The JFK Heroes
Who are the first heroes of the JFK assassination?
Does a bear shit in a toilet?
I don’t think any of these guys were heroes.
In fact, I think it’s pretty safe to say that these guys were the murderers of the truth.
When you read the Warren Commission testimony, it almost seems as if they went out of their way to promote the Oswald-Did-It Theory.
In my opinion, they were as guilty of killing JFK as the men or women who pulled the trigger.
So, we can rest assured that they weren’t the first heroes.
Well, if it wasn’t them, then who was?
A logical guess would be the first men and women who questioned the Warren Commission Lie.
These would be people such as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Dorothy Kilgallen and many more.
It must have been daunting to go up against the power of the federal government.
Who knows what the government might do?
They might kill you, right?
Don’t be silly. That doesn’t happen here in America, right?
So it would be a logical guess to think that these citizen investigators, that’s right, citizen investigators, might be the first heroes.
And it would be a good guess.
But it would also be a wrong guess.
For you see, the first heroes of the JFK assassination were just regular people.
Just like you.
And they have been in front of you all these years.
The first heroes are the people who rushed up that grassy knoll years ago minutes after the assassination.
They risked their lives.
Generally speaking, as a general rule, and this is important to point out to Warrenatti, people do not run toward gunfire.
But in this one extraordinary instance they did.
They didn’t know what was up that hill.
On a subconscious level, these people understood that something precious had been robbed from them.
Like a mother who will risk her life running after an armed robber who has stolen her baby, these people ran toward the gunfire.
Have you ever seen anyone run toward gunfire in your life?
I never have.
Except in this case.
Now, the Warrenatti, true to their obedient status in life, try to discredit the people who rushed toward the knoll, by stating that they waited three minutes before doing so.
Oh, no wonder.
Were you hoping that some amazing info was going to come out of the recent JFK file release?
Don’t hold your breath.
You will never see anything substantive come out of the government regarding JFK’s death - at least not intentionally.
They have their killer, Oswald, and that is it.
You might say that Oswald is their savior, their sacrificial lamb.
Their entire New World Order depends upon Oswald.
Oswald is their Jesus.
Oswald laid the foundation for the national fascist police state where national retards make hundreds of millions of dollars while you eat Alpo.
And don’t kid yourself that someone on your side of the political spectrum cares about finding JFK’s true killer.
They don’t because they are smart enough to go with the program.
If you talk down the approved narrative, your show gets cancelled, your book deal falls through, your concert dates can’t be booked.
Pretty soon you’ll be an outcast, never to be heard from again.
Except on alternative media.
Or worse, you get labeled, shock, oh, no, a conspiracy theorist.
Watch out, honey, their goes the conspiracy theorist.
Ominous music plays.
Piano string wire music.
Fortunately, you don’t need to listen to anymore bullshit the government is peddling.
Let’s take a look at the big picture that has been with us all along.
Now, the Warrenatti wants you to stay focused on the small picture - ballistics, wallets, postal money orders.
But let’s take a look at the big picture.
It comes in the form of Dean Andrews who testified on July 21, 1964.
I want you to listen to what he says. Here is the Warren Commission testimony.
He talks a little funny, like a normal person.
He is being interviewed by Wesley Liebeler, an attorney for the Warren Commission.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you mean to suggest by that statement that you have considerable doubt in your mind that Oswald killed the President?
Mr. ANDREWS - I know good and well he did not. With that weapon, he couldn't have been capable of making three controlled shots in that short time.
Mr. LIEBELER - You are basing your opinion on reports that you have received over news media as to how many shots were fired in what period of time; is that correct?
Mr. ANDREWS - I am basing my opinion on five years as an ordnance man in the Navy. You can lean into those things, and with throwing the bolts--if I couldn't do it myself, 8 hours a day, doing this for a living, constantly on the range, I know this civilian couldn't do it. He might have been a sharp marksman at one time, but if you don't lean into that rifle and don't squeeze and control consistently, your brain can tell you how to do it, but you don't have the capability.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have used a pronoun in this last series of statements, the pronoun "it." You are making certain assumptions as to what actually happened, or you have a certain notion in your mind as to what happened based on material you read in the newspaper?
Mr. ANDREWS - It doesn't make any difference. What you have to do is lean into a weapon, and, to fire three shots controlled with accuracy, this boy couldn't do it. Forget the President.
Mr. LIEBELER - You base that judgment on the fact that, in your own experience, it is difficult to do that sort of thing?
Mr. ANDREWS - You have to stay with it. You just don't pick up a rifle or a pistol or whatever weapon you are using and stay proficient with it. You have to know what you are doing. You have to be a conniver. This boy could have connived the deal, but I think he is a patsy. Somebody else pulled the trigger.
Mr. LIEBELER - However, as we have indicated, it is your opinion. You don't have any evidence other than what you have already told us about your surmise and opinions about the rifle on which to base that statement; is that correct? If you do, I want to know what it is.
Mr. ANDREWS - If I did, I would give it to you. It's just taking the 5 years and thinking about it a bit. I have fired as much as 40,000 rounds of ammo a day for 7 days a week. You get pretty good with it as long as you keep firing. Then I have gone back after 2 weeks. I used to be able to take a shotgun, go on a skeet, and pop 100 out of 100. After 2 weeks, I could only pop 60 of them. I would have to start shooting again, same way with the rifle and machine guns. Every other person I knew, same thing happened to them. You just have to stay at it.
Think about this.
Does a professional baseball player take batting practice?
Does a professional golfer practice?
Does a professional pianist or violinist practice?
Except for Alan Iverson and Oswald, does every single professional on Planet Earth practice?
Let’s look at one of the later lies to come across my viewing screen.
In order to justify the single bullet theory, which is, of course, difficult to do, Warrenatti have decided that John Connally was sitting one foot interior to that of JFK.
To anyone who never examines a picture, it looks like it could happen.
Especially when Warrenatti pump out fake diagrams like this.
Unfortunately, reality strikes.
Here is what I am talking about.
This photo was taken right before the assassination.
Red is the edge of the car.
Green is the outer edge of Governor Connally’s shoulder. Mauve is the tip of JFK’s nose.
Purple is the inner edge of JFK’s shoulder.
Blue is the vertex of the skull.
These lines are parallel.
As you can see, all three men are aligned with each other.
Yes, there are minor differences, but the differences balance out.
Most importantly, the vertices of their skulls match up pretty well.
Most people’s heads sit directly above their spinal column when sitting.
This dispels the myth, churned out by Warrenatti, that Governor Connally was sitting about a foot to the inside of JFK.
They needed that to make their single bullet theory work.
Of course, their pet theory could still work, but any theory must comport with reality.
If you are going to be stupid, be correctly stupid.
Now, for those, who want to believe that they magically switched their positions just before they were shot ... Sorry, babe.
I had a thought today. I don't think the CIA should be shy about having killed JFK. I think they should come right out and admit it. That's right, step up and be unashamed.
We did it, and we're proud we did it. We did the right thing.
Why not? They have admitted similar feelings for other operations.
It's been fifty years anyway, right? Shouldn't we all move on?
After the elites killed JFK they had no choice, of course, but to honor him. Dishonoring him right away might call attention to themselves as his true killer. Over the years, though, the elites found a way to trash his memory; they accomplished this by focusing on his sex life.
It seems odd that very few Presidents have received as much focus on their sex life as JFK, yet Lyndon Johnson bragged that he had gotten more sex than JFK. To boot, Allen Dulles, the former CIA head, through his sexual escapades made JFK look like a boy scout.
The right wing of this country has always overlooked their own faults to instead focus on JFK's sex life as if having sex had something to do with policy. it doesn't.
The argument has always been a bogus one: Suppose a foreign power knew about his secret sex life and used it as blackmail against him. This is a peculiar argument as a foreign power has almost no control of America's media unless, of course, the elites desire it for their own ends.
No, it seems to me that the real goal of focusing on JFK's sex life is to delegitimize his existence and his policies through ad hominem attacks. In this perverse way, the New World Order's policy seems to the average American like the way to go.
How would JFK deal with Iran?
Given that he had sacked Allen Dulles, the CIA head who illegally overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953, I would think JFK would not so easily be swayed into demonizing Iran.
If you view JFK's tapes of his press conferences, you will see a President quite unlike any President we have seen since. He was unafraid to admit weaknesses or to challenge silly thought processes in others.
I think if presented with the concept of Iran as a dire threat to the US, he would ask the following questions:
Are Iranian troops amassing on our southern border? Is there a flotilla of Iranian ships off the coast of San Diego? Are Iranian paratroopers landing in Montana?