Rachel Maddow Again LIES About Lee Harvey Oswald and His Rifle

Rachel Maddow appears to be a compulsive liar, at least where Lee Harvey Oswald is concerned. But this ought not be too surprising, given that non-serious, superficial researchers and talking heads (who may only deal with the assassination once or twice a year) are often bound to insert their feet into their foolish mouths. And so Rachel did it again last night, as she did back in March last year,

This was in conjunction with a segment last night on a gun reform law (S. 3714) that JFK had proposed: “to exclude from importation or re-importation into the United States arms or ammunition originally manufactured for military purposes.”

In this context she specifically mentioned the Italian made 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano, and showed an ad for it in the "American Rifleman" magazine along with photostat copies of receipts proving Lee Oswald purchased it. She then added, emulating a Neoliberal know-nothing:

"Lee Harvey Oswald bought the gun in March, 1963. He killed President Kennedy with it that November."

No, Rachel, sorry to disabuse you, but he did not. In your piece, obviously intended to target the NRA, you instead have offended and outraged serious JFK assassination researchers while also disclosing yourself to be one more part of the "unspeakable" described by author James Douglass (JFK and the Unspeakable) . You'd have done better to keep your focus on the NRA defeating JFK's bill proposal rather than dragging in Oswald as the alleged killer of Kennedy!

But it was clearly way too much arduous work for Rachel and her staff to note the real killers, as well as the JFK assassination mastermind (LBJ, see previous blog) and the FACT that Oswald's rifle was basically useless.  To briefly recap the facts:

 A trained team of expert marksmen (assigned by the Warren Commission)  was unable to replicate Oswald's alleged feat! Oswald was presumed to have fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, so effectively six stories up or 60’ in altitude. However, the experts were allowed to fire from a tower only half this altitude (30’). In addition, while Oswald had to have fired at a limousine moving at 11 mile per hour, the experts fired at stationary targets. (The Warren Commission Report, p. 137.)

The target area was also magnified for the experts, to the whole upper torso of the target prop’s body – while Oswald was limited to the head and neck. More to the point, the rifle was altered away from the one Oswald used. The rifle sight itself was rebuilt and “metal shims were fitted to provide a degree of accuracy previously absent’. When Ronald Simmons, the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Army’s Ballistics Research Division was asked about this he replied: “Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope" (Op. cit. ,Vol. II, p. 250.)

 He added that the aiming apparatus had to be rebuilt by a machinist with two shims added, one to adjust for the elevation, the other for the azimuth. In other words, had they actually used the rifle in the same condition Oswald was alleged to have had it, then they’d likely not have hit the side of a barn. (Maybe one reason the Italians dubbed their Norma Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm bolt action rifle that Oswald was supposed to have used as "the rifle that never killed anyone").

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). Even Chief Simmons admitted that the targets were not placed where they ought to have been to emulate conditions on November 22, 1963.

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. Another key aspect: for the duration of the 18 rounds, two of the master riflemen were unable to reload and fire at the stationary target as rapidly as Oswald purportedly did for the moving limo.


So why did Rachel make such a big deal out of this rifle?  Perhaps she is just lazy or ignorant. More likely  (I'm willing to give her a minor pass for ignorance) because she believed that by linking it, egregiously, to the Kennedy assassination and Oswald, she'd get more eyeballs and buzz for her show. But believe me, it backfired.

More interesting to me (and many others) is that in the immediate wake of the assassination, the actual rifle reported found at the Book Depository (i.e. by  three Sheriff's deputies and deputy Constable Seymour Weitzmann as well as reported on NBC News, in real time tapes) was a MAUSER. Now, THAT is a weapon that could have been used in an assassination, as opposed to the ridiculous Mannlicher-Carcano (which National Archives personnel won't even let researchers touch for fear it will far apart - as per a letter to Patricia Dumais who asked them to check the serial no. - as pointed out by H. E. Livingstone in his 'Killing Kennedy'.)

Ok, as for the photo shots of Oswald holding said weapon, i.e. the photos that appeared in LIFE magazine, I have already exposed those as fakes, frauds --- likely put together by a team of CIA specialists using a splicing technique to superimpose Oswald’s head onto the body of another actually holding the weapon.The full blog on the techniques can be read here: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

In 1977, a Canadian Defense Dept. Photographic specialist: Maj. John Pickard,  noted a 99% probability the LIFE cover photo was a fake and that each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When superpositions of the images are performed, e.g. one photo laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly. As Pickard observed:  "Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger - the heads match perfectly."

Adding to the weight for this claim was the discovery of what has come to be known as "the Oswald ghost photo" (see  image below). This had been  recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image.

Photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture.  Hester has surmised and many researchers agree, that the blank photo was intended to deliberately set up Oswald. The mistake of the Dallas PD (which former Justice Dept. special agent Walt Brown ties into the plot as accessories, see his book, 'Treachery in Dallas' - Chapter 'Blue Death') was leaving incriminating evidence for their frame- up lying around. If they'd had any sense, they'd have burned it.

Obviously, the question remains of why Oswald would have purchased such a weapon, even if the photos etc. were fakes. We believe the rational answer inheres in the appearance of the letter ‘D’ – on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file – indicating CIA Staff D, a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle.”

In other words, the purchase of the dummy rifle was part and parcel of a subplot in ZR/Rifle to simulate an assassination of Kennedy - at least this was the cover story fed to Oswald. He would then have exposed the real dangers facing the president when security wasn't at full strength (as it wasn't that day in Dallas, as the usual snipers that would have been there for protection were ordered to 'stand down' - likely also part of the subplot).

Most researchers who've delved into this in much more depth than superficial 'buffs' come away with the conviction Oswald was set up as part of ZR/Rifle. However,  with the plot now turned against Kennedy. Oswald was likely used as the dupe or decoy so the actual perps (likely Cuban exiles, and trained assassins - from the Army's Ft. Benning Assassin school) could escape . Scott and others believe he was told he'd help to expose the plot but he needed to be at the Texas School Book Depository to do so. No surprise that Ruth Paine, another asset, steered him into the job at the TSBD. The rifle was likely already planted at the 6th floor window bearing the phony "sniper's nest" despite the fact only a half idiot or fool would've attempted a shot from there - given the view was partially blocked by branches from an oak tree at the time.

Much of this has been confirmed by a CIA accountant with top secret clearance named James Wilcott, who had been with Oswald at Atsugi and retired in 1966.  (Farewell to Justice, p. 178).   Wilcott expressed certainty that Oswald (who had drawn an advance on his salary) was "an employee of the agency and was an agent" and noted Oswald also "received a full time salary for operational work." Wilcott further concluded Ruby was paid by the CIA to eliminate Oswald, since the Agency wanted no loose strings after the deed was done, and only it's own framing setup to prevail in the media.

The original plan was to "kill Kennedy, link Oswald to Castro, and use this as a pretext to invade Cuba". (ibid. ) Note the parallels here to the October, 1962 Missile crisis- when the Joint Chiefs tried to get Kennedy to invade Cuba on the basis of the Soviet missiles there. JFK refused, and in so doing put another nail in his coffin, while his enemies looked for other ways to achieve their goal- ending up at assassination of Kennedy - by a Castro dupe. Or so the CIA hoped people would believe. Wilcott, however, noted the phony link to Castro could not be established firmly enough to hold and hence the need to brand Oswald as the lone assassin. (ibid.)

In other words, the CIA aimed for a 'trifecta' - blaming the USSR as an accomplice, invading Cuba and killing Kennedy, but they ended up with only one of the three - but to be sure a huge one - as it's distorted this nation's history ever since. (Along with shattering all confidence and trust in gov't - given the government still holds to the phony Warrenite story.)
See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

and

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

Maybe Rachel  or her staff need to scan my blog posts on the JFK hit a bit first before she next shoots from the hip, and ends up boffing her set piece by deploying unnecessary and obvious canards that merely detract from the content and focus.

Glenn Garvin: "Facts Don't Matter in JFK Conspiracies" - Maybe Not To A Warrenite Dupe!

My impatience with certifiable hacks and know-nothings in the media grows daily as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination tomorrow. I don't mind, or wouldn't, if these ignorant tools would keep their unsupported (except by the now defamed Warren Commission Report) hogswill  to themselves but they never do. They present it as "gospel" and also cite the top Warren apologists such as Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi.

No surprise as a result, way too many incompetent commenters - like on the WaPo  NY Times and UK Guardian forums- parrot this BS, including that "Occam's razor applies". Uh, no, it doesn't! (See the last Mail Brane blog.).  Another dope on The Guardian site actually insisted:  "The Edward Snowden revelations show conspiracy can't work!"  Huh! Have you lost all your neurons? Or is it too much nose candy that blew them out?  Here's a clue: if a person is going to wax forcefully on the JFK case, at least make sure you know some basic facts, i.e. like Oswald's Mannlicher- Carcano didn't even work properly and the telescopic sight shims had to be rebuilt for the Warren Commission test trials! (See my FAQ,  Part 6)


Sadly - and possibly partly to do with the raft of ignorant comments in so many online news forums-  the pro-Warren malarkey is being recycled with revived intensity, especially as the current polling shows those who accept conspiracy has plummeted to 61% - from 81% in 1988. So the media brainwashers are feeling powerful and like they're making headway.  For example, Miami Herald hack Glenn Garvin in his recent piece: "The JFK Conspiracies: Facts Don't Matter" - which I happened to spy in today's online Denver Post. As I read through Garvin's tripe it immediately became evident to me the guy isn't qualified to write about the minerals in dog poop far less the JFK assassination.

What got my dander up? Let's see some of the codswallop on offer from this Mockingbird imitator:

He begins by citing the master disinfo hotshot Vince Bugliosi (who I will have a separate FAQ on) from a History Channel documentary to be shown tomorrow who cites "42 different conspiracy theories involving 82 assassins and 214 accomplices".  This, of course, is intended to make heads explode and sneer instantly at any suggestion of conspiracy. But note, this is coming from a liar who couldn't even get basic facts straight in his brick-sized tome 'Reclaiming History' - including insisting that some guy named "Miller" succeeded in duplicating Oswald's rifle feat, when the Warren Commission's own sharpshooter team couldn't do it! (which I elaborated in FAQ, Part 6) .

I also noted already the reason for a disjunctive plurality of theories which mainly arose during the three decades or so when no critical files on Oswald were available  I noted in my Nov 20 post (to do with TIME's nonsense)  how this changed after the JFK Records Act was passed to make available millions of files by 1993. These included Oswald's CIA file : 201-289248 CI/SIG, as well as others, which finally opened the window on Oswald to serious researchers - showing he wasn't the "lone commie nut" portrayed by the Warrenites and their apologists and enablers.  This was the first breakthrough paving the way to the CIA as the primary culprit.

Thus, the Oswald focus became much clearer with the HSCA's exposure (mainly thanks to brave investigators like Gaeton Fonzi, Danny Hardway, Ed Lopez (author of the Lopez Report) and others, when we finally saw how David Atlee Phillips used forged cable to frame Oswald for the hit. With the actual released photos of an Oswald impostor in Mexico City the framing became more evident, and the path led to assets of the Mexico City Station’s Chief of Covert Action and Cuban Operations, David Atlee Phillips.  Has Garvin done any research into this area? Not bloody likely!

My point is that the serious researchers have pinpointed the CIA as the top culprit. But let's examine some of Garvin's further bollocks, in fact to do with the CIA:

"The CIA did it because Kennedy was going to end the Vietnam War and cost the military-industrial complex a lot of potential profits! (No word yet on why the CIA didn't kill President Eisenhower a decade earlier for ending the Korean war. Maybe its profit margins were smaller?"


How do we teach this little twerp how to approach the document base? Is it even possible? Though the guy mocks the Kennedy intent to end the Vietnam War, he's blinded by his own arrogance and egoism. Does he even know where to look for the FACTS?  What we are referencing here is National Security Action Memorandum 263 - but alas, it is presented in a manner that is not amenable to lazy wannabe journalists, or dimwits.

What is often actually cited as the NSAM, i.e.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx


Is in fact only the cover letter by McGeorge Bundy. It has only passing relevance to the actual content of the NSAM, but it does clearly state “the President approved sections IB(1-3) of the report". Which report? To find these, the researcher must turn to Document 142 in The Pentagon Papers: ‘Report of McNamara Taylor Mission to South Vietnam'. Then the serious researcher will read:

IB(2) A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by the Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. military personnel by that time.

IB(3): In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

Note the wording and that a partial drawdown of 1,000 was due for the end of 1963 and the bulk by 1965. Most lazy wannabes never get this far while some others that do mistake the "1,000" total for the entire intended lot. I dispute that Garvin even got beyond the cover letter. If he did he'd never spout the ignorance he does.

Then there is the snide remark on 'why the CIA didn't kill Ike a decade earlier for ending the Korean War'. In fact, this idiot doesn't even know history since technically that war NEVER ended!  Instead a temporary truce was signed (never mind its duration) that was never considered as final or total, certainly not by Ike.

In addition, there were things JFK did to piss the Agency off, that Ike didn't do. One of them was firing its Director, Allen Dulles, after the Bay of Pigs debacle.  Dulles had virtually become the Company's identity since its early (post WWII) days as the O.S.S. (Office of Strategic Services) Another was firing the deputy director, Charles Cabell. The Agency also wasn't exactly thrilled when Kennedy vowed to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds". Unlike today's blow dried morons in media, the spooks took those words very seriously, not just as beer talk, or hyperbole.

While Ike was irritated at the CIA for its  overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954) leading him to regard the Agency as "dangerously out of control"- and thus establishing  'The President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activity' - JFK went much further.  He created the Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible only to him, and mandated all over flights of Cuba be done by the Strategic Air Command, not the CIA. He also defined a list of directives on what the CIA could and could not, do. By the end of 1961, JFK's 'Special Group' had no less than 17 recommendations for the "reorganization and redirection of the CIA.

The CIA, however, retaliated by withholding intelligence from Kennedy. By June, 7, 1961, Kennedy was complaining that he was receiving "inadequate developments" concerning events in a number of countries. As his ally, Gen. James H. Doolittle had put it, it was a case of the  "covert operations dog wagging the intelligence tail".

Does Garvin know any of this? Evidently not. It's far easier to shoot from the hip for a callow wannabe than to dig up FACTS.

But let's continue since having wallowed in initial foolishness, Garvin clearly isn't about to stop - as when he writes:

The Vietnam War theory is a good example of how conspiracy-itis is immune from either evidence or rational argument. Kennedy was elected president as a militant Cold War hawk who pledged an America that would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe" in the fight against communism

So let's see. Garvin is too dumb to acknowledge or perceive  that Kennedy, realizing he'd never be elected going against 'Tricky Dick' as a peacenik,  chose to portray himself as "Cold warrior" - could change stripes? And yet we know this happened - again because the document base supports it. The pivotal event was the October 1962 Cuban Missile crisis. Of course, one would need to get up off his lazy ass and consult a book with the transcripts of the tapes from the time: The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow (1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College).

On p. 183 one sees LeMay saying that "we have got to do more than take out the missiles" and he demands a massive air strike as well. Afterward,  we see  JFK choosing a naval blockade option.This leads  LeMay to actually compare JFK to Neville Chamberlain, and referring to his actions as “appeasement”.  According to one of the first major mainstream news releases after the tapes in the WH situation room were released (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 26, 1996, 'Bomb Cuba!Le May Urged JFK', p. 2A):

"Blasting Kennedy's cautious approach, the Air Force Chief, Gen. Curtis LeMay, told the President at a White House meeting on Oct. 19, 1962, "This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich......"

Through those days Kennedy was fending off strong pressure for an attack on Cuba from congressional and military leaders such as LeMay, who told him, 'We don't have any choice but direct military action...I see no other solution...'"

The upshot is that the close approach to the precipice of nuclear war had changed Kennedy to a confirmed fighter for peace, who was all about disarmament. (Noted and mentioned in his famous "Pax Americana" speech at American University in June, 1963).  Could Garvin even have gotten himself to a newspaper archives to check this out? Clearly not!

Garvin bloviates onward:

Just three weeks before his assassination, Kennedy's administration helped to instigate a coup in South Vietnam in hope of installing a government that would press the war against the communist North more aggressively. The idea that he was killed because he was soft on communism is preposterous.


Well, what's really preposterous, Glenn, is your abysmal ability to track down files, documents and check facts. Can we say you are incompetent? Yes, I believe so. In fact, it was the CIA that instigated the coup and murder of the Diem brothers and this also has been made known in sundry released files,  Some of the key ones are located in the book, JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass.

As Douglass notes (op. cit. p. 192): Kennedy got his  final wake up call on who was controlling his government when, in an early September, 1963 meeting he was informed by a David Bell of AID (a CIA cover organization) that the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program had “already been cut off”,  essentially assuring a coup would ensue with the Diem government in South Vietnam. The Diems were killed on Nov. 2, 1963 and the CIA had planned for Kennedy to be taken out the same day in Chicago, except that trip was cancelled. The lone assassin set up for that hit was Thomas Arthur Vallee. (About whom details more will be provided in the next FAQ, Part 9)

Kennedy was evidently livid and directly asked Bell who had told him to do that, to which Bell replied, “No one” (ibid.). The will to power disclosed here indicates the CIA felt it more powerful than Kennedy himself or his decision-making authority.  If they felt that way, there is nothing that they wouldn’t do to prevent the President from getting in their way.  The incident was confirmed by New York Times journalist Arthur Krock  in his piece  ‘The Inter-Administration War in Vietnam’, The New York Times, Oct. 3, 1963). wherein he wrote:


"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA”
 
This followed his observation  that:  "the CIA had flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.”

This in regard to disbursing the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program . So what do we know now? We know Garvin is full of shit, has no ability to probe documents to any depth and is hostage to slipshod journalism. I would call it "yellow" but don't wish to insult the real  yellow journalists

Not prepared to quit while he's ahead Garvin babbles on:

Even more outrageous is the belief that a lifelong Marxist like Lee Harvey Oswald would be the trigger man in a plot supposedly aimed at making America more anti-communist.

But if Garvin had taken the time and trouble to examine Oswald's 201 CI/ SIG files as well as the HSCA findings on David Atlee Phillips and his band of CIA renegades,  he'd see this is tommyrot and that Oswald  been actually sheep-dipped by the CIA to present this fictitious front. See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_10.html


Let's take one more hit on this character, given he opens the way:

What's been largely lost in all the conspiracy hoo-hah over motives is that the forensic evidence tying Oswald to the assassination is mountainous and indisputable. The murder weapon was purchased by Oswald through the mail with an order-form filled out in his handwriting and his wife took photos of Oswald posing with it months before the assassination. It bore his palm print and was found in a room in the building in which he worked.


Now, in the first case, the forensic evidence is certainly not "indisputable"   - though I do concede the false evidence is mountainous. For a rundown of the crap trotted out by the Warrenites  including altering the original autopsy notes, faking the autopsy photos, see my FAQ - Part 5. As to the alleged "murder weapon" - I already showed (in FAQ, Part 6) it couldn't have hit the broad side of a barn since the crack team of sharpshooters recruited by the Warren Commission couldn't even begin to USE the weapon for their trials until they had "rebuilt the shims" since the sighting was so far off!

As for the backyard photos, I already dealt with those including the use of the Oswald "ghost" photo which good ol' Glenn appears never to have heard of, e.g.

This had been  recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image.

Photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture.  Hester has surmised and many researchers agree, that the blank photo was intended to deliberately set up Oswald.

Finally, Glenn proclaims:

But conspiracy theories never expire at the hands of evidence and logical refutation. Mostly, they don't expire at all. Thirty years ago, the theory that Oswald wasn't really Oswald at all, that he'd been bodysnatched (by the KGB or the CIA, take your pick) and replaced with a trained-assassin imposter

Well, first he conflates the Oswald imposter with the Oswald double.  Maybe a couple of pictures - since they're worth a thousand words each- can assist. The imposter, Glenn, is the one shown entering the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City - a heavy set guy who claimed he was Lee Harvey Oswald and the one Philip Shenon insists threatened the life of Kennedy openly. Below I show the actual Oswald at left and the one who claimed to be him approaching the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City:

Now, the Oswald double - who went around Big D making all kinds of outrageous statements (and which I will detail in the next FAQ) was actually photographically exposed through the efforts of Jack White by taking two separate Oswald photos- claimed to be the same person- and overlaying them at the chin line so that they match, or are perfectly integrated.

The result is shown below which clearly displays the difference in height that the witnesses cited in James Douglass book allude to:




Never mind! With brainwashed, conspiracy phobic media hacks like Garvin, one can't expect a changeling. All we can expect, and have seen this whole past week, is lying babble out of the mouths of the whole constellation of corporatized media - whose main job is now propaganda.

Analysis of Pixel Diffusion In Oswald 'LIFE" Photos

Regions near right eye in 2 photos and fractional pixel deviations for D_t(x^b)  and D_t(y^b)   

Four years ago Dartmouth prof Hany Farid presented alleged "proof" the Oswald backyard rifle photos were "real". Google the name “Hany Farid” and you will bring up about 5,000 pages on the Dartmouth computer software scientist – from almost as many news sources – all parroting that he has “proven the Oswald backyard rifle photo is genuine." (One begins to wonder from this if the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird" is still going on.). For those who may not know, this is the infamous photo taken in the Oswalds’ backyard on Neeley Street in Dallas, sometime in March, 1963 (as documented from FBI files by Mark North in his ‘Act of Treason’) .

I did my own analysis of the backyard photos, based on the reasonable assumption that any transformation from specular dots on silver iodide based (1963) photo emulsions will undergo some drift  over time in rectangular coordinates such that this time-affected diffusion needs to be examined using fractional calculus equations of the form : d’(x) = w_H×(d(x)^bH) and d’(y) = w_V×(d(y)^bV).

An illustration of applying the parameters d'(x) and d'(y) to respective pixel sub-frames is shown in the accompanying graphic. These measure fractal deviations in pixel density from one Oswald photo  to the other (there were 4 in all) and from which the weighted error in the conceptual space may be computed. 

I give some of the results below for the diffusion factors, D_t(x^b)  and D_t(y^b) done using a Mathcad 14 software program. This is based on comparison of two photos (A and B) with the same regions selected as “prototypes” and the mapping done one to one, e.g. from points of dx1 to dx1’ and dy1 to dy1’. We start out with initial values: y = dy1 = 2.7 mm, and x = dx1 = 3.4 mm.

I estimated the weighting parameters: w_H = 1.01,  w_V = 1.03, b_H= 0.0015,  b_V= 0.10, so that: w = 1.443 and b = 0.1. With the non-dimensional fractional thickness change parameter estimated at: t = 0.001 then: D_t(x^b)  = 0.967 and D_t(y^b) = 0.964.

 

The total mapped diffusion from (A) is:

 

In x-coordinate:  dx1’ =  {dx1 +  D_t(x^b)}   = 4.3 mm

 

In y-coordinate: dy1’ =  {dy1 +  D_t(y^b)}   = 3.6 mm

 

The change in aspect ratio is: 0.794 to 0.839 or 5.6%

 

The original Euclidean resultant (for A) is:

 

D_rA(x,y) =      [ (dy1)² + (dx1)²]^1/2   =   

{(y₂ – y₁)₁² + (x₂ – x₁)₁²}^1/2  = 4.34 mm

The mapped (diffused) resultant (for B) is:

 

D_rB(x,y) =      [ (dy1’)² + (dx1’)²]^1/2   =    {(y_2’ – y_1’)₂² +           (x_2’ – x_1’)₂²}^1/2  = 5.70 mm

 

The fractional error for the resultant is then: d(d._AB)  » ½ (f1) + ½ (f2)  where:

 

f1=  [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y)  = 0.31    and 

 

f2 = [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y) =   0.23

 

We now look at another example for which the weighting parameters are significantly increased. Again, we use the same original dimensions: y = dy1 = 2.7 mm, and x = dx1 = 3.4 mm.

 

We estimate the new weighting parameters: w_H = 1.05,  w_V = 1.1, b_H= 0.05,  b_V= 0.18, so that: w = 1.521 and b = 0.187. With the non-dimensional fractional thickness change parameter estimated at: t = 0.4 then: D_t(x^b)  = 1.039 and D_t(y^b) = 1.014.

 

The total mapped (length) diffusions from (A) are:

 

In x-coordinate:  dx1’ =  {dx1 +  D_t(x^b)}   = 4.43 mm

 

In y-coordinate: dy1’ =  {dy1 +  D_t(y^b)}   = 3.71 mm

 

The change in aspect ratio is: 0.794 to 0.837 or 5.3%

The original Euclidean resultant (for A) is:

 

D_rA(x,y) =      [ (dy1)² + (dx1)²]^1/2   =   

{(y₂ – y₁)₁² + (x₂ – x₁)₁²}^1/2  = 4.34 mm

 

The mapped (diffused) resultant (for B) is:

D_rB(x,y) =      [ (dy1’)² + (dx1’)²]^1/2   =  

 {(y_2’ – y_1’)₂² + (x_2’ – x_1’)₂²}^1/2  = 5.78 mm

 

The fractional error for the resultant is then: d(d._AB)  »

½ (f1) + ½ (f2)  where:

 

f1=  [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y)  = 0.33    and 

 

f2 = [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y) =   0.25

 

We find that with realistic estimates of the weighting parameters, there is very little diffusion difference in the mapping of pixels from A to B along the dimensions indicated. Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same. Note, however, the purpose of the fractional calculus diffusion method is to show that two images are not the same in terms of pixel distributions. It does not claim to show how this happened.

 

In addition to the above cautionary points, the deviation of optical density for solar radiation falling at an angle of incidence i exhibits only minor diffusive differences (e.g. << 5%) on such (silver iodide) film negatives. Indeed, for years when teaching introductory astronomy courses, it was precisely this property that allowed me to show my students how to use the old b&w film negatives to view the Sun during partial eclipse without risk of blindness. One can't do that with the emulsions used today - assuming one uses old fashioned cameras! Hence, Farid's counting on computer processed pixel re-transformations of old (presumed) silver iodide films today to affirm fakeness is akin to me looking at old home movies on dvd format and trying to ascertain where the exact point of editing occurred.

----

Further comments:

 

In Farid’s computer analysis, one is left to wonder what exact photo he has proven genuine- since there were four in all. One of those featured small irregularities including that the telescopic scope was absent, because a technician had accidentally retouched it. WHY has Farid not picked it up with this elite software, when it was openly admitted by the management of LIFE magazine? Or, was Farid not given the retouched photo? If not, why not? Perhaps to prevent him from saying that ONE photo at least was a fake?
 

Then there is the “Oswald ghost” photo recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. It is shown below:

As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image.  Photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture. This has to be the same as that shown above. Was the FBI in on the manipulation of images and photos? We don't know, but given Hoover hated JFK's guts and Hany Farid's connection to the FBI in funding his lab, can we really trust his work? Can we trust he analyzed the actual source photo? And if so - which?

 

Now, I am not implying here that Farid faked the photos used for his work, so we are clear. However, he had to have obtained the backyard photos he used from someplace and most plausibly it was from the FBI -which funded his lab along with the Justice Dept. We already are well aware of the record of the FBI’s chicanery in JFK assassination –related evidence tampering: for example as noted earlier, and also when FBI special agent Richard Harrison (equipped with finger print ink and Oswald's alleged rifle) went to Miller’s Funeral Home where the slain Oswald lay, in order to get ex post facto fingerprints which weren’t there originally. As Walt Brown notes (Brown: 1995, Treachery in Dallas, Carroll & Graf Publishers, p. 332.), the Dallas PD never bothered to print him at the time of booking - incredible as that seems-  but lots of incredible events transpired that day and on those to follow, including Oswald's killing by Jack Ruby.

 

In 1977, Canadian Defense Dept. Photographic specialist Maj. John Pickard noted the 99% probability the LIFE cover photo was a fake and noted each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When superpositions of the images are performed, e.g. one photo laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly. As Pickard observed:

"Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger - the heads match perfectly."

Again, this can be explained using the same "spliced out head"  re-incorporated into each image.. 

It is incredible Farid has not performed this simple test, but then that would mean divorcing himself from his computer- which he obviously believes to be the next thing to an Oracle. In the above context, I am convinced that Farid’s preoccupation with statistical disparities or deviations in pixel density is only useful provided he knows the full and complete history of the object-film-photographic emulsion he is investigating. In particular, what criteria has he to implicitly trust the source photo? As my middle brother, a former photographic specialist with the Air Force in the 1960s also pointed out to me

“First of all he'd have to have had the original photo of Oswald, not a copy, which I doubt very much he had, since the Feds confiscated it and only allowed reprints. Secondly, in those old photos there were no pixels to measure since all photos of that period were taken with film type cameras and no pixels were on them to measure. The photos looked the same as a painted picture, smooth and even ”

To add to what he said, I do admit Farid could have generated pixels from the old photos (to enable and facilitate computer processing), but also - as I pointed out- he'd have to use fractional calculus at all inter-comparison points between all the relevant photos to be assured of a faithful reproduction or representation following any transformations of media. Since it isn't at all clear he did this, then basically he revived computer formats of the old photos, which appear to have already been tampered with, and reproduced the same errors. Farid actually re-discovered the tampering, but was too blinded by his computer processing tools to see it. To make a long story short, and skip to the chase, the differential fractional calculus transformations disclose that the V-shaped shadow under Oswald's nose is essentially identical in all photos, despite the fact the photos were taken at different times.

 

Bob Schieffer: Not Worthy to be Called a Journalist After His Oswald Diatribe

It's sad to behold a supposed venerable journalist in decline, but that's what one saw this morning as Bob Schieffer appeared in the next to last segment (on the Zapruder film) of CBS Early Show. When asked by Charlie Rose about whether he believed a lone gunman (e.g. Lee Oswald) killed JFK, or it was a conspiracy - Schieffer not only adhered to the Warren Commission line, but went off on a diatribe, calling Oswald a "madman" and then referring to Oswald "shooting (Dallas P.D. officer) J.D. Tippit in cold blood", and his later arrest at the Texas Theater when he "tried to kill the officers".

Whoa there, Schieffer, let's at least try to get our facts straight! First of all, Lee Oswald was no "madman". Yes, he might have suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, but so do over 12 million Americans - among whom is Brandon Marshall - Chicago Bears wide receiver, who caught a number of catches last night in the Bears' romp over the hapless NY Giants. Later, Marshall appeared on the NFL Channel set for an interview and I detected no latent homicidal or other urges.   At the very most, Oswald's BPD likely incited many furious arguments with wife Marina (like Marshall's earlier altercations with his gf), but not the killing of a President. Especially one that Lee admired and loved, as reported by Marina in a 1993 (30th anniversary)NBC  interview with Tom Brokaw.

The fact that Lee had the ability to muster cogent arguments in notes -  for a lecture delivered at the Jesuit House of Studies, at Mobile's Spring Hill College-  on July 27, 1963, also shows he was certainly not "mad". (This was reported in James Douglass' book, JFK and the Unspeakable , p. 331).

Now, let's examine the death of Officer Tippit -which many lone nut advocates try to invoke as prima facie evidence against Oswald. Tippit was shot to death in Dallas' Oak Cliff area, at the intersection of 10th Street and Patton Avenue - of that there is no doubt. The question is:  WHO did it? Officer Gerald Hill had custody of the .38 supposedly found on Oswald - but given the existence of the Oswald "ghost" photo (at Dallas P.D. HQ - see my March 13 post for the image, details) this could well have been a plant. Hill testified to the Warren Commission that he'd found six live rounds in the chamber and two empty cartridges  (that came from an automatic weapon) at the murder scene. (Revolvers don't discharge shells after firing)

Given Oswald failed a paraffin test for nitrate residue, and given the preceding account, the evidence indicates Oswald never fired a gun that day, period. Full stop.  Further, all the original witnesses asserted in  their original statements to the Dallas cops that the man who fired on Tippit did not resemble Oswald - but rather a heavy set guy - similar to the one shown in the graphic attached. This same character, interestingly, was spotted in one window of the Texas School Book Depository (see inset image) minutes before the assassination and was also the fake "Oswald" reportedly seen in Mexico City, and for which the CIA wire at the time declared: "NO! Not Oswald!"  This was reported (p. 399) in John Newman's book, Oswald and CIA:

"..an American male, who identified himself as Lee OSWALD, contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring whether the Embassy had received any news concerning a telegram which had been sent to Washington. The American was described as approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build, about six feet tall, with a receding hairline."


It was certainly not Oswald, who at only 5'9" (at most) and slight of build (160 lbs.) possessed a decidedly un-athletic physique. Readers can compare his booking photo below with that of the  heavyset bloke :
One would have to be blind, or desperate to insist any commonality existed between the images, hence the two men - which is precisely why the "Oswald in Mexico City" narrative is bogus as a $3 bill.

Anyway, under furious pressure from authorities, most of the original  Tippit killing witnesses subsequently changed their testimony to saying the killer "looked like Oswald." What they were threatened with we don't know, but it's interesting that a number of other  witnesses who came forward that day (e.g. Julia Ann Mercer, Lee Bowers, S.M. Holland et al) were threatened or cajoled into conformity if they insisted anyone but Oswald was the perp - whether in the assassination or the Tippit killing.

Two witnesses never did alter their words: Jack Tatum and Aquilla Clemmons, mainly because the WC never called them or took statements. But Tatum later testified to the HSCA  and Clemmons related to researcher Mark Lane (in the documentary 'Rush to Judgment')  that the killer was clearly a heavy set white male, similar to the guy shown in the inset photo. Ms. Clemmons also confided to Lane that she was admonished by the Dallas Police to remain silent.  Her subsequent silence may well have been warranted given the deaths of dozens of witnesses and people directly involved in the case, including those designated to be called by the HSCA to testify. See e.g.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/a-probability-analysis-of-witness-deaths-within-one-year-of-the-jfk-assassination/

Now, what about the Texas Theater incident? Either Bob Schieffer's memory is failing or he's been reading too much fiction. In fact, the Dallas cops descended on the theater in droves and Oswald, again, never had any chance to fire a shot - even if he'd had a gun. The odd witnesses there all reported Oswald shouted aloud: "I am not resisting arrest! Police brutality!"  Clearly, Oswald had figured out by then he'd been set up as the patsy - and the cover story he'd been fed (that he was to expose the plot) had now turned on him instead. Author James Douglas (op. cit.) conjectures the plot rebounded on Oswald after a phone caller named "Lee" exposed the earlier (Nov. 2, 1963) plot by Thomas Arthur  Vallee to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago. When that executive action was scrapped, Oswald became the target...now in Dallas.

Another sub-plot to the plot, involved Assistant District Attorney William Alexander being called to the Texas Theater for Oswald's arrest. Why? Also, why did he accompany officer Gerald Hill to the scene of the Tippit murder? Planting evidence? Confecting it? As per an account cited in the book, 'The Killing of a President' by Robert Groden (p. 101) the real madman appears to be Alexander, who allegedly "once threatened a man in the course of trying to extract a confession by holding a gun to his head and exclaiming, 'You son of a bitch! I will kill you right here!'"

Meanwhile, not to disappoint, after Oswald's arrest, Alexander evidently shouted loudly enough for the next door shop keepers to hear: "You're a god damned communist!" at Oswald. One supposes he was in the loop to tag Oswald with the most horrific label and epithet one could muster at the time.

But Jeezus Christ in  a cap, having a "commie" arrested for a liberal President's murder in a city (Dallas) known then as a right wing citadel makes about as much sense as claiming Lincoln was shot by an anti-slavery Northerner. (Especially after 'Wanted for Treason' posters had been put up all over Big D accusing JFK of consorting with commies! Gimme a break!)

The bottom line here is this Schieffer blather is just the beginning, and Americans will hear a lot more in the weeks ahead on how, 'Oh yes, we (the media) are certain it was Lee Oswald, a lonely, alienated, filthy, degenerate madman, who did the dirty deed' (The 'alienated violent loner' meme also recently resurrected by author Peter Savodnik, in his woefully clueless excuse for a biography, “The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union” . People would do much better to get hold of Robert Groden's 'The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald'.  See: http://www.amazon.com/The-Search-Harvey-Oswald-Comprehensive/dp/0670858676)

Whereupon they all, like Bob Schieffer, become part of the unholy alliance of the 'Unspeakable' articulated by James Douglass: all those who whether intentionally or unintentionally provide cover for the actual perpetrators, conspirators including those who have concealed the truth in the aftermath.

Rachel Maddow Blows It On Her ‘Gun Reform’ Piece

Oswald "Ghost" photo  (TOP)- found at Dallas PD Headquarters. This is the photo assassination researchers believe was used to frame him using the bottom photos, one of which later appeared on a LIFE magazine cover and which Rachel Maddow displayed on her gun reform piece last night.


Well, it appears Rachel Maddow – one of our leading liberal lights - has disclosed she too is an imbiber of false history (or untold history) kool aid, buying into the codswallop that Lee Oswald assassinated JFK. This was in conjunction with an initial segment last night on a gun reform law (S. 3714) that JFK had proposed:
“to exclude from importation or re-importation into the United States arms or ammunition originally manufactured for military purposes.”


She then went on to name as one example the Italian 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which she noted with irony, was purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald in March, 1963 and used to kill Kennedy in November of the same year.  She even displayed photos of Oswald holding the rifle in an effort to tie him to it (already attempted nearly 50 years ago)

But no where in her piece did she note that its nickname during WWII was “the rifle that never killed anyone” . This was how badly the weapon functioned, or rather, how often it malfunctioned. We in the JFK assassination research community have been trying for now going on 48 years to relate to the American public that on no account would a serious assassin have chosen or used such a weapon. But over and over well-meaning people like Maddow, especially in the "liberal media", set us back!


Ok, as for the photo shots of Oswald holding said weapon, i.e. the photos that appeared in LIFE magazine, I have already exposed those as fakes, frauds --- likely put together by a team of CIA specialists using a splicing technique to superimpose Oswald’s head onto the body of another actually holding the weapon.
The full blog on the techniques can be read here: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Therein I used a conceptual spaces analysis, in tandem with the known date on which the photo was taken, to show the shadow lengths did not match the solar position for the date. As it turns out, on March 31, 1963 (the documented date from FBI files for the backyard photo), one can compute (using a specialized computer program) the maximum solar altitude on the local meridian at noon (for lat. 32 deg 47’ 09” or Dallas, TX) as 57.0 deg. For example, in the LIFE photo, let x2 be the near edge of the 3rd fence picket and x1 be the position of the heel of Lee’s boot, and (x2 – x1) = 1.5 m. Let (y2 – y1) be the distance of Lee in front of the picket fence, or 3m.


Then the distance d1(x,y) ought to approximately yield the length of his shadow, in this case:

d1(x,y) = {3m)^2 + (1.5^m )2}^1/2 = 3.35 m.


We know from basic astronomy that the height of an object in the Sun is related to its minimum shadow length (L_s = d1(x,y)) by:

tan (a) = H/ L_s

where (a) is the altitude of the Sun. Thus:

tan (a) = (1.74)/ (3.35) = 0.464, or a = 24.8 deg

However, if d1(x,y) is off by 50% and therefore, d1(x,y) = 1.17 m instead of 3.35m then, the altitude of the Sun would be:

tan (a) = (1.74)/ (1.17) = 56.0 deg

Or, within 1 degree of the maximum solar altitude on the local meridian for noon (LMT)  at Dallas, TX on that date. This means that if the photo is legit, and conforms to the correct solar meridian crossing on that date, Oswald’s shadow can be no longer than 1.12m, which sets limits on how far he can be located from the picket fence. But estimated shadow measurements show a significant disparity (> 1m) - so the LIFE photo cannot be legit, but obviously confected to frame him.

In 1977, a Canadian Defense Dept. Photographic specialist: Maj. John Pickard,  noted a 99% probability the LIFE cover photo was a fake and that each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When superpositions of the images are performed, e.g. one photo laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly. As Pickard observed:  "Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger - the heads match perfectly."

Again, this can be explained using the same "spliced in head".


Adding to the weight for this claim was the discovery of what has come to be known as "the Oswald ghost photo" (see top image). This had been  recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image.

Photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture.  Hester has surmised and many researchers agree, that the blank photo was intended to deliberately set up Oswald. The mistake of the Dallas PD (which former Justice Dept. special agent Walt Brown ties into the plot as accessories, see his book, 'Treachery in Dallas' - Chapter 'Blue Death') was leaving incriminating evidence for their frame- up lying around. If they'd had any sense, they'd have burned it.

Let's also bear in mind the fact that a trained team of expert marksmen (assigned by the Warren Commission)  was unable to replicate Oswald's alleged feat! Oswald was presumed to have fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, so effectively six stories up or 60’ in altitude. However, the experts were allowed to fire from a tower only half this altitude (30’)[1]. In addition, while Oswald had to have fired at a limousine moving at 11 mile per hour, the experts fired at stationary targets. Anyone who's ever fired a high powered rifle will tell you it's much easier to hit a stationary target than a moving one!


[1] The Warren Commission Report, p. 137.

The target area was also magnified for the experts, to the whole upper torso of the target prop’s body – while Oswald was limited to the head and neck. More to the point, the rifle was altered away from the one Oswald used. The rifle sight itself was rebuilt and “metal shims were fitted to provide a degree of accuracy previously absent’. When Ronald Simmons, the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Army’s Ballistics Research Division was asked about this he replied: “Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope" (Op. cit. ,Vol. II, p. 250.)


He added that the aiming apparatus had to be rebuilt by a machinist with two shims added, one to adjust for the elevation, the other for the azimuth. In other words, had they actually used the rifle in the same condition Oswald was alleged to have had it, then they’d likely not have hit the side of a barn. (Maybe one reason the Italians dubbed their Norma Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm bolt action rifle that Oswald was supposed to have used as "the rifle that never killed anyone").

More interesting to me (and many others) is that in the immediate wake of the assassination, the actual rifle reported found at the Book Depository (i.e. by NBC News, in real time tapes) was a MAUSER. Now, THAT is a weapon that could have been used in an assassination, as opposed to the ridiculous Mannlicher-Carcano (which National Archives personnel won't even let researchers touch for fear it will far apart - as per a letter to Patricia Dumais who asked them to check the serial no.).  But if  a Mauser was used from the TBSD the shot would not have been the kill shot but rather the shot to the upper back. (Since in the real autopsy photos the entry wound was in the right front, the gaping exit wound in the rear, see e.g.
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). Even Chief Simmons admitted that the targets were not placed where they ought to have been to emulate conditions on November 22, 1963.


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. Another key aspect: for the duration of the 18 rounds, two of the master riflemen were unable to reload and fire at the stationary target as rapidly as Oswald purportedly did for the moving limo.


Why has Maddow - bright woman that she is - evidently bought into the Oswald killed Kennedy myth? My take, similar to the case of Stephen King doing it in his novel ('11/22/63’ ) is that it was the easiest path to take. For King it made for an expediently written novel, as opposed to one with hidden complexities of plot, albeit that reflected history more faithfully (such as Don deLillo's excellent, 'Libra'.) For Maddow, it allowed her to hone her focus in light of the fact her attention was primarily on gun reform law history and not on the assassination. Hence, to veer from the official dogma and mention “conspirators” as opposed to Oswald, would have deflected attention from her piece and the need for current gun reform.


I understand that, and appreciate it. But as we draw nearer to the 50th anniversary date, I do hope Maddow will have the courage to take on the real issues of the assassination, namely that JFK was murdered by a power cabal of big banking, intelligence and oil*, that couldn’t tolerate his assorted initiatives, whether pulling out of Vietnam in 1965 (by National Security Action Memorandum 263), or taking away the oil depletion tax allowance, or doing an end run around the Federal Reserve to issue $4.2 billion in U.S. Notes in place of Federal Reserve notes. See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-those-us-notes-were-real.html


*The nexus of how these are interlinked is discussed at length in Donald Gibson’s book: Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency