Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from Altgens6

By Larry Rivera (with Jim Fetzer)

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it."--Albert Einstein

 Guess what, we are not going to talk about curtain rods in this article. The curtain rod story is a red herring, so we will do away with it right from the top. 

The Oswald Innocence Campaign (OIC) has already shown that Oswald was Doorman and that Lovelady was "Black Hole Man", who is holding his arms up to shade his eyes, largely based upon the differences between their shirts. That much has been established by the OIC. Our next order of business, therefore, is to find out why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from the famous Altgens photograph.

Buell Wesley Frazier was born June 4, 1944.(1) At 19, he arrived in Irving in early September 1963 from the town of Huntsville 200 miles away to find work and live with his sister Linnie Mae Randle, her husband Bill, and their three children.(2) With his mother also visiting with Linnie in November 1963 (3), he was left with no choice but to sleep on the couch of the Randle's living room.(4) 

There are two versions of how he obtained his employment at the Texas School Book Depository. His Warren Commission testimony states he went through the Massey Employment Agency.(5) They referred him there, and the same day he interviewed with Roy Truly, he was hired. (6) However, his sister stated she was the one who enabled him to land the job at the TSBD.(7) He was making the minimum wage of $1.25 per hour.(8) At any rate, he did end up working there on 9/13/63. He drove Lee Harvey Oswald to work on 11/22/63--and the rest is history.

Frazier got up at 6:30 AM, had breakfast with his mother and family at 7:15.(9) He picked up Lee, who had been waiting for him outside, after walking half a block from the Ruth Paine residence. He took Stemmons Freeway downtown and arrived at the TSBD parking lot in time for work. The image at left shows this was not just any parking lot. It was well removed from the work place. From there they walked the 3 blocks to work.(10)  It was cold and foggy and it had been raining that morning.(11) At this point, he supposedly was separated from Oswald, who advanced ahead of him and went into the building. Frazier's excuse for staying behind was that he wanted to "charge" the car's battery.(12) After at least a half hour ride, it should be unnecessary, however, because the alternator/generator would have charged the battery by virtue of the time it took to drive from Irving. Frazier worked alongside Lee Oswald on the first floor filling orders until 11:00AM.(13)

Frazier was standing on the TSBD front stairs(14) when the motorcade drove by, heard the shots, stayed for a few minutes at that position, then went back inside to eat his lunch in the basement. The assassination of the President of the United States was not going to spoil his appetite.(15) He left the depository building between 1:00PM and 2:00PM to head home.(16) Frazier, however, did not go home, but supposedly went back to Irving to see his step father David Williams at the Irving Professional Center, who had been convalescing there for a month.(17) The only problem with this is that Frazier left Huntsville to "stay away from an abusive, alcoholic stepfather"(18), so why would he be looking for solace from him on this most tragic day?

Between 4:00-5:00PM Linnie Mae approached the officers who were at the Paine's and advised Det. Adamcik that "her brother was visiting her father at Parkland Hospital, and we could reach him there."(19) Why was she buying time for Frazier? Would this coincide with the time the Altgens was being altered? Frazier could have been unaccounted for up to 6 hours. Since his car was not enclosed in any way, he could have left anytime and apparently he did. He was arrested around 6:45PM and taken to the Irving PD to wait for DPD agents Stovall, Rose and Adamcik. They searched his car on the spot with "negative results".(20) They went to the Randle residence and conducted a thorough search there. They found a .303 caliber British rifle with ammunition which was confiscated.(21) His sister arrived at the house and the urban legend of Lee Oswald carrying a "long package" was born when Linnie Mae supposedly told the police about the long "suspicious" package she "saw" Lee with that morning. She was here to defend her brother at all cost. She even arranged for a Baptist priest to accompany them to City Hall in Dallas.(22)

 

With all the commotion of the day, Frazier never had a chance to change his clothes. It appears he avoided going home because he knew they were waiting for him there. Then again, he could have gone home to tie up loose ends. Did his sister Linnie Mae tip him off? Was he in direct contact with the Paines? This photograph taken the night of 11/22/63, shows what he was wearing at 12:30PM that day. The official story is that at 9:00PM the DPD finished taking affidavits from both Buell and his sister. They started back to Irving when a radio call came in asking them to turn around and go back to Dallas.(23) Captain Fritz ordered that Frazier take a polygraph test, which he passed "conclusively".(24) The test lasted until 12:10AM 11/23/63. Many researchers believe the test was rigged. Much more on this will follow.

Frazier gets drafted

 What better way to keep tabs on Buell Wesley Frazier? He was drafted into the Army and inducted on August 2, 1965 at the age of 21.(25) He was shipped to Europe as soon as he finished his basic training in Oct 1965, 23 months after the assassination.(26) Seven months later he returned to the continental U.S. and was assigned to Ft. Lewis, Washington.(27) This happened to be close to Seattle, a major embarkation point for Vietnam.(28) They made sure he was exposed to other young men who were on their way to 'Nam, some never to return alive. Frazier spent more than a year in suspense and limbo at Fort Lewis from June 1966 to August 1967.(29) After two years of service as a cook, in August 1967, Frazier was "released from active duty" and transferred to U.S. Army Reserve.(30) According to Frazier in his HSCA interview, since he was not going to make a career out of the Army, he was given the choice of deferring his active duty service for later on. While the Vietnam War was raging and some of our major cities burning, he quietly went back to civilian life in Irving.(31)

 

At the age of 23, Buell Wesley Frazier completely missed the Vietnam War as if it never happened (another George W?). Most of his contemporaries were humping in the rice paddies of Vietnam, many coming back in body bags. The implication is pretty obvious. It is mid-1967: "Wesley, my boy, you have seen your buddies flown to 'Nam, Johnson is escalating big time, and they need another 50,000 troops. Are you going to behave and keep your mouth shut, ignore all of these investigators and researchers, or are we going to have to ship you overseas, hopefully you don't come back in a body bag yourself? We can have you in Saigon in 18 hours". (32)

In between Army stints, Frazier testified at the Shaw Trial on 2/13/69, but not without providing stiff resistance via his attorney Hollebeck. One of his conditions for testifying was that he would not be available to the press in New Orleans.(33) In his testimony under oath, he appears to have misstated (or lied about) his, Lovelady's and Shelley's positions, stating he was "at the top of the stairs", and Lovelady and Shelley were "Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps."(34)

At 28, Frazier returned to active duty and re-enlisted towards the end of the Vietnam war on 3/26/73 at Ft. Polk LA. He went through Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Sill, OK, on 7/16/73. He returned to Texas 8/9/73 at Ft. Bliss and went through artillery training in September 1973. From there he was transferred to Ft. Hood, TX, on 9/20/73.(35) Frazier was promoted to Administrative Specialist on 10/01/76 with the Headquarters Headquarters Company, 2nd Armed Division, in Ft. Hood.(36) He finished his tour of duty doing security for officers at base headquarters.(37) He was discharged on 3/25/77 at the age of 32, at Ft. Hood with the rank of Sergeant.(38) He earned the following distinctions: National Defense Service Medal, Marksman Badge w/ Rifle Bar, Good Conduct Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Expert Badge w/ Rifle Bar.(39)

The Assassination Tapes

In 1975 Penthouse Press published George O'Toole's The Assassination Tapes. Douglas Horne praised this volume as "a delightful gem of a book" and "the evidence he presented is just as relevant--and just as valid--today, as it was in 1975."(40) Harold Weisberg criticized the book for two reasons: (a) He felt O'Toole had borrowed way too much from Whitewash IV (bordering on plagiarism) without giving him credit, and (b) he thought some of his wild speculation was too much for him to handle. Weisberg did not impugn the actual technology and methodology O'Toole had used, however.(41) Mark Lane totally embraced the technology and wished he had it when he was seeing and recording witnesses in Dallas. It would have sent him in other directions of investigation.(42)

Despite the controversy, O'Toole's investigation, which is based upon voice stress analysis, is full of intrigue. The Psychological Stress Evaluator was invented in 1971 (43) and patented in 1976 by Bell, McQuiston and Ford.(44) Their model PSE 1000 was marketed by the Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Co.(45) According to O'Toole, this device opened up a whole new playing field for investigators. He was now able to use recorded exchanges to chart the degree of stress in voice recordings no matter how old or far away.(46) O'Toole went back and retroactively analyzed voice recordings of Oswald and determined he had been telling the truth about "not shooting anyone."(47)

 

Next, O'Toole also analyzed Frazier's CBS interview (YouTube video below) shortly after the assassination, however, and determined his degree of deception had gone through the roof during the entire 42 second exchange: (48)

"Judging from the PSE charts, when Buell Wesley Frazier made that statement, he was in a condition of sheer terror."(49)

Now O'Toole was ready to deal with Frazier by interviewing him himself. His first order of business was, of course, to find him. After failing to find him in Dallas he visited Linnie Mae who quickly brushed him off. The only thing he could get out of her was the fact that Frazier was in the Army and could not be contacted.(50) While in Dallas he called Paul Bentley, senior polygraph examiner at the time (of the assassination). Bentley claimed not to have been on duty that night because of a sprained ankle that was in a cast. (He detected hard stress in his voice.)(51)

Next, he decided to talk to R.D. Lewis, who, according to DPD documents, was the technician who administered the polygraph to Frazier. Lewis denied administering any polygraph "connected to Oswald" that night (hard stress).(52) Furthermore, O'Toole established that R.D. Lewis never signed the DPD report, which had Rose and Stovall's name on it, and "Lewis had not gone on record anywhere to the effect that Frazier had passed the test."(53) Lewis would not testify before the Warren Commission.

For his next interview, he spoke to Detective Gerald Hill at his home. Hill advised O'Toole that Fritz could not have ordered the polygraph: " 'cause Fritz didn't believe in polygraphs. He wouldn't use 'em " (near maximum stress).(54) He returned and spoke to Bentley again, who told him that was not true, he had run "many, many" examinations for Captain Fritz.(55)

He decided to see Detective Richard Stovall, who was with Frazier most of the early evening and night of 11/22 until he dropped him off after midnight.(56) The first thing he found out from Stovall was that he had not been present for Frazier's polygraph. (Hard stress appeared.)(57) This directly contradicted his WCVIIH192 testimony.(58) He also spoke to Guy F. Rose, the detective who was with Stovall and Adamcik that day. Rose now contradicted Hill regarding Fritz's confidence in the polygraph test.(59) 

O'Toole then contacted R.D. Lewis again, armed with information contained in Jim Bishop's 1967 book, The Day Kennedy was Shot, and Warren Commission references that mentioned the polygraph. He now started to vaguely remember maybe giving Frazier a polygraph test that night. Finally, O'Toole concluded that there was no credibility to Frazier having passed the polygraph test.(60)

Frazier informal interview

It was now time to get serious about finding Frazier. He checked with an Army contact and was told there had never been anyone by that name in the Army.(61) From there, he heard from another contact with "very good FBI connections" that Frazier was working at the Boeing Corporation, in Renton, who was not the only source. Then he went chasing him through most of the bases he had been in the south, sometimes just missing him.(62)

On a visit to Dektor, he happened to meet Tony Pellicano, an expert at finding people.(63) With the help of Pellicano, O'Toole at last located Frazier in December 1973 in Texas, stationed at Fort Hood, only 100 miles south of Dallas. Frazier was living on the base and commuting back and forth to Irving on weekends.(64) When he finally recorded his interview with Frazier, it was no less than stunning. Pellicano caught Frazier repeatedly lying about just about everything. The following questions produced maximum hard stress or good to hard stress:(65)

1. Did he (Oswald) take that package up with him into the building? 

2. Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night? 

3. There was nobody else in the (polygraph) room with you? 

4. Did he (the examiner) tell you that you passed the test? 

5. Do you know Paul Bently 

6. You never knew he (Oswald) had this gun then?

In closing this chapter, O'Toole wrote: "The midnight polygraph examination of Buel Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963. Why does it provoke hard stress, false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? ...the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation." (66)

Frazier and the HSCA

While he was being discharged from the Army in 1977, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forming to reinvestigate the JFK and MLK assassinations. Again, Frazier offered stiff opposition to testifying. "Frazier continues to procrastinate. Definite resistance."(67) Frazier was finally interviewed by Investigators Moriarity and Day of the HSCA, but never testified under oath.

The reason is pretty obvious when one reads the transcripts. Four audio tapes were made of these interviews, which lingered in oblivion at the National Archives until Greg Parker decided to transcribe them. Tapes one and two were useless because of time deterioration.(68)

Tape number three described how he stayed put on the steps: "I continued to stay right on the steps where I was. I didn't move from there, I didn't talk with someone who was sitting there that, uh, was – was on the stairs, as I said earlier. With the same two people. And the shots came from – apparently now – they came from around in a group of people scrambling." Later on the same topic, "And I moved to the right. "Cause I was very interested in staying – there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle."(69)

Then Day asked him a very simple, important and relevant question: 

DAY: Are you in any pictures? 

FRAZIER: No – I don't remember. What, uh-what I was gonna say is that it sounded – sounded like they were taken in the fall. It was then that was, you know, perfect. But being there at that time I didn't know.(70)

This tape also contains what seem to be other incoherent statements from Frazier. However, they seem incoherent if you do not know about his induction into the Army. His references to "military" and "Seattle" are not a coincidence. Had this man been mentally tormented, with the spectre of being sent to Vietnam at the whim of the people who were running this operation? It was crucial that they keep a lid on Frazier. This was the star witness who helped to "convict" Lee Oswald in the public eye.

Consider the following exchange from page six:

"And anyways they terminated asking questions and when I answered back I tried to--I tried to tell them the truth. And that made them very angry."(71) The only thing we can think of that could elicit this type of reaction would have been that he told them that perhaps his friend Lee Oswald was right next to him at the front entrance. On tape four he talked about the advantage the TSBD employees had being on the steps at a higher level and in the sunlight to avoid the crowded curbs, and how he kept going from the doorway to the sunshine and again, confirming his position when the motorcade drove by, next to the "big heavy set lady".(72) 

These details are very important because they refute the argument that he was in the shadows of the doorway when the motorcade drove by:(73) "So we stepped back out then down on--out on to the steps. ...so we stepped back into the sunlight then where actually we could see better. Because that's you know its not every day that you can see the President of the United States come by in a motorcade a few feet away."

FRAZIER: OK, I know some of the girls that worked in the uh offices above and they stepped out into the sunlight with me there and I know the big heavy set woman she was right there.(74)

 

Take a look at the same area, but from the angle of Dave Weigman, who was traveling in a press cars, the 7th car in the motorcade, 1 or 2 seconds after the last shots. The three people shielding their eyes are still there, right? Now focus on the man sandwiched in between these three.

These images confirm this is a young, tall, slim, long-limbed man with long neck, black hair, triangular shaped combination of head and hair. He is wearing a long sleeved dark colored shirt rolled up right below the elbow. Why is this man not seen in Altgens6? The three people in Altgens6 who are shielding their eyes with their hands are accounted for. Doorman is also accounted for as well as the black man who is at his lower right.

When we flip the 11/22/63 photograph taken of Buell Frazier and compare it to the figure in Weigman, we get a perfect match. He happens to be standing exactly on the stairs where he said he was in his own hand written statement the night of 11/22/63.(75)

His Warren Commission testimony was taken 3/11/64 by Mr. Joseph ("I won't drop the ball") Ball. In his testimony, Frazier confirmed his position stating he was "one step down from the top there", and "Yes sir, standing by the rail." He was shown CE-362, which is a only a schematic drawing of the first floor as seen from above to establish his position at the time.(76)

 

Down the road of deception, lies and duress

Here is where things get dicey. We just proved Frazier was standing on the steps, which was documented as early as the night of the assassination. (77) In his Warren Commission testimony, he was asked if he would take a look at CE-369, a version of Altgens6 that is severely cropped. Quoting from page 242 of his testimony:

Mr. BALL. We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? 

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. 

Mr. BALL: I see.

Mr. FRAZIER. Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.

Mr. BALL. Do you recognize this fellow?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.

Mr. BALL. Billy?

Mr. FRAZIER. Right

Mr. BALL. Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?

Mr. FRAZIER. Right.

Mr. BALL. That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.

Mr. FRAZIER. Right.

Mr. BALL. In front of you to the right over to the wall?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Changes at the Entrance

These images are from the Warren Commission. Below left is a schematic drawing of the first floor of the building, the area where Lee Oswald and Wesley Frazier worked side by side filling orders. According to Frazier's testimony, the only reason for order fillers to have gone up to the sixth floor would have been to process book returns. This was a very simple procedure which required very little time. That morning it was Frazier who had been to the sixth floor at least once. When asked if he had seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the building at any time that morning, he answered, "No".(78)

The second image below is the Elm Street main entrance of the building as seen from inside. Notice how restricted the top landing of the entrance was in those days--it could not have been more than 3 feet of horizontal space towards Elm Street, which probably could only accommodate one row of people. Moreover, the radiator against the wall allows us to estimate the space on the other side of the door. The schematic drawing also confirms the door opened both ways and was right in the middle of the landing. This is where Frazier supposedly was, "in the shadows more or less".

 

 Years later the entire doorway was replaced with thick, ornate wooden frames, and the door itself pushed further inside the entrance, which greatly increased the area of the landing as we see today at right.   In 1986, Frazier testified at Lee Oswald's mock trial. At 9:57 into his testimony:

SPENCE: You recall these 23 years later that Mr. Lovelady was standing in front of you at that precise moment - about 4 steps in front of you, is that correct?

FRAZIER: Yes sir, that is.

SPENCE: Have you ever said that to anybody in the world prior to today? FRAZIER: I don't know whether anyone asked me that or not.

SPENCE: But my question is did you ever tell that to anyone in the world - prior to today?

FRAZIER: Not that I know of, sir.

SPENCE: But you did tell that to Mr. Bugliosi, with the 'g' silent, didn't you.

FRAZIER: Well I asked this question, awhile ago sir. (nervously chewing gum)

There are major problems with this. Again, Frazier was right in the middle of the group that was on the stairs, one or two steps from the top. The deception orchestrated by Joseph Ball in his Warren Commission testimony is pathetic. It is rife with contradictions. Every time Frazier testified about his position at the stairs of the entrance of the TSBD, no matter in which forum, he gave a different story. In his WC testimony, he gave two different positions (as seen above) within the same session! Doorman is obviously above him, not 2, 3 or 4 steps in front of him! Thanks to Gerry Spence, we have videotaped testimony which shows Frazier lying with impunity under oath. By 1986 he had apparently gotten used to the libretto and did not need any more coaching.

The image to the left above is from Ralph Cinque's Altgens6 re-enactment conducted on 11/7/12 and 11/13/12, the first time this was ever done. It is presented here to confirm the position of doorman at the top step of the stairway. Again, this is also confirmed by Altgens6 and Weigman 658. This image only shows the top 3 of the 7 steps that comprise the stairway itself.

Frazier during mock trial

Alterations of our own

Using 21st century technology, when we reverse engineer the alterations of the doorway of Altgens6 we come up with this. Once we match Frazier's head size, rotate him, blur him up a bit and transfer him back to where he used to be, it is a perfect fit! Even Special Agent Jack Ready returns to his original, correct size, as seen when compared to his partner right next to him and this inset.

After careful analysis of all of the evidence presented here, there is an extremely high probability that Buell Wesley Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton were both removed from the Altgens6 photograph. Once we come to terms with this concept, we begin to understand the terrible life of duress Buell Wesley Frazier has lived. He may live well and comfortable today, but he will always know in the back of his mind what really happened and how he helped frame an innocent man

Discussion

Why was Frazier removed from Altgens6? That's a very good question. Until he and his sister Linnie Mae come clean, all we can do is speculate. When Altgens6 was viewed on 11/22 at 1:00PM, there was a group of TSBD employees spilling out from the top landing area down into the seven doorway steps as seen in Weigman 658, including Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton. Both were in Altgens line of sight. Thanks to the Warren Commission we know the landing area of the doorway was much smaller then than it is today. Despite the difference in distance, and much like we see in this Skaggs image at right, Hughes right below, and very faintly in Weigman 658, part of the glass divider and silver metal frame should have been visible in the background of Altgens6. Today, this area is mostly obscured. Years later the entrance was retrofitted and remodeled to match Frazier's "back in the shadows" story.

Notice how faint the light fixture and the horizontal frame seem 
in Altgens6 when compared to this Hughes image.

The fact that Lee Oswald and Buell Wesley Frazier knew each other (albeit for only a couple of months), worked side by side filling orders, and car pooled on weekends was too clear and solid a connection. Once the legend of Oswald as a loner, communist and malcontent was established immediately after the assassination, Oswald being with Frazier at the doorway could not be permitted. 

Over the years Frazier has misstated his position on at least five or six different occasions, sometimes under oath. He was caught lying by O'Toole quite a few times and the results of his supposed "midnight polygraph test" have never surfaced.

If Frazier was complicit in setting up Oswald, even in a passive way, his role could have been to deliver the rifle from the Paine's garage. This could easily have been accomplished by putting the Carcano in the trunk of his car in the early hours of 11/22 or the night before. Being only half a block away either of the Paines could have facilitated this exchange and, with a spare copy of Frazier's car key, he would not even have had to get out of the couch he slept in. Perhaps the true reason for Frazier lagging behind was to make sure Oswald did not see him bringing a rifle into the TSBD. If he was passively involved, he may have left the rifle in the trunk of his car and allowed others to retrieve it.

They would have had all morning to plant it. Notice on page one how far and isolated from the TSBD his car was parked. Those three blocks seem to be close to half a mile distance to the building as shown in CE-361 below. The distance from his car to the TSBD, according to the scale shown was approximately 2,250 feet. 

While we are on this topic, another unmentioned possibility, if he was actively involved, could have been used as a chauffeur or a getaway driver for any one of the real participants. His five to six hour absence now starts to look pretty suspicious. By taking McKinney Avenue or Munger Street, he could have left the scene of the crime without being noticed.

When we consider Frazier's comment about remaining at the steps, "Cause I was very interested in staying – there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle", this scenario now takes on new meaning. It was imperative that Frazier be erased from his actual location to the shadows of the doorway, where--by insisting he say, "I was back up in this more or less black area here" and the power of suggestion--he could become Black Hole Man. Instead of Tinkers to Evers to Chance, we have Frazier to Lovelady to Oswald.

We now present the entire Altgens6, rendered with the person we believe was removed from the photo the day of the assassination, Buell Wesley Frazier.

 

---

Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination.  He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done.

References: 1. CE 1381, NPRC report 2. WC2H211 3. Ibid 4. Dallas Morning News 11/16/08 Aynesworth, "Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role" 5. WC2H212 6. Ibid 7. WC2H246 "When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not much of an education can find work" 8. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, "Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role" 9. DPD handwritten statement pg 1 and affidavit 11/22/63 10. WC2H214 11. WC2H227 12. WC2H228 13. DPD Affidavit 11/22/63 p2 by Mary Rattan 14. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63 15. WC2H235 16. CE 1381 1:00-2:00PM was quite a generous time frame 17. Greg Parker article,9/22/09 "Whose line is it anyhow?" Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle 18. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, "Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role" 19. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik 20. Ibid 21. DPD 148-001 22. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik 23. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik Report and Cover-Up, Shaw 90-91 24. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik pg 4 25. HSCA Tape 4 pg, 2 NPRC report 26. NPRC FOIA report pg 2 27. Ibid 28. GI's Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels 29. NPRC report pg 2 30. NPRC, HSCA Tape 4 pg 2 31. HSCA tape 4 pg 2 32. GI's Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels 33. Armstrong Box 16 Notebook 3, Tab 28 pg 7 34. Shaw trial 1969 BWF pg 26 35. NPRC pg 3 36. NPRC pg 4 37. Ibid 38. Ibid pg 1 39. Ibid 40.Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1654 41. Weisberg letter 7/28/75 (Example: Oswald to buy car and meet FBI in Texas Theater to collect the $200.00) 42. Weisberg photocopy "forward" of The Assassination Tapes paperback edition 43. Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1655 44. Copy of patent available. 45. http://vsa-avsa.blogspot.com/ The first supplier of VSA technology was Dektor. Dektor manufactured the PSE 1000, an analogue machine, that was later replaced by the PSE 2000 46. The Assassination Tapes (TAT) pg 83-84 47. Ibid pg 125 48. Ibid 171 49. Ibid 172 50. Ibid 51. Ibid 173 52. Ibid 174 53. Ibid 181 54. Ibid 175 55. Ibid 177 56. Ibid 177-179, DPD Report, and WCVIIH192 57. Ibid 178 58. WCVIIH192 59. TAT pg 183-184 60. Ibid 187 61. Ibid 190 62. Ibid 196 63. Ibid 64. Ibid 197 65. Ibid 201-203 66. Ibid 206 67. Armstrong HSCA RG233 hand written notes 68. Greg Parker's web site. www.ReopenKennedyCase.com 69. Tape III-2 70. Ibid 71. Tape III-6 72 Ibid 73. Ibid 74. Tape IV-14 75. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63 76. WC2H233 77. Op Cit 78. WC2H232 79. WC2H244, despite Ball trying his best to confuse him. 80. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, “Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role” pg 4 81. "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" Posted by MinM Fri Nov 21st 2008, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/109 "Mark Lane would have been a better choice" Spence allowed Bugliosi to lead witnesses at will.

Read More

James H. Fetzer: Anti-Iran Sanctions Violate International Law

Iran Review > Interviews Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 5)

"I don’t understand how the [Obama] administration can disregard the findings of its own intelligence agencies in dealing with a foreign power."--James H. Fetzer  

Iran Review Exclusive Interview with James H. Fetzer

 

By Kourosh Ziabari

Many independent and conscientious thinkers and scholars in the world agree with this assumption that the sanctions which the United States and the European Union have imposed on Iran over its nuclear program are inhumane, unjust, contrary to the principles of human rights and constitute an act of war and collective punishment. The United States says that the sanctions are put in effect in order to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear bomb but ironically, the United States is the largest possessor of nuclear weapons in the world itself. Even the intelligence agencies of the United States have published official reports which indicate that Iran does not have the intention to build nuclear weapons.   

In order to investigate the different aspects of the anti-Iranian sanctions, Iran Review has embarked on a project to do interviews with renowned progressive, anti-war academicians, authors, activists and thinkers and ask them questions about the impact the sanctions have on the life of Iranian people and the prospect of Iran’s nuclear program.   Our today’s guest is Prof. James H. Fetzer, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and retired professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Prof. Fetzer has written extensively on the assassination of the U.S. President John F. Kennedy, the 9/11 attacks and the philosophy of science. His 2007 book published by Open Court is titled “Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right’s Crusade Against Science.” 

What follows is the text of Iran Review’s interview with Prof. James H. Fetzer about the anti-Iranian sanctions of the United States and its European partners. This interview was conducted in Tehran while Prof. Fetzer was attending the 3rd Conference on Hollywoodism and Cinema.

Q: The United States has claimed that it wants to obstruct Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it has imposed sanctions on Iran’s oil, banking, financial, medical and insurance sectors. Why have the sanctions targeted the daily life of the Iranian people and diverted from the purported objective of nuclear disarmament?

A: This is the most unfortunate consequence of warmongering influences in the United States including senators like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Dianne Feinstein, who have blinders on when it comes to any issue involving a conflict between Israel and any other nation, even the United States.  

The latest report is that the administration is planning to intensify its economic sanctions on Iran is precisely the opposite direction which they have to go. The sanctions, after all, are allegedly because Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but the fact is that in 2007, 16 American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The findings were reaffirmed in 2011 and I don’t understand how the [Obama] administration can disregard the findings of its own intelligence agencies in dealing with a foreign power. Not only that but the sanctions that are being imposed are a form of collective punishment that was ruled to be a violation of international law by the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II. So to me it’s utterly disgraceful that the United States, which is supposed to be a leader among the nations, should be imposing collective punishment on a country for an alleged offence its own intelligence agencies claim is not taking place.

Q: Are the sanctions compliant to the standards and norms of the globalized economy in the modern world?

A: Well, it appears that the sanctions are fairly encompassing and even extend to medicine, for example, which in my opinion is simply inexcusable. I cannot see any rationale for imposing the sanctions on the Iranian people and I consider it as a disgrace that the United States is doing so.

Q: So, do you think that concentrating the sanctions on goods such as food staples and medicine is some kind of violation of human rights by the United States and its allies while they claim that they care for the rights of the Iranian people?

A: Absolutely; there’s no doubt about it. It’s a form of collective punishment; it’s irresponsible and a violation of international law. My opinion is that we need a complete transformation of our policy toward Iran, just as during the Nixon administration it brought about a complete transformation of its policy toward China by Nixon going to China. I believe that Obama should come to Iran.

Q: Right. As a number of political analysts have said and some Russian officials have admitted, the ultimate objective of the sanctions is not to simply curb Iran’s nuclear program, but to bring about a regime change in Tehran by turning the people against their own government. What’s your viewpoint regarding this analysis?

A: I think that’s quite a brilliant observation and may very well be the underlying motivation of the sanctions. However, it reflects [adversely] on the judgment of the Iranian people who are not going to disavow their government but rather stand steadfastly with the government, just as I hope it will come true. Iran and Russia will stand by the people of Syria, and I’m very confident that the people of Iran are not going to hold their government responsible for the sanctions imposed and the violation of international law by the United States.

Q: What do you think about the impact of EU’s oil embargo against Iran on the European economy in the wake of the current economic crisis? Some analysts say that around 15 to 20 percent of the current price of the oil is a result of the EU’s oil embargo. What’s your take on that?

A: Well it’s one of those reasonably predictable consequences of doing an action that you undertake for reasons you may regard as just, which I happened to believe is not the case here remotely but which are going to have effects on other nations in many other ways, so I believe that these are the additional reasons why the sanctions are wrong; they ought to be lifted. We need more communication between the nations, more cooperation and more diplomacy. If not of a warlike stance, indeed historically sanctions of this kind have been regarded as acts of war, just as blockades have been regarded as acts of war perhaps of a less direct form, but nevertheless of that character. It’s despicable that the United States should be imposing sanctions on Iran.

RT Interview of Brian Becker of Anti-War Coalition:  "Economic Blockage of Iran is an Act of War"

Q: It can be asserted that along with the expansion of the sanctions, the resistance of the Iranian nation has also increased. Can the United States and its allies succeed in bringing the Iranian people to their knees by imposing the hard-hitting sanctions?

A: I think it’s a very unfortunate development in relations between the nations that the United States is committing a tremendous blunder by pursuing this path which I hope it will abandon in short run and treat the Iranian people with respect it deserves and to which it’s entitled.

Q: One of the theories which some political scientists propose is that by issuing repeated war threats against Iran, Israel is trying to persuade the United States and European Union to impose harder sanctions against Iran. Do you agree?

A: I think the real problem in the Middle East is not Iran. Iran has not attacked any other nation for three hundred years. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran allows inspectors. There’s another country in the Middle East that has 200-600 or more nuclear weapons, has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and does not allow inspectors. In my judgment, the cause of unrest and most of the problems in the Middle East do not derive from Iran and any action it has taken, but rather from Israel and the actions it has taken to promote its self-interest and domination of the Middle East.

Q: Complementing the sanctions with threats of military strike and intelligence operations are among the most important advices given by Israel to the United States and Europe. How much successful have they been in these goals such as infiltrating into Iran, sabotaging Iran’s security, assassinating the civilian scientists, etc.?

A: These are the kind of actions which one has to expect from Israel; a rogue nation that violates the international law on a regular basis. Assassinating Iranian scientists is a premier example. In my judgment, Israel is the cause of the major problems in the Middle East, even extending into the United States, intervening in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11 which is a fabricated event intended to promote the interests of Israel and not those of the United States. Estimates are that if there were an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a million Iranians will be killed outright. And the cloud of contamination will encompass Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and that will bring about another 35 million premature deaths. The United States should not be associated with anything, any action and any effort that can bring about such a devastating consequence. And a confrontation with that magnitude will be one of the greatest crimes of the human history and it must be avoided.

Q: Iran says that the sanctions have practically led to some economic reforms and self-sufficiency in economic and industrial areas which couldn’t be realized under normal situation. From what aspects is Iran capable of turning the sanctions into new opportunities?

A: Well, my personal opinion is that Iran might want to consider some options in relation to constraining the traffic of oil in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormouz. This is a very delicate situation. But insofar as the sanctions qualify as acts of war, Iran may need to consider its alternatives which might very well include restricting the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormouz.

Q: And the final question; how much of Iran’s economic problems emanate from the economic sanctions and how much are related to the other internal factors?

A: That’s a very difficult issue for me to assess given that I’m not an economist intimately familiar with the economic infrastructure of Iran, but I would have to surmise that the sanctions are making a difference and the Iranian people will be far better-off if they were relieved and the sanctions were completely removed and the United States were to undertake normal diplomatic relations with Iran to bring about the solution to any genuine problems that exists between them as opposed to the fabricated, non-existent problems that are being promoted by the warmongers in the American Congress and the Israeli provocateurs.

Key Words: Anti-Iran Sanctions, International Law, Iran’s Nuclear Program, Nuclear Disarmament, Globalized Economy, Medicine, Human Rights, Military Strike, Fetzer

*Anti-Iran sanctions (No. 4) Thierry Meyssan: Western Nations Suffer from the Anti-Iran Sanctions

*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 3) E. Michael Jones: Sanctions Show US Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 2) Mike Gravel: Sanctions Are Illegal and Ineffective

*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 1) Kenneth O’Keefe: US Sanctions on Iran Tantamount to Collective Punishment

Read More

Newseum displays "Oswald's shirt": Proof that he was Doorman!

by Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke and Jim Fetzer

The Newseum in Washington, D.C., has announced a new JFK exhibition in honor of the 50th anniversary, "Three Shots were Fired". That is already grossly misleading (since eight, nine or ten shots appear to have been fired; see "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" on YouTube). The exhibit is going to include Oswald’s shirt, allegedly the one in which he was arrested. That makes it of special interest to those of us who have done extensive research on Oswald as "the man in the doorway". Here is how it was reported in USA Today:

The Newseum in Washington, D.C., will allow visitors a rare opportunity to view never-before-displayed artifacts tied to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as part of an exhibit, "Three Shots Were Fired," marking the 50th anniversary of the tragic event. From April 12 through Jan. 5, 2014, the public will be able to see for the first time four items belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed gunman who shot JFK in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963 and was later killed himself two days later. More than 100 other pieces will also be on display. USA TODAY offers an exclusive look at the exhibit, including the four Oswald items.

In light of all the lies that have been told and all the claims that have been fabricated in the JFK case, we can’t accept the authenticity of this shirt without reservations.  The distinctive features of the shirt as they appear in the Altgens6 have been among the most  important of our proofs that the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald.  (See "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!" and "JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!")  But what matters most is that the Newseum shirt is inconsistent with arguments against Oswald as Doorman and--in what could be considered to be a monumental blunder--confirms that he was Doorman.  Consider this close-up of the crucial area of the most famous photo taken in Dealey Plaza at the time, which focuses on the area of the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, where the man who is extending himself to see what's going on is known as "Doorman":
Taken by James "Ike" Altgens and technically known as "Altgens6" as the sixth of a series of seven photographs purportedly taken by him on that occasion, this close-up shows the man in the doorway at the center left, where his left shoulder is mysteriously missing.  The man beside him, wearing a black tie, is simultaneously both in front of him and behind him, which is physically impossible.  His torso and shirt are partially obscured by the extremely strange image of the right profile of a black man's head. And the face of a man to his left/front (right/front as we view the image) has been crudely obscured.  There would have been no reason to have altered the photograph unless someone had been there who should not have been there, where the only candidate is Lee Oswald.  These oddities are so blatant that, once they have been remarked, it is rather difficult to imagine why anyone would persist in denying that Altgens6 was altered. But one could still deny that Lee Oswald was in the doorway by insisting it was someone else, where the shirt that Oswald was wearing is crucial evidence. By altering the shirt in subtle ways, they could set up arguments to claim it was not the shirt on Doorman.

The Arguments Against

In some respects, the Newseum shirt does seem to fit with Oswald’s shirt: the fine grainy pattern, the light brown color, the presence of a button loop,  and of course the missing buttons. However, there is one important way in which the exhibit shirt does NOT match Oswald’s:  it is completely lacking in the sharp, defined fold-over below the collar that we see on the left side of Oswald’s shirt.  Compare:

On the left, you can see that Oswald’s shirt had the form of a jacket. In fact, many people took it for a jacket. The first person who saw it was Officer Marion Baker who observed it on Oswald less than 90 seconds after the last shot, and he called it a “light brown jacket” Notice that the “lapel” looks very much like what you would see on a jacket.  And notice that it is completely absent from the exhibition shirt. There are two questions that need to be answered: First, if that is Oswald’s shirt, what happened to the fold-over? It wouldn’t go away by itself. So, if that is Oswald’s shirt, then somebody did something to remove it, to make it go away. When? Where? Why? But, the second question is: Does the shirt on the right even have the capacity to lie like Oswald’s, with such a wide, flat, sharp, highly folded fold?  It is a fair question to ask because most shirts do not behave like that under any conditions. And if you don’t believe me, then please, go to your closet, take out your shirts, try them on, one after the next, and see if any of them look like Oswald’s. Ordinary shirts don’t do that, and that exhibition shirt looks like an ordinary shirt.

(1) The Pressed Lapel

 
Let’s look at some more comparisons, starting with this one: Look how sharp and defined that lapel is on Oswald.  But, you don’t see It on the exhibition shirt. And note that the exhibition shirt is being worn by a manikin. So, what would happen if you tried to fold the material over on purpose? Of course, it’s not really fair to do that because there is no reason to think Oswald did it. But, even if you did it on the exhibition shirt, you know it’s not going to look like Oswald’s shirt. It is not the nature of shirts to behave like that. Oswald was wearing a very unusual shirt. Below is another example. Again, we’re seeing that wide, flat lapel on Oswald, like a continuation of the collar down the shirt.
Below you can see how jacket-like Oswald’s “shirt” really was. But, there is nothing jacket-like about the exhibition shirt. This next one provides perhaps the most startling contrast of all. Look at the length of that lapel!

(2) It's in too good condition

So, the absence of that lapel on the exhibition shirt is a huge problem. But it is not the only problem. Why is the exhibition shirt in such good condition? Oswald’s shirt was torn and tattered.  It was so worn that there was a big hole in the  area of the right elbow.  And it was very disheveled, as you can see below. And what about the color? We have seen Oswald’s shirt exhibited at least twice before, and here is a collage of all three. On the left is the latest exhibition shirt, but in the middle is how it looked during a previous exhibition when the National Archives went on tour. And on the right, is the way it was presented in THE WARREN REPORT (1964). Notice how stiff and pressed the collar is in the shirt on the left and how disheveled and twisted it looks in the collar in the middle. Notice the different shades, where the one on the right even borders on purple. Also, notice that two of them are completely cinched up, closed at the top, even though Oswald never wore it that way. The only way he could have worn it that way is if he had secured the very top button that was tucked underneath the right collar using the button loop. Well, he never did that, but for some reason, they did in those earlier showings, no doubt to obfuscate the similarities with the shirt worn by Doorman.

(3) The extra button

Two of them are completely cinched up, closed to the top, even though Oswald never wore it that way. He couldn’t have even if he had wanted to since the buttons were missing--which means that the exhibition shirt has too many buttons. You see two at the bottom, right? How many did Oswald’s shirt  have? There appears to only be one.
 
The exhibition shirt has two missing buttons. We can see two dark remnants of where the buttons were on the left side of the shirt above the buttons that are there. But on Oswald, we can see no buttons, and there are three missing buttons counting down from the top.  In other words, the highest button on the exhibition shirt should be visible on Oswald, but it’s not. Here’s another example:
On the left, Oswald seemingly has just one button, and it’s at the bottom of the shirt. The exhibition shirt has two buttons.  The exhibition shirt also looks to be in much better condition, less tattered and torn. So did they alter it to make it look less like the shirt on the man in the doorway?

The Arguments For

There are counterbalancing arguments that suggest these three apparent difference may not be decisive. The argument about the missing button, for example, overlooks that the button may have been present on Doorman's shirt but have been hidden by the fold. Consider the following collage
prepared by Richard Hooke:  
Moreover, the general features of the shirt clearly appear to correspond to those we have identified on Doorman and on Oswald.  Here is another comparison that suggests this may very well be the that shirt that Oswald was wearing:  

What does it mean?

So, did they sew another button on the exhibition shirt? They had no right to do that. That shirt is considered forensic evidence. That’s why they kept it, right? Wouldn’t they have returned it to Marina otherwise? You are not allowed to alter forensic evidence in any way. That would be considered a crime.

So, is that exhibition shirt really Oswald’s shirt? There are only two possibilities: Either it is, but they altered it tremendously, OR it isn’t, and they replaced it with another one. Ralph thinks it's more likely that they replaced it, while Richard and I believe that it REALLY IS Oswald's shirt. Why?

(1) It is not Billy's shirt

The only alternative that has been advanced to defeat the argument that Oswald was the man in the doorway has been to claim that it actually was his co-worker, Billy Lovelady. In earlier studies, we have advanced many arguments in support of the identification of the man in the doorway as Oswald and against the identification of the man in the doorway as Lovelady. But no one did more to support the conclusion that the man in the doorway was not Billy Lovelady than Billy Lovelady, who went to the FBI on 29 February 1964 and showed them the shirt he had been wearing, which they photographed and sent to FBI Headquarters with a formal letter certifying that this is the shirt that Billy said he had been wearing:

While we believe that Lovelady's facial features have been altered to resemble those of Oswald (in the photo on the left), the officially designated "Oswald shirt", which resembles the shirt that was worn by the man in the doorway, bears no resemblance at all to the red-and-white short-sleeved shirt that Billy reported wearing when he stood in the area of the doorway on 22 November 1963.

(2) It is not a checkered shirt

The additional argument that has been made is that Billy doesn't remember what shirt he was wearing, even though he showed it to the FBI, because he was instead wearing a red-and-black checkered long-sleeved shirt, which has long been the contention of those who are attempting to salvage the "lone gunman" hypothesis. Here is one of the photographs that has been advanced to support the claim that Billy was actually wearing a completely different shirt, a red-and-black checkered (with white lines) shirt with a very delineated horizontal and vertical pattern.  Their contention was reinforced by the claim that Billy had inadvertently been captured in footage taken as Oswald was escorted through the offices of the Dallas Police Department and that he had likewise been filmed in front of the depository: Approaching the HSCA investigation of 1977-78, film clips began to surface providing additional evidence Lovelady was wearing a long sleeve red-and-black (with white lines) checkered shirt on the day of the assassination.  Images of Lovelady appear to have been superimposed into the Martin, Hughs, Dallas PD and Dave Wiegman films to provide bogus, after-the-fact, evidence that Billy Lovelady had been in the TSBD doorway wearing a long sleeve, red-black-and-white check shirt.

(3) They are not the same man

A frame of the Martin film shows a phony Lovelady (in this bogus checkered shirt) in the doorway with his shirt buttoned clear up to his neck, yet a frame of the Hugh’s film (supposedly depicting Lovelady at the same moment in time) shows Lovelady with his shirt sprawled wide--clearly a blunder in attempting to imitate the man in the doorway.  The difference are virtually those of a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll looked normal but Hyde looked like a gorilla:
  But if the shirt that Billy Lovelady showed the FBI does not even remotely resemble the Doorman shirt and if the checkered shirt not only does not resemble the Doorman shirt but the man who was filmed wearing it was not Billy Lovelady, then the proof that Oswald was the man in the doorway has been dramatically reinforced by the official "Oswald shirt", which we have shown bears one feature after another that corresponds with Doorman's.

What is really going on?

The Newseum shirt appears to be Oswald's shirt, but one that has been reworked for this exhibition. Why would they want to eliminate that lapel-like fold-over on Oswald’s shirt?  Probably because it was the most distinctive thing about Oswald’s shirt.  It wasn’t really a shirt. It was really a hybrid between a shirt and a jacket. It really had the lay of a jacket, but it was lightweight like a shirt. Below you can see Oswald’s shirt exhibited accurately--by himself. Look at these two guys. It isn’t two guys. It’s one guy. But if Lee was in the doorway watching the motorcade pass by, then he cannot have been on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. Which means that, believe it or not, Oswald wasn't even a shooter and the entire "lone assassin" theory is a gigantic hoax and a fraud! Those who continue to manage the cover-up don’t want us to recognize how distinctive and unusual Oswald's shirt really was. And that’s why they are showing us this very regular and standard looking shirt. And, it is the unusualness of Oswald’s shirt, which when examined closely, makes us realize that it is the same shirt seen on the Doorway Man of the Altgens photo, where we have enough evidence--even based upon the Newseum shirt--to prove that Oswald was the man in the doorway, after all!

Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK at lewrockwell.com. His video series, “Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent”, is archived on YouTube.

 Richard M. Hooke, a student of anthropology at UC Santa Barbara and former computer systems analyst for Bank of America, is also a writer and researcher regarding the death of President John F. Kennedy.  

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found.

Read More

"Zero Dark Thirty": The deeper, darker truths

“Zero Dark Thirty”: The deeper, darker truths

By Dr. James H. Fetzer ( PRESS TV) 

A film that may even take the Academy Award for “Best Picture of 2012” raises serious moral issues; glorifies a political stunt and is based on an historical fiction. It is the latest in Obama propaganda.

Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011 during the raid on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan on or about 15 December 2001 — and he was buried there in an unmarked grave.

Local obituaries reported Osama’s death at the time. Even FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an unmarked grave in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not die in Pakistan.

Nick Kollerstrom has published about it, "Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001". David Ray Griffin has a book about it, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive. And Scholars for 9/11 Truth has written about it.

The film suggests that torture produces actionable intelligence, when virtually every military and intelligence expert will confirm that you are told what those being tortured think you want to hear to stop the pain.

As TIME and the Huffington Post have reported, the film’s depiction of torture has created a controversy that may affect its chances for an Oscar. Among the most notable commentaries is one by Matt Tiabbi.

A columnist for Rolling Stone, he has raised serious questions:

“[I]f it would have been dishonest to leave torture out of the film entirely, how is it not dishonest to leave out how generally ineffective it was, how morally corrupting, how totally it enraged the entire Arab world, how often we used it on people we knew little to nothing about, how often it resulted in deaths, or a hundred other facts? Bigelow put it in, which was “honest,” but it seems an eerie coincidence that she was “honest” about torture in pretty much exactly the way a CIA interrogator would have told the story, without including much else.”

Osama was “our man in Afghanistan”

Even more importantly, the political context has been all but lost to history. Obama was on the hot seat for an apparently fake birth certificate, having troops in Pakistan and not closing Guantanamo.

By alleging that the tip had come from a prisoner held there and using troops stationed in Pakistan, in a brilliant political stroke, he took his birth certificate off the front page, positioning himself for re-election.

Osama was “our man in Afghanistan.” During the uprising against its occupation by Soviet forces, he was instrumental in securing Stinger missiles, which were used to shoot down their helicopters and planes.

In an earlier film about Afghanistan, “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Osama’s role was conveniently omitted. It would have been embarrassing to have acknowledged “the man behind 9/11” had been working for us.

The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the military/industrial complex scrambling for some new “boogie man” to justify massive expenditures on military weapons and curtail any “peace dividend.”

Nothing could be more useful than a shadowy “terrorist” threat that has no geographical boundaries, where you can commit a terrorist act any time it’s most politically convenient, as with the Bali bombing.

Australia had been reticent about joining the “war on terror.” What could be a greater inducement than to slaughter many Australians by means of a fabricated attack to motivate its enthusiasm for that war.

Analogously, what could have been more beneficial to Obama than to “take out” a man who was already dead by executing a political stunt that most Americans would not be in a suitable position to contest?

Problems with the “Official Account”

But there were problems. Local residents had never seen Osama. They identified the man in the photo as the compound’s owner, who was not bin Laden. The SEALs performed their task and were gone.

A photograph of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State was widely circulated as engrossed in watching it go down in real time. But the photo itself would turn out to have been staged. 

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, let the cat out of the bag by noting that there had been no visual footage of the raid during its first 20-25 minutes, which was more than the lapsed time for the whole event.

The body was allegedly identified by DNA comparisons in less time than scientifically possible — and was then dumped into the sea “in accordance with Islamic practice,” which was a ridiculous contention.

Burial at sea is disrespectful of the body, which can be consumed by sharks, fish and crustaceans. That is not a Muslim tradition, but it conveniently disposed of the most powerful proof of fakery and fraud.

When most of the SEAL team involved in the raid were killed when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan a few months later, it was not implausible to suppose that they might have been silenced.

Osama and al-Qaeda, which was the name given to “our base” in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama denied that he was involved in 9/11, implicating a “government within the government.”

Another prominent figure who has acknowledged the existence of a “government within the government” is William Jefferson Clinton, who admitted that this is an entity over which he exercised no control.

Research by experts at The Vancouver Hearings (15-17 June 2012) has vindicated his claim, where US neo-cons — with assistance from the Mossad and the complicity of the Pentagon — orchestrated 9/11.

There are many articles about this, including “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James) and “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview”. Or read “9/11: Have we been bamboozed?” The second death of Osama does not stand alone.

JF/HSN
Via PRESS TV

Dr. James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. A leading expert on the death of JFK and on the atrocities of 9/11, he has published extensively as a journalist for Veterans Today. He edited ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) on the assassination and chaired or co-chaired four national conferences about it. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he has published THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized the Madison Conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ and, during 2012, The Vancouer Hearings, which brought together experts on different aspects of the case. The conclusions to emerge include that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that all four of the crash sites were faked or fabricated in different ways, that mini or micro nukes were the most likely explanation for the “collapse” of the Twin Towers, and that Israel and American Neo-Cons planned 9/11 to promote their political agenda. The archives for his radio show, “The Real Deal”, on revereradio.net, at radiofetzer.blogspot.com, include more than 500 interviews on the most complex and controversial issues of our time. His most recent and important articles are accessible via “Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer”.

Read More

Sandy Hook: Analogies with the 7/7 London Bombings

By Nick Kollerstrom (with Jim Fetzer)

"No-one has been able to get into the Sandy Hook elementary school to verify if there are any bullet-marks, bloodstains etc, then on January 2nd, the children were transferred to another school some miles away: we assume the old Sandy Hook Elementary School will remain sealed off, and will be demolished. Perhaps a shootout DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN THERE, it was just an illusion."--Nicholas Kollerstrom

    Nicholas Kollerstrom is an historian of science who has taken great risks and suffered real harms by his willingness to conduct scientific research on the Holocaust. He has also done brilliant work on 9/11. The points that he makes here are rather chilling, including that the Batman film ‘Dark Knight Rises’ alluded to Sandy Hook region of Gotham City, as a portion of the city of Gotham during a setup of one of the bad guy’s dirty deeds in that movie.  Earlier promotions of the film the year before did not (Alex Jones discovered) have that Sandy Hook reference.  The 2000 film ‘The Sandy Hook Lingerie Party Massacre’ has the killer strike in the aftermath of a hurricane.' And the ritual sacrifice of 23 children is portrayed in ‘The Hunger Games’ by Suzanne Collins: she lives in Sandy Hook. As he observes, "Perhaps a shootout DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN THERE, it was just an illusion."  

Sandy Hook: Analogies with the London 7/7 Bombings

 

by Nicholas Kollerstrom

 

The Predator has struck, one more time. We seek for its identity, what is it? I here compare two different events, perpetrated by the Enemies of Mankind, seven years apart.  Maybe first read my earlier post. 

1.   Scene of crime remains concealed: no media access


 No bodies, only some duffle bags (Daily Mail)

No-one has been able to get into the Sandy Hook elementary school to verify if there are any bullet-marks, bloodstains etc, then on January 2nd  the children were transferred to another school some miles away: we assume the old Sandy Hook Elementary School will remain sealed off, and will be demolished. Perhaps a shootout DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN THERE, it was just an illusion. Kids heard bangs, that’s all we can say.  The new school will be patrolled by security guards permanently: presumably to maintain the kids in a state of sufficient trauma to prevent them talking, or remembering the wrong sort of thing.  

The Mail Online 6 January shows this image, subtitled: ‘Chaotic scenes at the school as police work to secure the area and bodies are carried out of the school.’ But look carefully, no bodies are here, only some duffle bags – and some are doubting whether this is the school car-park.

In the London Bombings, the three train carriages were kept absolutely out or bounds then destroyed one year later: the blown-up bus was taken up to Sevenoaks Military establishment, i.e only the military can see it.

2.   CCTV switched off

The Sandy Hook Elementary School was in an up-market area of Connecticut, shown by the large majority of its children being from Jewish families. It would have had high-security equipment including CCTV cameras. We have as yet not been shown images from the time of the crime (curiously vague, but said to have been three minutes around 9.45 on 14^th December). There are no images of a ‘crime scene’ eg bullet-marks in walls or through windows. No wounded persons being interviewed.

During the London Bombings, as also for 9/11, the CCTV was switched off: no pictures, from the most heavily CCTV’d city in the world (until 3 years later when some rather dodgy ones were released).

 3.   The patsy perpetrator(s), clueless and unmotivated, are themselves killed

So they cannot defend themselves. Dead, then can be given all the blame. There is no reason to suppose that the 20-year old autistic Adam Lanza had any expertise or practice in using guns, still less that his Mother went herself to a firing range or belonged to a rifle club and brought her son along. The car allegedly driven by him to the school turned out to belong to a shady felon, with FBI ties. Would or could any young man shoot his mother, take her car, drive it to a school to which he does not belong, be dressed in black, shoot his way into the school with several guns and kill virtually every target he aims at? How could anyone believe such a story? Then he kills himself – and then, goes over to his car and puts the rifle he has used back in the book. There is no conceivable motive for this physically quite impossible sequence of events.

The four alleged London bombers knew nothing about chemistry, never had any interest in it, and had no bomb-making skills that anyone ever heard about. Once dead they had no-one to defend their name against the official fictions. Not one of them had an animus against British society, to motivate any antisocial act.

 4.   An ever-changing story

If a story is being made up, then different agencies will be spinning it, so it will never be very coherent. The Sandy Hook story became incoherent at the moment when CNN News announced that four pistols had been found in the school: presumably because the official coroner had averred that each of the 28 bodies had an average of seven bullet-holes in them, so they needed four pistols to credibly sound as if two hundred bullets had been fired. One young lad is not going tobreak into the school with four guns – after shooting his own Mother. . The story of the rifle used – the Coroner averred that all injuries had been made with the rifle, then it was found to have been placed in the back of a car outside the school – can never make any sense. First we were told she was a teacher at the school, and Adam went to that school, then later it emerged: A former school board official in Newtown called into question earlier reports that Nancy Lanza had been connected to Sandy Hook Elementary School, possibly as part of the teaching staff. “No one has heard of her,” said Lillian Bittman, who served on the local school board until 2011. “Teachers don’t know her.”

The 7/7 London bombings was truly an ever-changing story, with a narrative that relied heavily upon journalistic amnesia and credulity over the latest bit of unattributed gossip. Notably over what explosive had been used, which kept changing. The State lies to its own people. The State participates in killing its own people.

5.   Terror-Drills being run

On 17^th September 2010, HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program had a drill with FEMA at the Sandy Hook Fire Department, which is near to the Elementary School. On the day of the event, starting at 9.00 am, a FEMA exercise ‘Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters’ took place in Connecticut not far from Sandy Hook. Some conjecture that this got moved and happened at the school, which would account for the presence of Federal troops there seemingly much too early. There is probably a lot more of this to come out. There is a picture on the Web of children of Sandy Hook forming a chain and being told to close their eyes – that is what a kiddie terror-drill looks like – from a couple of months earlier.
 
“Sandy Hook has a recent history of federally staged Terror Drills. A mock school shooting drill was being conducted in Putman County only miles away on the very same day as the Sandy Hook events on December 14.”

The London Bombings had four main terror-drills leading up to it, the last of these by Peter Power on the very morning at the same three tube stations.

6.   Guilty culprits announced too soon.

At 9:53AM, no more than ten minutes after the reported shooting ceased, the Associated Press published a story, “Official with Knowledge of Connecticut School Shooting Says 27 Dead, Including 18 Children.” Neighbours of Nancy Lanza said that around 9:15am they saw police surrounding the house, taping off the neighborhood and telling everyone to evacuate.  Yet, they supposedly did not learn the identity of the shooter until c. 11:30am.  They identified the bodies of the “shooter” and his mother before the body identifying process even started, with names, occupations, “health issues”, marital status and residency.

On 9/11, news items started alluding to Osama Bin Laden about an hour after the event. On 7/7 Tony Blair announced that it was an Islamic crime at 5 pm on that day. The total of 52 dead was announced much too early, in fact while two of them ‘not yet dead’ were still in hospital.

 7.  Film pre-announcement of the event.

The Batman film ‘Dark Knight Rises’ alluded to Sandy Hook region of Gotham City, as a portion of the city of Gotham during a setup of one of the bad guy’s dirty deeds in that movie.  Earlier promotions of the film the year before did not (Alex Jones discovered) have that Sandy Hook reference.  The 2000 film ‘The Sandy Hook Lingerie Party Massacre’ has the killer strike in the aftermath of a hurricane.' Or, the ritual sacrifice of 22 children is portrayed in ‘The Hunger Games’ by  Suzanne Collins: she lives in Sandy Hook.

The London bombings were prefigured in the film ‘V for Vendetta’ about an Underground train primed to blow up. It was filmed in the months leading up to 7/7, so Warner Brothers had free run of the London Undergound tunnels. Its launch had to be postponed because it was too similar to what had just happened. Likewise ‘the Descent’ a horror movie scheduled to open the day after on 8th July, about people trapped underground and dying: its launch had to be postponed. Compare the classic film ‘The Matrix,’ where after 17 mins one sees 11 Sept 2001 on Anderson’s passport ID. 

 8.   Families not allowed to see bodies of loved ones.

At least one family had the experience of not even being allowed to see the body of their loved one. “They told me, ‘You can’t see (the body),’” Gilles Rousseau told Radio-Canada, the French-language CBC. “  They would just be shown photographs. ‘Where are the Sandy Hook Bodies? Many are wondering, are there any bodies?

There was a bizarre aspect to the 7/7 tragedy, in the way families had to wait often over a week just to be told whether their loved one was dead, and then would be not allowed to see the body – with phoney tales that it might upset them too much – or else shown them embalmed with a policeman standing by.

9.    Families not allowed to speak

On December 19 the Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honoured – a de facto gag order. What is it so terrible they might say? In the 7/7 London bombings, ‘grieving parents’ would always be wheeled out to support the government narrative, but one could never get to speak to any of them.

See "7/7 Ripple Effect"


10.  Identity Theft

Adam Lanza was a vegan because he ‘didn’t want to hurt animals’. Nancy Lanza ‘was a wonderful, beautiful, elegant woman who loved life, and most importantly she loved her son, Adam’ a friend has testified. They lived on a street named after the great Indian Yogi ParamanshaYoganada: what did this mean to them? The Mother has been hyped as an Apocalypse-expecting gun-toting food-storing freak (as a prelude to demonising gun-owners in America, the whole point of this exercise)

Sid Khan especially of the 7/7 Four was a rising star of Beeston, and after his death he became the most thoroughly demonised of the Four. Seemingly endless terror-tales were woven around him. Sid Khab was especially proud of his reputation for non-violent conflict-resolution (see my online talk, about MSK as a ‘local action hero’) Wherever false-flag terror is perpetrated, it is important to try and rescue the identity of the person who gets blamed and demonised (eg for the Bali Bomb of 2002, someone called Amrotzi, who was a quite sensitive and intelligent young man).

11.   Actors used

At least one ‘grieving parent’ at Sandy Hook looks as if he was acting a part. People are suspecting work by ‘Crisis Actors.org’: ”Trained players and actors making it real,’ available for ‘active shooter drills.’ They bring ‘intense realism to simulated mass casualty incidents.’

The London bombings had some actors spotted on the street that morning, presumably part of the ‘terror drill’ scheduled for that morning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW089fj94vY ‘Wounded’ 
actors were especially noticed around Tavistock Square.

     

12.   Deaths not real

‘Even more unusual are the observations of Facebook pages of the deceased being created days or even months prior to the shooting, further suggesting the synthetic and premeditated nature of the event. For example, on March 23, 2011 a Facebook site was established, titled “RIP Emilie Parker,” for the daughter of Robbie Parker, now well-known after the soliloquy delivered on CNN and preceded by a gleeful chuckle and query as to whether he should read the lines provided him.’ One may doubt whether any of the 28 ‘deaths’ at Sandy Hook Elementary School were real.

The London bombings had one definite not-real-death,viz Myriam Hyman (but there may have been others). She’s on the plaque at Tavistock Square but no way did she die there.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE

Normally when fabricated terror happens, the story is fake but the deaths are real. It is the dead bodies which give the air of gravity and solemnity, so that Those Who Create Delusion will be believed. The London bombings had dreadful scenes of carnage, seen by real witnesses. Sandy Hook has only two dead bodies known: Adam and Nancy Lanza. On that morning, the local hospital went into lockdown and cleared four trauma rooms, but received only three patients, two of them dead children(according to the official story) and one mildly wounded adult.We saw locked-down kiddie-coffins in funeral services, but is that enough? The situation may remind us of 9/11, when airports that morning were waiting for the grieving relatives – but none came. The security forces averred that they had removed the bodies from the school in the middle of the night: had they?

Have children been stolen? Child slaves sell, we are told, for well over $200,000.  

Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., historian of science, including articles on Sir Isaac Newton, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, is a founding member of the UK’s 9/11 Truth movement, member of the New York Academy of Sciences, and author of 7/7: TERROR ON THE TUBE (3rd edition, 2012)  

Read More