Jerry Mazza, an independent journalist from New York, has just published a new column about a massive arms deal between the US and Israel, in spite of the recent snub by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu of US Vice President Joe Biden. During Biden's recent visit, the Minister of the Interior announced that Israel was planning some 1,600 new settlements in land that historically belongs to the Palestinians, thereby subverting American efforts to maintain peace talks between the conflicting parties. In addition, Netanyahu further insulted Biden by deliberately breaking the frame of a photograph that had been prepared for him as a gift, telling Biden "All I can offer you is broken glass!" Jerry makes the nice point that, although it is difficult for Americans to accept, there are multiple indications of complicity by elements of the government of Israel in the events of 9/11, as a recent article by Alan Sabrosky, former Director of the US Army War College, has explained in "Gordon Duff: Sabrosky Interview Ties Israel to 9/11".
U.S. and Israel sign a massive arms deal Jerry Mazza / 29 March 2010
Here, I thought the U.S. and Israel were ready to go 15 rounds in the Garden (not Eden).
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’ insulted Vice President Biden, Middle East envoy George Mitchell, plus Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Clinton warned Netanyahu that the building of more settlements in the West Bank definitely will slow peace efforts. Netanyahu basically said who cares.
And then I read this HAARETZ headline: Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal. What, so they can use them on us? You gotta be kidding. But no, there it is, in the first paragraph: “As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel’s defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal.” Sounds like they’re playing, good cop, bad cop, n’est-ce pas?
“Well, isn’t that special,” Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” smiles from cyberspace and asks, “Now, who could be behind that? (Beat) Saaatan?” Well, it certainly sounds like the great dissembler. As Haaretz says, “According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter of a billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.” Ugh, I think, worth a quarter of a billion bucks, each plane $70 million? What? Who’s paying for this deal?
Well, the ‘deal,’ it turns out will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. What does that mean? We’re fronting them the money to buy our planes? Kiss my tassels.
And look at this: “The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel’s defense industry.” What? When? Three new planes, $70 million each? They didn’t make these in a minute. Who ever heard? Well who ever said that you need to know what the Pentagon is doing? It is top secret, not for schlimazels like you, you taxpayer, you American senior citizen, useless eater. You’re lucky you’ve got your Social Security and Medicare for another year. Then it all goes to B’nai Brith. Arrrrrgh!
And what are the ‘Israeli’s special needs’ besides bombing Palestinians? Well, how about bombing the Iranians. Bombing the Jordanians, the Syrians, and the whole megillah? The Pentagon has got to be nuts. Or, once again, the Pentagon is letting little Israel play the big stick for them in the Middle East.
Listen to this: “The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.” That’s it, just like that? We don’t vote, we don’t know, we’re handing these vipers more deadly weapons, more money? Are you serious, Haaretz? Well, don’t shoot the messenger.
Right, but it says, “America and Israel have still not reached an agreement regarding the purchase of the Lockheed F-35 war plane. It is still not clear when that deal, which is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, will finally be sealed and carried out.”
But don’t we give these characters $3 billiion a year to buy war crap? Is this it? And we have to front them even more for the first deal? And we’re supposed to not be angry at these goons for trying to gobble up the West Bank. Is Obama getting head from Monica Lewinski? What’s going on: Three Lockhead F-35’s; three new Hercules C-130J airplanes?
And this for the country that does more spying on us than any nation, friend or enemy? Are we serious? What are those guys smoking at the Pentagon and who’s supplying them?
And here’s the capper. “If that deal is signed in the near future, Israel will likely receive its first F-35 in 2014.”
If that deal is sealed, wait a minute? Ho, hold on, that’s my, that’s our tax money, putz! Seal your lips before I get the Five Dancing Israelis to dance on your heads while we document Israel going up in smoke, not just the World Trade Center. These guys were videotaping one of their buddies dancing on a white moving van in New Jersey, dancing and flicking his lighter as the towers burned and fell in the background.
And these schlimazels walked away after they were arrested for a couple of months, cold as stone, no remorse, nothing. And the FBI stood there with their hands on their privates, doing, saying nothing, as the boyz were extradited to Israel and claiming on TV there that they were to document the event. How did they know there was going to be an event to document, particularly one of those tragic proportions? How, Secretary Gates, tell me?
See, here’s what I believe. The reason we throw more and more money at Israel is because Israel, the Mossad, does all this dirty business for us, including helping to wipe out the WTC on 9/11. Larry Silverstein and Frank Loewy, his partner, the lessees of the WTC, are now reaching a new deal with the Port Authority for more money to build Towers 2 and 3, after they received $4.5 billion in insurance, and Larry another $500 million in insurance on Tower 7, which he built five stories higher and wider immediately. This is a cash cow for Silverstein and his buddies. That and other little “assignments” the dual Israel/American citizens and Mossad are so good at pulling off.
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein poses for a portrait in his office overlooking the site in New York. Silverstein and government agencies that control the trade center site have reached a deal to resolve a 16-month stalemate over rebuilding at ground zero.
So by now you think I’m an anti-Semite saying this? No, everything I’ve said is the truth. When you tell the truth, fact, about someone that isn’t a religious or ethnic slur. It’s just the truth. Throw them all in jail. Go ahead. I am an American citizen. This is my country. And I don’t want my country associated with these murderers.
In fact, I’d like to know why so few people picked up on former US Marine Corps grunt Gordon Duff, who writes for Veterans Today, interviewing USMC Vietnam vet, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, about his military knowledge that Israel Did It, that is 9/11, and has the potential to launch a nuclear strike. The Mossad, he claims, took down the towers with help of the CIA. Sabrosky, who is Jewish, but also a fiercely loyal American, is seething at the Israelis.
So, bottom line, it all comes back to following the money, and asking why we’re bowing to Israel, spotting them for billions for more high-powered, advanced tech planes, especially when they’ve thumbed their noses at our orders to not keep building new settlements in Palestine.
Freelance writer Jerry Mazza has written a poem for me inspired by the article I wrote "Policing thought in America: Why can’t we discuss the events of 9/11?" following The Huffington Post's removal of a column guest written by Jesse Ventura about 9/11. Jerry is an expert on domestic politics and foreign affairs, having written hundreds of articles on politics and government for onlinejournal.com where he is an associate editor. His ground-breaking analysis on the corruption by our government on issues such as 9/11, foreign policy, the war on terror, the economy and more are consistently on target. (See also the blog "Jerry Mazza on Obama, 9/11 and Afghanistan" for a sampler of his writings and for my interview with him on JamesFetzerNews.)
Jerry is the author of "State of Shock: Poems from 9/11 On", a selection of narrative and lyrical poems, which are a call for help and reaction to the dangers facing our country. These poems suggest that an operation of the magnitude of 9/11 cannnot have been the work of 19 Islamic “terrorists” but rather the machinations of key members of our own ruling elite to start the “War on Terror” in a grasp for Mid-Eastern oil and power. Jerry's draws the conclusion that 9/11 constituted a form of coup d’etat for the Bush administration, the purpose of which was to restrict civil liberties, to acquire excessive powers for war-making and secure additional appropriations both to fund the war and control civil dissent.
Jerry Mazza on JFK, 9/11, and Suppression of Speech (24 March 2010)
TRUMAN PASSING BY Jerry Mazza / 22 March 2010
The night that Truman rode by with Bess in the open car and motorcycle escort down Grand Street, Williamsburg, Brooklyn, seeking office post-FDR, the working class crowds cheering him on, myself and Che Che, my best friend waving our baseball caps in the cold November night, the smell of fried fish hanging in the air from the fish store that touched the Trumans’ noses, one among a million smells of working America, another smell, corruption like the garbage rising from the OSS to CIA, a shadow government beyond the shouts and love and votes of all these Americans, somewhere a photo of Dewey claiming victory, V-fingered in the Daily News, and history rolling before our eyes and all the money and misery it would bring us long after Harry passed to victory and his maker, and the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, killing the Prince of Camelot 15 years later in the shadow of Vietnam that deepened into a night of knives and magic bullets killing the truth for our age.Source URL: https://0832zy.blogspot.com/2010/03/ Visit The People Blog for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Policing thought in America: Why can’t we discuss the events of 9/11? James Fetzer / 19 March 2010
The brain trust that calls itself “The Huffington Post” has disgraced itself and shown the "progressive left" is a cowardly fraud by removing a column guest written by Jesse Ventura about 9/11. The official explanation from no less than Arianna Huffington, presumably, is “Editor's Note: The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories--including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.” Maybe no one explained to these worthies that if any one were to write about 9/11, they would be writing about a conspiracy theory, since the government’s own “official account” is only the most outrageous. And, as Jesse’s new book, AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES (2009) elucidates, there have been many more throughout our history.
3/9/10 Jesse Ventura on NBC's "Today Show": AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES
Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require are two or more individuals acting together to bring about an illegal end. When a couple of guys knock off a 7/11, they are engaged in a conspiracy, even if they are subsequently charged with armed robbery instead. Most America conspiracies are economic, like Enron, WorldCom, and Halliburtion. Bernie Madoff comes to mind, since he can't possibly have done it alone. Since the "official account" maintains that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, the "official account" is a conspiracy theory, too.
3/8/10 Jesse Ventura on CNN's "Larry King": AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES
Apparently that subject is taboo at The Huffington Post. But if that is the case, then many important events are not going to be covered there. Conspiracies to murder political leaders are far older than the assassination of Julius Caesar and include attempts on the lives of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Truman. Four of those involved in the Lincoln conspiracy were hung from the same gallows at the same time. Consider the range of events that could not be understood absent conspiracies as David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., listed them in his chapter, "The Silence of the Historians", MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), page 402:
Foreign Targets/Assassination Conspiracies (during 20th Century only): Franz Ferdinand / Rajiv Gandhi / Louis Mountbatten / Czar Nicholas II / Adolf Hitler / Rafael Trujillo / Salvadore Allende / Charles DeGaulle / Benigo Aquino / Anwar Sadat / Luis Colosio / Leon Trotsky / Ngo Dinh Diem / Rene Schnneideer / Pancho Villa / Ngo Dihn Nhu / Jacobo Arbenz / Grigorli Rasputin / Fidel Castro / Mohammed Mossadegh / Patrice Lumumba / Pope John Paul II / Saddam Hussein / Manuel Noriega
Egad! What would Shakespeare have had to write about but for plots against the Kings and Queens of England? And in the US (20th Century), the list would be extended to include John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Watergate, Iran-scam, Iran-Contra, Senator Paul Wellstone, Cpl. Pat Tillman, and many others as well, if you consider the evidence. So if the American press is not even willing to investigate conspiracies, we are going to be unable to begin to understand our own history, including the stories that appear on virtually every page of The New York Times, as I documented in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which is accessible via google and published my book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007). What would history be without them?
James Fetzer interviewed by Stephen Lendman on 9/11, JFK, and Barack Obama (12/3/10)
The Huffington Post is not the only prominent offender. Even amazon.com has refused to carry the DVD of a conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not”, that I organized in Madison, WI, 5-7 August 2007. It runs 14 ½ hour and includes presentations discussing many aspects of 9/11. A publisher tired to market it on amazon.com and found it was suppressed:
Dear Jim
Bad news.
I tried to put it up on Amazon, but the thought controllers have blocked it.
Possible Matches on www.amazon.com ASIN: 1615774629 Product Name: The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial. What's Not. Binding: DVD DVD Region Code: 0 EAN: 9781615774623
Sorry, this product is ineligible for Amazon Marketplace selling at this time.
The product you attempted to create a page for is currently suppressed so that it will not appear on our Web site. Because of this, it is ineligible for Amazon Marketplace selling. Products are suppressed in the Amazon.com catalog for numerous reasons. For example, Amazon prohibits the sale of illegal and offensive products. (For more information, please review a complete list of prohibited content.) In addition, products may be suppressed at the explicit request of artists or manufacturers.
As a former Marine Corps officer and retired professor of philosophy, I am at a loss as to what has become of this once-great country of ours. Are we so afraid of the examination of what our government has told us about “the pivotal event of the 21st century” that even progressive newspapers like The Huffington Post and presumably impartial business operations like amazon.com refuse to publish a column by the former Governor of Minnesota or to carry the DVD of a meeting of experts on different aspects of the case? What is there to be afraid of—unless the "official account" is a house of cards that will collapse if it is critically scrutinized?
A brief summary of presidential directives, executive orders, and congressionaly approved bills that where signed into law over the last 40ish years. And no, this isn't a bunch of conspiracy nonsense. They are simply facts.
And that indeed appears to be the case. According to the "official account" of the destruction of the Twin Towers, the planes hit the buildings, the resulting fires weakened the steel, and a pancake collapse of one floor upon another ensued. But that description is not even remotely consistent with the gross observable photo evidence. The buildings appear to be tuning into millions of cubic yards of fine dust:
Does this look remotely like a “pancake collapse” to you? A set of 9/11 photos were recently release which, when they are temporally sequenced, provide a glimpse of what was actually going on, which was no “pancake collapse”. Every American deserves to see that the “official account” cannot even accommodate the gross appearance of the Twin Towers as they were destroyed even below ground level as first responders have told me.
"Conspiracy Theory" with Jesse Ventura on 9/11
No one knows exactly how this was done. It appears to have required a highly sophisticated combination of conventional and unconventional means. Once you understand that the sequence of events these photos display cannot have been the result of a "pancake collapse", that there was no "collapse" at all as these two 500,000-ton buildings were converted into very fine dust, but that some complex form of a demolition under control was taking place and you being to grasp why not even The Huffington Post or amazon.com can allow you the least glimpse of what actually happened on 9/11. It was indeed “the scamming of America” and the reasons appear to have had nothing to do with Islam or “19 Islamic fundamentalists”.
Predator Drones: The Immoral Use of Autonomous Machines James Fetzer / 18 March 2010
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" -- Isaac Asimov's "First Law of Robotics"
Madison, WI (OpEdNews) -- As a former Marine Corps officer, I am not opposed to weapons of war as a matter of principle. It's not the efficiency of predator drones that bothers me but the uncertainty of the identity of the actual targets and the collateral damage they cause. Predator drones are deadly [click here], but my concern is with whether their use is moral, especially when consideration is given to the political context involved. How many wedding parties are we going to take out because a drone saw group behavior that it had been programmed to hit? How often do we have sufficient information to know that we are actually targeting insurgents, not innocents? A recent report, "Over 700 killed in 44 drone strikes in 2009," for example, has calculated that 140 innocents are being killed for every "insurgent".
We are now invading Pakistani air space in our relentless determination to take out those who oppose us. From the point of view of the countries that we have invaded and occupied, they might be more aptly described as "freedom fighters." Since we invaded these countries in violation of international law, the UN Charter and the US Constitution, we appear to be committing crimes against humanity. We cannot know our conduct is immoral, however,unless we know the nature of morality. Consider what are usually referred to by philosophers as consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories. Under consequentialism, for example, an action is right when it produces as much GOOD (usually taken to be happiness) as any available alternative. But the problem remains of deciding FOR WHOM that happiness ought to be produced.
" Rethink Afghanistan" is a ground-breaking, full-length documentary focusing on the key issues surrounding this war. By releasing this film in parts for free online, the producers are able to stay on top of news of the war as it continues to unfold.
According to Ethical Egoism, for example, an action is right if it brings about as much happiness for you personally as any available alternative. Consequences for others simply don't count. So Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, are home free morally speaking, though few juries would be likely to be impressed by the argument that killing gave them more happiness than any available alternative. So Ethical Egoism does not adequately solve the problem. According to Limited Utilitarianism, by contrast, an action is right when it brings about as much happiness for your group as any available alternative. This is good news for The Third Reich, the Mafia, and General Motors. If no available alternative(s) would produce more happiness for Nazis than territorial acquisition, military domination, and racial extermination, then those qualify as moral actions if this theory is true. Predator drones are good if their use benefits your interests. The consequences for others, once again, simply don't matter.
The rockets launched from drones are highly destructive. This image shows the site of a missile attack in North Waziristan, Pakistan in March 2009.
Classic Utilitarianism, among consequentialist theories, is the only one that dictates encompassing the effects actions have upon everyone rather than some special class. But if a social arrangement with a certain percentage of slaves, say, 15%, would bring about greater happiness for the population as a whole because the increase in happiness of the masters outweighed the decrease in happiness of the slaves, then that arrangement would qualify as moral, necessarily! So, if theories that qualify manifestly immoral behavior as "moral" ought to be rejected, perhaps a non-consequentialist approach can do better. According to what is known as Deontological Moral Theory, in particular, actions are moral when they involve treating other persons with respect. More formally expressed, it requires that other persons should always be treated as ends (as intrinsically valuable) and never merely as means (instrumentally). Let us adopt this standard here.
When we are talking about a so-called "autonomous machine," then the question becomes whether or not such an entity is even capable of understanding what it means for something to be a person or to treat it with respect. There are ways to guarantee killing the enemy within a target zone, namely, by killing everyone in it. And there are ways to avoid killing the wrong target, namely, by killing no one in it. The problem is to kill all and only the intended targets. But is that possible? This becomes extremely problematic in the case of unconventional warfare. In principle, persons are entitled to be treated with respect by following rules of due process, where no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property without having the opportunity to defend themselves. In the case of the use of predator drones, however, the only processes utilized by autonomous machines are those that accrue from the target identification criteria with which they are programmed.
These machines, like other tools including computerized systems, are inherently amoral, neither moral nor immoral from a deontological point of view. They, like other digital machines, have no concept of morality, of personhood or of mutual respect. They are simply,complex causal systems that function on the basis of their programs. Were these conventional,wars involving well-defined terrain and uniformed combatants, their use, in principle, would be no different than high-altitude bombing or artillery strikes, where, even though the precise identity of our targets is not always known, in cases of that kind, we know who they are with high probability. In cases like these, our information is partial, sketchy, and all too often wrong. We are killing about 140 innocents for every intended target!
At least 55 strikes by unmanned drones have occurred since President Obama's inauguration. There were only 45 during the Bush era.
We are taking out citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, which, alas, if research on 9/11 is well founded [http://911scholars.org] and [http://patriotsquestion911.com], have never threatened us. So we really have no business being there at all. Yet to this day we continue to hear about the threat from al-Qaeda and from Osama binLaden, who appears to have died in 2001 [click here]. We are depriving the citizens of other countries of their life, liberty, and property with no virtually no semblance of due process. We once believed it was better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. We now practice the policy that it is better for 140 civilians to die than for one suspected "insurgent" to live. We have come a long way from Isaac Asimov's "First Law."Source URL: https://0832zy.blogspot.com/2010/03/ Visit The People Blog for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
The ‘magic bullet’ theory and a coup d’etat in America Jerry Mazza / 8 March 2010
Whether you know it or not, the “magic bullet” theory is the critical keystone of the US Government’s claim that a “lone gunman,” Lee Harvey Oswald, assassinated President John F. Kennedy. This theory has been conclusively proven false as of November, 2009, with the publication of Reasoning about Assassinations, by Dr. James Fetzer, based upon research by a team of experts.
Fetzer explains why the "magic bullet" theory, the foundation for THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), and Gerald Posner's CASE CLOSED (1993), is false
After all, it was the acceptance of this unbelievable theory that literally paved the way for a coup d’etat of America. That is, if you can assassinate a president in broad daylight in a major American city by deploying an elaborate set of lies and get away with it, what and who is left that is not within the province of US government intelligence agencies and cohorts to destroy?
In its wake, JFK’s assassination was the beginning of a new era of pessimism about the US government, including its Vietnam War, ongoing at that time, a war that JFK wished to withdraw from. Shortly after JFK’s death, his timetable for a complete withdrawal was reversed by Lyndon Johnson and all the stops for additional mass murders were removed.
It was the “magic bullet” theory that gave the Warren Commission and subsequently much of America “permission to believe” that Oswald could amazingly aim and fire three shots from his bolt-action, Italian Army rifle, within a mere six seconds and hit JFK in the back and then in the head. One of the shots missed the targets entirely, hitting a sidewalk and sending a piece of concrete into the face of a distant bystander, who received a small scar from it. This is a matter of record.
Destroying the Single Bullet Theory
That left only two shots, as it turns out, that had to have hit JFK twice. Even though the FBI and the Secret Service had concluded there were three shots and three hits—JFK in the back, Connally in the back, and JFK in the head—the miss that hit bystander James Tague dictated that they had to account for all those wounds based upon the only shot they had available—the one that hit JFK in the back. Where that shot actually hit is the lynchpin that refutes the “magic bullet” theory.
There are several side factors to consider as well. One is that the route of a presidential motorcade in any US city has to be completely scrutinized and made safe at some point before any visit. Open or blackened windows of buildings, open rooftops, any anomalies that provide opportunities for shooters need to be checked out and cleared for safety by local Army Intelligence working with local police departments well before the visit.
In Dallas, in relation to the Dallas motorcade on November 22, 1963, a presidential route that had been set in stone was changed three days in advance. The new route required the presidential motorcade to turn right off of Main Street onto Houston Street, travel north one block, then making a sharp left northwest onto Elm Street, which led downward into Dealey Plaza, the Plaza of the Condors.
Astonishingly enough, as events played out, some sixty eye-witnesses would report that the limousine either dramatically slowed or came to an actual halt after shots had been fired. It was only after the shooting that it sped away to Parkland Hospital.
The Magic Bullet
As Fetzer, in his explosive article, observes, “Everyone has heard of the ‘magic bullet’, which is the lynch-pin of the official account of the assassination of JFK presented by the Warren Commission. As Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the medical panel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations when it reinvestigated the case in 1977-78 remarked on the 40th observance of his death, if the ‘magic bullet’ theory is false, then there had to have been at least six shots from at least three directions.”
This study, based on a presentation made at Cambridge and published by a peer-reviewed international journal, demonstrates that, not only is the “magic bullet” theory false, but, based upon research reported in his three books on the assassination, JFK had a wound to the throat and another to his back and two hits to his head” [which alone makes four shots, theoretically the end of the story].
In addition “Connally had an entry wound in his back, [a fifth shot?]. He had a broken rib, an exit wound in his chest [its result?], a wound to his right wrist [a sixth shot or still the same bullet changing trajectories?] and a bullet fragment embedded in his left thigh [from where? another shot?]. This is essential to understanding the outlandishness of its creator’s claims.
Since JFK had wounds from shots fired from in front and from behind, while John Connally had at least one hit from the side, and while another shot missed and injured James Tague, then there were at least six shots from at least three directions.
Thus, the magic bullet” theory is the weakest link in the entire chain of events in the assassination. Break that link and you break the government’s elaborate chain of events into pure fraud. It’s worth a closer look.
The creator of the “magic bullet” theory, Arlen Specter, a Republican Congressional Aide in 1963, is still around now as a senior Democratic Senator, celebrating a long, hearty if nefarious career. His theory posed that the single “magic bullet” “entered the base of the back of the President’s neck, transited his neck without hitting any bony structures, exited his throat right at the knot of his tie, then [and hold your breath for this] entered John Connelly’s back, shattering a rib, exiting from his chest, damaging his right wrist and then entered his left thigh, where the bullet was alleged to have performed all these feats and nevertheless [was] found in virtually pristine condition. The purported third shot that found its mark was said to have hit JFK’s head and killed him. Yet, we still have the nagging reality of the bystander who received a facial scar from the chip of concrete the slug of the first, missed shot kicked up.
JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown
Read that paragraph again and try to process these forensic gymnastics and believe that the journey of Specter’s “magic bullet” could possibly be real. I say this because, as Fetzer reports, “When the official account…The Warren Report (1964), appeared, many readers were fascinated to discover that, no matter how implausible it might appear, the ‘magic bullet’ hypothesis was the core of the government’s case.”
Again, the cartoon-like journey of this zig- zagging “magic bullet” remained the keystone of the government case through repeated reinvestigations of the assassination by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-77, and even in more recent books, most notably Gerald Posner’s Case Closed, a bit of government wishful thinking. Although with the government, wishing can make things so.
The Warren Report (1964) published diagrams that JFK had purportedly sustained showed “a hit to the base of the back of the neck and a hit to the back of the head,” which Fetzer observes, allegedly killed him. He added, “The ‘magic bullet’ theory would be false if the bullet had not entered the base of the back of the President’s neck, if it had not transited his neck without hitting any bony structures, or if it had not exited from his neck at the level of the knot of his tie,” as the official tale is told. So they’re stuck with proving their own lies.
What’s not usually known by lay people is that Navy physicians who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda did not dissect the victim’s neck to find out whether the trajectory this bullet purportedly took was actually true. They arrived at it by “inference”. Why would you “infer” the path of a bullet that could be asserted through dissection? You do the surgery and say yes or no. We are talking about the life and death of a beloved United States President.
Because that work wasn’t done, we get this fuzzy language, that the “second wound presumably of entry [italics mine] is that described above in the upper posterior thorax…. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily probed. [Why?] The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry in the low anterior cervical region. That sounds more like a lawyer’s language than a doctor’s.
So the entrance and exit locations are not facts but matters of “presumption”. Commander James Humes, US Navy Medical Corps, stood by and defended these presumptions on the basis of “inference.” And these inferences were drawn after JFK’s body “had been moved from the morgue for preparation for burial and the official state funeral.” Yet, based on conversations with doctors from Parkland Hospital (the original hospital Kennedy was taken to after being hit), Humes “belatedly realized that the wound to the back must have been the entry point for the wound to the throat as its point of exit!”
And notice too that the official description of ‘the upper right posterior thorax,’ which is the upper-right portion of the chest cavity, does not quite place the wound where it has to be if the ‘magic bullet’ hypothesis were true. Even Gerald Posner’s diagram from Case Closed—included in Fetzer’s article, does not accord with the official account. Just look for yourself!
Contradicting Evidence
A different diagram of the Bethesda autopsy was made by FBI Agent James W. Silbert, who actually observed the autopsy. It is found in Noel Twyman’s Bloody Treason (1997), page 100, but Fetzer includes it, too. That clearly shows the difficulties that the “magic bullet” hypothesis presents, even in relation to its most basic assumptions, since the wound to the back is too low to be the entry point for a wound that exited the throat, if, as purported, the bullet was fired from above, that is from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, as the official account asserts.
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph. D., finally demonstrated that no bullet could have entered the President’s neck at the location alleged and exited at the location alleged without impacting cervical vertebrae. Astoundingly, “It doesn’t seem necessary to add that Malcolm Perry, M.D., who performed a tracheostomy in a vain attempt to save the President’s life, described the wound to the throat [and this is absolutely key] not as an exit wound, but as an entry wound, three times during a press conference at Parkland… a report widely broadcast over radio and television that day.”
Dr. David Mantik discusses forgery of the X-rays
Somehow, the Warren Commission never received a copy of that transcript, too difficult to locate, which in essence would clearly seal the fact that President Kennedy was hit from the front, the shot crashing through the center of the windshield into his throat. And this would by definition implicate other shooters facing the limousine from its front, positioned either in Dealey Plaza or around the Triple Underpass beyond.
Parenthetically, the Lincoln limousine with the windshield bullet hole and other evidence was quickly whisked away post assassination to Ford in Detroit where it was totally refurbished at taxpayer’s expense for $1,000,000, even though it was a “crime scene on wheels”. It is a striking image of the loss of openness in our society.
So then, where did that bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the back come from? If it wasn’t at the base of the back of the neck as the “magic bullet” stipulates, then The Warren Report (1993), The HSCA Report (1979), Case Closed (1993) and all other work that takes it for granted—as a presupposition—cannot possibly be true.
It was no less than Gerald Ford, gifted with the presidency years later when Nixon resigned, who, back in 1963 as a member of the Warren Commission, realized that the back wound would need to be “re-described” to make the “magic bullet” theory even remotely plausible. This fact was finally discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).
The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception
Dr. Mantik found a patient with similar neck and chest dimensions to JFK and, using a CAT scan, determined that no bullet could have taken such a trajectory. So the core of official account is not only false and provably false but is not even anatomically possible! So the wounds to JFK’s throat wound and the wounds to John Connally were not inflicted by a lone assassin firing from above and behind but have to have been caused by separate shots and separate shooters.
The truth would have been glaring if not for those in power suppressing evidence by not sending JFK’s blood-stained, bullet-holed shirt and jacket to Bethesda for the physicians to study; also, by not providing transcripts of the “Parkland Press Conference to the Warren Commission and using similar techniques of obfuscation. The process of selection and elimination—selecting evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion, eliminating the rest—is well-known to used-car salesmen, editorial writers and politicians, but especially to those who practice propaganda designed to mislead the public.
Fetzer and his research group have not only proved the falsity of the "magic bullet" theory but have exposed the fraud at the foundation of the government's official account. Among their discoveries are the complementary deceptions that the autopsy X-rays have been fabricated (a) to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head that more than forty eyewitnesses reported and (b) to add a 6.5 mm metallic slice in an apparent effort to implicate an obscure World War II Italian Mannlicher-Carcano as the weapon used.
In fact, a world authority on the human brain, Robert B. Livingston, M.D., also concluded that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs held in the National Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK. These discoveries had already been made by 1993 (Fetzer 1998).
AMBUSH! - How the Secret Service set up JFK
In spite of Fetzer’s repeated efforts to bring these findings to the attention of the American people (through "ABC Nightly News" and "Nightline") and of the Department of Justice, he had little success, which is perhaps the most important reason I’ve worked with Dr. Fetzer to retell this incredible story.
Where We Stand Today
On the basis of the Fetzer group’s extended research, they have established that JFK was hit at least four times: once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice in the head. Connally was hit from one to three times, where at least three shots seem to have missed. A total of eight, nine, or ten shots thus appear to have been fired from six different locations (Fetzer 2000, 2003. For more, see his chapter, “Dealey Plaza Revisited”, which can be downloaded from http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/.)
As a striking example of how official inquiries by the government have suppressed, even overlooked important evidence, Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for burial after the Bethesda autopsy, told Joe West, a private investigator, that JFK had a large gaping hole in the back of his head, a smaller wound in the right temple (which was the entry wound for the blow-out to the back of the head), and a wound to the back about five to six inches below the shoulder and to the right of the back bone.
LBJ's Mistress Blows Whistle On JFK Assassination
That is the location supported by the shirt and the jacket, the autopsy diagram and the FBI sketch, and even the death certification by the president’s personal physicians. He provided this information to West on 26 May 1992, but it obviously could have been available to the Warren Commission anytime it had wanted it. Clearly, that was not something they wanted to hear.
In collaboration with other experts, including John P. Costella, Ph.D., Fetzer, et al have also discovered that the home movie of the assassination, known as "the Zapruder film", has been recreated using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. The most important reason for doing this was to remove the limo stop from the film, since it was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity. Because of "ghost images" that link successive frames, it was necessary to reshoot the film in order that the deception not be readily exposed (Fetzer 2003).
Australian physicist John Costella PhD speaks about the fabrication of the famous Zapruder film.
Fetzer et al have also discovered more than fifteen indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit, including failing to weld manhole covers, failure to cover open windows, allowing the crowd to spill over into the street, adopting an improper motorcade route, ordering the vehicles in the wrong sequence, keeping motorcycle patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, bringing the limousine to a halt after bullets began to be fired, washing blood and brains from the limousine at Parkland, taking the autopsy photographs down and completely rebuilt. The probability that these things could have happened "by chance" is, unsurprisingly, vanishingly small (Fetzer 2000, 2002a).
Does that remind you at all of sweeping the evidence away from Ground Zero 38 years later? Giuliani knew he had 30 months (two and a half years) to get the job done, yet he pushed the workers at the expense of their health and even their lives to accomplish the feat in eight months. Almost like rebuilding the limo three days after the assassination. The flavor of corruption is the same in each case.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the authentic JFK evidence are rather profound. The Mafia, which may have put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of U.S. Navy medical officers, agents of the Secret Service, or the President's personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted the brain of someone else for that of JFK during a supplemental autopsy.
Was his demeanor that of a killer? What did he say? What about his expressions and body language?
Indeed, even if the KGB, like the CIA, had the ability to recreate a film, it could not have obtained a copy of the Zapruder film to alter it. None of these things have been done by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was in jail or already dead. Based upon the scientific principle known as “inference to the best explanation”, it leaves no reasonable doubt that setting up JFK for the hit and altering the evidence to conceal the true causes of his death must have involved elements at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Interview with Dean Hartwell, DEAD MEN TALKING, about the death of JFK and the relationship between Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker.
REASON #1. Documents and researchers prove Baker and Oswald worked together for months at Wm. B. Reily Co., a coffee company in New Orleans, and that these jobs were pre-arranged cover jobs:
a) The A-1 employment agency shows records for both Oswald and Baker. Reily Coffee Company interviewed both Baker and Oswald on the same day (May 9, 1963). The Reily ads were 2 weeks old, but no one was hired until Baker and Oswald were interviewed. Note: Baker has much additional corroborating evidence, such as check stubs, w-2 forms, exactly matching Oswald’s dates, plus: b) Oswald, as a ‘gift’ on Baker’s birthday, May 15, pretended to job-hunt at A-1 again, and though employed at Reily’s, told A-1 nothing about having been hired there; at this time, Oswald is on record for the visit, which was to induce A-1 to reduce an unjust fee placed against Baker by A-1, due on May 27. Baker has all relevant records for this event. c) They were interviewed and hired the same day (May 9) by the same person. d) They began work the same day, on May 10, at the same address, a block from Reily Coffee Co. e) They were working in the same small sub-company of Reily, called The Standard Coffee Company, even though that small suite did not have a maintenance man (Oswald’s job for Reily) and Baker was Vice President William Monaghan’s secretary (Monaghan’s two offices were located in the Reily building). Baker was there to launder Oswald’s past so he could transfer with a clean record to Reily’s, for Oswald had been a fake defector to the USSR and had returned from that mission without arrest or detaining, to start new assignments. Reily was known for its ‘patriotic’ anti-communist position. f) Both Oswald and Baker were transferred on the same day, one week later, to Reily, across the street. g) The day Oswald was fired (July 19) an ad was ordered to replace Baker; a modified ad with more inducements appeared 2 weeks later when the first ad did not produce a replacement for Baker. h) The day Oswald was arrested for distributing pro-Castro pamphlets (August 9) Baker was forced to resign. Baker had been at Reily’s primarily to cover for Oswald’s and her activities elsewhere. i) Baker and Oswald rode the same bus to and from work (Magazine St. bus): there was only one stop between their respective bus stops; their apartments were within walking distance; both Oswald and Baker lived within minutes of each other, and key persons and places mentioned in Edward T. Haslam’s shocking new book (see below). Oswald and Baker bonded when he helped her after a police raid.
Bus 11, riding the Magazine Street.
REASON #2: Baker has the testimonies of living witnesses confirming her intimate relationship with Oswald in New Orleans:
a) William “Mac” McCullough, who was a musician, bouncer and bodyguard for New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello, describes seeing Oswald and Baker together at a park, a restaurant, and seeing them together on several other occasions. His mother worked at a restaurant where Baker and Oswald ate, and he also saw them at a hotel where he sang and played the piano. b) Anna Lewis, wife of DAVID FRANKLIN LEWIS (known witness in JFK murder case) who was a private investigator for Guy Banister and an associate with Jack Martin in investigations and political activities in New Orleans, has testified on two audiotapes and on film that she and her husband accompanied Baker and Oswald on double dates in New Orleans, plus sessions of talk at Thompson’s Restaurant in New Orleans, over a period of months. Lewis was pressured to recant her statements but refused to do so.
Video interview with Anna Lewis
REASON #3: Baker identified former Customs Agent Charles Thomas, also known as Arthur Young, as the person who was introduced to her by Oswald as the agent who expedited Oswald’s passport (along with others, to disguise the matter) to be issued only 24 hours after requested. Thomas described meeting and befriending Oswald in Buffalo, New York, when Oswald was a young teen.
a) Baker described tattoos on the fingers, silver hair, German accent, his previous Customs station in Buffalo, NY, his connection to anti-Castroites and to the Mafia in Miami, and marriage to a Chitimacha Indian woman to Thomas’ granddaughter, whom she met in a class at The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA. b) The granddaughter, Kelly Thomas, verified that Charles Thomas also used the name Arthur Young, and then brought forth photos showing Cuban and mafia associates; the granddaughter and her family also had photos showing the tattoos on the fingers, the silver hair, verified the German accent and the Customs post in Buffalo, NY, which Thomas headed, even having a photo of the customs station at Buffalo. Charles Thomas had been dead for years and had kept his past a secret from the outside world, living in obscurity on the Chitimacha Indian reservation with his Chitimacha wife after the assassination. c) Baker contacted researcher Joan Mellen with details about Thomas; Mellen later wrote in her book that she had obtained evidence that Oswald worked with Customs and described his connections to Customs, without giving Baker any credit for the lead. This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with researchers.
REASON #4: Baker has provided a cashed $30 American Express money order receipt dated May 27, 1963, linked to her bank records and receipts and to letters from Oswald indicating his use of $30 for office rent on the same date.
a) The American Express receipt is linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any reason other than to give Oswald an untraceable $30 ‘donation’ that he, with limited income, would not have to account for via his small salary. $30 = approx. $270 in today’s funds. b) An American Express file about Oswald exists in Rotterdam, Holland. c) Oswald received multiple American Express money orders from an unknown source in 1963. d) Witness Delphine Roberts has testified to Anthony Summers that Oswald had an office.
REASON #5: Baker has a green glass which has been in her possession since 1963, given to her by Oswald, known to many by 1980 as given to her by Oswald.
a) Over 30 people heard Baker, in 1980, explain that the glass had been given to her by Lee Harvey Oswald at Reily company, in 1963, and that they had ‘worked together’ there. b) Baker’s son, Josiah, has confirmed this; he also remembered his mother describing streetcar and bus rides with Oswald in New Orleans. c) Baker’s daughter, Sarah, remembers accidentally throwing away a note that Oswald wrote that was kept in the glass, and has been able to describe the note, and how upset her mother was. This event occurred during a household move from Orlando, Florida, to Lafayette, Louisiana. She also affirms that the green glass was given to her mother by Oswald.
REASON #6: Baker provides evidence that her job and Oswald’s job at Reily’s were cover jobs for clandestine activities elsewhere.
a) Baker provides time cards and clock-in/clock-out records showing Oswald’s outrageously late clock-ins, for which he was unaccountably not docked, while others who were late were docked, with Warren Commission testimonies backing her information; the clock-outs are precise, the clock-ins, irregular. Baker provides explanations: these and other details, such as 4907 mail problems, were not noticed by researchers--until Baker pointed out much that was obviously wrong in the official record. b) Baker provides inside knowledge of Oswald’s whereabouts that for the first time explains them logically, with important direct and circumstantial evidence to support her statements; many of her statements have been confirmed later by other researchers, following her leads; usually, she was not given any credit for these leads, but comparing her statements with researchers’ ‘finds’ confirm her pre-knowledge. c) Baker provides a financial information/character report on Oswald showing how it was deliberately created and rigged by herself and Oswald to cover up Oswald’s past, including his nearly 3-year stay in Russia as a defector, so that the highly conservative, anti-communist Reily Co. would be able to employ Oswald; a close and careful examination of all testimony concerning this document proves collusion.
REASON #7: Edward T. Haslam investigated Baker and has confirmed her ability to conduct secret lab activities in New Orleans as described thoroughly in his landmark 2007 book, Dr. Mary’s Monkey. Haslam, a New Orleans native who knew some of the persons encountered by Baker and Oswald, only learned about Baker’s still being alive through Sixty Minutes investigators. Haslam describes Baker and Oswald’s clandestine activity together in New Orleans, with verified information as to its importance.
a) Baker provides substantial reasons for why she should never have been employed at Reily’s as a Vice President’s secretary, when her expertise was in cancer research and medical technology: New Orleans’ Ochsner Clinic was world-renowned as a cancer research center. b) It’s reasonable to assume that Baker would not leave her studies, family, and friends in Florida simply to become a secretary in New Orleans. Her ease in obtaining a well-paying chemistry research position soon after her return to Florida proves she had no reason to leave unless it was originally, as she asserts, to work under the prestigious Doctors Ochsner and Sherman. c) Haslam himself is a living witness that Judyth Vary Baker was impersonated in New Orleans in the 1970’s when he was trying to find out more information about the clandestine lab activities.
Interview with Ed Haslam, author of "Dr. Mary’s Monkey"
REASON #8: Film producer Nigel Turner had successfully presented six documentaries in the popular series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, a secure fixture on The History Channel that ran more than two decades. On the recommendation of known CIA asset Gerry Hemming, Turner investigated Baker and her witnesses for over a year. He photographed much of her evidence. He filmed her for 38 hours and matched 55 hours of her spoken testimony taken months earlier on a tape recorder with her filmed testimony. He had witnesses Baker knew nothing about verifying many of her statements. Turner was contracted by The History Channel to produce two more documentaries in the popular series--The Smoking Guns, and The Guilty Men--but requested and received permission (and then filmed) a third segment – The Love Affair, about Oswald and Baker’s romance and clandestine activities together in New Orleans, and their continuing relationship until Oswald’s death two days after Kennedy’s assassination. But Turner got too close to the truth, and all hell broke loose, destroying his series.
The Love Affair (The Men Who Killed Kennedy)
a) The Love Affair was the first and only time in Turner’s series where only one person–-Baker--was featured for the entire documentary. Though banned in America, it is currently an underground favorite on YouTube and is a popular underground film overseas. b) Living witness statements supporting Baker’s testimony were illegally withheld by a third hostile party who essentially stole the videotapes. They were later recovered, but were not included in the documentary. There may have been plans to produce a sequel to the documentary with witnesses. c) There was an outcry from Official Version Oswald-did-it important people, such as former President Ford, Jack Valenti and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson and her friends, over the new documentaries, and suddenly, three were banned, though the series was supposed to run for nine years.
The Men Who Killed Kennedy 7 of 9 - The Smoking Guns
d) Over 50,000 copies--prepaid--were destroyed and money returned, as a board of historians were called together by The History Channel to pronounce the documentaries falsely incriminating of former President Lyndon Johnson, who is clearly indicated as ruthless and involved. However, NONE of the historians met with or conferred with ANY of the witnesses, including Baker, nor did they look at ANY evidence whatsoever. This was the first documentary ever banned by The History Channel, or by anyone, so far as we are aware. In 2007, The History Channel lampooned Baker’s testimony. e) Nigel Turner was systematically maligned on the Internet and has been incommunicado since 2004. f) Baker was systematically maligned on the internet with big, impressive websites against her, and with newsgroup posts creating lies (such as that Baker claimed to be of Russian nobility, or that she said she was offered $600,000 for her story by a tabloid, or that she was a close friend of Dr. Suess, that Liberace learned how to play the piano on her father’s piano, and other ridiculous statements ‘proving’ she was non-credible!). Other statements claiming to be Baker’s flooded newsgroups, ruining her reputation. Arrest threats, job loss, and death threats began to plague her life.
The Men Who Killed Kennedy 9 of 9 - The Guilty Men
Reason #9: Wealthy Dutch researcher and film producer Wim Dankbaar investigated Baker and her witnesses for six years and fully supports her testimony and story.
a) Dankbaar provides DVDs of Baker and her witnessess’ statements and their stories on his website. b) Dankbaar twice tried to produce a movie about Baker’s story, but was stopped the first time by a contract by a co-producer (Woods) who demanded Baker’s lifetime story rights, and the second time by a specious lawsuit by Robert Vernon, who stole evidence and spread lies about Dankbaar and Baker on the Internet. Vernon also distributed pornography about Baker and urged potential witnesses not to talk to Baker or Dankbaar. Important corroborating evidence, such as phone call records and films, have now vanished. Some witnesses were threatened and lost their jobs. Baker was hit twice by vehicles in Dallas.
Reason #10: Famed Dutch investigator Peter DeVries, noted for uncovering political crimes and frauds, and solving murder cases, investigated Baker in 2005-2006.
a) DeVries fully supported Baker’s testimony and story in an internationally televised miniseries shown across Europe in 2006. b) DeVries recently uncovered new evidence in the Aruba murder case famed in the US, using secret cameras and microphones, uncovering a confession no one else was able to obtain.
Reason #11: CBS’s Sixty Minutes investigated Baker’s testimony and story for eighteen months and nearly filmed it three times. They called it their “longest and most expensive investigation” in their entire history. But an insider told Baker that (now disgraced, for lying about Bush) higher-up Dan Rather closed the investigation. “The door was slammed shut in our faces,” according to Sixty Minutes’ founder, Don Hewitt, explaining the problem to C-Span. “I brought that woman in to New York!” he stated. Hewitt called the story the most important story in Sixty Minutes’ history. Emails from Sixty Minutes producer Phil Sheffler state “we did not walk away from this story.”
a) When the investigation closed, Sixty Minutes had not yet interviewed Baker’s living witnesses! b) Sixty Minutes was advised by Brian Duffy of US News & World Report to drop the investigation because there was ‘not enough evidence.’ Duffy was later found to have written a large article for USN&WR supporting Gerald Posner’s ‘Case Closed’ (Oswald-did-it) book–-a big embarrassment to Duffy if Baker’s story became known to the general public. Duffy had just been re-hired by USN&WR and would later become a chief editor there. c) Sixty Minutes’ chief source to check Baker’s reliability, Howard Liebengood, had been privy to all CIA and MKULTRA documents gathered by the HSCA, and was a renowned and trusted specialist in the Kennedy assassination. Liebengood confirmed Baker’s knowledge in general, and also her knowledge, specifically, of secret MKULTRA documents they had both seen, in front of CBS producers, Dr. Howard Platzman, and Baker. He urged CBS to film Baker. d) Liebengood died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack just a few days after retiring, and just before his promise to help Baker’s story get filmed by Sixty Minutes.
Reason #12: More evidence and witnesses: At the time of the Sixty Minutes’ investigation, Baker did not know what evidence was important. She had avoided all contact with the case for three and a half decades. Only after she was allowed to look at records in the case was she able to recognize what evidence she possessed that was important, such as the American Express money order, and Oswald’s time cards, which she had initialed.
a) Baker kept evidence from 1960-1964 concerning her cancer research, her relationship with Oswald, and the events in her life immediately before and after his death, much of which her family saw (such as Reily check stubs) without realizing what was important and what was not. The collection of evidence was finally placed in twelve 50-page books. Baker did not save anything but family photos and an occasional item from any other year. The mass of materials from this time period is rich and detailed. b) break-ins, robberies, and even kidnapping has resulted in the loss of some evidence, but all of it has been seen and photographed numerous times, and has been successfully linked to Oswald’s activities. c) new witnesses such as William Livesay (confirms secret medical experiments in 1963 were going on at Jackson hospital using Angola prison volunteers), Edwin Lea McGeHee, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Kelly Thomas, Mary Ferrell (gray Russian book unknown to public and a unique possession of Oswald’s, described by Judyth to Ferrell in front of witnesses), and many others confirm previously unknown details Baker has given. d) Baker described Bobby Kennedy’s involvement with Guy Banister and knowledge of Oswald, divorce plans of Oswald, details about Oswald’s Mexico City visit which were later confirmed by new witnesses.
One of Oliver Stone's key conspirators in JFK is New Orleans private investigator and former FBI agent Guy Banister. e) Baker’s presence in a car with Oswald in Jackson (by two different witnesses of repute), and Baker’s explanation of the Clinton matter (which for the first time logically places Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together as seen by–-but unable to be explained by–-eight disparate witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana), where a black Cadillac sat for five hours for no known reason (however, Baker’s testimony clears up the matter, with additional new evidence from the Clay Shaw Grand Jury testimonies finally released to the internet) (see the banned documentary, The Love Affair).
Reason #13: Dr. John Williams, a US professor with a doctorate in statistics, collected data and statistics about the confluences and evidence Baker has presented, with the help of witness Kelly Thomas Cousins, and produced an analysis of events indicating that the chances that Baker and Oswald knew each other intimately are 99%.
1032 Marengo St. Baker lived here in 1963, close to Oswald.
a) Dr. Williams also produced a statistical study indicating that there was only one chance in a MILLION that Oswald and Baker did NOT have prearranged jobs with Reily. b) Dr. Williams has now published two technical papers in The Dealey Plaza Echo which publishes journal style papers on the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations in Great Britain.
Reason #14: Why is Baker's life being threatened? She is currently in hiding in a Scandinavian country under EU political asylum rules and regulations due to denigrating Internet and television productions, break-ins, robberies, burglaries, Internet stalking, persecution, live stalking, arrest threats, and death threats.
a) Baker’s book has twice gone to print without her permission, with changes and excisions. b) Baker wants the REAL book to get published, and will support and authorize its sales. c) Baker will not return to the United States until after the book is published: she is willing to risk her life to promote the book. d) “If I had said Oswald DID IT, today I’d be a rich woman, instead of in hiding, fearing for my life.” (JVB) The book is true. It’s relevant, pointing to Oswald’s innocence and indicating a Coup d’etat.Source URL: https://0832zy.blogspot.com/2010/03/ Visit The People Blog for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Freelance writer 
Jerry is the author of "
