911 Clues EVERYONE MISSED (VIDEO)

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

Note: While I have not authored this article, it appears to me to be extremely important for readers of Veterans Today and to represent another effort by powerful institutions to deprive American citizens and the world’s population the benefits of a new form of free energy technology to keep gas and oil profits up. — Jim Fetzer

A stunning report written by the late Eugene Mallove details the efforts of professors, researchers, and even the former President of MIT to squash cold fusion at all costs. If you have any doubt that Pons and Fleischmann had enemies desperately trying to discredit them, this article will erase it!
A funeral party or wake to mock cold fusion was held by biased hot fusion scientists at MIT before their experiment to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results was even complete!

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion
By Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
 
Due to the fact that commercially-ready cold fusion technologies like Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) exist and can produce kilowatts of power, I’m not too interested in previous systems from years ago that could only produce a couple watts of power (or less).
However, I am very interested in the events that took place immediately after the birth of Cold Fusion in 1989, when Pons and Fleischmann announced the existence of their technology to the world.
Although cold fusion systems at the time were not ready for the market place, they proved the effect was real — a fact the establishment could not allow the public to accept.
Immediately after the announcement was made, the “mainstream” scientific community went on the attack. The late Eugene Mallove was in the middle of it, being employed at MIT in the news office — before resigning in protest of the institution’s misconduct.

In a featured article for Infinite Energy Magazine, Mallove detailed exactly what took place that led to his resignation, and the depth of hatred that many professors at MIT had for Pons and Fleischmann’s work.

The article titled, “MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report” also looks at how the replication performed by the institution’s Plasma Fusion Center actually did produce positive results, how data from the experiment was altered by unknown individuals at least twice, and how the hot fusion scientists in charge of such tests were far too biased to conduct proper research.

The article is the most detailed piece of documentation I have ever seen in regards to the early years of the war against cold fusion. If you think the suppression Pons and Fleischmann faced was bad, you don’t have a clue until you have read this article.

The Replication Attempt

To start with, those in charge of the replication attempt were members of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. Their work with hot fusion Tokamak brought the university many millions of dollars in funding from the government, and maintained their job security. If cold fusion were to be accepted as a real phenomenon, it could have made hot fusion research appear to be near worthless.
The question in the minds of representatives in Washington, DC would have been, “Why should the taxpayers finance the construction of giant reactors to experiment with hot fusion reactions that produce nuclear waste and lethal amounts of radioactivity, when cold fusion research only requires a small fraction of the funding, while producing no waste and little radioactivity?”

In the minds of the MIT professors, such as MIT Plasma Fusion Center Director Ronald R. Parker, that question could never be allowed to cross the minds of those that paid for their employment.
So in an effort to belittle cold fusion research so no one would take it serious, the members of his department (including some scientists from others) took every opportunity they could to attack Pons and Fleischmann. For example, consider how….

A funeral party or “Wake for Cold Fusion” was held by the Plasma Fusion Center, before their replication test of Pons and Fleischmann’s setup was even complete. They held another such party afterwards.

Mugs belittling cold fusion were given out by Ron Parker, the head of the MIT hot fusion research group, who was supposed to be doing serious research to determine if cold fusion was a reality or not. The mugs read, “The Utah University: Department of Fusion Confusion” and had mocking instructions for cold fusion on the back.

Ron Parker would use the test results to discredit cold fusion, while at a celebration of the death of cold fusion stated to Eugene Mallove (after being shown evidence in support for cold fusion) stated that the data from the MIT replication was “worthless.”
How examination of the data from MIT’s replication showed obvious evidence of tampering.

In fact, the corrected data showed excess heat. Yet it was still used to discredit cold fusion research for many years.
How the former President of MIT, Charles Vest, refused to order an investigation into how the Plasma Fusion Center handled the replication, and their obviously unscientific behavior — such as partying for the death of something instead of doing unbiased research.
Even worse, years later he signed onto a Department of Energy report stating that cold fusion did not deserve funding for research, yet hot fusion deserved millions of additional dollars and was a “bargain.”

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest were ignored from the very start. For example, those who had the strongest need for cold fusion to be proven not to work (hot fusion scientists), were tasked with the replication of the effect.
It would be like giving a cigarette company the order to conduct a study on the reality of lung cancer, or the lumber industry the job of determining the usefulness of industrial hemp.
What the hot fusion scientists were going to say was obvious!

How some scientists were so closed minded they stated that if cold fusion was real, Pons and Fleischmann should be dead from radiation poisoning.

In addition, some scientists went so far as to personally attack them. In one case, a scientist stated that even if a thousand tests showed excess heat, that the results would not vindicate Pons and Fleischmann.

“Words to Eat”

MIT Professor Ronald George Ballinger may hold the all time record for making a foolish statement against cold fusion.

He wrote in 1991: “It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.”

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the article is how Ronald R. Parker and Ronald G. Ballinger had a phone call with Nick Tate of the Boston Heraldin 1989. They were talking to him about a potential story about cold fusion, hoping that he would write a hit piece.
In their conversation, which is transcribed in the article, Parker uses the fraud word in his description of their work. He also talks about how he is setting up another “blast” against cold fusion with Bob Bazell, a reporter with NBC.
When Tate reported in the Boston Herald on May 1 that the MIT scientists had called Pons and Fleishmann’s work a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Pons and Fleishmann were viciously attacked at the meeting of the American Physical Society.
In a retrospective piece written in 1991, Tate asserted that: “Some say those comments set the tone for the national criticism of the Utah work that followed.”

Meanwhile, when Tate’s article in the Boston Herald revealed that Parker had described Pons and Fleishmann’s work as being a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Parker rushed to deny he had made such statements. Probably, he realized that in his rush to discredit cold fusion he had crossed the line, and committed slander.
In order to avoid possible legal repercussions, in a media advisory from the MIT News Office, Parker specifically denied making such assertions to Tate during their telephone conversation. However, Tate had recorded the phone call, and therefore had rock solid evidence that Parker had made those statements.

Years later, Tate allowed Eugene Mallove to listen to the recording, which revealed the truth about what was said. It was too late, the damage to cold fusion’s reputation was done.

Where things stand

In summary, Mallove’s article paints a damning picture of MIT scientists and professors hell-bent on discrediting cold fusion. Out of desperation to protect hot fusion research, they went so far as to tell blatant lies, alter data, hurl personal insults, conduct celebrations of the “death” of cold fusion, and organize journalists to write hit pieces to try and dismiss Pons and Fleischmann’s work in the public eye.
Then the leadership of MIT turned away and ignored the misconduct and potentially criminal behavior, even when they were specifically alerted to it. Years later, these same individuals (working in other positions with the DOE and DOD) continued to promote the idea that cold fusion was “garbage.”
If you want to know the TRUTH about why it has taken twenty plus years for a commercial cold fusion technology to be developed, you should read this article. It is a tragedy beyond measure that an institution like MIT would allow such inappropriate behavior.

Everyone involved has blood on their hands from all the people on this planet that have died due to the suppression of this technology.
Literally, due to their suppression of cold fusion, children have needlessly starved, millions have suffered dehydration due to a lack of clean water, the environment has been trashed, and the global economy has been almost destroyed.

If the suppression of cold fusion by MIT had never happened, we might not even have an energy crisis today!
And this is but one of many such stories about the suppression saga from 1989.
The suppression from back then has had phenomenal staying power due to the brainwashing that pronounced “cold fusion” to be “junk science,” no matter what.
Ignored are thousands of replications worldwide, with several making significant gains toward marketplace viability, and the E-Cat actually reaching the marketplace on October 28 of this year with a 1 MW unit.
So now, when people attack Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, it’s hard to tell whether they are acting as a function of that brainwashing, or as a present-day disinformation agent, or if they have honest misgivings of a scientific basis.
Gratefully, Rossi keeps moving forward despite these negative statements.

A few individuals in the mainstream are coming around and waking up to the reality of cold fusion, like NASA’s Dennis Bushnell who claims cold fusion is the number one most promising alternative energy technology on the planet.

However, to protect hot fusion research, protect the status quo, and to keep the public from realizing how the scientific community suppressed cold fusion, he calls the phenomena LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). In addition, he claims there is no fusion in cold fusion, in order to try and make the technology seem more mundane, and more acceptable.
There were enemies of mankind in 1989 that wanted to prevent the proliferation of cold fusion, and there are still such enemies today. Reading about how cold fusion research was attacked from the very start can help us prepare for attacks from these in the future.

We cannot let greedy, selfish, and power-hungry monsters and their countless minions suppress cold fusion for another twenty years or more. There are too many lives at risk. Simply put, the future of our civilization is at stake.

Hank Mills has contributed a large number of stories to Pure Energy Systems web site at PES.com.
Sterling D. Allan is the Founder and CEO of PES Network, Inc., and of the New Energy Congress.
---------------------------------
 

9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery”

9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery”

by Jim Fetzer

Perhaps no question within the scope of 9/11 research generates as much heat and as little light as questions that have arisen over the role of the aircraft on 9/11, which has come to be known by the name of “planes/no planes” and of “video fakery”. While I had long since concluded that no plane had crashed in Shanksville and that, while a Boeing 757 appears to have flown toward and then over the Pentagon, I was personally unable to bring myself to take the idea that no real airplanes had hit the North or the South Tower seriously until nearly two years of being verbally assailed by Morgan Reynolds, who understood these issues far better than I, where his studies can be found on his web site, nomoregames.net, especially a response to criticism he has received for raising the issue during a FOX News appearance. 

Morgan has also authored excellent critiques of alternative theories of how the Twin Towers were destroyed.  It was the dawning realization that video fakery and real planes were logically consistent, since video fakery could have been used to conceal features of the planes or of their entry into the buildings, that enabled me to take a serious look to sort out what was going on here.  Even I initially thought the very idea was quite bizarre.

During the research I have done on this question, some of the most important reasons to question the use of planes on 9/11 are (1) that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and, (2) that, according to FAA Registration records I have in hand, the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, “How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?” and “How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?”  We have studies (3) by Elias Davidsson demonstrating that the government has never been able to prove that any of the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes and research (4) by A.K. Dewdney and by David Ray Griffin demonstrating that the purported phone calls from those planes were faked.  And (5), as Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable components of those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one.  My purpose here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that supports that conclusion, even though I myself was initially unwilling to take it seriously.

Flights 11 and 77: The BTS Tables

The first to notice that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11 was the brilliant Australian blues musician, Gerard Holmgren, who was interviewed by David West on 27 June 2005.  Others, such as Nick Kollerstrom, “9 Keys to 9/11″, have also reported the same difficulty with the government’s official account.  If AA Flight 11 did not even take off from Boston’s Logan Airport on the morning of 9/11, then it cannot possibly have hit the North Tower around the 96th floor at 0846 hours and thereby brought about the death of its 92 passengers.  And if AA Flight 77 did not take off from Dulles International on the morning of 9/11, then it, also, cannot have crashed into the Pentagon at 0940 hours and thereby brought about the death of its 64 passengers.  Yet that is what the data that Holmgren discovered in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows to have been the case.  In his new book, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), Edward Hendrie has published the data tables for both of these alleged flights, where it turns out that the BTS subsequently revised their tables with partial data in order to cover up their absence.  For Flight 77, for example:

The tables for AA Flight 77 can be found in Hendrie’s book on pages 9 and 11, while similar tables for AA Flight 11 can be found on pages 8 and 10.  The case against the use of planes becomes even more powerful when we realized that, as David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), explains, Waleed al-Shehri, whom the government claims was aboard AA Flight 11, was interviewed after 9/11 by a London-based newspaper and spoke with the US Embassy in Morocco on 22 September, which would have been remarkable for someone who had died when the plane he allegedly helped to hijacked hit the North Tower.  And the same is true of Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, both alleged to have been aboard Flight 93 and were interviewed by multiple sources, while the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., reported that three other alleged hijackers, Mohand al-Shehri, Salem al-Hazmi, and Abdulzaiz al-Omairi, were all alive and well and living in Saudia Arabia (page 19).  Salem al-Hazmi was supposed to have been aboard AA Flight 77 and al-Nami to have piloted AA Flight 11 (page 20), which reinforces the BTS data.

Flight 11: On-Site Evidence

If AA Flight 11 was not even in the air on 9/11, then we should expect to find indications of  one or another kind of video fakery in the evidence.  As the term should be properly understood, “video fakery” encompasses any use of video to convey a false impression to mislead a target audience.  Although Hollywood specializes in the presentation of impossible events, its films do not generally qualify as “video fakery”, insofar as they are not intended to mislead their audience.  The situation on 9/11, however, appears to qualify. Remarkably enough, Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”.



Indeed, as Leslie Raphael has explained and Jerry Mazza has confirmed, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, its improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building, which may have been the trigger for a prearranged explosion to create a pattern of damage to the side of the building, which turns out to have anomalies of its own.



Both AA Flight 11 and United Flight 175, which is alleged to have hit the South Tower, were Boeing 767s, while AA Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were both Boeing 757s. While individual images are too blurry and indistinct even to be identifiable as a commercial carrier, much less as a Boeing 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—which was prepared by Rosalee Grable—reveals that it does not bear even a faint resemblance.  She has speculated that it might be an arrangement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).



And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. How can four impact points–which suggest that it may be four UAVs–that constitute an extended “Z” have been turned into an impression in the side of the building that has now become an elongated “V”?  That video fakery was involved here appears to be difficult to deny.


Flight 77: On-Site Evidence

There appear to be more than a half-dozen arguments against the official account that a 757 hit the Pentagon, which appears to be a fantasy. This “hit point” was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125′ wingspan and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. The debris is wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines, which are made of titanium and steel, were recovered.

According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have ripped the wing off and caused the plane to burst into flame. The aerodynamics of flight, including “ground effect”, moreover, would have made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which means that the official account is neither physically nor aerodynamically possible.  And the only image that the Pentagon has ever produced of an aircraft approaching the building cannot possibly be a 757:

The plane (in the red box) is too small to be a Boeing 757, which Jack White has sized for comparison. Russ Wittenburg in the DVD “Zero“, an experienced pilot who flew the planes alleged to have been used on 9/11, states that the Boeing 757 can’t go 500 mph hour at sea level because the air is too dense. Robin Hordon, an air traffic controller, in the same film, explains that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuvers attributed to it. The official story thus appears to entail violations of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, insofar as the damage to the building, the absence of debris, the clear, smooth, unblemished lawn and now its alleged performance are incompatible with a Boeing 757.

Moreover, if a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines. At this point, it appears to be “pilling on” to observe that data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and higher altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if the NTSB’s own data corresponds to the Boeing 757 that is alleged to have been flown toward the building, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.  For more, see “Pandora’s Black Box” and “Pentacon“, which offer additional substantiation.

What about Flights 93 and 175?

As Greg Szymanski observed, “Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just Recently Taken Off The FAA ‘Active’ List” (26 November 2005), both of the United airplanes that were supposed to have crashed on 9/11 were  only ‘deregistered’ in September “after snoopy 9/11 researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier”.  And, indeed, Szymanski had it right.  FAA Registration data shows that they were not officially reported to have been taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which is more than four years after they had “official” crashing in Shanksville (United Flight 93) and crashed into the South Tower (United Flight 175):

Notice the “Reason for Cancellation” in each case is simply “Cancelled”.  No pretense that they might have been destroyed in crashes four years earlier.  Just as we discovered in the case of the BTS data for American Flights 11 and 77, where replacement records were created to add those flights to the data based where they were previously missing, that form of documentary fakery was also perpetrated in the case of the FAA Registration records, where both of the planes that were associated with those flights also appear, but with deregistration dates of 14 January 2002 and the purported “Reason for Cancellation” in their case of “Destroyed”:

As we found in the case of AA Flight 11 at the North Tower and AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon, the on-site evidence does not confirm that United Flight 93 actually crashed in Shanksville or that United Flight 175 hit the South Tower, which, as we are going to discover, is far and way the most interesting of the forms of fakery surrounding the planes that are supposed to have been “hijacked” on 9/11.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth Corroboration

Indeed, the evidence that United Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that United Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower has been considerably strengthened by new discoveries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.  By means of meticulous research on electronic communications between those aircraft and air traffic controllers, they have been able to establish that United Flight 93 was in the air in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, IN, and Champaign, IL, at the time of the alleged Shanksville crash.  Since no aircraft can be in two places at one time, it is difficult to imagine more conclusive proof that the Shanksville crash of Flight 93 was another fabricated event:

Even more surprisingly, however, Pilots has also determined that United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South Tower in New York City.  This may come as quite a shock to those who watched as it entered the South Tower on television.  Indeed, when an FBI official was asked why the NTSB, for the first time in its history, had not investigated any of these four crashes, he replied that it wasn’t necessary “because we saw them on television”.  Well, we didn’t see the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon crash on TV, which leaves us wondering what we did see on television on 9/11.

Flight 93: On-Site Evidence

Just as America Airlines planes were supposed to be Boeing 767s, both of these United planes were supposed to be Boeing 757s. A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. “This is the most eerie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”

The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview:

FOX News reporter: It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that’s right. The only thing you can see from where we were, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn’t much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces…” – FOX (09/11/01)

An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. There are good reasons to suspect that her photo was faked, however, and that Ms. McClatchey has to have had reasons of her own for taking such a deceptive public stance. The plume in her photo (left) resembles those from detonation explosions (center) more than it does fires from crash sites (right), for example, and estimates of the location of the plume from where the photo was allegedly taken place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style special effects.

The virtually complete absence of any debris from the Shanksville “crash site” was explained on the basis of the claim that the ground had been used for mining in the past and was therefore “very soft”, where the plane completely disappeared into the ground. Some accounts even have it that the plane disappeared into an abandoned mine shaft. But we know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts: we bring out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dig 24/7 in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might have survived. But that was not done in Shanksville, where no effort was made to save anyone or even recover the bodies–and for good reason. There were none.

Flight 175: On-Site Evidence

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air.  Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate Newton’s laws.  The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows:

Each of those floors consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the steel support columns. They were filled with 4-8” of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves) and posed enormous horizontal resistance. (Imagine what would happen to a plane encountering one of them suspended in space!) The windows were 18” wide and the support columns one meter apart, while there were no windows between floors, which means far less than 50% if the plane should have entered via them. But as Jack White has shown here, that is not what the videos display:

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, insofar as most of its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry—which is comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel explode when its wings hit those lampposts. And while some have sought to support the claim that this was a real 767 based upon the engine found at Church & Murray, those who were fabricating evidence in this case did not get it right:  the engine component did not come from a 767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant, as another of Jack’s studies reveals:

Indeed, as John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot, has observed, the plane in these videos does not even have strobe lights, which are required of every commercial carrier. Even more strikingly, as Ben Collet noticed, this “plane” appears to cast no shadows. How can a Boeing 767 possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed), enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as though, in this respect, the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than the fabrication of Flight 175 fakery.

The Use of Video Fakery

Since we all saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower on television–and many also claim to have watched it happen with their own eyes–what was actually going on in New York City? What did we see on television or, assuming we take the witnesses at face value, with their own eyes? There are three alternative theories, which involve the use of computer generated images (CGIs), the use of video compositing (VC), or the use of a sophisticated hologram, respectively. That third alternative may sound “far out” until you realize that many witnesses claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower with their own eyes, which would have been impossible if VC or CGIs had been the method that was used. Since we are dealing with visual phenomena, here are some videos that illustrate what I have been talking about in relation to “video fakery”:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“Totally fake! But you would still believe it!”

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe”

The serious question that has to arise at this point, of course, is “Why?” Would it not have been far simpler just to fly a real plane into the North Tower and another into the South? Where the answer turns out to be, “No”. Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered that it is extremely difficult to hit an edifice 208′ across at more than 500 mph. After 20 or more tried it repeatedly, only one was able to hit it once. In addition, a real plane could not enter all the way into the building before it would explode. But that was a requirement of the mission, since otherwise there would have been no pseudo-explanation for the subsequent “collapse” of the buildings due to fire. And equally important, the explosions that were planned for the subbasements to drain the towers’ sprinkler systems of water so they could not extinguish the relatively modest fires that would remain after the pre-positioned jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs. The plan was to explain them away as residual effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts–a flawed theory, but good enough for a gullible public.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“The Theory of a Ghostplane”

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“Proof Plane that Hit was Hologram”

The mission required something that looked like a real plane but could perform feats that no real plane could perform by entering the building before it would explode, which would have been impossible with a real plane. And that had to be timed to coincide with explosions in the subbasements that, even with the most meticulous planning, would inadvertently take place 14 and 17 seconds before the planes appeared to hit the buildings.  It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in execution.  But those who were working this out did not realize that they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton’s laws, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length it air.  As in the case of the Pentagon, they thereby violated laws of aerodynamics and of physics that gave their game away.  And those blemishes, subtle as they may have been, have provided the opportunity to expose a fantastic fraud, which has been used to justify wars of aggression and constraints upon civil rights that our nation continues to endure to this day.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

 ΣΧΟΛΙΟΝ:

ΚΑΤΑΛΑΒΑΤΕ ? ΔΙΑ ΤΗΝ NASA ΤΟ ΓΕΓΟΝΟΣ ΗΤΟ ΟΣΟΝ ΑΣΗΜΑΝΤΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΟΝ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΝΕΙΣ ΔΕΝ ΓΝΩΡΙΖΕ ΠΟΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΟΙ ΚΑΣΕΤΤΕΣ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ ΤΟΥ!!!  ΚΑΤΟΠΙΝ, ΚΑΠΟΙΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΕΡΕΥΝΟΥΣΕ ΝΑ ΤΙΣ ΒΡΗ (ΓΙΑΤΙ ΤΑΧΑ ΗΣΧΟΛΕΙΤΟ ΜΕ ΠΑΛΙΑ ΞΕΧΑΣΜΕΝΑ ΠΕΙΡΑΜΑΤΑ ??) ΑΝΕΚΑΛΥΨΕ ΟΤΙ ΚΑΠΟΤΕ ΕΣΒΗΣΑΝ ΤΙΣ ΚΑΣΕΤΤΕΣ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΣΗΜΑΝΤΙΚΟΥ ΕΓΧΕΙΡΗΜΑΤΟΣ (ΟΠΩΣ ΜΑΣ ΛΕΝΕ) ΣΤΗΝ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ (ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ NASA ΦΥΣΙΚΑ!) "ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΤΙΣ ΞΑΝΑΧΡΗΣΙΜΟΠΟΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΤΣΙ ΝΑ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑ !!!! ΜΑΣ ΘΕΩΡΟΥΝ ΧΑΧΟΛΟΥΣ, ΟΠΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΜΕΘΑ !!!!

REUTERS

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON | Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:49pm EDT
 

(Reuters) - The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.
 
NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon.
The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The preview is available at www.nasa.gov.

NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.

Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.

The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.

"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.
"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," he said.
They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.
Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing.
Nafzger does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was staged on a movie set or secret military base.
"This company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the company was from," Nafzger said.
"The conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike Inchalik.
And there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone else in Sydney made recordings too.
"These tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are certainly open to finding them."

911 - Air vs. Skyscraper (video) +Zero Crash Physics

Killtown

Air vs. Skyscraper (video) 

 

COMMENT. About the shutter speed: NTSC video has a constant frame rate of 30 frames per second. The video camera takes a snapshot of the action exactly every 1/30 of a second. In PAL video the camera takes a snapshot of the action exactly every 1/25 of a second. The frame rate has to be constant, and it always is constant; In this example the frame rate is constant too, otherwise we should see the 'plane' jumping across the screen on a randomized speed (velocity), which is clearly not the case. Just cut out some frames of your vacation movie and look at it! Then you'll see what I mean.

Furthermore, who the hell is going to change the frame rate of the camera at the precise moment the 'plane' hit the building?? And even more important: Why??? Just an intend to cover up the reality? Strange. BTW the result would be exactly the same because, even if the shutter speed was changed to 60 frames/second, we should see the same snapshots at every 1/30 of a second. Because that's the exact position of the plane at every 1/30 of a second, no matter how many snapshots were captured in between. So the motion of the 'plane' we see on this video violates the first and third law of motion by Newton. This is just one of the many, many anomalies regarding 9/11. Do you still believe 9/11 was just a sequence of miracles? I don't.

Watch out for all the diversions and limited hangouts planted in the crime to entertain the controlled opposition as long as possible. They will never(!), never(!), never(!) go to court! 

-------------------------------- 

Zero Interaction Physics or Zero Crash Physics

by The Anonymous Physicist

In looking over some of the CGI videos of the second tower hit, I realized that perhaps no one before has summarized some matters of what is and isn’t on these CGI videos. And that this summary is also a good, accurate catch phrase for the 9/11 truth community.

Now many have stated that the videos of the “second hit” show impossible crash physics. In a sense this is very true. But that summary may beg the issue. After all what do we have on these CGI videos? I suggest we focus now on the tower. I assert that we have NO INTERACTION PHYSICS or NO CRASH PHYSICS!

In the first few “plane entering tower” frames of the videos, what some have called “melding” occurs. That is the front part of the plane appears to DISAPPEAR into the tower--without ANY interaction of the tower. Very importantly, I could state this better WITHOUT THE WORD “INTO,” as I assert this CGI video just has the plane image sequentially disappear, and not “into” anything! Now one video, the Spiegel [German TV] video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-hlbw4a40Q has a close-up view from the side. It purports to show a flash at the surface of the tower just before the plane “enters.” This led to the hangout/distraction of pods and missiles fired. Then the Hezarkhani video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdfd6hLGWA of the frontal view shows--in the first frames--the “melding” or disappearing of the front of the plane, along with first a white puff or two, and later frames have gray puffs.

But the curious thing is two-fold.

1. First all these puffs appear to be at the surface of the tower.

2. Nothing is shown to happen to the tower, at least while the front half of the plane is “entering.”

Thus all these puffs appear to be painted onto the tower’s surface. This includes the alleged “missile fired from pod” bright orange puffball (seen from the side), and the white and then gray puffballs seen from the front. All the puffballs do not have any accompanying tower damage at all. No tower damage can be seen until much later in these GCI videos. They contain zero interaction physics or zero crash physics. Both the above side and front videos merely have puffballs painted on to the surface of the tower--until after about half the plane or more has “entered.” The side view has only the initial orange puffball. It’s either pretending to be a pre-entry puffball, or the initial contact moment. Then there are no other puffballs until much of the plane has “entered.” And no interaction physics as well.

Now the tower CANNOT have waited to display interaction physics-- pieces breaking off, or bending, some going inward some possibly even breaking off and falling out and such-- or crash physics. In the real world, it would be there from the instant the tip of the nosecone hit the tower. And puffballs painted onto the surface of the tower do not constitute interaction physics. I have also written that from the moment of a real plane hitting the 4 inch steel of the tower, a shockwave would have traveled down the plane at 5000 mph and would have deformed the back of the plane almost instantaneously or caused it to break off. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/06/further-proving-911-plane-hits-are.html So the plane also shows zero interaction physics or zero crash physics.

So no attempt to show the interaction of the plane and tower was employed in the CGI software used to create the second hit “videos.” Simplistic puffballs were painted on to the SURFACE of the tower. And at least for the first half of the ”second plane” disappearing into the tower, there is zero interaction physics or zero crash physics, not merely impossible crash physics.

Now a method used in the analysis of the Zapruder film of the Kennedy Assassination might be useful here. Except of course, it may not be needed, or work here. Why? Because the Zapruder film versions that we are allowed to see, at least had their origin in a real film, whereas the WTC/9/11 “second hit videos” appear to be entirely CGI. Now all real JFK researchers know that the Zapruder film versions that we are allowed to see have been massively doctored. There are many missing frames, and altered frames, and a moving background is added in, when the limousine was brought to a halt, and much else. I have seen some 15 versions or more--none of which is accurate based on eyewitness testimony. But some Z-frames are relevant here.

Frame 313 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg is the fatal head shot frame; and you can even see the end of the gun of the shooter/driver, SS [Secret Service] agent, William Greer, as the it goes past the curvature of the head of S.S. agent Kellerman. The side flap, the back of the head, and the spray coming off the head of Kennedy have been analyzed, and are predominantly bogus. Here are frames 321 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg , and 335 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg to make this clear. Now the side flap is known to be painted in because of both analysis and the eyewitness accounts from the Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda autopsy viewers. But my main point here is that some of these frames show an intact back of Kennedy’s head when numerous witnesses, again at Parkland and Bethesda, have stated that a good portion of the back of his skull was missing. And dot density analysis was used to verify this. That is, Kennedy’s brown hair was found, in these painted in frames, to be far more black than anything else in the frames that really was black. The black dot density [black dots per square millimeter] of JFK’s back of head far superseded anything in the frames that really was black.

Some type of similar analysis of the various puffballs could be attempted by the experts in this regard. Of course, this discussion indicates it isn’t even necessary as there is zero interaction physics or zero crash physics of the tower and the plane for at least the first half of the plane “entering” the tower. And we are apparently dealing with total CGI here. Adding on puffballs of differing colors to the SURFACE of the tower does not afford interaction physics or crash physics at all! That is the tower remains PRISTINE for far too long a time.

While some could analyze all these painted on surface puffballs, the terms zero interaction physics or zero crash physics should be employed by actual 9/11 truthers, as it may be stronger, more relevant and more understandable than saying impossible crash physics. And it should also be proclaimed that the tower on these fake CGI videos remains PRISTINE for far too long a time to remind people we are dealing with the same monsters that should have been eradicated when they killed President Kennedy, and invented the pristine bullet. It too claimed to be pristine and show no interaction despite the claim that it hit some five bones in two people.

And BTW, for those who still doubt that no planes hit the towers on 9/11, consider the following. You can be sure that the perpetrators-- the Regime’s military and intel agencies-- took many videos of what they were doing (for various reasons). Likely they took videos from their helicopters and planes flying nearby or overhead, from satellites, and from intel assets in nearby buildings, and on the ground. If ANY of them showed real planes, and real interaction physics, they would have released these by now. This, together with how numerous people have done fine work for over five years now documenting that all the released videos are bogus CGI, cements the case.

I should include that I have no doubt that the regime could have put better CGI on TV. See for example, the 1997 movie “Contact.” When the first huge worm-hole device is destroyed, one piece of it is exploded, and falls onto the rest of it. There is much INSTANTANEOUS interaction physics simulated, and it looks pretty real-- even though the structure is quite elaborate, and entirely CGI. Now the regime, some four years later, and with likely vastly superior CGI capability at its intel agencies, could have put plane hit videos, on TV, that contained some, or much, interaction physics, but chose not to.

This has traditionally been the case with their most dastardly deeds. With the Kennedy Assassination, the Pearl Harbor set-up, Gulf of Tonkin non-incident, the Apollo Hoax, and other events, either at the time they happened, or some time thereafter, everything the Gov’t says is a lie, and often a physical impossibility-- and this is clear to the intelligentsia. Those who can think and change can see this. But most people cannot easily think and change; and that difficulty is created and enforced by the Govt, the media, education, religion, etc. I saw Spooked recently put up an acronym for this-- MITOP: Made It Transparent On Purpose.

It agrees with what I have written. From the beginning, I have cited everything from the jet’s wings blinking in and out of existence, to the words of videographer, Evan Fairbanks, when he got his video from the FBI and saw that the jet/tower interaction looked like “bad special effects,” to Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” WTC7 quote, that the PTB were telling the intelligentsia that the regime itself were the perpetrators. MITOP is meant to instill fear, helplessness, depression, schizoid behavior, and ultimately paralysis in those who can think and change, so as to try to stop them from ACTING on what they have realized. The way to counter this is to ACT.

For now please consider using these new terms for what is claimed during the planes first half “entry”/disappearance:

Zero Interaction Physics or

Zero Crash Physics

Pristine Tower 

-------------------------------------------  

911- JACK WHITE - THE MYSTERY EXPLOSION OF WTC 6

Morgan Reynolds - Death in Dallas

http://nomoregames.net/2005/11/22/death-in-dallas/

Death in Dallas

Posted on November 22, 2005

Death in Dallas
by Morgan Reynolds
November 22, 2005

It is of paramount importance to “show the world that America is not a banana republic, where a government can be changed by conspiracy.”

—Member John J. McCloy, at the first meeting of LBJ-appointed Warren Commission

Last November marked the 42d anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy and virtually everyone in America past the 50-year-old mark remembers where he or she was that day. People were stunned. Former Canadian diplomat and assassination researcher Peter Dale Scott wrote, “[A]s a foreigner who lived through it, I could not but observe the depth and centrality of everyone’s response to the assassination of the President.” The assassination still resonates today.

The Warren Commission printed 10 million words in 26 volumes, with yawning gaps between its report and the available testimony and evidence, and there have been thousands of books written on JFK, so things are complicated but, as usual, not that complicated.

To solve a crime, detectives look at cui bono, and more specifically motive, means and opportunity. In his short time in office JFK managed to provoke a swamp full of vicious and powerful enemies. Here are the Big Eight:

MOTIVE

• Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose ambition, pride and ruthlessness were unexcelled, was going to be dumped from the ticket after three years of inside ridicule at the hands of the Kennedy crowd, and further the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals were about to end his powerful political career.

• The CIA hated JFK for his coitus interruptus of its (and Dick Nixon’s) all-out Bay of Pigs scheme, his crack down on assassination attempts against Castro, his hands-off-Cuba pact with the Soviets after the missile crisis and his threat to scatter the criminal CIA into a thousand pieces. JFK fired Director of Central Intelligence Allen W. Dulles [future Warren Commission member!] and cronies after the Bay of Pigs, and Dulles is suspect #1 for top supervisor of the JFK ambush. A Fort Worth Press front page photo a few days before the assassination showed Allen Dulles at the LBJ Ranch.

• J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI hated everything about the Kennedys, including their boss, RFK, attorney general of the United States, and Hoover knew that JFK planned to “retire” him after reelection in 1964.

• Texas independent oilmen like H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison hated JFK for many reasons, especially his promise to eliminate the 27.5% oil depletion allowance, which would have raised their taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

• The Pentagon and the military industrial complex were agitated because JFK had already signed a National Security memorandum to begin a phased withdrawal of American military “advisers” from Vietnam, had rejected the Joint Chiefs proposal to stage a false-flag terrorist Operation Northwoods to provide a pretext to invade Cuba, and more generally, JFK’s drive for peace and perceived “softness” on communism.

• Wall Street and investment banking powers were threatened by JFK’s intention to terminate the Federal Reserve under his silly theory (!) that a privately-owned central bank served the interests of Wall Street and bankers, not those of America, and it had no right to issue currency under the Constitution. JFK further alienated the business community with his confrontation over price increases by big steel.

• Organized crime, which had worked with the CIA since it began as the OSS in World War II, wanted its lucrative casinos back in Havana, plus its drug-and-gun-running and money laundering profits from Cuba. The mob helped get Kennedy elected and showered him with molls to bed, and for their troubles Bobby cracked down on them. Resentment can be traced back to Joe Senior, who made his fortune running booze during Prohibition, generating plenty of underworld enemies.

• The Israeli government’s determination to go nuclear was fiercely opposed by JFK on the grounds that it would destabilize the middle east and ignite an arms race. Ben Gurion and successors believed that JFK’s resolve threatened Israel’s very existence. Prior to launching its 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility, the Israeli commander told his pilots with unusual emotion, “The alternative is our destruction.” After JFK’s demise, LBJ generously supported the Israeli war machine.

• Miscellaneous outsider groups like rednecks, Russians and Cubans, both pro- and anti-Castro, do not make my Big Eight, even though individual Cubans were involved.

Clint Murchison threw a party at his Dallas residence the night before the assassination and his guest list included H.L. Hunt, Richard Nixon, Texas Senator John Tower, John McCloy [‘head of the establishment’ and future Warren Commission member], J. Edgar Hoover, and Lyndon Johnson (pp. 109-10). They went into a private meeting and Lyin’ Lyndon came out and told Madeleine Brown, one of his mistresses, “Those damned Kennedys will not be poking fun at me after today.”

In contrast to this intense cauldron of hatred toward the charismatic Irish Catholic, all the establishment offers us about Oswald’s motive is the loose suggestion that he was a publicity-seeking, lone nut. Like most propaganda about what happened to JFK, little evidence supports the official theory. For example, upon arrest Oswald protested, “Now everybody will know who I am!” This comports with the compelling evidence that Oswald was a CIA and FBI asset.

OPPORTUNITY

• Key to opportunity in this case, as Air Force pilot Fletcher Prouty said, is who had “the power to call off or reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect whenever a president travels?” Only powerful insiders, not outsiders, have this power.

• The Secret Service violated rule after rule of presidential protection, including an blatantly slow 110 degree left-hand turn from Houston onto to Elm Street, no motorcycle escorts alongside the presidential limo (instructed to stay behind the rear wheels), no shield of Secret Service agents on limo running boards, people in the streets and in open upper-story windows, the presidential limo braking during the shooting and even coming to a complete halt as shooters finished their work, secret service agents reacting slowly during and after the shooting, and so on. It was a set up, beyond reasonable doubt.

• One particularly telling fact is that the press photographers’ flat bed truck which usually traveled in front of the presidential limo was cancelled in favor of a station wagon far back in the motorcade, thwarting a major media photo and film record of the assassination.

Fall guy Oswald was in the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination, so he superficially had opportunity. The trouble is that within ninety seconds of the shooting TSBD superintendent Roy Truly and Dallas policeman Marrion Baker found Oswald standing in the lunch room on the second floor calmly drinking a coke, despite (allegedly) committing the “crime of the century.” He did not have enough time to fire on the president, run to the opposite corner of the sixth floor where the weapon was discovered, hide it, race down four flights of stairs without being seen (the elevators were locked in the wrong position for descent), get a coke and show no sign of exertion or emotion. Other TSBD employees concurred that they heard no footsteps and did not see Oswald racing down the stairs for his encounter with Truly and Baker.

MEANS

• The assassination required money, expert planning, coordination and skilled shooters to insure success.

• Accused clandestine services like the CIA, Mossad, and the French SDECE had money and plenty of experience in assassination. Likewise the FBI and military. The mob had it too, although the military-style triangulation that killed JFK was not their style, favoring instead up-close-and-personal techniques like garroting and 38 caliber slugs. LBJ and Texas independent oilmen were quite familiar with employing professional killers. The list of possible and self-confessed killers is long (E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Charles Harrelson, Bernard Barker, Mac Wallace, etc.) yet the key is that the professional killers depended on powerful insiders, especially in terms of supplying compensation, a patsy and the cover up that continues four decades later.

Oswald, by contrast, had military experience but was a poor marksman by all accounts. No expert marksman has ever been able to reproduce the Warren Commission script on the first attempt that the lone assassin fired three deadly shots within six seconds from behind a moving limo with a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The absurdities of the Warren theory are countless, but one is that a real lone gunman on the 6th floor of the TSBD would have shot the president as his limo approached the TSBD on Houston Street rather than waiting until it turned onto Elm Street and went away from the sniper. A leafy tree obstructed half the good shots along Elm Street. Further, the rifle in the fabricated backyard photos used by the Warren Commission to link Oswald to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the TSBD is not the same weapon! And Oswald’s assassination? The conspirators could not allow Oswald to stand trial since he could easily prove his innocence and implicate insiders as well. Oswald eluded his own scheduled murder on the streets of Dallas following the assassination, so mob figure Jack Ruby was given an order he could not refuse.

COVER UP

The final area proving that JFK’s death was an inside job is the systematic destruction of evidence, fabricated evidence, omissions in gathering evidence and dead witnesses and potential squealers. The medical data—body, autopsy, and X-rays—were criminally tampered with and forged in the case of X-rays, primarily to hide the evidence of the frontal shots and the huge hole shot out the back of the president’s head with the attendant brain loss. He was shot in the head at least twice. The limousine was immediately sent to Michigan for a makeover, covering up the multiple shots and especially to replace the windshield with its bullet hole from the front, likely a fatal headshot. Eyewitnesses were intimidated and their testimony distorted and inverted beyond recognition. The federal government stonewalled New Orleans prosecutor Jim Garrison, governors refused to extradite witnesses and dozens of witnesses and insiders were murdered. Garrison’s chief suspect, David Ferrie, was found dead less than a week after the newspapers broke the story of Garrison’s investigation.

CONCLUSION

It is not difficult to disprove the lame lone assassin theory in favor of multiple gunmen. Try this out: Oswald could not drive a car, yet he pulled off the crime of the century without help. Then supposedly a second lone nut with no known connections to organized crime according to the Warren Commission, a complete lie, but plenty of cop connections, whacked Oswald in the cops’ stronghold because he said he wanted to prove Jews were not weak, and later that he was worried about Jackie’s health. Who makes this stuff up? We are supposed to believe that these are real motives for murdering a president and his accused assassin?

Shortly after the assassination, national polls showed that 52% doubted Oswald did it alone and this skepticism reached 90% in intervening years. The evidence is overwhelming that multiple gunmen did JFK in at the behest of powerful interests.

Why care today? Surely most of the perpetrators are dead. Yet that rogue network inside and outside the national government remains. It was never rooted out. It would sound familiar to a Roman citizen who experienced the transformation of the Roman Republic into despotic empire and then eventual dissolution to barbarism. Rome shriveled from the first city to attain perhaps 1 million people to a local trading center of about 5,000-10,000.

The network concealed in deep politics has grown more audacious since the Kennedy triumph, with individual assassination still popular (e.g., Senator Paul Wellstone) but escalating to mass murders like the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center. Do we need CNN to televise the federal government slaughtering Americans in a Tianneman-square-style massacre, more open and visible than the FBI’s massacre of women and children at Waco, before people understand the constitutional crisis? I fail to see how America’s current head-in-the-sand approach can succeed.