Critics of the End of Tarantino's New Movie Need to Study Parallel Universe Theory (SPOILERS!)

 Quentin Tarantino and Sharon Tate, ca. 1967.

After seeing the latest Quentin Tarantino movie ('Once Upon A Time ...In Hollywood') this past week, I grew curious concerning what the critics might think about his incredible alternative history ending. (Actress Sharon Tate and companions on Cielo Dr. live, while the Manson family's would-be butchers are butchered themselves, by the film's two fictional anti-heroes,  Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth)  As the movie mavens at The Atlantic describe it, after noting the film had been "relatively peaceful" up until the final 30 minutes:

"Then comes the end of the movie, and the end of the movie’s relative peacefulness. Three Charles Manson followers—who, in reality, went on to kill five people, including the actress Sharon Tate—break into the home of the washed-up actor Rick Dalton (played by Leonardo DiCaprio). These would-be slaughterers end up being slaughtered by Dalton and his stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who employ an attack dog, a flame thrower, and a myriad of household objects that get slammed into faces. This flip of history triggered cackles of glee in my theater. It has also inspired wide speculation about Tarantino’s intent. What is the point of this ornate, ahistorical violence?"

Of course, like most critics this writer overthinks.  Personally, I suspect that most of the critics who blew gaskets about Tarantino "rewriting history" or "disrespecting it" never cracked open a book (or scientific paper) dealing with parallel universes     ( e. g. 'Parallel Universes' by Fred Wolf) ) or the Many Worlds hypothesis of physicist Hugh Everett.  This is a pity given many books on the former are widely available and Everett's Ph.D. dissertation is also available online as a PDF document..  Readers can get a small preview of the controversial ending below:

5:16

The Ending Of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Explained

In my humble opinion, one of the less histrionic takes on the ending was delivered at this website

The point of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's twist ending, explained ...

An even more spot on take appears herein:

The ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood explained - Looper

https://www.looper.com/.../the-ending-of-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-explained/

The author writing:

"Even before the Manson family begins its attack at the end of Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood, there are certain key differences establishing the alternate universe in which the film takes place. For one thing, Linda Kasabian drives away immediately rather than waiting in the car for the murders to end; for another, 18-year-old Steven Parent (who was visiting the groundskeeper that night and was shot in his car by Tex Watson) is nowhere to be found around the Tate house or the street outside. The biggest difference is that the Tate murders as a whole never take place, of course, but these key details establish the bigger ripple effect even before that crime is avoided. 

What else changes in this new timeline Tarantino has established, one in which Tate doesn't die and Polanski doesn't come home to a slaughterhouse? What does Joan Didion write about if not the Manson murders and subsequent trial? Does Bruce Lee, whose legend also looms in the film, somehow also get to survive his own tragic early death just three years later? Do the Beatles ever learn about Manson's strange interpretation of their lyrics?"

Is Tarantino a quantum physicist at heart?  A cosmic string theorist? Maybe not. Maybe he just wanted to create a revenge fantasy as another critic conjectured.  Getting back at the Manson garbage via a movie with plenty of vindictive splatter at the end. (A clip of Cliff's pit bull Brandy tearing into  Manson toadie Tex Watson's gonads is one for the ages.)  But the fact that alternate universes are consistent with physics and its speculations, means it is not outrageous for Tarantino  - even if by chance- to have integrated such an alternate ending into his film.  

 It further means that the critics who yelp about "debasing"  or "revising"  history have no leg to stand on; no more than if they were to bloviate at me for writing a sci-fi novel in which the alleged JFK assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) in our universe  exists as a noted 79-  year old Emeritus Professor of Physics specializing in Quantum  Entanglement at LSU, in a parallel universe.  E.g. 

And who -  by very clever means - finds a way to clear his counterpart's name in our universe by ingeniously  exposing the charlatans of the Warren Commission Report and its supporters and propagandizers.

Now it is true that  parallel universes have not yet been empirically or observationally  validated. However,  physicist David Deutsch has devised an experiment to detect the interphasing of one with ours.

In his book The Fabric of Reality (pp. 38-47), Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes.  The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls  "shadow photons".

He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe.  He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):

"For it turns out that the shadow particles are partitioned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics, but differing in that the particles are in different positions in each universe."

In other words, using the graphic  I've shown below for an idealized model :

We would need multiple ordered pair angles (Θ, φ)  to actually lead to an incomprehensible number, thereby denoting all the shadow photons in one of Deutsch's experiments.  In the graphic, I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying longitudinal geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ

 The existence of this multiplicity is what Deutsch uses to justify the term "multiverse",   with which I concur.  I reiterate that this is an idealized model which assumes that N-cosmi were incepted at equal intervals of time - as manifested by the equal spacing in Θ. In principle, we don't know a priori how "close" in complex time another parallel universe may be to our own. When one uses the assumption of "equal time intervals" between inceptions in our idealized multiverse, one isn't stating what those times are, and so they could be minuscule - and the smallest time unit imaginable is the unit tau, τ. (About 10^-43  s, and note Θ = f(τ).)

As an example, let two parallel universes be distinguished by a 1-τ difference in fundamental time parameter, viz. [1 + 2τ] and [1 + 3τ], then we would require for connection, a mapping such that:

(Universe 'A'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 2φ)
(Universe 'B'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 3φ)


which means the absolute coordinate φ is mapped onto itself 2 times for [Universe A] and mapped onto itself 3 times for [Universe B]. Clearly, there’ll be coincidences for which: f(Θ,2φ) = f(Θ,3φ) wherein the two universes will 'interweave' a number of times. (For example, such interweaving will occur when φ = π/2 in [A] and φ = π/3 in [B].)

The potential for interweaving is what would allow Deutsch's experiment to be performed.

As for the assorted complaints over Tarantino's ending, for once I do agree with something author Stephen King said, "It rocks!"    The critics, meanwhile, need to bring themselves up to speed on the parallel universe concept.  And note, even if Tarantino didn't consciously invoke it, the plausible existence of alternate universes means the critics are hoist with their petards.

A TV Series ('11-22-63') As Dumb As The Book It's Based Upon

King's book (11-22-63) is based on a total fictional take.  So the TV series like the book is based on the "Oswald dunnit" myth.

Teacher Jack Epping studies Dealy Plaza layout

More evidence the elites and their propaganda lackeys are doing their best to get Americans to accept the canned nonsense and BS that Lee Oswald killed JFK: a new TV series (to run as a streaming vehicle on Hulu) based on Stephen King's daffy pseudo-sci fi novel '11-22-63'.

As I noted at the time King's  '11/22/63' came out, he admitted creating his lead character,  school teacher "Jack Epping", to attempt to travel back in time to stop the "nasty, snarling" (in one perp walk photo King referenced in an MSNBC interview in 2011) Lee Harvey Oswald "from carrying out his foul deed". So King, having been suckered into the Oswald dunnit myth,  decided to write an 849 page "gorilla of a book" to further the crass disinformation disgorged in the Warren Report.

The problem is that King's thesis is bollocks. It is based on the false historical presumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the perpetrator and sole assassin. (Thanks to the Warren Commission, which was really a creature of Lyndon Johnson, as opposed to an official government investigation such as the 1978-79 House Subcommittee on Assassinations which found a "96% probability of conspiracy")

That King,  the media and the powers behind it could even believe they can sell this pile of ripe merde is beyond belief.  Not only that, but that they could make an eight part adaptation of the book, and enlist 500 extras to participate in this sham - as well as actors like Chris Cooper and James Franco. (Not to mention shutting down the center of Dallas for 2 days to "recreate the scene" - according to a recent TV Guide account)

In his original 'Morning Joe' interview on Nov. 16, 2011 King declared:

"I am prepared to get my ass kicked by conspiracy theorists on my book tour!"

And indeed he did, as researcher after researcher held this horror hack's feet to the fire for getting abundant facts wrong and revising history wholesale in his gargantuan novel - that almost rivals Vince Bugliosi's bunkum ('Reclaiming History')  in its fictional license and liberties.

When Scarborough pressed him for the basis, say avoiding a conspiracy plot, King was blunt.

"You know, Ockham's Razor and all".

Okay, hold it right there!  Invoking Ockham only works properly when applied  to a hypothesis concerning a natural event, or phenomenon! The reason is simple: we expect all natural events or phenomena to conform to a limited number of defined natural laws, including: the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law), Newton's laws of motion, and the conservation of mass -energy. In addition, the primary attribute of most natural laws is the simplicity of their hypotheses, i.e. economy of assumptions.

The problem inherent in applying it to the Kennedy assassination is that this event is a fundamentally HUMAN driven act not a natural act or based on a natural phenomenon. It is imbued with human motivations, plans and agendas. Indeed, it is  the plausible presence of human subjective contamination that automatically places the event in the realm of the  unnatural  so that Ockham's Razor cannot be logically applied.

In effect, we are making a deliberate separation between the causes and effects which govern the natural world, say like solar eclipses, coronal mass ejections, asteroid flybys etc. and those which govern human affairs. The latter are enmeshed in complexes of emotions and ideological agendas that can't be quantified like Newton's laws of motion, or simplistically reduced to one cause-one effect relationships. In addition, humans - unlike natural laws- are capable of deceit and misdirection. So, from many points of view, it would be foolhardy to reduce the realm of human behavior - including putative conspiracy - to the model applicable to simple natural laws. It would require something basically approaching a general denial that humans would or could ever act with duplicity. Which is total nonsense.

From this point of view, King ought to be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing - or that Ockham's Razor could legitimately be generalized and used as a litmus test as if the Kennedy assassination were like a solar eclipse or the planetary occultation of a star.

King did refer in his 2011 interview to assorted "conspiracy theories" (which he claimed to have investigated), but they were all of the weakest variety: the Mafia -Sam Giancana Mob theory - i.e. the Mob whacked him because he set his brother Bobby - as Attorney General - loose on the mob with his hearings, when Giancana & Co. allegedly allowed JFK to win Chicago and hence Illinois electoral votes in 1960; or "the Cubans did it" conspiracy, i.e. a cabal of disaffected Cubans nailed him for not providing air cover during the Bay of Pigs and so allowing them to be captured by Castro's revolutionaries and imprisoned. And lastly, the 'Fidel did it" theory - that Castro engineered the assassination to get back at Kennedy (for allowing the assorted CIA attempts on his life)

Nowhere,  at no point, either in his book or in his interview (or the Hulu adaptation),  is the key evidence cited that character Epping would need: the CIA's  201-289248 CI/SIG file on Oswald (released after the JFK Records Act) bearing the letter ‘D’ on the cover sheet,  indicating  a CIA Staff D, or SIGINT (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”

Most researchers who are serious understand that ZR/Rifle at the behest of Harvey was re-directed against JFK. The tipping point for most of us was when the spooks - like David Atlee Phillips, e.g

became aware of Kennedy's efforts at rapprochement with Castro, via aide William Atwood. (It had been Phillips who ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, fake files etc. ) to implicate Oswald as a commie nut in league with the KGB and Soviets – all the better to paint him as the one lone nut assassin in Dallas.

This has been known for over 20 years by researchers and yet King's character (and King himself) were evidently too dense or clueless to patch it together.

King then ran off the rails, displaying even more lack of attention to historical details, by asserting to Joe Scarborough that:

"Oswald won Hell's Lottery!"

He made this offhand blurtation in connection to Oswald being hired at the Texas School Book Depository on Oct. 16, 1963, or a mere six days before the assassination. But it was no "lottery" that he won, rather being targeted by Ruth Paine to ensure he was there in order to play the patsy role. King made reference to Paine and her testimony that Lee left his keys, and other possessions as he left for work on the fateful day. All of which are lies.

Paine herself was a deceitful, untrustworthy witness who never truthfully acknowledged, either before the Warren Commission or a later New Orleans Grand Jury, that her sister (Sylvia Hyde Hoke) in fact worked for the CIA - while her husband's (Michael's) mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was connected to Allen Dulles (the former CIA Chief) who JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. (James Douglass, 2008, JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p. 169)

Let us also recall that Dulles was appointed by LBJ as one of the Warren Commissioners. Between Dulles and Hoover (LBJ's good pal) all the documents and access for the Warren Commission could easily be managed and cherry -picked to drive the conclusion toward the lone nut nonsense. The latter did, however, serve a purpose in the warped reality of the Warrenites - as it justified the Commission avoiding the Oswald as KGB assassin  ruse.

Ruth Paine, who King seemed to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon, also never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15. This came by way of phone call to the Paine Residence from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. According to the documented materials presented by author James Douglass (op. cit., p. 171):

"Adams spoke with someone at the Paines' number about his being prepared to give Oswald referral for permanent employment as a baggage handler at Trans Texas Airways for a salary $100 a month higher than that offered by the Book Depository's temporary job".

Adams then left a message with whoever took his call for Oswald to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone for Oswald the next day, and was told he "wasn't here". Why? Why wasn't the better paying job information passed on to Oswald? Given Paine's background, and her connections to CIA people like her sister and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason is to put the patsy in place.

Here in a nutshell is the real reason King chose to do the hackneyed "Oswald dunnit" theme for his book, as well as the streaming Hulu adaptation: He was bloody lazy and it was a damned sight easier to regurgitate the official humbug than having to do real research and dig up the actual conspiracy (which we now tie to the CIA and William Harvey in the NSA via the Staff D operations and Oswald's CI/SIG file).  

Even TIME in its recent (Feb. 15, p. 55) write up about this farce essentially calls it out as being too simplistic to demand an 8-part series. ("The premise is so simple that conspiracy theories don't even enter into it.")  The problem then becomes violating a fictional version of Ockham's by expanding the fictional purview far beyond what is actually needed to narrate the pseudo-account.

Thus, a single lone nut-based story ought to wrap up in 4 parts or less. Obviously, a real conspiracy theme - tracking down conspirators like David Atlee Phillips, George Joannides and others-  would take more. Not to mention lead character Epping having to track down all three teams of assassins in Dealey Plaza (triangulation of gunfire) to stop JFK's murder as opposed to just one guy in one building. THAT would have delivered a real impact as well as logically- justified suspense, excitement as opposed to the phony, contrived alternative on offer from Hulu.

But as TIME notes: "Eight parts is too many and the series goes down several blind alleys".

Ignoring the main point that the whole Oswald dunnit angle is a blind alley, the biggest of all. At least King -- in his interviews- could have admitted he lacked the patience or background to put more ballast into his work. But rather than do that he again took the facile path of blasting "conspiracy theorists" like a true Warrenite toadie.

Apart from all these revisionist historical sore points, there is the technical one that it is simply impossible to go back in time 50+ years in a physical form. (Even leaving out the well -known 'grandfather paradox').  Stephen Hawking's own temporal axiom - which he cited in an April 1990 'PLAYBOY' interview(p. 83) -  notes that even if a theoretical time travel technique could be developed one could never traverse to a time or event earlier than the point at which the machine was made. If that was in 1999 then one can't go back any further. (However, in my up and coming scifi novel, 'The Lancer Expedition', a team of historians and physicists is able to project its Goldstone bosons - linked to consciousness - back to the event to at least document what actually transpires.)

Rather than watch this tripe, viewers are better served by watching anything else, say like 'Amazing Race' or even 'Survivor'.  Their time would be much better spent, especially in avoiding being propagandized by this BS.

Stephen King- Really Prepared to Get His Ass Kicked by CTs?

In a most unusual and audacious interview this morning on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', author Stephen King (in respect of his latest novel '11/22/63' on a time traveler attempting to stop the JFK assassination) asserted that:

"I am prepared to get my ass kicked by conspiracy theorists on my book tour!"

Well, you better be, Mr. King, though I somehow doubt with all the groupies in tow at Barnes & Noble or other mainline bookstores, you will meet those particular JFK conspiracy researchers- the ones with the depth of knowledge to challenge your insipid premise that Oswald did it!

Now, I already covered a number of aspects on why Oswald could not have killed Kennedy, in this earlier blog:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/stephen-kings-new-scifi-tale-fun-but.html

Now, I wish to focus on the remarks Mr. King made this morning and show exactly why none of them hold logical ballast. I will also continue to show that Mr. King's book research was extraordinarily weak, particularly on the JFK case. While one doesn't necessarily demand a novelist be able to research to the level of a Ph.D. thesis, one does expect enough investment of effort to disclose he's adequately covered the details which ultimately forge the premise of his work.

Let me start with King's first statement, to the effect that choosing the "Oswald did it" theme was "easiest", adding "You know, Ockham's Razor and all".

Okay, hold it right there! Ockham's Razor, first of all, is not a scientific law or even operating principle. It is a very useful tool, often used in parsing competing hypotheses. It basically stipulates that given two or more hypotheses to account for the same phenomenon, the one which makes the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one.

However, the one proviso here, in invoking Ockham, is that one is applying it to a hypothesis concerning a natural event, or phenomenon! The reason is simple: we expect all natural events or phenomena to conform to a limited number of defined natural laws, including: the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law), Newton's laws of motion, and the conservation of mass -energy.

The problem inherent in applying it to the Kennedy assassination is that this event is not an exclusive natural act or phenomenon. Indeed, the plausible presence of human emotions, motivations and agendas automatically places it in the realm of an unnatural event so that Ockham's Razor cannot apply.

In effect, we are making a deliberate separation between the causes and effects which govern the natural world, say like solar eclipses, and asteroid flybys, and those which govern human affairs.

For one thing, humans are enmeshed in complexes of emotions and ideological agendas that can't be quantified like Newton's laws of motion, or simplistically reduced to one cause-one effect relationships. In addition, humans - unlike natural laws- are capable of deceit and misdirection. So, from many points of view, it would be foolhardy to reduce the realm of human behavior - including putative conspiracy - to the model applicable to simple natural laws. It would require something basically approaching a general denial that humans would or could ever act with duplicity. Which is total nonsense. I mean, King ought to be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing - or that Ockham's Razor could legitimately be generalized and used as if the Kenendy assassination were liek a solar eclipse or a planetary occultation of a star.

This is as derelict and insane as the social Darwinists, based on Herbert Spencer's gross over-extension of Darwinian natural selection, who believe that "survival of the fittest" can be applied to human societies!

It also discloses a disturbing absence of critical thought.

When King did refer in his interview to assorted "conspiracy theories" (which he claims to have investigated), they were all of the weakest variety: the Mafia -Sam Giancana Mob theory - i.e. the Mob whacked him because he set his brother Bobby - as Attorney General - loose on the mob with his hearings, when Giancana & Co. allegedly allowed JFK to win Chicago and hence Illinois electoral votes in 1960; or "the Cubans did it" conspiracy, i.e. a cabal of disaffected Cubans nailed him for not providing air cover during the Bay of Pigs and so allowing them to be captured by Castro's revolutionaries and imprisoned. And lastly, the 'Fidel did it" theory - that Castro engineered the assassination to get back at Kennedy for allowing the assorted CIA atempts on his life, including the attempted use of poiaon cigars, all via "Operation ZR-Rifle".

The last is totally insipid and easily shot down. National Security Archive records show that starting in late 1962, JFK had begun a rapprochement with Fidel Castro, and a slow, deliberate effort to normalize all relations with Cuba. Indeed, as late as September 24, 1963, Robert Kennedy had informed Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. William Atwood, that JFK might be able to meet Castro to finalize the deals, but not in Cuba, suggesting Mexico as an alternative and a planned Mexico trip to enable a covert meeting. ( 'Kennedy and Castro: What Might Have Been', by Peter Kornbluh, in The Baltimore Sun, Aug. 22, 1999, p. 1C).

National Security Archivist Kornbluh shows (by reference to documents he has accessed), it was William Attwood, a Washington lawyer, who had negotiated the original release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners. Attwood was then charged with becoming the first American emissary to secure Castro’s ear and trust in a year-long rapprochement. In particular, to show good will and good faith, Attwood arranged for $62 million in medicines and food aid as part of the prisoner deal.

Almost no superficial investigators of the background to the JFK assassination know or are remotely aware of any of this, but it definitely means with a rapprochement ongoing and actual aid and supplies delivered to show good faith, Castro would not have attempted any hit of JFK. Indeed, JFK had terminated ZR-Rifle long before that, and all indicators show that rogue elements in the CIA pursued it strictly on their own time.

It is also more than plausible these elements would have known of JFK's efforts and not taken them very lightly. Indeed, they'd have seen him as a traitor of sorts.

As far as the mob and 'Cubans did it' variations, they also suffer from one major glaring defect: NEITHER of them had the power to effect alterations in the actual physical evidence, including:
- Kennedy’s brain (missing from the time the body arrived at Bethesda for autopsy)

- All of Kennedy’s clothing (ordered destroyed)

- The blood- spattered and bullet- impacted limousine (ordered dispatched to Ohio, where it was disassembled, then completely rebuilt)

- Zapruder film (seized and altered with attempted juxtaposition of frames)

- The original autopsy notes of Dr. J.J. Humes (Humes burned them).

- Kennedy’s skull (re-imaged using mattes in re-done autopsy photos to make the massive wounds appear in the front and the entry wound in the rear- to comport with the Warren Commission Single Bullet theory)

None of these could be done by the Mafia or sorehead Cubans or even rogue CIA agents. The orders had to come from the top, since the evidence was all material, and in addition under control (at various times) of federal agencies, including: FBI, and Secret Service. In fact, the relevant records disclose that none other than Cliff Carter (one of the co-conspirators found guilty by a 1984 grand jury in the Texas Henry Harvey Marshall slaying) gave orders for the actions which, if refused, were followed up by Johnson himself making telephone demands.[1]. Let's also point out that Johnson violated federal and state law with this type of usurpation, destruction of material evidence, not to mention having Kennedy’s body seized and taken to Bethesda (where military officers oversaw the autopsy procedures) instead of allowing the autopsy to be performed at the same Parkland Hospital in Dallas. (Where some of the most experienced bullet wound autopsists resided).

Again, if indeed the Mob and former Bay of Pigs Cubans were involved, it was only as "mechanics" or actual shooters, not as the architects or masterminds!

[1] Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, p. 792.


King then runs off the rails, displaying even more lack of attention to historical details, by asserting to Joe Scarbororough that:

"Oswald won Hell's Lottery!"

He made this remark in connection to Oswald being hired at the Texas School Book Depository on Oct. 16, 1963, or a mere six days before the assassination. As if this serendipity in hiring to be at the alleged firing scene was a lotto win for Lee. This is total bullshit. (And also, as I showed in the earlier blog link - above- the kill shot could not have come from the Book Depository, since Jackie was visibly leaning over the limo trunk after a fragment of Kennedy's skull, so the shot had to have come from the front. See Zapruder image 314 in the blog cited)

King then makes reference to Ruth Paine, who testified that Lee left his keys, and other possessions as he left for work on the fateful day. All of which are lies. Paine herself was a deceitful, untrustworthy witness who never truthfully acknowledged, either before the Warren Commission or a later New Orleans Grand Jury, that her sister (Sylvia Hyde Hoke) in fact worked for the CIA - while her husband's (Michael's) mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was connected to Allen Dulles (the former CIA Chief) who JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. (James Douglass, 2008, JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p. 169)

Let us also recall that Dulles was appointed by LBJ as one of the Warren Commissioners.

Ruth Paine, who King seems to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon or model, also never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15. This came by way of phone call to the Paine Residence from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. According to the documented materials presented by author James Douglass (op. cit., p. 171):

"Adams spoke with someone at the Paines' number about his being prepared to give Oswald referral for permanent employment as a baggage handler at Trans Texas Airways for a salary $100 a month higher than that offered by the Book Depository's temporary job".

Adams then left a message with whoever took his call for Oswald to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone for Oswald the next day, and was told he "wasn't here". Why? Why wasn't the better paying job information passed on to Oswald? Given Paine's background, and her connections to CIA people like her sister and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason is to put the patsy in place. Had Ruth Paine (who professed to care so much about the Oswalds) done her Christian duty and given the info to Lee to enable him to take the better paying job, there was no way the architects' plan could have succeeded. They could never have been assured that the one they were preparing for patsyhood would be at the place needed to take the fall.

Finally, in a 1993 NBC interview with Tom Brokaw (still have it on tape), Marina Porter Oswald herself aggressively denied all the bullshit stories about what a great help Paine was. She also added, with great emphasis, that Lee loved Kennedy as a fellow family man and would never remotely consider doing such a foul deed.

Evidently none of that matters to a guy who is now perhaps the master hack in terms of fictional novels to do with 11/22/63!

Amazon.com's Double Standard on Book Reviews

Having just submitted a book review (on Stephen King's novel '11/22/63') on amazon.com and had it rejected (first one ever) I now am forced to ask the reasons why. The rejection email received reads as follows:

Thanks for submitting a customer review on Amazon. Your review could not be posted to the website in its current form. While we appreciate your time and comments, reviews must adhere to the following guidelines:
http://www.amazon.com/review-guidelines
We encourage you to revise your review and submit it again. A few common issues to keep in mind:


1) Written reviews must be at least 20 words long. The ideal length is 75 to 500 words.

2) Your review should focus on specific features of the product and your experience with it. Feedback on the seller or your shipment experience should be provided at www.amazon.com/feedback.

3)We do not allow profane or obscene content. This applies to adult products too.

4)Advertisements, promotional material or repeated posts that make the same point excessively are considered spam.

5)Please do not include URLs external to Amazon or personally identifiable content in your review.

My actual book review is as follows:

Fun, Engaging Ride - But Not Historically Correct!, November 12, 2011

This review is for: 11/22/63: A Novel (Hardcover)

The writing in this new King novel is realistic, engaging and transports the reader to the late 1950s and early 60s. This is King's forte found in so many of his other novels, including 'The Stand', 'It' and others. This writing acumen is what makes suspension of belief feasible, much like another terrific time travel story by L. Sprague de Camp: 'Lest Darkness Fall', (1939), about a 20th century professor - Martin Padway - who finds himself suddenly hurled back to the Roman Empire in the sixth century by encountering a "time slip" in Rome.

All King's main characters are fully developed also, especially Jack Epping and through him we see the world of 1963 even though many readers may have been born long after that year.The problem with it is King's basic scenario of stopping Lee Oswald, and hence the JFK assassination.

This is, sadly, predicated on the false historical presumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the perpetrator and sole assassin. (Thanks to the Warren Commission, which was really a creature of Lyndon Johnson, as opposed to an official government investigation such as the 1978-79 House Subcommittee on Assassinations which found a "96% probability of conspiracy") This is abject nonsense, and mainly was perpetrated on an unsuspecting (but shocked) American public in the fall of 1963, in order to placate the lords of power and cop to political expediency rather than truth telling.

The deceitful core of the Warren Whitewash inhered in the (Nov. 25, 1963) memo from then Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach that preceded it. The key memo segments that bear on the way the Warren Commissioners were to conduct their business are as follows:

"It is important that all facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

The last is especially fell and egregious, an insult to the whole concept of justice and being innocent until proven guilty. Indeed, Katzenbach's injunction goes under the rubric of a fundamental logical no-no called: 'Affirming the consequent' - i.e. affirming ab initio that which you need to prove. Taking the expedient shortcut - avoiding the process, more: ensuring the outcome of the process blends with one's own agenda!

Let's even leave out for now, the fact that a trained team of expert marksmen 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")

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.

Again, the facts don't add up, and that non-addition gets compounded when one factors in another little detail the Warren Whitewashers never bothered to disclose: that the purported assassin window on the 6th floor of the TSBD was nearly totally blocked by the branches of an oak tree at the time. (This image is shown in my new book, 'The JFK Assassination: The Final Analysis')

Only a fool or half idiot would have attempted such a shot. The preferred shot then would have been out from the window facing and overlooking Houston St. as the limo was approaching the steep turn around the TSBD, not going out onto Elm St.!

Questions thereby emerge of why King wasn't familiar with these facts in doing his background research? Why didn't he examine other aspects as well such as the Nix and Zapruder films - especially the 2 frames after Zapruder 312 which clearly show Jackie moving across the rear of the limo.What was she doing? Why did she choose to move in that particular direction? Her own special testimony delivered in secret and not formally printed with the main volumes of the Warren Commission Hearings (but in their Appendices), is telling: she was trying to retrieve a dislodged piece or fragment of JFK's skull. (Note: This is also affirmed by her in recently released audio tapes she made, dated from 1964, in interviews with historian Arthur J. Schlesinger, Jr.).

But here's the problem: If this is indeed so (and a number of other films, photos, e.g. the Nix film shown in the Italian documentary The Two Kennedys, appear to bear it out), then it could **not** have been Lee Oswald firing from the Texas Book Depository to the REAR of the limo! The reason is linked to basic physics, specifically Newtonian mechanics and the transfer of linear momentum. Hence, if a piece of skull fragment is displaced over the rear of the limo, it could not have been from a bullet fired to the rear of the limo, but rather from the front. But the front is not where Oswald is claimed to have been by the Warrenites! In other words, the account of the Warren Commission is exactly 180 degrees opposite to the principles of basic physics.

Which again engenders the question of why King avoided all these salient facts. According to a gushing Wall Street Journal review of King's effort ('Stephen King's New Monster', p. D1, Oct. 30) King:"studied various conspiracy theories. He ultimately dismissed them, drawing the unsettling conclusion that a single person with no political power or charisma managed to alter the course of history by himself".

All well and good, except that neither the ballistics, as evidenced in assorted reactions captured on the Z- film (such as that with Jackie referenced above), the post-event efforts at expert replication of the shots, or even the astronomical aspects for shadow configurations (in the purported LIFE Oswald photo) support King's dismissal.

Does this mean King was lazy? Not necessarily! But as any fiction writer knows, the writing (and reading!)of any novel is enhanced by simplicity of plot not additional concatenations (even if lending to a greater historical accuracy) that may try the readers' patience, especially in today's tweeter-ipad, sound bite age. Thus, one may regard King's dismissal of conspiracy for his novel as more in concert with justified artistic license than deliberately ignoring the fact that Oswald as assassin doesn't add up. Or to put it more bluntly, King opted for go for an expediently written novel, as opposed to one that reflected history more faithfully (such as Don deLillo's excellent, 'Libra'.)

Leaving out a non-historian fiction novelist's WSJ cited ruminations and choices, I will refer readers to Prof.. David R. Wrone's take, in The Journal of Southern History(6), February, 1995, p. 188:

"I believe that irrefutable evidence shows conspirators, none of them Oswald, killed JFK. A mentally ill Jack Ruby, alone and unaided, shot Oswald. The federal inquiry knowingly collapsed and theorized a political solution. Its corruption spawned theorists who tout solutions rather than define the facts that are locked in the massively muddied evidentiary base, and released only by hard work."

So, read and enjoy King's latest novel, but do so while retaining a little cautionary reservation in the back of your mind. The real guys that King's protagonist Jack Epping needed to get were obviously so clever that they got Epping (and King by extension) to go after the wrong man!I awarded the novel 2 stars because, while the writing was superb, King's historical "punt" continually annoyed and distracted and took away a full enjoyment of the book.

-----

Okay, first one can see that the review does diverge somewhat from guideline (2). However, on surveying other amazon.com reviews of the same book I came across no less than five that didn't meet this standard either! In fact, if one peruses this set:

http://www.amazon.com/11-22-63-Stephen-King/product-reviews/1451627289/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

One will find assorted complaints to do with the price of the Kindle version, or that said version contains superfluous ancillary aspects (audio, video) in which the purchaser had no interest, or complaints about an electronic version which can't be sold or traded (hence of limited value).

The point is that ALL of these "reviews" miss for the same reason mine was rejected and indeed, they were even more grossly derelict since they didn't touch on the content of King's novel at all! So why were these accepted when Amazon's own guidelines would indicate they are not actually BOOK reviews, but gripes over issues irrelevant to the book's content, plot, characters etc. '? In other words, if I wished to buy, say a hardcopy of this King book, none of these reviews would be any use to me, period! They are a waste of space and even several comments were left by others to that effect! This prompted me to respond to Amazon's email as follows:


Actually, I have no intention of revising or re-submitting this review given that you have already allowed FIVE one-star reviews of this same book – none of which meet criterion (2) of your “guidelines” . Not one of those 5 reviews has anything to do with the book content but rather issues of Kindle, its problems and certain features re: the book purchased on Kindle!

Hence, if you are going to allow those sort of reviews, devoid of reference to content, I see no reason why you can’t include mine. Indeed, the rejection tells me that the reasons are a red herring and the actual reason may have more to do with my showing King’s historically inaccurate slant, in basing his novel on Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin.

If you can give me reasons why those five (*)reviews, which are basically Kindle critiques, were allowed while mine (to do with actual content) was rejected, I will be happy to listen – and then possibly post a comment predicated on what I have written. Otherwise, I will expect those 5 irrelevant reviews to be removed!

I plan to wait and see if Amazon.com intends to persist in their double standards on book reviews, or - since they rejected mine - if they follow their own guidelines and remove the other reviews that say even less about King's novel's content than mine!