Monday, August 19, 2013

Tina Brown: “Grassy Knoll Craziness”? How About Tina Brown IDIOCY?

Tina Brown looks like at least a halfway intelligent woman. Editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast, she's often called to weigh in on whatever new sensational news has erupted and put in her two cents. Naturally, if she really is intelligent, the rational skeptic expects her to speak intelligently as opposed to releasing a "shoot from the hip" idiot blip that forms part of the moron corpora-media consensus.

Such occasion transpired this morning for Brown, on 'Morning Joe' (yes, I admit, not exactly a repository of intellect - but still a forum millions watch) when in discussing a re-opened Scotland Yard inquiry into Princess Diana's death- and the 'theories' surrounding it-  she blurted out : they were “just like the grassy knoll craziness” .

Uh, no it isn’t,  you conflationist dope -  spinning this exposed trope! But this shows just how much the woman has studied anything concerning the grassy knoll, or the shots fired - - including their acoustic impulses – far less the assassination as a whole. In short she’s either a patented moron or an ignoramus. Sadly, despite the fact the woman clearly lacks the physics background to assess the acoustic record that led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)  to conclude "96 percent probability of conspiracy" - she pisses on JFK as well as the researchers who've diligently put in decades of work to uncover the facts. Not "theories" but facts, irrespective of what the mainstream media morons try to assert.

Look, obviously Tina is a bit exercised over the recent re-opening of the Diana case (by Scotland Yard) and as even others have admitted, millions loved and cherished her.   Other cognoscenti are also nonplussed, but they have the good sense not to expound on proven conspiracies of which they know nothing.  But, with Tina, she just couldn't withhold flapping her gums. Unable to sensibly compare the Diana conspiracy with anything else, say the truly crazy belief that the Moon landing was all "fixed"  and "filmed on an Area 51 sound  stage" (despite laser ranging experiments that proved its reality)  she decided to pick up on the grassy knoll in the JFK assassination.  Bad idea!

If any of Tina's DB staff happens to pick up this blog post, which I admit is less likely than Tina passing a basic test on the assassination, e.g.

then please show her this image (below) comparing the actual autopsy photo with the fake one, that the Warren Commission tried to put over on an unwary, still shell-shocked, public. (And bear in mind the WC wasn't any official government investigation but a creature of Lyndon Johnson in which he actually put the CIA chief (Allan Dulles) that Kennedy fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, on the freaking commission. Fox guarding the henhouse, anyone? Anyone?
Now seriously, I'd like Tina to use even basic common sense here and tell me how in Hades a blown out back of Kennedy's head, as shown on the right, could have been caused from any rear shot.  Anyone who's fired a high powered rifle at an object or prey, knows the major blowout occurs with exit, not entry. Hence, the Warren Commissioners used the fake photo without a blown out rear skull, to try to make people believe the shot came from behind, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository, where Oswald allegedly was. (In fact, he was in the 2nd floor lunch room of the TSBD at 12: 28 p.m. and numerous trials by researchers have shown there's no way he could have covered the distance to the 6th floor in the time - to deliver a class A kill shot to Kennedy, by 12.30 p.m.

If Tina's brain is still too indisposed to see that then she can examine the composite image below (left) - taken (top) at the instant of the head shot and (below) right after the head shot. Also shown is the fictitious depiction from a Warrenite artist on how the rear shot allegedly occurred. This was later exposed as a fraud by ballistic-savvy JFK assassination researchers (including former VietNam vet John Ritchson- on the newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk), since the actual rear shot hit Kennedy in the middle of the upper back. (Bullet hole in suit coat to prove it, but the suit coat was destroyed. Go figure! Conspiracy? Aw,  nooooooo!  Just a wee "coincidence" (among thousands) or ....Duppies or fairies must have done it!)

In the bottom image, Jackie is thrusting herself over the trunk of the limo. In her (secret) Warren testimony she testified she was attempting to retrieve a part of JFK's skull that had been blown off. Blown off backward from a rear shot? No way in hell. Any shot that blows off a skull fragment backward, according to the Newtonian laws of motion and linear momentum transfer, must occur from the FRONT. I.e. the grassy knoll!

But this crap isn't new, as author Michael Parenti, author of The Dirty Truths, has noted. Case in point:  the Oliver Stone movie (1991),’ JFK’ – which saw more know -nothing troglodytes emerging from the woodwork to comment than perhaps any other movie in American history. WHY? If they don't know diddly squat or dogshit why are they firing their yaps off? As Parenti puts it in an essay on ‘The Gangster State’ (which also appeared in his book)

The movie could not simply be ignored because it was reaching a mass audience. So the press savaged it. As far as I know, JFK is the only movie in film history that was attacked, six months before it was released, in just about every major broadcast and print outlet. The Washington Post, for instance, gave George Lardner Jr. the whole front page of its Sunday "Outlook" section (5/19/91) to slam Stone for "chasing fiction." Lardner was an interesting choice to review this particular movie, being the Post reporter who covered the CIA and who never wrote a critical word about that agency.

The media's ideological gatekeepers threw restraint to the wind when dealing with Stone's film. Conservative news columnist George Will, not known for writing movie reviews, penned a rant against JFK, calling it "a cartoon history" and "a three hour lie." Will describes Stone as "an intellectual sociopath, combining moral arrogance with historical ignorance . . . a specimen of the sixties' arrested development. . . . Intellectually, Stone is on all fours . . . part of a long fringe tradition . . . banally venal, reckless, cruel" (Washington Post, 12/27/91). By relying on invective, Will avoided the more difficult task of rebutting the points made in Stone's film.

Shoulder to shoulder with conservatives like Will stood liberal centrists like Daniel Schorr, the NPR radio commentator who attacked Stone three times on the air, always in sarcastic and general terms, without ever coming to grips with the information proffered by the movie. “

I recall  being appalled at the time when I first saw the film (January, 1992) that so many of these media rats had evidently crawled from their rat holes to pillory the film when they weren’t even marginally familiar with the assassination at even the most rudimentary level. Did these jackasses even know that the weapon first found at the depository – as reported by an NBC News broadcast I still have, was a Mauser – not the defective Mannlicher-Carcano which couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn? 

Did they know that the Warren Commission's own test trials using the alleged purported rifle produced negative results? At the end of the test trials, these Master Marksmen each fired two series of three shots each (18 rounds in all) at 3 stationary targets placed at distances of 175’, 240’ and 265’ (the last coming nearest to the distance from the Texas School Book Depository to the head shot). Just one of the three expert riflemen was able to get off three shots in under 5.6 seconds – the designated time interval for total shots declared by the Warren Commission. And most to the point: none of the total 18 shots fired struck the targets in the head or the neck. In other words, from a technical standpoint of duplicating Oswald’s alleged shots- this trio of experts failed. Does the blow hole yapping Tina Brown even know any of this? Nope, didn't think so!

Does Brown even remotely know that the "craziness" she so stupidly dismisses was actually based on the acoustic tests performed by a team of MIT physicists? It was that test which led the only legit government investigation (the HSCA, in 1979) to conclude for a 96 % probability of conspiracy. Is Ms. Brown going to tell us she knows more than these august HSCA members, or the MIT physicists? Give me a break!

Yes, it is true we who have seriously researched the Kennedy assassination for many decades are short on patience with dolts, morons, and ignoramuses that we must continually try to keep educating year after year regarding the details of the event. But like the pack of dunces at the back of the class, these miscreants are more invested in disruption than learning.  They have only one agenda, and that’s to keep the American people bamboozled, in much the same way the NSA miscreants want to keep Americans uninformed on what they’re doing.

Parenti again:
“Then there was Tom Wicker, a syndicated columnist who also had never done a movie review, but when JFK came out, he wrote one that covered a whole page, complete with photos (New York Times, 12/15/91). In it, Wicker said something revealing:

'If the wild assertions in Oliver Stone's movie are taken at face value, Americans will have to accept the idea that most of the nation's major institutions conspired together and carried out Kennedy's murder. In an era when mistrust of government and loss of confidence in institutions--the press not the least--are widespread and virulent, such a suggestion seems a dubious public service' ”.

In so many words Wicker was disclosing the basic reason why such a merciless attack had been launched against Stone's movie. A full exposure of the assassination conspiracy would invite serious discredit upon the legitimacy of the dominant institutions of state and class. Playing before mass audiences, 'JFK' did not accuse a cabal of malevolent perpetrators, but pointed to the national security state itself, inviting millions of viewers to question the kind of state system under which they lived. "

Of course, this is why these rats always come out almost like clockwork, as they will this October and November, as the 50th anniversary (Nov. 22nd) approaches. American citizens, real ones, need to be aware of the PR anti-Kennedy conspiracy blitz that's in store for them, and be able to read it and dismiss it for the codswallop it is. As Parenti has noted, this issue is important - indeed critical - and the longer it festers without full national exposure the more at risk we are as a nation.

Intelligent Americans should also be aware of the  (often subtext) use of propagandist meister Edward Bernays'  PR dictum in all of this. Bernays prime objective was also clearly set out in his work 'Propaganda':

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.”

The "true ruling power of the country", eh? So the rest of us are left over dog turds, effectively, or perhaps chopped dog livers? Oh, I guess we're just "conspiracy BUFFS"? Parenti again:

"JFK investigators have been described as "assassination buffs." The term "buff" is a diminishing characterization, describing someone who pursues odd hobbies. For the same reason that we would not refer to "Holocaust buffs," so should we not refer to these serious investigators as "assassination buffs." Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime. "

Bingo!  Readers, whatever else baloney comes over the airwaves about the JFK assassination, here is Parenti's most salient point (p. 156, Dirty Truths):

"To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects. This is why for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Carl Oglesby, Harold Weisberg, Anthony Summers”

My blog will be 'loaded for bear' when all the assassination dissemblers come out in the fall, including Mr. Tom Hanks. Get ready, you lone nut charlatans!

No comments: