Assassination of the assassination

I watched a show a few days ago that I'd saved for about a month on my PVR. I taped it because the visual snippets were impressive but hadn't watched it because the dialogue associated with those brief images was annoying. The show is called "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy" (2003). Since I have no method of transferring the show to my hardrive (which I did in my old setup; previous home) I decided to clear it off my PVR. I watched the show from front to back but was unable to prevent some serious responses being shouted at the screen.

This piece by Jennings (Senior Editor) was inundated with gross distortions and skillfully missing information. Ironically, this was the very thing that they vehemently accused everyone else of doing. What I love about the assassination is that it's a lightning rod for illuminating evil from good, truth from lies, openness from deceit so that one might understand the state of the world. Not dissimilar from Christ’s resurrection in terms of the degree of the war over the actual events which transpired. Reflecting on this I surmise that this is the case for all incidents, amplified to the degree of what is at stake. With Kennedy’s assassination the stakes are exceedingly high as the machinations of evil can be seen in broad daylight. It is the likes of Jennings who hopes we close our eyes.

The only good I can say about the two hour show is that there were two items that additional light was shed on that were of significance. Oswald was a better shot than I had previously been informed. They actually showed the Marine shooting records with his scores from rapid fire shooting at 200 yards. This was impressive until they decided to weaken their argument by extending the implications beyond their capacity. The repeatedly mentioned that Kennedy was 75yds from Oswald when he was shot at. This is supposed to impress us how close he was relative to 200yds?! They failed to mention at any point that it was a moving vehicle (target) so there would be necessarily 3 distances at which shots were fired. (from their count). The results on a driving range with a stationary target would be quite different than on a moving target with trees in obscuring your view. This kind of attempt to extend the import of the facts makes me question the whole scenario as simply a means to push their desired viewpoint.

The other item of interest was the death of Office J.D. Tippet. I knew it was pretty solid that Oswald shot him but there was more evidence to confirm that in the show. So while I don't think Oswald took the fatal shot, he's still a murderer. I never really thought much about Oswald’s participation because it became irrelevant due to other overwhelming evidence. It’s fairly obvious to me now, and already had been, that someone took some shots from the area of the Depository, to at least set Oswald up or it may have been Oswald himself.

These items represent about 4 minutes of the 120 minutes of viewing. The rest was simply a blatant and subtle attempt to continue the brainwashing of the viewers to Jennings desired result. Three particular points make this abundantly clear to me.

One is the total lack of refutation of evidence provided by the witnesses who said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Of the 104 people who were in ear shot of the assassination, 35 (minimum) said they heard them coming from the knoll area. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm) Like the Warren commission report they were not really included in the discussion! I don’t see how the choice to leave this unanswered means anything less than a severe prejudice. The report simply focuses on the shots from the depository and leaves it at that.

A second item was the death of Danny Ferry who had supposedly been part of a meeting between Clay Shaw and Oswald. In the dialogue Jennings says his death was through “natural causes”. This was over a picture of Ferry with the newpaper article in the background. If you freeze the screen and read the article (HD) his death was an “apparent suicide” and the cause was “brain hemorrhage”. So from Jennings perspective, a natural cause of death is blowing your brains out or having someone blow them out for you?! So while Ferry’s manner of death was never part of my consciousness up to this point, the asinine and clumsy attempt by Jennings to bury the facts will forever imbed it in my memory. And of course the entire line of discussion is meant to discredit Jim Garrison, or better put, Oliver Stone’s representation of Garrison.

The final item, before I summarize, was the mention of the autopsy reports which de facto makes Oliver Stone a liar. The dialogue runs that the x-rays and autopsy ‘prove’ that the shots came from behind. In the least, this is a gross misrepresentation of the readily available details of the autopsy(s) and surrounding events. There are enormous questions raised by the variances in the presentation of the President’s body from the time he died on the table at Parkland Memorial to the autopsy slab at Bethesda Naval Hospital. An entire book was written by the resident physician at Parkland memorial providing direct evidence to contradict Hume’s conclusions. David Lifton’s phone call interview of the attending Physician, Malcolm Perry, where he described the maximum length of the tracheotomy as being significantly less than the opening encountered by Hume’s at Bethesda. Or the absurd fact that the autopsy photos had been ‘flipped’ in a number of cases and the right side description being applied to the left side of his head. (thank god for Kennedy’s nose scar) Anyway, the lack of any depth of investigation into these issues ends any idea that Jennings was remotely objective.

(for proof that there is more to the autopsy than Jennings one line acceptance of Hume’s pre-burned notes - http://www.jfkresearch.com/JFKSecondAutopsy.pdf - 125 pages that show the complexity and deceit at work)

What was particularly insidious was their vicious raping of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. And it wasn’t just Jennings. Jack Valente and a host of other respected individuals popped up one after another to denounce Stone’s treatment of the subject. They took a single snippet from a Stone interview where he said he used ‘dramatic license’ in the film and proceeded to lynch him with it. Then they bemoaned and lamented over the fact that this type of movie ends up being imbedded in the thoughts of the American people instead of the truth of what happened. This piece of subtle propaganda was an amazing thing to behold.

From where I sit, Stone used about 10% of the license that Jennings used in making this report. (documentary?) At least Stone is honest about it. Jennings continues to operate under the shroud of journalistic objectivity all the while making a ‘movie’ of his own. The reason Stone’s film is in the minds of the American people is because it was already there. Evidence available from the day the assassination occurred has never been fully explained. The bullet fragments absolutely never added up. The motorcade vehicle being washed before any serious forensics could be completed. A mysterious pristine bullet found on a stretcher that supposedly rammed into Connelly’s wrist after passing through the President, all the ‘grassy knoll’ information etc. ad infinitum. So while Jennings and his team lament the American public’s ‘brainwashing’ by Stone’s film (28 yrs after the fact) , I am hopeful the same public will discard Jennings’s tripe as the real attempt to control their minds.

Jennings audience is to those who don’t want to know what happened or those who prefer his comforting, assured persuasions as opposed to the harsh reality of the facts. Anyone who has even done a surface investigation into this incident would have problems with the presentations in this “report”. I’m not sure of his motivations, but Jennings has a serious stake in convincing as many as he can that Oswald acted alone. There’s a Titanic sized load of evidence that simply doesn’t add up to that conclusion. I still think the search for the truth is fairly simple - present all the facts then attempt to put some plausible scenario together that explains everything you know. It is patently obvious that Jennings doesn’t even know what that is.

Thought Map - 1st Draft

I collected a list of pivotal readings and tried to organize them into some type of logical, chronological format. I'm not really happy with this chart and have some definite ideas to improve it. But I thought I'd throw it up here or perhaps I never will. There's a program called CMap, which is a far better tool at rendering a progression of thought. I prefer it to this Visio diagram of key books I've frequented. So I hope to post something in the future that better reflects the transformation of my mind. In the end, everything points to Jesus... of course.

Two Slit cont'd

Here's a few more pics of the double slit experiment. At left is what was expected to occur. Single photons contacting the rear plate in and around the ajacent openings. At right is what actually occurred. The resulting pattern requires contact between mulitple photon particles which was impossible since only a single photon at a time was propelled through the slits. As more and more particles contacted the light sensitive back plate, the interference waves began to emerge. Doh!

Einstein (Jesus=e=mc2)

I stumbled across this blog http://decartes-einstein.blogspot.com/ while looking for information on a book I bought and read called Einstein’s Moon. The book was pivotal in shaping my thinking (layman) about quantum physics specifically and science in general. It provided the context for Einstein’s oft-quoted statement that ‘God doesn’t role dice with the universe’. The numerous additional Einstein quotes utilized in the blog, opened a Pandora’s Box of thought connections especially when he refers to Plato/Aristotle. I anticipate it will require a few posts to close the thought loops opened by his references.

A book review on Amazon describes the fundamental discovery resulting in what is now known as Bell’s Theorem. Although little know or publicized it is seen by many as one of the most important discoveries of this century. I will pull from a review of the book on Amazon which describes the results of shooting single photons through two openings and the unexpected result:

“The Quantum Double Slit paradox: Quantum theory teaches that light is ultimately made up of finite and indivisible quanta called photons. Common sense dictates that since a photon is indivisible, a single photon can only pass through one slit at a time. Therefore, the photon must pass through slit A or B and then hit the photographic particle screen. If one blocks slit B and measures the results of the photon passing through slit A, the result should match commonsense and since the photon can only pass through one slit the interference pattern can not form; however, when the results of a very large number of these individual events are collected, the familiar interference pattern appears, as if the photon also passed through slit B. This is where the quantum world departs with logic and common sense. The photon acts like it can be at two places at once. It seems light and electrons can behave both like a particle and wave.”

So there’s really a three step comparison thing going on.

When you fire light through a single opening slit you will observe a pattern on the receiving wall which will be a bright bar opposite the opening slit that will fade as you move away from the source. Basically the majority of the light particles (photons) travel straight to the wall through the slit while lesser amounts come in at an angle through the slit and hit the wall farther from the center.


The next part of this is to add another slit, a little farther from the first one and shine the same light through the two slits. As expected you receive quite a different pattern. As the light passes through the two slits some particles/waves interfere with those arriving through the other slit which creates an interference pattern on the receiving wall. So the light will be prominent directly opposite the two slits but will fade in ‘waves’ as you move away from the sources. To this point all is well and good in the physics universe. Things are behaving as expected.

Here’s the quantum rub: The next step is to reduce the flow of light and try it again with the two slit options. The flow needs to be reduced to a single photon at a time. (which can and has been done) The purpose of this is to eliminate the possibility of interference between the light coming through both of the slits. Since only one photon is going through either slit at a single moment, it cannot run into another one on it’s journey to the other side. What you’d expect is basically the single slit result only side by side. (See schematic at right) Light can pass through either slit so it will converge across from the two openings and fade elsewhere. Since no other particles interfere, each photon has a direct journey to the other side pretty much around the openings. Is this what you get? Uh nope. You get the same interference pattern when you’re flooding the two slits with light!! Yeah. This inexplicable result basically split the world of Physics. Einstein made his famous God/dice statement and Neils Bohr responded “Quit telling God what to do”. Until I began this brief investigation I’d never heard Bohr’s quote and that in itself is something I take seriously. There are reasons we hear what we hear and don't hear what we don't hear. Einstein's has a nice ring to it but the reason I think we hear it is that it's underlying attitude is a desired indoctrination for the masses. It worked well.

David Harrison from the Department of Physics at the University of Toronto states the obvious that, “As you probably already know, Einstein never did accept Quantum Mechanics.” He continued to believe in some type of undiscovered local phenomena (‘hidden variable’) that would explain why the dice rolled the way they did. Bell’s theorem basically proves that not to be the case. The behavior observed is the real deal. This particular double-slit result is explained as “Although each electron arrives at the target at a single place and time, it seems that each has passed through – or somehow felt the presence of both slits at once”. http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/DoubleSlit.shtml

This confirms something I have been thinking in the background for a while now. While Einstein comes across as a stauch believer in God and a champion against atheism, the God he envisions is not one that I recognize. When he meets face to face with the ‘personal side’ of the behaviour of particles he is so shocked he rejects the reality. Why be so surprised? God created the universe so it should be no surprise that it behaves in a 'being-like' way rather than a robotic automaton. Einstein states:

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

This is a very high sounding and earnest quest to know God. Really? Uh how about Genesis? Uh, how about the New Testament if you'd like to really know what God thinks. When something shows up in the discipline he's spent his life studying, that points directly to God’s hand in the behaviour of every particle, he rejects it out of hand. God said, and matter came into being. God is all and in all etc. And scientists discover at the quantum level that particles behave with a type of intelligence. You’d expect an unhindered welcome at the landslide of corroborating evidence for God creating the universe . . . not. This is the filter I put upon Einstein's supposed quest to know God. He doesn’t even recognize him when he’s staring him in the face

From other Einsteinian quotes I have a pretty good idea of his image of God. I did a detailed review of a book written by Charles Malik, former President of the United Nations General Assembly which is only one of his many accolades. Like Einstein, regardless of his stature in the world, I found his constant bleating regarding Jesus Christ simply a front for a full fledged denial of who he really was/is. Like Einstein's supposed God quest, when you actually take a look under the hood, you see the squirrels are pretty much tuckered out. Alas, reserved for another post.