in Dealey Plaza, but if that is the case, why do we now have to rely on the Zapruder film? Was this guy in the black suit filming his shoe tops split seconds earlier when the motorcade passed? For that matter, why does he find this uninjured family on the ground to be more important to history than the President who has just been shot, and who would still be in frame? This professional cameraman is only yards from where the motorcade just passed, on the same line as Zapruder. I don't want to see his footage of fake-family, I want to see his footage of Kennedy.
But, as is obvious, he had no footage of Kennedy, since this whole "aftermath" photo is a set-up. It is a press-release photo, a poster for the movie, taken sometime later. It is done with such an incredible lack of finesse or forethought or direction that I doubt it was even done by the Kennedy movie people at all. It was probably hired out long after the fact, after all the professional people had gone back to Hollywood, to fill some gap that somebody decided needed to be filled. My guess is that if Kennedy didn't kill someone in faking his death, he may have killed the someone responsible for releasing this groaner of a photo.
Before we leave 1963 and move on, let us look at another curious death that year. The publisher of the Washington Post, Phillip Graham, had supposedly killed himself just months before the "assassination." His death has never been explained. Nor has his quick fall into manic-depression. Graham was a close friend of Kennedy and had partied with him, sharing girls. One theory is that Graham was suicided for starting to blab about the women. It has been reported(2) that Graham told a group of reporters in Phoenix that Kennedy was sleeping with Mary Pinchot Meyer (see below), just months before he died. But this wouldn't have been news to anyone, since every reporter already knew that Kennedy was sleeping with everyone who would say yes. The press was already controlled and Kennedy knew that, so this misstep, though bad for Graham, wouldn't have meant much to Kennedy. It wasn't worth killing him for. No, it is more likely that Graham was blabbing or threatening to blab about the big plan to take the Presidency underground, which was now just months away. This would also explain Graham's mania. Agreeing to be a conduit of official information and misinformation was one thing for a newspaper publisher. Covering up a democratic and Constitutional overthrow or subversion was another thing, and it is only surprising more people weren't driven mad by the knowledge. But the suiciding of Graham was perfect timing for the Kennedys, since the murder of the second most prominent publisher in the country would ensure the press' silence and complicity in the months and years to come. Plus, there is no reason to believe Graham was either murdered or killed. Like many others, he could have simply been relocated to South America. Faking his death was small potatoes compared to all the other stuff going on. The same can be said for Marilyn Monroe, although I won't have time to look at that here.
Now let us leave Dallas and look for later evidence. One rather obvious clue is that Johnson did not run for re-election in 1968. We are told he was shagged out from dealing with the press about the Vietnam War. But that is what it is to be President. Johnson had been dealing with that his whole life. If he hated the Kennedys so much, as we are told by the alternate theorists, why would he practically give the nomination to Bobby? The illogical ones will say it is because he knew Bobby was going to be assassinated, too. But that would imply that he was giving the Presidency to Nixon. Also unlikely, I hope you admit. As long as we continue to accept the official story, Johnson's decision not to run remains an insoluble mystery. It doesn’t make sense.
But it does make sense if Johnson was only a puppet. Johnson quit because he was tired of being the front man. In the beginning he thought it would be great to live in the White House and be called President Johnson. But being a puppet loses it charm quickly, no matter where you get to live. When you have an underground King, the title of President loses much of its prestige. Johnson could easily have faked his death like the rest and lived his life out on his ranch in central Texas.
Yes, I said King. If we have no evidence that JFK was killed, we must assume he was not killed. If he was not killed then he remained President. But once you take the Presidency underground, you are not required to stop being President, ever. At that point, the voting is for the puppet President, not the King. The Camelot comparisons take on a whole new meaning in that case, do they not?
Here's another strange piece of evidence, so far not explained or tied to any consistent theory. In 1964, a year after JFK's "death", a woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer was allegedly murdered in an apparent hit in Georgetown in broad daylight. It turned out she was one of JFK's mistresses, but no one knows more than that to this day. She had been married to Cord Meyer, one of the highest ranking CIA agents in the country, and her diary was taken by the CIA under strange circumstances. The current theory is that she had been told something by JFK about his enemies, but if that is so, then these enemies would have killed her a year earlier. No, the fact that it is a year later is the big clue. It isn't what she knew about his enemies that put her in danger, it was what she knew about JFK. She knew he was still alive, because he was still visiting her. That put her in danger in two ways: 1) if JFK were sneaking out of his place of retreat in order to visit old girlfriends, that would put the entire underground government in danger. Jack's allies and backers couldn't have that. The best and often the only way to break an addiction is to get rid of the temptation. 2) Mary was now 44, which is a difficult age for a beautiful woman. Her beauty was probably fading fast, and it may be that Jack was tiring of her. In that kind of situation, a woman may begin playing dangerous games, even when national security is not involved. She may get desperate and start making threats. Mary may have found herself in a situation much like that of Mary Jo Kopechne (below) or Marilyn Monroe. After too many highballs or too much dope, she threatened to tell, and Kennedy couldn't take the risk. As for the diary, it had to be destroyed because of the dates in it. A reader would have been shocked to find that Mary was writing about meetings with Jack in 1964. This is why Tony and Ben Bradlee agreed to give the diary to the CIA "without reading it." If they had read it, they would have been in the same position Mary was in. They either didn't want to know, or didn't want the CIA to know that they already knew. Ignorance was their only hope.
But again, within the lines of my theory above, I am only assuming she was murdered. As we have seen, that is a weak assumption. Jack may have just wanted her to join him underground, in which case she was relocated, not murdered. Or, he may have wished to get rid of her, in which case she was relocated to South America or somewhere. My best guess is that her death was faked like the rest: she simply joined her friends on Martha's Vineyard.
Before we finish with Jack, let us look at one last set of photos. Mike Rivero and many others have used these photos to put E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis on Dealey Plaza that day, posing as bums. While I think it is likely that many of the people on hand that day were CIA or other employees of the government, and while I think it is possible Hunt and Sturgis were there, I think that evidence like this hurts any so-called investigation. Anyone with a keen eye can see that these bums are not Hunt or Sturgis. You couldn't trust my other photographic evidence if I fell for this one. I will show you what to look at once more. The Sturgis match is closer, since the eyes, the nose, the wavy hair, and even the ear match, but it fails most clearly in the forehead. The tramp has a higher hairline than Sturgis, and your hairline doesn't fall as you get older. Sturgis also has a much wider and more muscular neck. Even if he put on a bit of weight (he isn't fat in either picture), you don't tend to put on muscular weight in your neck. But we need more than the face to decide, and the full body clinches the deal.
Sturgis was never that tall. He has a short neck, which goes with a stockier, more compact frame. But the tramp is fairly tall and rangy, with a longer neck. He looks more like Tim Robbins than Sturgis. I will agree, though, that he doesn't look like a tramp. He looks like a Harvard man pretending to be a tramp. Tramps don't have freshly washed hair like that, for one thing.
As for Hunt, the resemblance isn't even close. The tramp in 1963 looks older than Hunt in 1972. The face is much longer, and the tramp is jowlier. The tramp has a longer nose to mouth gap, his eyes are droopier at the corners, and his eyebrows are higher. The tramp also looks to have quite a bit of hair in front, coming out from under the hat. The ear is also wrong. Hunt may have been there, but that isn't him. Rivero's theories look to me like more misdirection.
But let us move on. Once you are King, the only problem you have is dying before your time. It looks like Jack died prematurely in 1968, when he was only fifty-one. Life "underground" is more difficult than you think, and Jack gained weight and became depressed. His health had always been bad, and he was suffering from Addison's disease. Plus, he needed the attention and the spotlight, and being a secret ruler did not agree with him. So Bobby was called to take his place. It was time to fake his death, too, and give him his time on the throne.
Now that you know my method, you can see that Bobby's assassination suffers from the same lack of hard evidence that Jack's does, and then some. When a person is really murdered, you have a body that can be identified and facts that can be investigated. But the Kennedys had learned from their mistakes in Dallas. This time with Bobby we don't get any photos of the corpse or of the autopsy or of the murder that can be analyzed. We simply have to take their word for it. If they have hired some people to tell a story, we have to take that story on faith, since we have no analyzable evidence that Bobby or anyone else was killed. They show us some photos of holes in the wall, but no one at the time was allowed to do normal tests on those. We have nothing at all to go on.
And surprise, the conspiracy theorists once again theorize everything but the obvious. They include in their theories every suspicious person in the known universe, but never once mention the possibility that Bobby faked his death for some reason. If you have no proof that someone was murdered, your first assumption should be that they were not murdered. If they were not murdered, then they must still be alive. Somehow that never occurs to anyone.
What we have been presented with in the way of hard evidence of the shooting is a few photos, like the famous photo of Boris Yaro, all of which are highly irregular.
To start with, you can't make a positive ID (you can, however, make a negative ID, as I will show). All you can say is that someone who looks sort of like Bobby is lying on the ground. But beyond that, it is very strange that we have a boy posing with the fatally wounded man and everyone else standing back. It is as if someone had said, "OK, everyone, let's get the picture of the 'body' so we can put it in the papers. Everyone stand back so I get a clear shot. You, young man, you look innocent and Catholic, hop in there and put this rosary on him, that'll bring tears to their eyes!" Even stranger is that we have a man who has just been shot, no one knows if he is dead (in fact, he isn't, according to the official story), but there is no hurry to carry him to an ambulance or have a doctor in the audience tend to him or to even stanch his wounds with a kitchen napkin. No, the first thing to do is bring in the photographer from TIME to get a picture of him bleeding to death in the arms of the busboy.
It would be tragic, except that this is not Bobby. Let's looks at some of the secondary pictures, to prove this.
That last photo can be found in the archives of the Los Angeles Times. Where is the hand holding up his head? The cuff is empty! That head is pasted on.
If you don't believe me, look at this photo from a few moments later. The part in his hair just switched sides! Beyond that, "Bobby" is wearing a white shirt with a white collar, with many wounds, including wounds (we are told even now) in head, neck and chest. He was allegedly shot three times by a man who approached him from the front. But there is no blood in any of these pictures. You can see for yourself that the busboy has tied a dark cloth around Bobby's neck, just above his tie and collar (third photo). This prop can be seen in the Yaro photo as well, lying off the side. It appears to be an extra necktie. Perhaps someone took off their tie to use as a tourniquet or a wound dressing. This is supported by the shiny spot on the tie in picture 3, which is probably a tie clip or ornament.
Miraculously, no blood has stained Bobby's collar, just below the wound, and the collar and shirt-front are still pristine minutes later, in the other pictures where the collar is open. What kind of neck wound from a bullet does not bleed? Maybe Bobby is saying to the busboy, "Forget the stupid cloth around my neck, a neck wound is not part of the scene here: that was my brother!"
As for the chest wound, it is possible we see a small spot of blood below his third finger, and in between the third and fourth fingers. Some have said he is hiding most of the blood with his hand. They have said that in the photo with his shirt open, we see the wound clearly, between his hands and above the rosary. I answer, we see nothing clearly, except some very anomalous things. We see one clear spot on an otherwise pristine white shirt, and that spot could have been added later in the darkroom. It could even be a button, to match the dark buttons on his cuffs. There is no reason to assume he has white buttons on a white shirt. The reason we don't see the other buttons is that they are unbuttoned, and beneath the cloth. In fact, it is right where one of the buttons should be. So nothing about it is clear. The darkness between his fingers could be a shadow that was dodged in the darkroom, or it could be something dark that Bobby is holding. And the open-shirt photo is even less clear and more anomalous. That dark patch above the rosary is not clearly either a wound or blood. But supposing it is a wound, it isn't bleeding out, though Bobby is still alive here. Supposing it is blood, why is it not running? Why is it not on his hands or the rosary? Even more to the point, how did these people open Bobby's shirt without moving his hand? His hand is in exactly the same place before and after, as you see. And if there is a wound there, why are these people not attempting to stanch it? They are in a kitchen, we are told, and every kitchen I have been in has napkins in it. You don't need doctors or PhD's present to know that you stanch a wound, and that you don't stanch it with a rosary.
If you don't believe that these photos could have been manipulated in the darkroom, look again with me at photo 3 (the largest one from the Los Angeles Times). We are still told that the fatal wound was the wound just behind his right ear, since that bullet went into his brain. It is not clear how Sirhan Sirhan managed to shoot him behind the ear while firing from in front on him. But here we have another wound that apparently failed to bleed, since the floor underneath him is not filled with blood. We see some light stains on the kitchen floor, but those don't look like pools of fresh blood. We should see the blood clearly, since we are on the right side. We are looking at the side the wound is supposed to be on. But we see nothing. This photo doesn't match the video footage, either. What we do see is very, very strange. Look closely. Bobby's head is being held up by both the busboy and the man in the foreground, whose head we see (the man with the glasses). But the man with the glasses has had his left hand removed in the darkroom. We see the cuff of his sleeve, but no hand is coming out of it! He is holding up Bobby's head with a ghost hand! That whole area of the photo between the shoe and Bobby's head has been retouched. We have not only lost a hand, we have lost the real edge of Bobby's head and of his coat. None of that looks convincing. The retouchers have pretty much removed his right ear, but that was excessive. The current story does not tell us that Bobby had his right ear shot off. We would remember something like that, as we remember Van Gogh's story. Compare his ear here to his ears in the other photos. Bobby has ears that are prominent: they stick out. Look at the last photo, especially. The left ear is sticking way out beyond his hair. What is more, we can see part of his right ear in photo 4. That bit of white beyond his face is his ear. Did he regrow that right ear while they were unbuttoning his shirt?
Lest you claim that this photo 3 has been tampered with since 1968, look at this photo of a newspaper from 1968. Same photo, same ghost hand.
Finally, that photo is suspicious beyond any of this lack of blood or retouching. The problem is that that head does not look like any of the other heads. Look at the hair! In the other three photos, the part is above the left eye, neither a center part nor a side part, but in between. In photo 3, the part is over the right edge of the right eye. Not even close to the other photos. In photo 3, the face looks like Bobby, but in the others, the resemblance is iffy. Why is this? you ask. Because the head in photo 3 has been added later. That is why we have the extensive retouching to the right, along the edges, and into the lost hand. That is why the darks in the head don't match the darks in the rest of the photo. And that is also why the dark cloth was added: the transition from head to collar was poor, so they thought they would add this dark cloth. As you see, it still looks like his head is detached from his body. This is because the photo is a paste up. It isn't even a good paste-up, since they cropped out a hand in the process, making it look like Bobby is being held up by an empty cuff. They could have at least painted in a hook.
Bobby always parted his hair on the right side, at the corner of his head, a true side part. Jack always parted his hair on the left. If you see a painting or a photo of Bobby with a part on the left, it is a reversed image or was painted from a reversed image. The web contains many reversed images.
That is how I know for a certainty that these pictures 1,2 and 4 are not Bobby. We have even more evidence. If we compare various prints of the Yaro image, we find they don't match each other.
Again I had to use a small image, because the website has been taken down recently. But even at this size it is easy to see that the shadows don't match. Look beneath the busboy's foot. In the big photo above, there is a black shadow there, but not here. Or, we can look at a further photo said to be from the same moments.
The problem there is that the photographer would have to be standing inside a wall, unless they moved Bobby. Look at the first large photo by Yaro. Bobby is lying right next to a wall. His hand is about six inches from the baseboard. So where is this last picture taken from? Not only is the photographer too far right, there is someone to his right! See the hand: that guy has to be standing to the right of the photographer, or he would be in frame. Is that guy another ghost guy, who can stand inside a wall?
And still more problems. These two photos don't match. Again, the parts in the hair don't match at all.
Of course, we have video of Bobby speaking just moments earlier. Why hasn't anyone compared the photos?
Not even close. Again, just study the part in the hair.
And here they got way too cute.
Putting a campaign hat in the pool of fake blood? Really? No one thought that was just a tad over-dramatic?
This photo is also a terrible fake:
I have never seen a more obvious paste-up. Just look at the various heads in the background. It is like some schoolkid cut these heads out the paper and pasted them in willy-nilly, with no concern with whether the heads were the right size. There is absolutely no depth-of-field there, no consistent perspective, no sensible shadows, and all the lines between heads are false. The worst is the line between the guy in the bow-tie and the guy behind him. An absolute disaster. These aren't real people standing in front of one another; they are photos pasted together.
Some will say, "Yes, these photos are fishy, but we have moving footage just after the shots as well, and audio, and many eyewitnesses. Are you claiming all this was faked?" Yes, clearly I am. This was another Hollywood production by the masters of manipulation. It was all staged. Joseph Kennedy owned RKO studios for many years, and the Kennedys knew how to make movies. Don't you find it suspicious that there would be stage lights and movie cameras positioned in a hotel kitchen? Don't you find it suspicious that the moving film shows chaos, with people filling the kitchen, while Yaro's photograph shows dead calm, and a single busboy at his side? As with JFK, we have several takes mixed together. Previous footage and retouched photos are being used as well as footage from the stage play. And this main stage play was so well staged that it fooled most of those present, those kept out of the center. John Pilger, for example, still believes RFK was killed, although he was there. He believes there were other shooters than Sirhan Sirhan, but other than that he was fooled. He heard a lot of shots, saw scuffles, and witnessed pandemonium. Who can tell the difference between blanks being fired and a real .22 being fired, in an echoing kitchen? No one. That is why they used a .22. If Pilger had happened to be a gun expert, for instance, he might have been able to tell the difference between a blank and a large caliber handgun. But not a .22. None but those at the very center could have known it was staged, and those at the very center were actors. They were in on it. So all the eyewitness testimony is meaningless. Only those near the center could give reliable testimony, and they were all paid to lie. This scene could have been staged with only about 20 people in the know: enough to act out the major parts and surround the action, keeping outsiders at a safe distance. Sirhan, the ultimate patsy, had been hired to act in this movie, and he was trapped when it was sold as real. Once the trap sprung on him, there was no escaping. He (with his lawyers) wasn't even allowed to plea as he wished. He was railroaded from start to finish. Either that, or he is another actor, just pretending to be in jail. You may find that idea even stranger than everything else here, but it is actually the most likely. If they can fake all these deaths, don't you think they can fake someone being in jail? See my paper on Charles Manson, where I prove they have done just that.
Apparently there were other pictures taken by people not paid off by the Kennedys, but these photos have mysteriously vanished, of course. We must assume it is because they got too close, and we could see that the man was not Bobby, or that it was Bobby but he was clearly faking a death scene, or whatever. As reported by the Los Angeles Times in 1996, a young man named Jamie Scott Enyart snapped off several rolls of film in the kitchen, but his photos were stolen by the city attorney in 1968. In 1995, his negatives were found in the California state archives, and a courier was sent to Enyart to return them to him. Surprise, the courier was robbed under mysterious circumstances, and the negatives are gone again.
In 1978 (ten years later!) we got, courtesy of Dr. Humes and Ida Dox, drawings of the RFK autopsy photos and X-rays. Drawings! You can’t make an ID from either of these things, so we just have the continuation of a joke. Once again, we have to take their word for it, which is not proof by any standard. We have nothing but more very suspicious testimony from very unreliable sources. If the autopsy photos are of Bobby, why not show them? They showed us JFK's, so why not RFK's? Drawings from photos are an absurd continuation of a disinformation campaign.
This would also explain (and excuse, to some degree) the complicity of Rafer Johnson and Rosy Grier and all the rest. All these insiders are guilty of lying, but not of lying about a murder. They are not covering up a murder. They are covering up the disappearance of someone who chose to disappear. A much smaller crime, if a crime at all.
With all this in mind, you may wish to reconsider all the alternative theories of RFK's alleged death. Many are still pushing the alternative theory that Sirhan Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate, programmed to kill. We also have new evidence of 13 shots fired, when Sirhan's gun only contained eight. You see how they misdirect you into new controversies, but all controversies old and new still contain the same final story: Bobby was killed. They don't really care if you believe there was a conspiracy or not. They only care that you accept the ending. They are quite happy that these controversies are still aired, since the controversies act to cover the truth. If you are thinking about number of shots or Manchurian candidates, you are not thinking about how the photos were faked and about how we have no proof of a murder to start with. The government can certainly create hypnotized murderers, but it has no need to in cases like this. When no one is murdered, you don't need a hypnotized murderer.
As Jack was the real power behind Lyndon, Bobby was the real power behind Dick. At that time, Nixon couldn't have won any election he wasn't given, and the 1968 election was a gift—from the Kennedys. Doubters will say, "Why didn't the Kennedys make Humphrey their front man, instead of Nixon? The Kennedys hated Nixon." One, there is no evidence the Kennedys hated Nixon. They wanted to beat him in 1960, but that is not hatred, that is ambition. Nixon was a better man to do their dirty work in 1968. They wanted to continue the Vietnam War and Nixon was a better scapegoat for this than Humphrey. It was easy to sell the idea that RFK was against the war and Nixon was for it, although this was false. The Kennedys were never against the war. They used the Cold War and the Vietnam War just like Bush/Cheney are using 911 and the wars in the Middle East. These wars drove the Military/Intelligence economy and made them and their friends rich(er). 2) It was time for the Republicans to get the Presidency. People assume that the Republicans and Democrats are adversaries, but they aren't. They are allies. Some people are beginning to accept this, clued in first by Ralph Nader in the late 1990's, and now clued in by the total capitulation of a Democratic Congress to the "neocon" agenda, including the loss of habeas corpus, the shredding of the Constitution, and impending martial law. But it didn't just happen in the 90's, or after 911. It has been true throughout the 20th century. Did FDR overthrow the Federal Reserve and turn the entire government on its head? No, he continued the policies before him, with only subtle changes. He looked for the earliest possible entry into every war, as had his predecessors, Republican or Democrat, and even used tricks to enter them (see Pearl Harbor). Then we have Truman unnecessarily bombing Japan, and of course Eisenhower the ex-General-of-the-Army.
We pretend that Eisenhower was warning Kennedy of the military-industrial complex with his famous speech, but that has been misread just like Kennedy's speech. Eisenhower was not warning Kennedy or anyone else, he was misdirecting. The bankers happened to need some misdirection in 1960, with Kennedy coming in, and they preferred that your eyes be on the Pentagon rather than on Wall Street or the Federal Reserve. He also needed to keep your eyes off the CIA. Why say "military-industrial complex" when CIA is much shorter? The CIA had already taken over the US Government in the 1950's, and Eisenhower was fully aware of it. So that is how Eisenhower's quote should be read. We still get that kind of misdirection all the time. The Pentagon is perfectly willing to play the part of the decoy, since that is one of its central roles. It is just a tool of power, but most people forget that. It isn't the military that is the danger, it is the people that are controlling the military that are the danger.
If we look at Nixon's Presidency we find many more clues. Remember when Nixon ordered the FBI to back off investigating Watergate, and specifically White House tapes and correspondence? He said they should do so because of "that Bay of Pigs thing." That quote is taken straight from the Wikipedia page, so it is no obscure quote. It is published there, despite the fact that the Nixon page at Wiki is a whitewash. No one has yet analyzed that quote in the correct way. You should see that "that Bay of Pigs thing" is shorthand for "Kennedy".(4) That is the codeword for Kennedy. Nixon is telling the CIA and FBI that he should not be investigated since any investigation would jeopardize the Kennedy cover-up. It may be a threat to squeal, or it may be simply a warning that the White House correspondence is not clear of references to the big secret.
Another important letter confirms this reading. The letter from James McCord to Richard Helms, revealed in Watergate hearings, says,
Nixon and his boys pushed us to the brink but they're backing away now and the danger has passed. Every tree in the forest in the last ten years would have fallen and the earth scorched.No one has ever been able to make sense of that letter. What you should notice is the "ten years" part of that quote. This letter was written in 1973, so ten years would take us back to 1963. Again, Nixon and his boys were threatening to squeal about the faked assassination, which would indeed have scorched the earth. We can only imagine that the CIA either threatened Nixon with a real gun, or convinced him this would bring down the whole Republic—relying on his patriotism. I suspect the former.
More suggestion of this is included in the White House tapes that have come down to us. The famous 18.5 minute gap has never been explained, but it is clear that something was erased from that tape that was more important than the evidence left on the tape, which was enough to impeach a President. Why would the tapes be saved and handed over to a subpoena? Why wasn't the whole set of tapes erased or destroyed, as is now the common practice in the Bush administration? Once again, Nixon was only the fall guy. Someone more powerful than Nixon used the tapes against Nixon: that is the only reason we would have them now. But something on the tape did more than sacrifice Nixon. Nixon mentioned Kennedy as a living person on the tape, and that is why we still have 18.5 minutes of mystery there.
Also ask yourself why Nixon would tape himself, leaving such obvious evidence. The answer: he didn't. Nixon wasn't taping himself. He was being taped by the Kennedys, as a precaution. Nixon was being monitored from above just as you are monitored from above at your workplace. Do we know of any previous Presidents who had a complete set of tapes of their private conversations? Don't you think it is odd that Nixon would provide us with evidence of his own wrong-doings? Again, he was being monitored by the shadow government, and the tapes were meant to be a form of coercion. That is the only logical explanation for the existence of the tapes.
Concerning Nixon, we must also remember that the Kennedys had a backup plan, one that they ended up using. That plan was Gerald Ford. If Nixon got uppity, they could just toss him in the bin and replace him with their lapdog Ford. Remember that Ford was on the Warren Commission. He had been doing the Kennedys’ bidding from the beginning, though from the Republican Party. People assume that Ford was covering for someone else on the Warren Commission, but it wouldn’t have been Johnson, and it wouldn’t have been Nixon (since Nixon is one of the few major players who has not been tied strongly to the assassination). No, the turn of the screw here is that the Warren Commission was controlled by the Kennedys. By Jack Kennedy himself.
Even Dulles was chosen to be on the Warren Commission by Jack himself. Why? Because in this way he achieved a final reconciliation with Dulles—who he now had further use for—and he deflected any last suspicion that the Kennedys were involved in anything in Washington.
Further confirmation of all this is that Bobby Kennedy was still Attorney General in 1964. A lot of people forget that. Most people fail to study what Bobby did in 1964. If anyone thinks about it all, they tend to assume that he was scared to death, and kept quiet from fear. That is an illogical assumption to make, since a man living in fear would not have immediately run for Senator in 1964, and President in 1968. Bobby was not afraid of anything, and never acted like he was for a moment. And yet he took no interest in the Warren Commission or any of the investigations. Since he was Attorney General at the time, this is doubly and triply strange, if you believe the standard or alternate models. A man who was capable of speaking out on civil rights, a man who was capable of planning covert operations, a man who was capable of running for President, should have been capable of taking an interest in his brother’s murder. It is obvious that he had a pulpit to do so like no else has ever had. The ovation given him at the 1964 Convention was proof of that, if he needed it. But I don’t think he needed it. He had nothing to say, and the reason he had nothing to say is that Jack was still alive. How do you investigate the murder of man who is still alive? How do you quibble with a Warren Commission that was set up to blow fairy dust? You don’t. You just dodge the issue, and that is precisely what Bobby did.
In the Boston Globe in 1998, Max Holland suggested that Bobby was suffering not from fear, but from guilt. In an argument that reads like pure disinformation—probably written by the CIA itself—Holland tells us Bobby was guilty because the murderers had copied a plan that he himself had drawn up for murdering Castro. Holland promises us proof of that assertion but never delivers it, instead bookending his one-line bald assertion with other bald assertions.
He leads his argument by telling us that he got his idea from records then being released by the Assassinations Records Review Board. We are supposed to believe that this ARRB was going "to make public every significant artifact and document related to Nov. 22, 1963, and its aftermath." Over 4 million documents. This is so that "reason may prevail over paranoia." What that has to do with Bobby's guilt, we are not sure, but Holland needed to get it in there somewhere.
Then we have the sentence about Bobby's guilt, tied only to the title of the article; and then we move quickly into another story, about Ford and Kissinger in 1975, when the CIA was in some hot water. Kissinger is quoted as saying that Bobby personally managed the Castro plot, and that because of this the CIA is in fear for its existence. "You will end up with a CIA that does only reporting, and not operations," says Kissinger, according to Holland.
Two things to point out here. One, Bobby was not in the CIA, so how does Bobby's conduct, whatever it was, endanger the CIA? Two, the CIA was in no more danger in 1975 than it is now. Holland's entire article has been cooked up to rewrite history. It has nothing to do with Bobby's "guilt" and everything to do with convincing readers of the Globe that all assassination documents were released in 1998, and that the CIA was and is hanging by a shoestring for its existence in this cruel world.
No, Bobby was not guilty anymore than he was afraid. Bobby had nothing to say about the Warren Commission and almost nothing to say about the assassination because there was no assassination.
Since 1963, the Democrats and Republicans have taken turns, almost like clockwork, pretending to run the country. We are told that this is due to the voters' tendency to “throw the bums out." But the voters don't have any tendency, since everything they do is either completely scripted or completely ignored. The real reason the two parties have switched every 8 years or so is that this is part of the deal. The parties don't care, they don't ask, and they don't tell, not about Kings and not about anything else, as long as they get a piece of the pie. This should now be clear. We can see that the parties and the major players in Congress and elsewhere don't care about any shadow government, not by the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the Tri-lateral Commission, or anyone else. If they don't care about the shadow governments we know we have, why should we be surprised to find that the parties don't care about shadow governments we don’t know we have? If they aren’t concerned about the CIA running amok, why should we be surprised to find that they don't care about an underground King?
Many were surprised that the Democrats did little or nothing to get rid of the computers, after the computers stole two Presidential elections from them in 2000 and 2004. But the Democrats had no interest in getting rid of the computers or any other election stealing devices, 1) because the elections were rigged with the knowledge and connivance of the Democrats to start with —it wasn't their turn; 2) the Democrats looked forward to using the election stealing devices in 2008, which they did.
You might also want to remind yourself what kind of Presidents we have had since Nixon. Ford, the non-entity, ruled by his Rockefeller Vice President. Carter, the peanut farmer who came out of nowhere. Reagan, the actor. Bush, his sniveling VP and ex-CIA director. Clinton, the snake-oil salesman from Arkansas. Bush, Jr., the monkey in a suit. It was not a coincidence that all of them were mainly actors. As Sting said in a song, "They all look like game-show hosts to me." This was not true before Nixon. Why was it true after Nixon?
It is because the Presidency had by then become only a front. Johnson and Nixon had taken the part semi-seriously. They had tried to slake their ambition in an old-fashioned way, despite knowing that everything had changed. But after Nixon was taken down, the Presidency was only an empty charade, and everyone knew that. It was an opportunity for sleeping, with Ford, for grinning and shucking with Carter, for posing on horses for Reagan. After Reagan, the position became standardized. It was just a series of photo ops and canned Teleprompter speeches aboard aircraft carriers and on ranches, such as any circus barker could have done. Everyone knew that there must be someone behind this cardboard cut-out, someone capable of making real decisions. Half-heartedly we have thought to ourselves that maybe it was Hoover or Kissinger or Greenspan or Cheney, as the case may be, but have never felt satisfied by this. In this void the other conspiracy theories set themselves up, from secret commissions to the CFR to alien oversight. How much more simple and rational it is now that we see the truth. Many of us had wanted a King, a Camelot, and we have been granted that wish. The Lady of the Lake came up from Hollywood carrying the sword Excaliber, in the sheath of secrecy, and the Kennedys retreated to the confines of Avalon, ruling us from beneath the waves with a sorcery worthy of Merlin.
We know we have shadow governments. Even the conspiracy theorists take Kennedy's own word for it, quoting him in a thousand places. So how is it shocking to discover that the Kennedys were, and still are, this shadow government? What is most shocking, perhaps, is how obvious and logical the discovery actually is. A Congress that would accept 911 false flag operations, Military Tribunals Acts, Patriot Acts, Homeland Security Acts (named after Hitler’s own acts), loss of habeas corpus, and so on, would hardly stick at having a King, would they?
Another fact that confirms this is that Clinton always leaned toward the conspiracy theories before he became President. He didn't believe the Warren Commission. Suddenly, once he was President, he changed his mind. Why? He was briefed. Once you actually meet a dead Kennedy, it is hard to maintain a conspiracy theory about his death. Once you get a call from the King, it is difficult to maintain his assassination, one way or the other.
Chomsky’s recent comments fit in here as well. Why does Chomsky think the Kennedy assassinations are unimportant? Why does he hold that there were no important policy changes from Kennedy to Johnson? First, he knows that Kennedy was not against the Vietnam War. Second, he knows that there was no policy change since there was no change. There was no Kennedy to Johnson, there was only Kennedy, and Chomsky knows this. But he cannot just come out and say it. The Kennedys have given him the freedom to say whatever else he wants to, since, as an intellectual, his audience will never exceed 3% of the population. But he cannot tell what he knows about Kennedy. Still, the implication slips out occasionally, when he belittles the JFK conspiracy theorists. Only someone who knew that Kennedy was never killed could dismiss the murder with such casual contempt.
The same may also be true of Alexander Cockburn. Cockburn is not the sort to accept the Warren Commission. It is possible he has met some of the "dead" Kennedys, and so is in an uncommon position on this topic. [You also have to remember that Cockburn trashed Deborah Davis' book Katharine the Great in the Village Voice in 1979, probably at the behest oh the CIA.]
Need more? How about the fact that one of the little known losses of the World Trade Center demolitions is the loss of all the negatives of Kennedy's own photographer, Jacques Lowe. The entire archive, over 40,000 frames, was "lost" at WTC5 (according to the Lowe family, less than 400 of the frames had been printed, in books and elsewhere). Not only that, but once again they were lost under mysterious circumstances. The bank that owned the vaults at first claimed the safe was unrecoverable. They claimed to have spent half a million dollars searching the rubble, with no success. Suddenly, when lawsuits threatened to punish them severely for this lack of success, they somehow found the safe. Half a million dollars worth of searching couldn't find the safe, but the threat of a lawsuit could. Typical. Jacques' daughter Thomasina has told the press that the safe was delivered in a highly suspicious condition, in that the number was simply chalked on the front of it. This number did not match the number she had in her records. The bank claimed it matched their own number, but did not show any paper to prove that. Then the New York Times [March 27, 2002] reported that, although the safe was burned but not terribly mangled, "the door to the safe was opened and there was no lock, only a round hole where the lock had been." Inside the safe there was debris.
This last fact is the most important, although it seems to be the least important. Negatives are made out of plastic, and the sleeves would either be paper or plastic. If the lock had been knocked out by the weight of a crash from above, allowing fire into the safe, then the fire would have burned away everything. Fire does not leave debris. It leaves smoke or ashes. In the case of the plastic, it would have left a black film, as a sort of solid puddle, on the bottom of the safe. With 40,000 frames of plastic, we would expect a very large puddle indeed. But Thomasina did not report ashes or any sort of plastic residue. She reported debris. Even if we imagine that the door may have been opened later by weight from above, and that debris from beyond the fire blew in that way, we would then have both debris and ash. But we are supposed to believe that the debris got in and the ash got out, leaving a burned safe with no burned contents? The space through which the debris entered was small enough to allow in only a small amount of debris, but large enough to allow all of the original contents to escape? None of the debris was recognizable as the remains of the negatives, or Thomasina would have been able to recognize that as proof that this was the correct safe. In fact, a plastic residue from 40,000 negatives could not blow away or out of the safe, since it would be stuck to the bottom of the safe. Go burn a small amount of plastic in a pan and then see if you can blow the residue out of the pan. No, you will have to throw the pan out, since the plastic residue will have charred itself permanently into the bottom of the pan. It is much more likely that the debris was added later as a touch of reality by someone who was not highly trained in logic, or who did not know that negatives were made of plastic.
Alternate theorists have used this new mystery to further bolster their ideas that the Kennedys are still being targeted by masked men, but the Kennedys themselves would find these negatives more useful than any outside conspirators. We should always most suspect those who have most to gain. Even without any mysteries or assassinations or faked deaths, the Kennedys would have the most use for pictures of themselves. And given whatever mystery in whatever form, the Kennedys would still have the most reason to want those negatives. Especially if they contained some evidence that could be used to prove they were still alive. They would want these photos suppressed just as they still suppress photos on the internet. As you have seen, there are very few photos of the RFK assassination on the web. Most have been deleted.
Am I through? Not even. JFK, Jr. is said to have died in 1999. Let's look a bit more closely at that date. Is it a coincidence that all three Kennedys died on the eve of a Presidential election? Jack died just before the 1964 election, Bobby just before the 1968 election, and John just before the 2000 election. How old would Bobby have been in 1999, if he had lived? 74. That in itself is highly suggestive, since 1999 would be the expected time for a Prince to come to power. And that is just what happened. I propose that Bobby Kennedy died in hiding in 1999.
Even those that may have followed me this far will balk at imagining that John, Jr. could be responsible for 911 and the Iraq War and the Military Tribunals Act and the loss of habeas corpus and the Patriot Acts, and so on. But why balk at that? His father was never who you thought he was (listen again to the "shadow government speech to the press"), his uncle was never who you thought he was (he used all that civil rights stuff just like Johnson did, to get votes and make you think he was a great guy. It didn't work with Johnson, why did it work with Bobby? Ask yourself that. If Johnson had been better looking, you would still love him, too. You would find excuses for him, too.) And John, Jr. was never who you thought he was. We are told that George magazine was a progressive journal, but that is just hooey. It was a glossy star-kissing piece of fluff, with the required reactionary politics. The truth is that John, Jr. was always just a dopey rich pretty boy who couldn't pass the bar and didn't know anything he wasn't told. He is now playing Commodus to his dad's Marcus Aurelius.
To prove this, let us look once again at Jr.'s "death". This time we have no photos and no film, but we do have a mass of anomalies and lies and impossibilities. We have a cover-up of something, and once again the most logical thing to assume, given the place and form and other players in the cover-up, is that the death was faked by the Kennedys themselves.
I won't comb the evidence here as I did with Jack and Bobby, but notice that JFK, Jr., was supposedly cremated. Convenient, since it dodges any future disinterment. Even the ashes were "buried at sea" in a very unusual ceremony. Jr. was not a sailor and had never been in the navy. It is as if the Kennedys were afraid the ashes might be DNA-checked later, so we have both the cremation and the swallowing of them by the sea, in a doubly careful effort to remove all evidence.
Beyond this, it is curious, to say the least, that the Pentagon took control of the "crash scene" and all press relations from the beginning. Conspiracy theorists have taken this as proof that the government was involved in an assassination, but the government would also be involved in a fake death. We know we have a cover-up, but is the government covering up a murder, or is it covering up the lack of any bodies? If we were only seeing the cover-up of a murder here, there would be no reason to hide the body and then cremate it. If the fuel line was tampered with, for instance, then the government only needed to hide that fact. Hiding the body is unnecessary. It is even counter-productive, since it causes suspicion. A government that had murdered JFK, Jr., would be quick to show the body, as proof he was dead. They would not be trying to hide that fact, but promote it. They would only be trying to hide the evidence of foul play.
No, the logical reason to play cat-and-mouse with the body is because you don't really have a body. We see the same sort of games with Junior that we saw with Senior. Since we see very strange games being played with the body, we should begin our questioning by questioning whether there is a body.
Beyond that, we have lots of other misdirection. On the web we have several films proposing that the Bushes are responsible for the death of JFK, Jr. Some propose that George, Sr. did it and others propose the George, Jr. did it. These are prominent videos, linked from 911 Truth sites, so I have seen them and given them a fair look. These videos tell us that both Bushes were unaccounted for in the days surrounding the death, implying they had no alibi or something like that. This is so ridiculous it is difficult to imagine how it made it to publication. Are these documentarians suggesting that the Bushes were the actual trigger men, or missile men? Or, supposing that the plane was sabotaged, are we to imagine that one of the Bushes pulled the hose himself, or cut the line himself? I think that if the Bushes had wanted to have Junior killed, they could have hired someone to do it. I hear they may have some money and connections. To call in a hit like that you don't have to leave town for three days, travel across the country surreptitiously, cancel appointments, act like a spy, and call attention to yourself. All you have to do is make a phone call.
I almost hate to spoil this for you, but even JFK, Jr.'s saluting photo is purposely misinterpreted.
Look where the sun is in the picture. Junior isn't saluting, he is just shading his eyes from the bright sun. If you watch the film of that moment, it is clear. Only in the still photo does he appear to be saluting.
What about Teddy Kennedy? Was he, as youngest brother, left out? Or was he the Senatorial liaison, the visible enforcer of the invisible Mob boss, only pretending to be drunk and marginalized? Or was he in fact the King, hiding in plain sight?
No, Bobby lived until 1999, and Teddy never got his turn. By the time Bobby died, Teddy was not interested in living underground. He wanted to live out his life in the Senate, doing nothing. But concerning Chappaquiddick, we have more clues. There, Teddy was the fall guy, covering for someone else. Remember that this was the summer of 1969, only a year after Bobby's fake death. Mary Jo Kopechne had been a campaign worker for Bobby, and she was very attractive. Thin and blonde, just what Bobby liked. There is now a picture of her on the internet with Bobby and the "boiler room" girls. The other young women look uncomfortable, but she looks very comfortable, even wife-ish. What probably happened is that Mary Jo, after one too many gin and tonics at the party, threatened to tell the world the Kennedys were not dead, and that this was the one sin not pardoned. Bobby himself was present at the "reunion" party, since this was Kennedy territory, very remote and protected. None of the others at the party have ever said a word, and this is hardly surprising, since they didn’t want to end up like Mary Jo. Mary Jo was killed for the same reason Marilyn Monroe was: she couldn't keep her mouth shut after the sex had ended and she was left to her pills and booze. Of course there is also the possibility they just relocated her. As JFK had wanted Mary Pinchot Meyer underground with him, maybe RFK wanted Mary Jo Kopechne underground with him.
Teddy had nothing to do with the affair until they had to use his car. The ever-present spooks (CIA or Secret Service) did her in, but decided at the last minute to use the car as the cover. They were very remote and didn't really have a lot of choice in automobiles to drive into the lake. Since Mary Jo's hysteria was last-minute, it is likely the murder and the cover-up were last-minute, and not well thought out. At last it was decided that Teddy should take the fall, since he was best able to take it. He had no real connections to Mary Jo, so none could ever be dredged up, no matter how much investigation there was. They only had to explain why his car was there, and they came up with a story that would do that, while making him seem like only a bumbler or a drunk. Of course Teddy was never in the car, so he didn't have to swim out of it or any of that nonsense. The spooks drove it into the water, not Teddy. As a Kennedy he was able to avoid the mandatory sentence for failing to report an accident, and the family never lost control of the story beyond that. There was probably no body and no murder anyway, so Teddy wasn't ever in danger. Mary Jo may still be alive to this day. In fact, if you do a search for her on the Social Security Death Index SSDI, you get nothing. According to government records, no one by that name died in 1969 in Massachusetts.
Teddy didn't bow out of the 1972 race due to Chappaquiddick, he bowed out because Bobby was afraid he would win, and Bobby didn't want the competition. Bobby preferred that Nixon win the election of 1972. Chappaquiddick was inconsequential, except as a way to sell papers. The press does not determine what these people do, they decide what the press will do. That was as true then as it is now.
Teddy's "liberal" stances in the Senate don't really reflect his own opinions, or those of the Kennedys. These stances are nothing more than poses. Notice, as an example, that although he has been in the Senate longer than anyone except Byrd, his "liberal" policies never amount to anything. This was as true during the Clinton years as during the Bush years. Curiously, none of Teddy's liberal policies ever come to fruition. He appears to be liberal and he appears to be a complete failure. This is the perfect cover. A mole is always disguised as the polar opposite of what he is. According the larger story I have been telling here about the Kennedys, that means that Teddy is most likely to be extremely powerful, extremely effective, and extremely conservative, to the point of fascism. After all, he is and has long been the eyes and ears in the Senate for the King. How liberal can the eyes and ears of a King be?
Remember how Teddy ran for President again in 1980 against Jimmy Carter? Roger Mudd asked him why he wanted to be President: thirty seconds of silence. Does it take a psychologist to read that sign? Teddy had no answer because he knew he was never meant to be President. He was meant to play a part, the part of a liberal Democrat speaking for the urban black, the family farmer, the steel mill worker. But as Alexander Cockburn pointed out in 2009 in Teddy's obit, Kennedy never did anything for these people and did a lot against them. Want examples?: deregulation of trucking and aviation, which were terrible for labor. NAFTA and GATT, which were terrible for all American workers, except maybe the bankers. The Hate Crimes Bill, which eviscerated the First Amendment. Like the other Kennedys, Teddy only posed as progressive, while promoting covert fascism all along.
And now for the final turn of the screw. We have looked at all the important Kennedys of the second and third generation except one: Joseph, Jr., Jack's older brother. He was the one that was supposed to become President first, we are told, but he died in 1944 in a military accident. Most people don't even know about him anymore. But it turns out that the accident in 1944 was just as fishy as all the others. First of all, once again it was filmed. It was an airplane explosion, and a smaller aircraft just "happened" to be following, filming the whole thing. This film was not just good fortune, it was planned. The film crew was put into the air by the same people that put the bomber into the air. In other words, it was another Hollywood production, courtesy Joseph, Sr. and RKO Studios. Another curious thing is that no bodies were found. The explosion was so powerful that the bomber blew to smithereens, falling like confetti on the English houses below, we are told. Once again, we have to take their word for it that anyone died that day. Kennedy and the other man said to be on board were most likely never on board. It is admitted that the bomber was remote controlled, so no one really needed to be on board. They could have parachuted out at any time after take-off, and the following camera crew only needed to pan away for a few seconds. If that is not suspicious, I don't know what would be. In fact, there was absolutely no reason for them to be on board. The only reason to claim that two people were on a remote controlled bomber with a huge touchy payload is so that you could fake their deaths. I say touchy because Joe, Jr., was supposedly warned that the bomb might accidentally go off. That is another huge red flag here. It was planted information, so that people afterward would go, "Oh, well, he was warned. It was a big risk. He was riding dynamite." If you are planning a fake accident, the best thing you can do is make it look like the accident was not so unlikely; then people are more likely to accept it, of course.
Also ask yourself if the army is going to put the son of one of the richest men in America in a high-risk situation like that. Joe, Sr., was one of the ten richest men in America at the time, and there is no chance that the army is going to put his first son in a ridiculous position like that, much less let him "volunteer" for it. The history of the army is one of magnificent blunders, but not of this sort. This is the one thing that the army always gets right. It keeps rich boys out of absurd situations like this, for obvious reasons. There was no reason for Joe, Jr., to be on that plane and every reason for him not to be. Upper-class boys get put in risky situations occasionally, but only when there is the possibility of major glory. There was no possibility of glory or heroism here, only extremely high levels of unnecessary risk. There is no chance that the army would have allowed Joe, Jr., to actually be in that plane. They would only allow him to "appear" to be on that plane, under orders from Joe Sr himself.
This is confirmed by Joe, Jr.'s army experience up to that point. His first assignment was in the Caribbean, and as we all know, that was not exactly the eye of the storm in WW2. He was then sent to England, but was "ground-based," meaning, I suppose, that he was not assigned to a carrier. Instead, he was assigned to some of the least hazardous duty for pilots: flying submarine missions. Submarines could be attacked from high altitudes, using radar, above their flak, and unless the submarine were surfaced, there would be no flak. As with John's missions, Joe's have been padded afterwards; but, except for volunteering for the fake robot plane, Joe never did anything heroic. Joe received medals "posthumously" for his faked death, but he didn't receive any before that. He had been in England for less than a year, and we aren't told how many submarine missions he went on, or how many "kills" he was involved in. John later claimed that some of Joe's co-pilots had died, but we aren't given any details, like if they had been killed while he was also onboard, or if they had died from food poisoning at base. If Joe had survived an attack while others died, it is likely he would have been decorated for it in some way.
Another thing is fishy in Joe's bio. Wikipedia tells us that Joe, Sr., had agreed to support FDR if FDR supported Joe, Jr.'s run for governor of Massachusetts in 1942. Problem with that is that Jr. was only 26 in 1941, and hadn't even graduated from law school. We are told that Jr. dropped out of law school to go to war; was he planning to drop out to run for governor? No, this story is planted to make us think that Sr. was supporting FDR around 1940, when the exact opposite is the truth. Sr. never liked the New Deal: all the rich guys hated it. FDR appointed him to various positions to keep him out of trouble, but when Sr. lost his post at the court of St. James he was free to make trouble again, and he did. How? you ask, and why should he and Jr.'s death.
To answer that, we have to go back to 1933 and the Morgan/DuPont coup. This coup was thwarted by General Smedley Butler, but we have some curious facts that have come down to us. According to sworn testimony before Congress, the conspirators wanted to take over the government by a clandestine method, one which consisted of two main features. One, FDR would be convinced to feign illness. His polio would allow him to do this easily, and the "public would be easy to fool." To help him in his time of hardship, he would appoint a general secretary as a new post to the cabinet. This new post would function as an under-President, or second President, with all the powers of President except the title. If FDR did not agree to this plan, the general and his army of retired soldiers would take over by force. This history is well-known, but commentators have mostly focused on the threat of physical violence. There has been almost no commentary on the rest. But it is the two points that make up the plan that should draw our attention. Again, 1) feigning illness, 2) a second or shadow President.
This is what happened in 1945, just 12 years later.
We must remind ourselves that FDR was only 62 when he is said to have died. Yes, he looked bad at the end, but if you want to look bad, you can look bad. It is the easiest thing to do, especially when you are over 60. How FDR looked means nothing, since faking illness is done everyday by grade-schoolers. The conspirators of 1933 were right: it is easy to fool people on this matter. All you need is the desire to do it. That leaves us with the shadow President. In the decade since 1933, the rich guys like Morgan, Dupont, and Kennedy had changed the plan somewhat. Rather than install a shadow President, it would be much more clever and useful to install an invisible President. They would still have two Presidents, a real one and a fake one, but this time the real one would be underground. An underground President is much better than a shadow President, since an underground President suffers no scrutiny and answers no questions. You don't have to buy the press in that case, you can just send it on a never-ending goose chase after the fake President.
Another important thing had changed between 1933 and 1945. The families decided to place one of their own in the position of Invisible President. In 1933, they were planning to put General Hugh Johnson in the position of Assistant President. But by 1945 they had seen a better way: put one (or more) of their own children in the position.
Who would be this Invisible President? Joseph Kennedy, Jr. (for one). He was young and strong and only recently "deceased", so he was already invisible. All you have to do is install him behind Truman, once you get rid of FDR.
But how did they get to Truman, you ask? They didn't "get to him," since he was already their man. They installed him as Vice President, back when the 1944 ticket was being created. Truman was not FDR's choice, as is known. FDR hardly knew Truman. Truman was chosen by political bosses from New York, Chicago and St. Louis, including the notorious Robert Hannegan and Edward Flynn. After the fall of Tom Pendergast, Hannegan was the most corrupt man in Missouri. So Truman was basically chosen by a group of political mobsters, over the wishes of FDR. This is known, but the questioning always magically stops there. Political mobsters are not the top of the food chain. Politics is not an end, it is a means. Political mobsters get people elected for reasons, and these reasons are financial. So we should look for the robber barons pulling their strings. We look to J.P. Morgan, Pierre Dupont, and, of course, Joseph Kennedy, Sr. Assuming Sr. wasn't already part of the coup in 1933, he was certain to have joined it after 1938, when his hatred of FDR reached new levels. What is more, we know he met with Truman in 1944, before the election.(3) In this interview with Joseph Casey in 1967, Casey says, "Hannegan said he considered Joe Kennedy the most influential Irishman in the country, more influential than Jim Farley. And so Joe Kennedy was sent for, and he came up from the Cape to see [candidate for] Vice President Truman in '44. So he was helpful in the election of Roosevelt in '44."
Read that carefully. Joe didn't join the FDR campaign until Truman did. Apparently Joe was interested in getting Truman elected, but not FDR. Why? Because it was already known (by a lot of rich people that were not doctors) that FDR would not be allowed to last six months into his fourth term, and that would make Truman President. If the plotters could get their man in as VP, half their job was done. He could be promised the post of fake President, and all the glory and money of that, while their own man, Joe, Jr., could be installed as real President.
Consider the 1948 election, in which Truman magically came from nowhere in the middle of the night, winning by a margin of a thousand votes in three states (Ohio, Illinois, and California). Who could have pulled off a steal like that except the political mobsters Truman was associated with? Remember, Truman got his start with the biggest political mobster of the time, Tom Pendergast, then switched to the second biggest, Hannegan, when Pendergast hit the wall. Also remember that Truman's approval rating in 1948 was in the 30's, the Democratic party was split three ways (Wallice and Thurmond), there were new Republican majorities in Congress, and Truman was neither smart nor charismatic. History has been rewritten to convince us that Truman electrified crowds on his whistle-stop tours, but that is just propaganda. Truman couldn't electrify a 15-watt light bulb. He had won his Senate seat not with electrifying speeches, but with ballot box stuffing, and he became Vice President and President on FDR's coat tails. Only fools would accept the proposition that his "win" in 1948 was a election upset or a triumph of the underdog. It was a masterful con of the public, not surpassed until 1963 and 2001.
This makes Truman's "the buck stops here" one of the biggest hidden jokes in history. The first fake President of the US puts a sign on his desk that says, "The buck stops here." These guys do have a sense of humor, if nothing else.
Also remember that the National Security Act had been put into place in 1947, near the end of Truman's first term. This was passed specifically to ensure Truman's re-election, by installing a secret government headed by the newly created NSC and CIA, but with other secret committees beneath these. The National Security Act was sold as a postwar re-shuffling and consolidation and streamlining of the various military departments, but that was just the frosting. More importantly, the Act provided for the creation of real government agencies, funded by real tax dollars, so that the underground government could tap the treasury in a semi-legal fashion. The underground government could use federal tax dollars directly to steal elections, fight secret foreign wars, and run all sorts of clandestine operations both foreign and domestic. They have been doing it ever since, as we now know from the various Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals that have surfaced over the decades.
But primarily, the 1948 election had to be stolen to protect the underground President, and the Act of 1947 was instrumental in that. Without the Act, these elections had to be stolen with private money, but after 1947 they could underwrite all their crimes with federal money. From then on the billionaire mobsters that had taken over the government were given an aura of respectability: they were now paid by the treasury and didn't have to resort to other lower forms of theft and intimidation. For instance, the secret government probably could have bought out or intimidated Dewey like they had the rest, but it was so much more efficient not to have to deal with that. If you stole the election in a cunning enough manner, even your enemies might not suspect you.
So the underground government had to be sure of Truman. They had to ensure his re-election. Secrecy was the first line of defense, and any change of teams would jeopardize that. You have to be sure of your man going in. The wealthy were sure of Eisenhower from the beginning, since they drafted him, and by 1960 the Kennedys had one of their own sons on the puppet throne as well.
Which leaves only one hole to fill in this part of the story. Why the switch from Joe, Jr. to Jack in 1963? I suggest Joe, Jr. had been a Hidden King for almost 20 years and was tired of it. He was now almost 50, and was tired of governing, even with his father's help. He was also tired of squabbling with his little brother. Joe, Sr. discovered it was a mistake to have a son in both positions, King and President (which is why Bobby later demanded Teddy get out of the 1972 race). Finally, Joe, Jr. bowed out and left the scepter to Jack. Joe retired and lived out his life in private. As you see, this was another benefit of being an underground King. Since you were neither a King by birth nor in the public eye, you could retire any time you liked. Either that or Joe died in 1963 from causes which are unknown to us.
Before we leave Joe, Jr., I beg you to notice a few other anomalies. Haven't you ever found it strange that the Kennedy clan had both a Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Jr. and a Joseph Patrick Kennedy II? How does that work? Joseph Patrick Kennedy II is supposed to be the son of RFK. But since there was already a Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Jr., shouldn't RFK's first son have been named Joseph Patrick Kennedy III? The third? He was the third Joseph Patrick Kennedy, after all. Either these people can't count to three or something very weird is going on here.
We see more indication of math problems when the Wikipedia page on Joe, Jr., tells us he was in the Navy from 1940-1944. Which is strange, considering that the Wiki page links to a History.com page that says that Joe, Jr. enlisted in June of 1941. Also curious is that Joe, Jr. is sold to us as a big war hero, with a Purple Heart and seven other medals, but with little digging we also find this naval mugshot:
Strange that we find no explanation of that in any of the bios.
This is also curious:
They have tried to create a fake shadow to keep you from reading his rank there, but if you look closely you see it is ensign. But Joe, Jr. is said to have attended two years of Harvard Law by then. We are told he gave up his third year to enlist. If he had waited one more year to enlist, he could have enlisted as a Lieutenant, since he would have been a professional man. Entry level for professionals was Captain in the Army and Lieutenant in the Navy. But even so, as someone who had completed two years of Harvard Law (and as a Kennedy), Joe, Jr.'s entry level should have been at least O2. He should never have been an ensign. But regardless of that, this photo is supposed to be from January 1944. He is said to have been a "PB4Y Liberator Pilot, VB-110, in England". Also notice that he is supposed to be in the Naval Reserve. That is what N.R. means. But since Joe, Jr. is supposed to have enlisted in 1941 and had his wings by spring 1942, why is he still an ensign in the Naval Reserve in 1944? By August of 1944, Joe, Jr. is supposed to be a Lieutenant. That was his final rank. So we are supposed to believe he he got two promotions between January and August of 1944? Lieutenant is two ranks above ensign. The surviving pics don't match the surviving story.
Here's another faked photo for your amusement:
That is supposed to be Joe, Jr., Kathleen, and John. John sure seems to be walking by them quickly, doesn't he? Doesn't even seem to know they are there. He wouldn't, because they aren't. It is a paste-up. To prove that most quickly, I beg you to study the light on Kathleen's face and John's face. They are both looking straight ahead, but while Kathleen's face is almost fully lit, John's is only half lit. See how half of John's face is in shadow, while Kathleen's isn't? In a real photo, that would be impossible.
So you might want to ask yourself why even the seemingly unimportant photos of the Kennedy clan are faked. Even when no one is being shot or falling out of an airplane, the photos are obvious fakes. But there are many many more. Let's study some of them:
Joe, Jr. is supposed to be second from the last. But he was pasted in there. His head is too small and the shadows don't match. Compare him to the girl just in front of him. Now study the darks in her hair versus the darks in his hair. They don't match. You will say that it is because she has brown hair and he has blonde hair. But that doesn't fly for three reasons: 1) The shadow side of a blonde would be about the same darkness as the shadow side of a brunette. In photos, the two hair colors don't shade out differently. 2) Compare the light side of her hair versus the light side of his. Very little difference, right? So why are the light sides of their hair the same, but the dark sides completely different? 3) Joe wasn't a blonde. Consult the previous photos.
Here's yet another creepy paste-up:
Does anyone think that looks real? Look at Bobby. Is he two-dimensional? Amazing how he can fit in that space between Jack and Teddy without taking up any of the y-dimension. His whole body is only an inch thick, I guess.
And here's another one:
That picture has many serious anomalies, the worst of which is again Joe, Jr. It is obvious at a glance that he has been pasted in there. Why would the eldest son be way off to one side like that? Why does his right suit lapel match John's exactly? Why are all his shadows two shades lighter than everyone else's? This photo has been republished with very poor resolution, but I would say that John has also been pasted in there, as well as Rose (the woman between John and Joe, Jr.). Just look at the halo around her head! And why would the mother be in the last row?
This one is also fake:
The proof is in the hair again. Compare Joe, Jr.'s hair to John's. See how the shadows don't match? Not even close. Or look at the shadows under their chins. Again, at least two shades off.
An obvious fake, one that wouldn't fool anyone. John is the one pasted in there most obviously, though I think all are. None of the lines around the figures are right.
Here's a family picture that is pretty convincing:
But where is Joe, Jr.? I say it is convincing, but Rose has been pasted in here as well. The lighting on her face is different that the rest of the photo.
Here is one with Joe, Jr., but again we find him pasted in very poorly.
We don't even have to study shadows here, because we can tell he is pasted in at a glance: he is too small. His head is smaller than the ladies' heads next to him. Also notice he is wearing a dark color while everyone else is in white. I guess he didn't read the memo. I think Rose is also pasted in. Why is she always in the back row? Shouldn't she be next to Joe Sr.?
The shadows of John and Joe, Jr. again don't match. This is a better fake than the others, and the lack of resolution hides most of the problems. But study their chins. Joe, Jr. is turned ever so slightly more away from the sun than John. His chin should be more shadowed, but it is less shadowed. Same for the rest of his face, which has lights moving further across the middle than John's face, when it should have less. I think John was pasted into this one. And this one:
That one is strange all the way from left to right. Why are the legs all so dark? While the baby is bright white? But let us stick with John and Joe, here. Look at the shadows under their chins. John is light while Joe is dark. They weren't there together.
What about this famous one?
Fake. All three heads have different lighting. Joe, Jr. is lit from above left. Joe, Sr. is lit from above. John is also lit from above, but his light source is more in front of him, so that he doesn't have the quick changes in tone that the other two do. To see it most quickly, look at the shadows in Joe, Jr.'s eye sockets. Now look at John's. You can't see the whites of Joe, Jr.'s eyes, but you can John's. Joe, Jr.'s head is once again too small, as well. I would say all three heads were pasted in.
That is supposed to be Joe, Jr. to the far right. But once again he has been pasted in. He has no highlights on top of his head like the others do, and his head is too small. Rose is also pasted into this one. Notice her nose. Why is she the only one in the photo with a white nose? Because her photo was taken in a different light and pasted into this one.
What about this one?
Fake. John's head is two shades lighter than Joe's. Also, look at Joe's legs. What is going on there? Is he supposed to be wearing panty hose?
That's supposed to be Joe and John. Do you get the feeling they are both there together? I don't. Joe is obviously pasted into that background. Very poorly. Now we know why the Kennedys needed to steal Jacques Lowe's photos from the World Trade Center. The Kennedy family photos are all faked.
So why are they pasting Joe and John together? I would guess because there aren't any real pictures of them together. So why wouldn't there be any pictures of Joe and John together? I am not really sure, but I would suggest that Joe, Sr. may have had two families. Joe, Jr. doesn't look like the rest of "the clan." He has different eyes and eyebrows, both of which slope differently than the rest of his siblings. He looks far more like his mother Rose than any of the rest. They have the same eyes, which slope down at the corners, and the same eyebrows, which also slope down instead of up like the other children. This may explain why both he and Rose have been pasted into the photos. To create continuity, Joe, Sr. had both of them pasted into old pictures, but they weren't there.
This indicates that Joe, Jr. may have been the only son of Joe, Sr. and Rose. The pictures above are Joe, Sr. with his other family, and Rose and Joe, Jr. had to be pasted in later. Rose wouldn't allow herself to be photographed with the other family, and wouldn't allow her Joe, Jr. to be photographed them, either. But if Rose wasn't the mother of these others, who was? From looking at the siblings, I would have to say, "Various women." Just studying the boys shows us a large variation.
Jack, Bobby, and Ted look nothing alike, as you can see from the paste-up photo above. This made it that much easier to take Joe, Jr. underground in 1944. Not being part of the clan, they wouldn't miss him. Just the reverse. They were probably glad to see him go (if they even knew about him). It is even possible John didn't know Joe, Jr. was ruling beneath him until 1963, when Joe decided to abdicate (or died). It is possible he was as shocked to find this out as you are.
This might explain why Robert later named his first son Joseph Patrick Kennedy II, ignoring the fact that there had already been a second Joseph Patrick Kennedy. JPK II was born in 1952. I suggest that Robert Kennedy was asserting to the family that Joe, Jr. was never a part of it, and therefore didn't count. Robert may not have known in 1952 what we know now, and he may have been ignorant of the true bloodlines as well. In naming his first son, he was simply tying himself closely to his father, and trying to bury Joe, Jr. by stealing his name.
I will answer a few questions before I close. Someone might ask me why a cabal of trillionaires would agree to put Joe, Jr. on a secret throne, as King. The kid was only about 30, after all. If a Morgan, DuPont, Kennedy coup succeeded in 1945, as I claim, then why didn't one of the old men become King? I suggest it is because all the top guys were getting old, and they didn't want to countenance the possibility of internecine wars when one of them died. Say Joe, Sr. had become the Hidden King, and had then died a few years later. You would then have a battle for his replacement. To avoid that, you put someone young on the throne. But again, why a Kennedy?
Well, perhaps Joe, Jr. wasn't the only Hidden King. Maybe there was a triumvirate or other oligarchy, with sons of Kennedy, Morgan, and DuPont ruling together. To test that theory, I researched sons of Morgan and DuPont. I couldn't find anything on Morgan, but look what I found on DuPont! It was fabulously easy, since I just searched on male DuPonts who died around 1944. Richard Chichester du Pont died in late 1943. Know what else? He died in a plane crash. Know what else? The plane crash was on an army base, March Field, and once again happened under mysterious circumstances. Du Pont was 32, almost the same age as Joe Kennedy, Jr. He had been special assistant to General Henry H. Arnold, chief of the US Air Force. Know what else? He died on September 11. Cue Twilight Zone music.
This tends to confirm my thesis once more, and suggests that a deeper analysis of the Morgan family would find the link to it. My quick search on the Web wasn't able to uncover it, but I did find traces of misdirection at the genealogy sites, which had seemed to scrub information, especially concerning the great grandsons of J. P. Morgan. I don't think Joseph Kennedy and Richard du Pont were the only Hidden Kings. A Morgan likely joined them, and I would suspect a Rockefeller as well.
With that in mind, we may reread a recent bit of news concerning the Rockefellers. Richard Rockefeller, son of David, is said to have died in a plane crash on June 13, 2014. Note that: plane crash. This is how it is done. That is a signal. The date is also a signal. June 13. We have already seen that date in one of my previous papers (on the Simpson trial). O. J. is said to have murdered Nicole Simpson on June 13. The Pentagon Papers were first published on June 13. The Miranda decision was on June 13. The Catalina Affair was on June 13. The Lindbergh parade was on June 13. June 13 is St. Anthony's day. St. Anthony is the saint of lost people.
I take that to mean that this was the time for Richard Rockefeller to join the ranks of the invisible, and take his time on the Hidden Throne. But what Rockefeller did he replace? We can answer that, too. Michael Rockefeller disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 1961. His body was never found. He was the 23-year-old son of Nelson Rockefeller. In 2014, Michael would have been 76. He apparently ruled for 53 years.
So which Rockefeller ruled from 1945 to 1961? I suspect Michael's father Nelson Rockefeller. You will tell me Nelson Rockefeller was prominent in politics in later years, which is true. But it looks to me like the Rockefellers used a different scheme than the others. The others used faked deaths, while the Rockefellers used a double.
For proof of this, we go to his bio. We see a big change in 1945. Truman supposedly fired Nelson Rockefeller from his post as Assistant Secretary of State in that year, and Rockefeller moved out of Washington. From 1945 to 1958, Rockefeller inhabited surprisingly drab positions in various advisory committees. These positions could easily have been filled by a double, especially since we assume the double was still controlled by the family. At the other end of the period, 1961, we find more strong evidence. Rockefeller's wife divorced him in early 1962 and he remarried in 1963. She did not remarry. Of course that is just what we would expect. Since I am proposing that the real Rockefeller died in 1961, Mary Clark no longer felt the need to keep up the charade, and she retired from the program.
There are very few pictures of Nelson Rockefeller before 1945, but the ones that we do find don't match the later Rockefeller.
Neither of those leave us with any idea we are looking at the Nelson Rockefeller we know from US history. Notice the mole on the left cheek. You will say the later Rockefeller had such a mole, but the problem is the later Rockefeller had a raised mole, not a brown mole. The one in the second picture above has been penciled in to match the later Rockefeller (or one of them—there were several doubles). Also notice two other things in the second photo. Notice the teeth, and notice the scar under the mouth. You will say there is no scar. Right, but there should be. One later Rockefeller had a prominent scar under his mouth.
Scar, no mole.
Raised mole, not brown, no scar.
What about the teeth?
First, scar but no mole. Then, a big gap between the first and second tooth on the left side of his face (your right). Compare to the 1942 Nelson Rockefeller.
Want proof that mole was penciled in?
I just took that into photoshop, right? No. I got it off the internet.
Here is the link: http://imgarcade.com/1/rockefeller-1953/
But back to the Kennedys. You would think three faked deaths among these siblings would be enough, but we have yet another. JFK's younger sister Kathleen is also said to have been killed in a plane crash, like her older brother Joe. She was three years younger than John and they are said to have been close. We are told she died in 1948, at age 28. That was just four years after Joe was said to have been killed. 1948 was also the start of Truman's only elected term. By my analysis, it appears Kathleen's death was faked like the rest. She was remarrying and probably about to have a baby, so it is likely she simply wished to disappear from the spotlight. What evidence do we have of that? Well, no one from the family except her Dad came to the funeral, and he only came because he was already in France, where the death occurred. Do you find that very likely? I don't. A beloved child in a huge family dies, and no one comes to the funeral? I would say they didn't come for the same reason Mary Lincoln didn't go to Abe's funeral: she knew he wasn't there.
For those who still don't think the Kennedys were up to faking all these deaths, remember that they were not above lobotomizing the oldest sister Rose. They allowed a doctor to stir her frontal lobes with a butter knife at age 23, turning her into a vegetable. This because “she was unruly". Does this look like someone whose IQ is so low she needs to be carved up and institutionalized for life?
I have one final prediction. I predict that before 2020, a man claiming to be John F. Kennedy III will arrive on the scene, and that he will be able to prove it. He will be about 20 years of age, and he will explain that he had to remain "underground" for his own safety—due to the murders of his father and grandfather. He will achieve immediate fame, of course. He will spend some time in the limelight and then die under mysterious circumstances, probably having to do with a plane crash. I think you can see that this prediction takes no supernatural power. I would suggest to you that most successful predictions are of this sort: they are due to the kind of logic you see in this paper, not to divining or inspiration.
You will say, "Wait, are you telling me JFK, Jr., is still living in the Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport?" Yes, among other places. One of those places is on Chappaquiddick. For evidence of that, ask yourself why Presidents still vacation on Martha's Vineyard. Every year, Obama goes on vacation there. Why would he do that? When there, he is probably the only black person on the entire island. It is not a common resort for black families. And he is not the only President to vacation or visit Martha's Vineyard for no reason. Clinton is known to have "vacationed" there, although he had no ties to Massachusetts, Cape Cod, or the Island. In fact, every other President since Kennedy has either vacationed or visited Martha's Vineyard while in office—usually on a yearly basis. What do you think they are all doing there?
Anyone who researches Martha's Vineyard will uncover many red flags. Just as a teaser, did you know John Belushi bought a home there just before he "died"? It is still in the family, since it is now said to be in his brother's name (although Jim doesn't live there or spend any time there). Curious, as I think you will admit. Did you know Martha's Vineyard is the largest island on the East Coast not connected to the mainland by a bridge or tunnel? Do you think they can't afford one? You have to ride two ferries to get to Chappaquiddick, or copter in.
We are told Teddy was "hosting a party" on Chappaquiddick the night of his accident. At whose house? We aren't told. But we are told that when leaving the party, Ted "requested the keys to his mother's car from his chauffeur, Crimmins". Which means his mother's car was at the party. We aren't told Rose was at the party, so why was her car there? If her car was there, we must assume the party was being given at another Kennedy compound on Chappaquiddick. Take time to let that sink in, please.
With that, I will finish. You may now understand my title. This was not one faction overthrowing another. This was revolution. This was the secret and successful undermining and overthrow of a semi-Republic by a fascist alliance of oligarchs. And this was just a handful of families dominating the oligarchy for several generations. What allowed all this to happen was a perfected form of propaganda, using the latest tricks of the cinema. In this way, Sinatra's ties to Hollywood may have been more useful to the Kennedys than his ties to the Mob. Or—as you have seen if you have read my paper on the Tate murders—the two ties were actually the same. The Federal government had long since begun its takeover of both the Mob and Hollywood by that time. Joseph Kennedy's continued ties to Hollywood were also critical (remember that he created RKO Studios between the wars), and through them the Kennedys had access to all the cutting edge special effects, the psychological subterfuge, and all the various methods of selling fiction as fact that has made the movie industry among the most dangerous tools of the ruling elite. It was this tool that allowed the Morgan/DuPont/Kennedy coup to succeed where the other had failed, and I suggest this is the main reason the plotters allowed Kennedy to join: his connection to Hollywood and his ability to fake events. It may be that the most influential and important film of the 20th century is not Gone with the Wind or Star Wars; it is the real-life Godfather, AKA The Kennedy Assassination, with Academy Awards to Joe and Jack Kennedy for best script, best art direction, best production, best direction, best actor, and best living man playing a dead man.
Which brings us finally to the reason for going underground. I have said above that it was to rule without inference, to maintain secrecy, and to create the ultimate shadow government. But there is a fourth reason I haven't mentioned, and the previous paragraph leads us into it. I just reminded you that the government took over all Mobs and Mafias in the last half century, in order to take their profits. Joseph Kennedy had been involved with the Mob for decades, and at some point he saw that with enough power, he could take over the entire US scene. But he saw that he could only do that with the resources of the federal government. He needed both the CIA and FBI as allies in this takeover, as well as the Justice Department and—if the need should arise—the military itself. Once he had sons as President and head of Justice, he was in a position to move, and he did move. The complete takeover of the Mob began in earnest in 1960, with the support of FBI and CIA. But by 1963 the war was at its most heated moment, and the Mob was doing its best to strike back at the Kennedys. This is precisely why the CIA and FBI tried so hard to implicate the mob in the years after the fake event.(5) There was real evidence the Mob was trying to get JFK, so it was easy to leak that evidence. But the Mob never got close. The faked assassination was used to fool the Mob(6), to frame the Mob, and to get John out of the line of sight until the war was won.
As I say, this was only one reason of many to take the Presidency underground in 1963. Various billionaires had been trying to create a shadow government for many decades, with only varying degrees of success. Only Joseph Kennedy was successful. He had already installed his first son Joe as titular head of this shadow government behind Truman, but in the late 40's and 50's the Kennedys were still warring with other powerful families for control of this shadow government. Alliances were made that I won't go into in this paper, allowing the Kennedys to solidify control from 1945 to 1960, when FK and RFK were installed in top visible positions. At that time Joseph, Sr. felt secure enough in his position and alliances to accelerate the takeover of the Mob. Within a decade all the Mob business had been absorbed by the allied billionaire families. This led to the further enrichment of those families, the accompanying fattening and expansion of the banks, and the similar expansion of CIA, for the same reasons. In the 1970's, these families used this expansion to utterly overwhelm Congress, putting it into permanent emeritus status. The courts were swamped in the same way, and by 1980 these allied families had completed their takeover not only of all lucrative business, but all government. All decisions were made by shadow governors, some of which were Kennedys, some of which were not.
In this way the Kennedys were able to advance with even more stealth than the Rockefellers. A few know that the Rockefeller family is far more rich and powerful than it claims, but almost no one knows the Kennedys are even richer and more powerful. Since it was secrecy that allowed for this advancement, we can see why the current governors and spooks are so sold on secrecy and lies. It has appeared to work fabulously well from their perspective. Since the Kennedys are supposed to be dead, they have never even appeared on the Bohemian Grove lists, Bilderberger lists, CFR lists, or other lists. The Kennedy secret has remained the deepest and darkest secret of all.
The question remains: why do I feel safe revealing such a "deep and dark secret"? Because the takeover has been so complete and so successful, these people have nothing to fear from you or me. We are to the point that people like us can think whatever we like: it just doesn't matter. There isn't the faintest possibility of a revolution coming from the American public or American intelligentsia, so harassing people like me is counterproductive. They know that if they messed with me, that would just be giving support to my claims. They don't respond because they have no need to respond. There is no intelligentsia, so "purging the intelligentsia" is no longer necessary. It is a thing of the past, like cobbling or leechcraft.
Let me put it this way: bears fight with other bears and eagles fight with other eagles. But bears and eagles do not go out of their way to fight with caterpillars and butterflies. They have other things to worry about. The trillionaire families are not worry-free, even now, but it is not truth-tellers like me they are worried about. There are very few left who have an ear for the truth. In the past, they were more concerned with maintaining the great lie, but now it is just another thing on the budget, there because it is there. We see that by the way they leak their own stories now, often just for a kick. What started as a serious and necessary enterprise is now just a game.
They aren't worried by the truth anymore. No, they are worried about other trillionaire families, and maybe occasionally by rogue bankers and ex-Generals. Things can still happen, that is, but they don't happen from the grassroots—and you don't hear about them anyway. You will never again hear news of any real event. The only way to know of any such event is to monitor the tremors. To do that, you have to do what I did above: sift a million lies for a grain of truth. Most people aren't interested enough in the truth to go to the trouble. Most people aren't interested enough in the truth even if you do all the sifting for them, handing it to them for free.
1. This is why Bill Cooper (for one) was allowed to go on the mainstream media with his theories. It wasn't because the CIA didn't want to create a martyr. It was because the CIA was happy to see Cooper re-selling the theory that Kennedy had been assassinated. It was never the form that was important, it was the message.
2. Davis, Deborah. Katharine the Great.
4. I later discovered that H. R. Haldeman had confirmed my reading of this. He wrote, "It seems that with all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." Haldeman Diaries, 1994.
5. For instance, in the 1978 BBC documentary I linked above, the producers try to implicate both Hoffa and Trafficante. This is convenient, since the Kennedys had been targeting both for many years, in order to steal their businesses (and bust up the unions).
6. To tie up another loose end, it is now clear Sam Giancana's death was also faked. Remember, Giancana had been linked to the Kennedys from way back. He had helped deliver the 1960 election. He was no enemy of the Kennedys. In fact, he was an ally. Bobby only appeared to go after Giancana. It was another show. But after the fake main event, some in the Mob got suspicious that Giancana was a double agent, as it were. So Giancana also had to go underground for his own safety at the same time JFK did. He was simply relocated, probably to South America or the Caribbean. Since Trafficante was allied to Giancana, he was also left alone by the Kennedys. I mean, they took over his business, but they never had any need to kill him or relocate him. He saw the lay of the land early on, and worked with the new bosses. He was happy to help them fake their stories and pin the blame wherver they saw fit.