2013 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the great coverup

It was a source of embarrassment for me to have fallen for the special pleading of Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann in their books concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy. (The latter is merely a longer version of the former.) Both are now featured at our local used book store, donated.

All I can say in my defense is that they took me in a direction I wanted to go because

• 1) I do not idealize JFK. He appeared to me to be a mere cold warrior, an anti-Castro zealot. The idea that he was a humanist and idealist who wanted to avoid the Vietnam war presumes that he knew it was coming as it eventually played out. At that time, it was no more than one of many skirmishes. In addition, he was a schmuck who was highly abusive of Jackie, his boring high-society wife. She was unworthy of the public humiliation she had to endure as a result of his legendary dalliances.
• Further, 2) it explained why otherwise good people (Earl Warren and Arlen Specter, for example) actively engaged in a cover-up.

First, a word about both the JFK assassination and 9/11: Once an honest person looks at the evidence that contradicts the official stories, they become no-brainers. When I hear and read people, especially journalists, who cling tenaciously to the official dogma, I strain to understand such willful ignorance. This in large part explains why, in our culture, people are chastised and ridiculed for engaging in “conspiracy theory,” and why no discussion other than official truth is allowed on our airwaves. It’s merely a way to discourage self-consious people from exposing themselves to noise that drowns out official truth.

Once a person crosses the bridge, icons crash all around. One he realizes that it was our own dark forces that killed JFK and all those people on and since 9/11, the mythology of our “great” country shrivels. Not just one myth, but every myth falls. In the Soviet Union it was called “Glasnost,” or transparency. With the lies about the Soviet Union also came down the empire. Our country is built on lies and mythology, our propaganda far more effective than the crude Soviet type, but even so a simple matter like killing our own president (for mysterious reasons) or staging a false-flag attack on ourselves (for obvious reasons) tends to make a person a tad less patriotic.

This brings me back to Waldron/Hartmann. I know nothing about the former, but Thom Hartmann has become for me over the years an annoyance. I studiously avoid him. He is a run-on talker whose every word can be predicted. While I once held out great hope for him as an objective counterforce to prevailing Democrat/Republican wisdom, he retreated (probably for sake of ratings) into Obamabotism. So now, in addition to the predictable rants, he’s also a tool. He’s written countless books, I’ve not been able to open the cover of one, as I know what lay in store – tedium, shallowness, and even narcissism. He prides himself on his early intellectualism and HDD-ness, as if his hyperkinetic nature has led him to places others cannot traverse.

The Waldron/Hartmann books appeared in 2005 and 2009. They were selective in ignoring far more than they highlighted. Hartmann is not the driving force behind them but does offer a modicum of mainstream appeal. The questions arises: “Why, after so many years, is this story being foisted on us?”

I might have stumbled upon the answer, just by happenstance to all the other reading I was doing around 9/11. I’ve long known that Lee Harvey Oswald did not have a motive for shooting JFK – his wife and girlfriend each say that he admired the man. He did not have the means – the Mannlicher Carcano could not have pulled off what was an impossible stunt for even a high-quality rifle. But it is also now apparent that he did not have opportunity. After all these years, it can now be demonstrated with reasonable certainty that far from being in a sniper’s nest that day, Oswald stood in a doorway at street level watching as JFK was murdered.

The photos at the right show this. The top one is called the “Altgens” photo. We now have computer technology that can break these photos down to their essential features. Alterations are apparent, inserting faces, fogging, and also superimposing the face of Billy Lovelady on Oswald. (The smiling black lady is also superimposed.) It is all now evident under the microscope of current technology. The face is forever obscured, but the evidence of identity is in the clothing. The man in the doorway is wearing the exact same clothing as Lee Harvey Oswald wears in the photo below. Evidence is far more detailed than I present here, but even to the naked eye, the unusual shirt worn by Oswald (a gift from his girlfriend, Judith Baker) seems a match for the one he was wearing in the photo below. (Oswald wore the same clothing throughout the time of his arrest and murder. Orange jumpsuits came later.)

[Addendum: The reason our attention is called to this photo is because it is evidence that Oswald was standing where he said he was standing as the crime went down. Government agents were all over Dealey Plaza that day and confiscated all film and cameras they found – the Altgens photo passed through official hands before it was released. Since Oswald placed himself in an exonerating location, and a photo verified this, the photo had to be altered. I neglected to include this essential background in the original post.]

This photo is, for me, the last piece of evidence I need to exonerate Mr. Oswald, who was, in his own words, “just a patsy.” There is ongoing work on this photo, but the most damning evidence is, however, the crude alterations. Such work was enough in the 1960’s, when no one had the skill or tools to examine such evidence closely. The work does not stand up to the power of even a laptop computer these days.* If indeed the photo was of Lovelady, why muck with it?

And this, to me, might offer a motive for the appearance of the Waldron/Hartmann work. The jig was up. Since Oswald can be shown by strong evidence to be innocent, and since the coverup even 49 years later is still an active operation, a new perpetrator was needed. Legacy of Secrecy supplied him – Carlos Marcello. While he was at it, he also pinned Martin Luther King on the mob. The whole of the work of Waldron/Hartmann can be dismissed as a convenient distraction, or in the words of 9/11 investigators, a “limited hangout.”

Legacy of Secrecy is set now to be a major motion picture – big money is behind it. Its release is set to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the crime, and designed to divert attention away yet again from the real killers, a few of whom might still be alive. How convenient.
______________
*It’s also readily apparent now that the famous “Zapruder Film” was worked over. Eyewitnesses that day clearly remember the limousine coming to a complete stop just prior to the fatal head shot. The film was altered by removal of half of the frames (every other one), which is why it seems so choppy. Other critical parts altered by crude fogging and sign placement. The vehicle appears to move steadily throughout, but John Connelly and his wife inexplicably lurch forward even as the motion of the vehicle should propel them backwards. This is where the stopping vehicle was removed from the footage. Such work in the 1960’s was tedious and time-consuming, requiring hands-on work on every frame. This is why the film did not appear in public until the 1969 New Orleans Garrison trial. As it is critical evidence, its mishandling is legendary and criminal, and the fact that it came under private ownership of Life Magazine highly irregular.