On the Kennedy Assassination.... Part One

Since we dumped cable TV in our household, I've spent an increasing amount of my down-time TV-watching browsing YouTube via my smart TV (and my Roku box). This YouTube surfing has been informative on many topics including politics, current events, high-altitude mountain climbing, space exploration and astronomy, tennis, and many others. One of the topics I've recently stumbled upon was updated information on the Kennedy assassination.

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist -- at least that's not my natural inclination; for years I've accepted the lone-gunman explanation -- despite listening to other hypotheses with an open mind. However, lately I have come across some highly credible accounts that, when combined with other information I've heard over the years, has caused me to have some significant doubt about the official government explanation of the Kennedy killing.

The most compelling new information I've learned came from the long video interviews with James (Jimmy) Files, who was a hit man for the Chicago mob. I strongly encourage you to watch these videos (see below) -- but be advised that they are  an hour and twenty minutes or longer. The level of detail that he provides is, I must say, persuasive.

Remington Fireball pistol

To cut to the chase, here's what I now rather firmly think true based on the evidence I've seen:

• There was an assassination conspiracy
• Oswald was involved
• Oswald was, at some point after his military career, in the employ of the government in some kind of intelligence/counter-intelligence job
• Shots were fired at Kennedy from behind as alleged in the official version of the shooting, but the fatal shot came from the front, hitting Kennedy above the temple behind his right eye
• The fatal shot came from the grassy knoll, from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll (many witnesses testified to this but were ignored in the Warren Report; later acoustical analysis as part of the last Congressional inquiry, which did allege a conspiracy, supported the assertion that a shot did come from the grassy knoll)
• The shooter of the fatal shot was, in fact, Jimmy Files (a.k.a. James Sutton), who himself fired only a single shot
• His weapon was a Remington Fireball bolt-action pistol equipped with explosive (that is, fragmenting) bullets, which accounts for the shredding-type destruction of the president's brain; (the rounds in the Mannlicher-Kakarnov rifle were full-metal-jacket rounds, which would tend to deform upon impact with bone, but were not an explosive (fragmenting) type, and therefore would not cause the type of head wound that Kennedy suffered)
• Members of the Chicago Mafia were involved in the conspiracy
• Members of the CIA were involved in the conspiracy -- probably some familiar names to those who lived through the era of the assassination and subsequent inquiries
• One primary motive for the killing was Kennedy's abandonment of the anti-Castro forces at the Bay of Pigs
• Another likely motivating or initiating factor was LBJ's ambition combined with his antipathy for the Kennedys.
• Under Texas law, the autopsy should have been done in Dallas, where experienced forensic pathologists were ready and willling to do their job
• The president's body was removed from the Dallas hospital by force (at gunpoint) to prevent the Dallas autopsy from being done
• Important crime-scene evidence (the interior of the limousine) was destroyed by secret-service agents -- perhaps innocently and stupidly, but still, what were they thinking????
• Kennedy's body was tampered with between leaving Dallas and its arrival in the autopsy theater in Bethesda Naval Hospital; the body left Dallas wrapped in a sheet within a bronze (as I recall from participant testimony) casket -- arrived at Bethesda in a zippered body bag within a (different) shipping casket
• Per the testimony of virtually all staff who examined the body in Dallas, there was a clean entrance wound in the right temple and a gaping wound at the rear of the skull indicating a fatal frontal shot; but at arrival at Bethesda witnessed a jagged wound at the same temple thus obscuring evidence of a from-the-front fatal shot 
• The doctor(s) who performed the Kennedy autopsy in Washington DC were not forensic pathologists and, in fact, did not normally perform autopsies
• The autopsy was done with significant interference by men in suits -- presumably FBI -- telling the doctors what to do and not to do
• The official autopsy photos have been altered and are not accurate
• The official story of Kennedy's brain initially being put in a bucket and then later disappearing is a falsehood; the technician who helped remove Kennedy's body from the casket and body bag in Bethesda, and whose job it was to remove the brain for forensic inspection, testified under oath in a court of law that the brain was essentially shredded, macerated, exploded and was essentially missing, with only a small amount of brain matter remaining in the skull, which itself was so damaged that the normal surgical removal of the skull cap was not necessary; the gaping wounds allowed a clear view into the skull cavity
• Oswald was killed to close the murder case and prevent a trial in which the full truth might come out
• There is so much conflicting information about the assassination that the truth is obscured to many due to information overload and uncertainty
• The Warren Commission clearly was selective in their examination of evidence, which would allow them to conclude with the lone-gunman explanation
• THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THE TRUTH (this is well documented); THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS, WHY? And how has this secret been so well kept and disguised?

Jimmy Files as he appears in his prison interviews many years
after the assassination. Worth watching to see for yourself.
Highly credible in plausability, detail and consistency with
other known facts. See videos below.....

Things that may be true include the following:

• Dallas police officer Tippit may not have been killed by Oswald, but rather by someone who was, instead, trying to kill Oswald as the first attempt to silence "the patsy"
• LBJ's involvement

Above: 2003 interview with Jimmy Files (Duration: 2 hours, 48 mins)


Above: 1994 interview with Jimmy Files (Duration: 1 hour, 20 min)

If you've watched these videos and have kept on top of the assassination info over the years, I'd like to hear your comments.

Do we now officially live in a banana republic, where governments are toppled by force? Is Trump just the natural progression in the deterioration of our republic?

Vote wisely and carefully going forward.

Wanna Appear Stupid? Keep Saying These Malapropisms....

From my pet-peeves department: three common improperly-used phrases that makes the speaker seem careless, uneducated, or down-right stupid.

The Number One Thoughless, Habitual 100% Incorrect Usage

A person is trying to convey that they don't care the least little bit about something, so they say, "I could care less." Oh, the careful listener thinks, so you DO actually care to some degree, obviously, because you COULD CARE LESS. Stop saying this! If you don't care about something at all, say, "I COULDN'T care less," which clearly means you don't care at all.

My Number Two Most Frequently Annoying, Stupid Malaprop

A person is trying to say that a statement, concept, issue, etc. is irrelevant. But they say, "It's a MUTE point." Idiot! Of course it's a mute point (mute being silent, unable to talk), because points don't speak! 

What the poorly-educated speaker should have said is that it's a MOOT (rhyming with boot) point. The word, moot, means irrelevant.

An Unquestionably Wrong Malaprop

Someone wants to convey that something is, without exception, whatever it is. For example, a person is asked whether Joe Doaks is the best in the world at his profession. The respondant thinks that he is and tries to answer in the affirmative, saying, "Categorically, yes."

No! Moron! Your answer using the word, categorically, is a qualifier -- meaning that there are exceptions to your agreement.

If you want to totally, without-exception agree, then say "Uncategorically, yes."

So what language abuses and misuses are on your hit parade?

Oh, and jettison Mr. Bigly from 1600 Pennsyvania Ave  ASAP..

Trump: Putin Says He Didn't Do It. So it Must be True?

If one questions convicted common criminals, many will claim innocence, being wrongly convicted.

If one questions unconvicted, alleged criminals, many will claim innocence, being wrongly accused.

So it was no great shock when I was reading the news this morning (from trustworthy news sources, not Facebook, not Brietbart), and saw that Trump revealed several informal meetings with Putin during this Asian trip.

In these meetings, Trump said he repeatedly questioned Putin about interference in the 2016 U.S. election process. He says Putin repeatedly denied Russian interference, and Trump says Putin appears to be telling the truth.

I'm shocked! Shocked to see gambling in this establishment! (This is a reference to the movie, Casablanca, in which the official played by Claude Reins feigns ignorance of the back room in Rick's Cafe, and then a clerk of the cafe gives Reins his gambling winnings.)

Of course, we know that Trump is a bald-faced liar, who has repeatedly gotten away with telling whoppers -- even when they have been publicly shown to be falsehoods. He also must, therefore, know that a majority of his supporters, though continuing to shrink in number, will swallow whatever he feeds them.

We also know that the U.S. government has stated unequivocally that they have incontrovertible evidence of Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election. So it should surprise no one that both Putin and Trump are lying.

We can safely assume that Trump doesn't believe Putin either, though he desperately wants the American public to believe. This is obviously due to his pathological need to assert his popularity and mandate to invoke his agenda.

Also, I suspect, it's because so many members of his administration have suspicious ties to foreign governments that are basically adversaries to the United States. This certainly includes Trump himself, who was at one time desperate to curry favor with Putin to further Trump's business interests. Trump may now remain desperate to curry Putin's favor because of incriminating and embarrassing evidence that Russia may have regarding Trump's personal and business behavior while in Russia, and much of that behavior has been documented and corroborated in the Steele dossier.

Dump.... oh, you know.

Most Common Driving Error/Hazard: Tailgating

I frequently wonder where many drivers get their driver's license: Walmart? Certainly not from the state and certainly not successfully trained by competent driving instructors. Why? There is an epidemic of tailgating -- that is, driving too closely behind the car ahead.

The standard general rule is to allow between your front bumper and the vehicle ahead one car length for every ten miles per hour that you are traveling. Yet I frequently experience drivers only one or two car lengths behind me when going anywhere between 40 and 70 miles per hour!

This is both dangerous and stupid -- as the bumper sticker on my car says. Yet some drivers can't take the hint. They are riding my bumper close enough to read my bumper sticker clearly, and yet don't seem to get it. I'm sorely tempted to get another companion sticker that says, Back Off!, though I'm not sure this will help either.

What's going on with this? Are these drivers too jacked up on caffeine? Are they stupid? What?

Slowing down often makes the situation worse, rather than better. Tapping the brakes to flash the brake lights often fails as well. A hand signal out the window to back off usually doesn't help.

Do you get annoyed when you are tailgated? Are you a tailgater?

Drive more safely.

What Does "Support Our Troops" Mean?

The other night, while driving home on the freeway from a distant tennis event, I passed a billboard exhorting "Support Our Troops." Alone in my car, I had the time to contemplate that directive.

I wondered about the implications of that command. I also wondered who is posting and paying for these signs.

U.S. troops haven't defended our freedom for a while.
This is a red-herring justification. Military action
is ALWAYS the action/enforcement tool of
governmental policy, which is rarely directly about
defending our freedom, and is usually worthy
of scrutiny and critical thinking. Respect and
honor our troops, but scrutinize and question
governmental policy.

It may be that the sign sponsors are well-intentioned innocents, who are merely looking out for the morale of the soldiers, who might be laying their lives on the line to do their jobs.

Now certainly I believe that soldiers deserve our respect, and I will always offer respect to them. It is brave, heroic, and honorable for a soldier to do his or her duty. No doubt about it.

Yet I wonder: what does it mean, exactly, to "support our troops"? If it means to pay respect, I'm in.

However, it's important to realize that military actions are the muscle that sometimes enforces governmental policy. And clearly governmental policy is not always right. Hindsight at the Viet Nam conflict proves that the government makes policy mistakes, which many hawks of that era admitted in retrospect. Robert McNamara is a prime example of that about face.

More recently, we invaded Iraq and started a chain reaction of unforseen events that have resulted in seemingly endless war. Actually, if one looks back on this Iraq-invasion debacle, it is clear that the government actually never considered their exit strategy at all. Apparently they assumed we'd go in, kick ass, establish a U.S.-friendly government, and withdraw with our oil supply maintained and stability in the region re-established.

Didn't end up quite like that, did it?

So I will support and honor U.S. military troops, but I reserve the right to speak out against unwise U.S. policy, which may involve the deployment of troops and resulting casualties. Like those who misunderstand flag or anthem protests as somehow disrespecting the military, there may be those who misunderstand protests against specific governmental policy and resulting military action. This is unfortunate, but likely unavoidable. There are always those who take offense when others have opinions that are more deeply reasoned and more nuanced than my country: love it or leave it.

Pay attention to what your government is doing. Understand how some (such as Trump) try to misdirect your attention. Act peaceably. Vote wisely, thoughtfully.

No Trump Campaign Collusion with Russia?

Well, if you're part of the 32% of Americans who will support Trump virtually no matter what he says or does, you are still probably denying or minimizing the mounting evidence (that is, facts) that connect his presidential campaign to Russia.

However, if you are more emotionally balanced, allowing some element of reason and FACTS to influence your judgement, then perhaps the following FACT-BASED video clip may have some positive imact (positive in the sense that you are more likely to agree that to remove Trump safely far away from the powers of the presidency is a giant step toward making America great and respected once again).

Also, I don't if you heard that our PT-Barnum-in-chief tweeted out last night that the New York terrorist, who mowed down with a vehicle some innocents, should be executed. Now you and I might agree with that sentiment in private, but it is totally inappropriate for the POTUS to be making these public pronouncements. Instead he should be encouraging following the Constitution and our rule of law. In addition, with his dim-witted Twitter outburst, he has opened the door for the alleged perpetrator's lawyer to argue that the defendant can't get a fair trial!

Anyway, check this out:



Anybody but Trump!

Who, Really, is Donald Trump?

Below is a video from C-Span, recorded before Trump won the presidential election.

I strongly encourage you to take the time to watch in its entirety.

It is an interview with David Cay Johnston, author of the book, The Making of Donald Trump.

Mr. Johnston is an experienced and respected journalist, who actually is asked to convey his credentials as part of the interview. For information beyond that which is in the video itself, you might review his Wikipedia listing.

The following video is recommended viewing!




Dump... oh, you know.