Airbrush

I've been following the JFK assassination since I was in grammar school, when the only thing on tv for the following week, when we had only 7 tv stations, was the Kennedy assassination. Here is my own recent investigation. I was wondering if the person(s) who wiped down the presidential limo, outside Parkland Hospital, immediately after JFK and Connelly were carried by stretcher into ER, were Secret Service agents. That would support the theory that George Hickey accidentally shot JFK. Here is what I found from the Warren Commission. According to a statement by Parkland Hosp Aide, Shirley Randal: "...I asked some man - I don't know who he was - if there was any more hurt...he said he didn't think so. He asked me if I would get someone to come and wash the blood out of the car..." Joe Richards, Orderly: "...then someone asked me to get a bucket of water; I did. Secret Service Men asked me where the telephones were..." Here it seems safe to assume that the person asking for a bucket of water was a Secret Service man. From the book "Legacy of Secrecy" by Lamar Waldron: "...As Hugh Sidney observed, Secret Service agents cleaned and wiped down JFK's limo..."

Did anyone see “The Interview” yet? It was silly, but important to defend free speech. How much of the anti-American rhetoric shown at the start of the film is accurate? We should send a delegation to N.Korea, lead by Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, and Eric Clapton. "....The Washington Post reported in 2009 that Kim Jong-un's school friends recalled he "spent hours doing meticulous pencil drawings of Chicago Bulls superstar Michael Jordan."[110] He was obsessed with basketball and computer games.[111][112] On 26 February 2013, Kim Jong-un met ex-NBA star Dennis Rodman,[113] leading many reporters to speculate that Rodman was the first American that Kim had met.[114] Rodman described his trip to Kim Jong-un's private island, "It's like Hawaii or Ibiza, but he's the only one that lives there."[115] Kim Jong-un is reportedly a fan of Eric Clapton.[116] During Dennis Rodman's 26 February 2013 trip to North Korea, Vice Media correspondent Ryan Duffy observed that "the leader was 'socially awkward' and didn’t make eye contact when shaking hands".[119] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong_Un

According to accepted evidence, the third shot could not have originated from Oswald's rifle because it was a different kind of ammo, a frangible round while the second shot was a full metal jacket round. Also Oswald was shooting down from an angle of 16 degrees, while the entrance and exit wounds of the third round, pointed to street level and to JFK's left, towards the following secret service car. The secret service controlled EVERYTHING related to the assassination, with a vengence, issuing gag orders to everyone in the autopsy room. All photos, and blank film, was confiscated after the autopsy and were "lost". Many years later evidence was destroyed immediately after it was requested. Agent Hickey never spoke publically about this, and evaded talking with the book's author. I never heard it mentioned, but I wonder if the Secret Service were the ones that immediately wiped down the car of blood and brain splatter, outside Parkland Hospital, to make the car clean and neat and erase forensic evidence? I would like to see some SPECIFIC criticism of these evidence. "....Even if it were true, and it isn't, I am not sure that the Secret Service may have covered up some stuff is that news-worthy; Oswald is, was, and will remain the shooter." So for the Secret Service to cover-up something of this magnitude is not news-worthy? The book "Mortal Error" fell on deaf ears because it was not favored by the conspiracy people, nor was it favored by the Warren Commission proponents. People just don't care that much about this any longer. Oswald was, is, and will remain, the shooter, of shots number one and two. But to suggest he also fired shot number three is "junk science".

Not just a hard shot, but the third shot was from a low angle, AND a different kind of ammo, an exploding round, and of a smaller size. Ten witnesses reported the smell of gun powder at street level. Several irregularies and inconsistencies in the Secret Service actions and testimony. "...Other evidence of a cover-up put forward by McLaren states how an evasive Secret Service chief James Rowley admitted, at the Warren Commission, that AR-15s were no longer used by his organisation inside protection vehicles since the assassination, and also that classified Secret Service documents on the assassination were destroyed just one week prior to being handed over to the Assassination Records Review Board in 1995. McLaren suggests the chaos of the aftermath of the assassination, including threatening and interfering behaviour by Secret Service agents towards Parkland Memorial Hospital staff, involving the removal of Kennedy's body without an autopsy having taken place, was "...evidence they knew one of their agents had shot JFK" and pointed to a cover-up. He further suggests that Kennedy's eventual autopsy with its "...overcrowding in the room, the Secret Service's constant interference, the pressure cooker autopsy, lost photographs, falsified x-rays...all point to conspiracy". Several scenes are dramatically reconstructed, including the removal of the body from the Dallas hospital...." Try reading the wikipedia article on the book "Mortal Error" for further details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

Did anyone see the documentary "JFK - The Smoking Gun"? It is on Netflix, where I just saw it a couple times. It says there was a conspiracy concerning the secret service, after the assassination of JFK, to cover up the fact that the 3rd shot, that hit Kennedy in the head, came from not Oswald, but from secret service agent George Hickey, accidentally. BTW, his investigation also concluded that the second shot, through Kennedy's neck, would have been a fatal wound. According to a 4-year investigation by an Australian detective, Colin Mclaren, and the book “Mortal Error” by Howard Donohue, there seems to be a secret service cover-up concerning the 3rd shot which hit JFK in the head. After Oswald fired his first shot from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, secret service agent George Hickey picked up a “cocked and loaded” AR-15, set on safety, and looked around for the source of the then 2 shots, waving his assault rifle, but tragically, accidentally fired the shot that killed JFK. There was no conspiracy other than the conspiracy among the secret service agents and the Warren Commission to cover-up George Hickey’s “Mortal Error”. 552 witnesses gave testimony, the Warren Commission selected a limited number of these, the witnesses that supported the story they wanted for history. The 3 shots occurred within 5.6 seconds. Eleven marksmen later attempted 3 shots, using the same cheep, inaccurate, Italian army surplus rifle, on the same size target, at the same distances, moving at the same speed, in an exact re-enactment of the scene in Daley Plaza. Only one marksman was able to hit the target 3 times, and that was only after he attempted it a third time. This shows how hard it would have been for Oswald to hit the president even twice in 3 shots. Governer Connelly was certain that he was hit by the second shot and the Warren Commission ignored that. The single bullet theory was correct for the second shot, but it is likely the first shot missed as several witnesses saw the bullet hit the pavement. That shot would have sent fragments of bullet and pavement flying towards the presidential limo, which prompted Kennedy to say “Someone is shooting at us!” After that he was hit in the back of his neck. He lowered his head and was aligned with George Hickey, in the following car, and his AR-15 that accidentally went off as the 3rd shot. The second shot was a full metal jacket, the third shot was an exploding, frangible, hollow-point bullet, which actually left 30 to 40 fragments in Kennedy’s head. Also the head entry wound was 6mm and a metal jacket round is larger, 6.5mm. Ten witnesses, at street level, smelled gun powder, including some expert witnesses. The wind was blowing 15 mph from the southwest. Shots from Oswald’s gun could not be smelled at street level. Several witnesses said they saw a secret service agent pull out a rifle, waving it around. One witness, Jamie Hill, testified she saw “…secret service agents firing back…” but she was never called to testify. The secret service refused to have an autopsy, according to Texas law, before the body could be moved, for no apparent reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

All parties may be lying, but the question is whose argument is most plausible? N.Korea says they didn't do it, but sympathize with the hackers, and then makes unspecific threats, just like the hackers.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Obviously, but do you think a US delegation of computer experts would let slip such important info about HOW we tracked them? We could use the opportunity to extract more information, without giving up any info.

This is the response from North Korea after being accused by the US for the cyber attack by the "GOP" (Guardians of Peace) on Sony, costing Sony hundreds of millions of dollars, to retaliate for the movie "The Interview". North Korea said they were framed and want to see the evidence and work with the US to find the culprit(s). The US rejected this offer from North Korea. What do you think about this? It seems to me that the US should do anything it can to open dialogue with North Korea. The US does not need to give away sensitive info about HOW we figured out North Korea is responsible for the attack. We should send a deligation lead by the basketball player Rodman, who the great leader is a fan of, and see if we can extract more information from North Korea, maybe getting better proof for a world court that North Korea is guilty of the attack. Interesting that even though North Korea claims to not be responsible for the attack, they feel it was a righteous act, and issuing [another] threat that if the US did not work with North Korea on figuring out the "real" attacker, the USA would suffer some other kind of attack.

Then maybe in the future they might change the law so that the grand jury is composed of the ethnic proportions of the immediate community, in this case of Ferguson, not the county which has very different ethnic proportions.

In the multiverse model, many if not an infinite number of big bangs may have occurred, and are occuring even now. Those big bangs, our's included, have a finite size, reside within a "bulk" of infinite dimensions, and therefore you can compare it to an explosion that has an outermost edge. Which is the same as saying our big bang was "very hot and dense, then it expanded and cooled". "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Can you say this in other words? This does not make sense in English. In the New York City case of police "exceeding norm of law" by killing that huge guy with the chokehold, that guy could not even put his hands behind his back. So the police should have lasoed him, like a cowboy in the rodeo, using a restraint that wraps around the suspect.

"...The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech UNLESS that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action." To me it looks like Mr. Head's tirade was "directed to inciting" and, given the circumstances of a prevalence of arson and looting, was "likely to incite" imminent lawless action.

As I just edited my post above, there is no need to prove that his incitement to violence was followed by anyone. His tirade was a textbook example of an "incitement to violence" thus not protected free speech.

Thanks for those interesting links: "...the line between protected and unprotected speech can be thin. Those who, knowing the First Amendment’s protections, are tempted to antagonize police officers should think twice. Not only may the speech actually violate the law (a resisting arrest charge is among the possibilities), but an offended officer might misrepresent what the speaker said or find some technical violation to justify an arrest." "Fighting words are one of the very [few] categories of unprotected speech in the United States, along with such things as obscenity, child pornography, incitement to violence and true threats. "... fighting words are generally confined to personally abusive epithets -- think racial slurs, homophobic taunts, religious insults -- conveyed in face-to-face settings where the audience or target of the speech is likely to swing back. Imagine a baseball manager like the late Billy Martin yelling toe-to-toe at an umpire. But just like umpires are supposed to tolerate a certain amount of verbal abuse before giving the manager the heave-ho from the game, so too are police officers expected to stomach a tad more than the average person." Only a "tad" more? Mr. Head's raging and repeating "Burn the b#### down!" looks like unprotected speech, "incitement to violence" not "fighting words" to me, whether or not anyone listening to him acted on his urging.

Don't you think that after a few months have passed, the police should use video evidence, guided by witnesses, to track down many of the looters and arsonists? There were very clear videos of the faces of many of those engaged in violent criminal activity. Also, is there not SOME law that Brown's stepfather broke? After some time has passed, he should be at least fined. If I were to approach a cop, in a very angry mood, and yell obscenities at the cop, I should expect to be arrested, taken to the police station, and charged with some kind of disorderly conduct, even if it results in only a fine or community service. And that is not even calling for violence. Seems to me that the forensic evidence, location of all bullet casings, does support Wilson. Brown was NOT shot in the back, although several witnesses claimed that under oath. He may have thrown his hands up for a moment and said "Don't shoot" but evidence is that after that, he charged back at Wilson. Someone that is "stunned, shocked and surrendering" does not charge towards a cop. I agree with you that Wilson was treated gently by the prosecutors, and the police really screwed up big time in MANY ways processing this incident. Why not get finger prints from Wilson's gun, if Brown touched it? So I agree with most of what you are saying, but there WAS reasonable doubt about the criminality of Wilson's actions. Certainly "the majority of witnesses described a stunned, shocked, surrendering Brown" but also anger and rage. You are cherry picking emotions for him to feel. I've been following this all day on CNN and never heard a number of your claims. So you suggest the grand jury was hand picked to ignore the majority of witnesses? That sounds absurd.

Exactly good point about who possesses the wealth and employment or lack of it. The poor will always come in contact with police more often. Whatever ethnic group is the minority in a neighborhood will tend to avoid public places out of fear of any confrontation. In Ferguson the whites are the minority, so most of those would try to stay off the streets, and thus less contact with police. Do you think the stepfather of Michael Brown should be arrested for inciting violence by calling to the crowd "Burn this b#### down! Burn this b#### down!" He even called for the microphone. It looks terribly irresponsible to me.

Is there much of a difference in young male black and white cultures in Ferguson, or for that matter in any major city in the USA? I'm just wondering if the CULTURE of young black males is more "OUTdoors", as in "Let's party outdoors", and the culture of male white youths is more "INdoors", as in "Let's watch TV or play video games in my house", and for that reason male black youths come in contact with police more often than male white youths. Does anyone know? I'm white and grew up in a majority Latino area of East LA. During my 20s I had a couple of different jobs in a black area of South LA and I commuted on bus to my job, including a walk of several blocks from the bus stop through what appeared to be a 100% black neighborhood. One thing I noticed was that some black people sat outside in their front yard socializing in the early morning. I never noticed that in white or Latino areas. In 1977 I was working (for minimum wages) for a ceramics manufacturer in Vernon, near South LA, which looked like a totally black area. I waited at a bus stop every night to go home and never had a problem until one night a group of about a dozen black youths approached me to look me over suspiciously. One of them told the others "He's a blood" in a friendly tone of voice. I did not know what "blood" meant, I figured it meant we all have the same color of blood, so I thought they were friendly. Years later I learned that area was a "Bloods" area and the Bloods were at war with the Crips nearby. "You want to smoke some [pot]?" I nodded, to be friendly. He said "Let him light [up the joint]". He (the friendly guy) gave me the joint and asked "Goin' to a party?" I was scared and didn't know how to answer because I was on my way home. I was dressed like a production potter, which is what I was, wearing flip flops, shorts, and a dusty T-shirt. I did not look like I was dressed for a party. All their eyes were on me in a hard way. I started to walk away and they followed. I walked faster and they did also. Then I broke into a sprint. They ran after me a short distance then quit and just picked up rocks to throw at me. I ran like never before turning corners until they could not see me then I hid in some bushes for about an hour. Later I got to another bus stop far away and made it home ok.

Certainly regret the circumstances. Make any attempt at appeasement. Soldiers coming back from war are often WITHOUT a "clear conscience" in a similar kill or be killed situation. That is called PTSD. Ofcr Wilson comes across as a robocop, unfazed, without pity, and ready to kill more. The solution is to recruit young black men onto the police force, and pay whatever it takes to make them WANT to serve their community. The police force should have the same ethnic proportions as the community.

It is one thing to feel sympathy and another to express sympathy for political points. When Brown's father was questioned how he felt after hearing Wilson's explanation, his response was "He is a murderer." The mother's response, "It sounded like [Ofcr Wilson] wanted to kill my son." Do you think Wilson had some coaching from an attorney about what he should say to the world? He sadly missed a golden opportunity to turn down the heat by acting totally indifferent to the results of his actions. He said he has a clear conscience, just like any hardened murderer has a clear conscience. Charles Manson had a clear conscience. Whatever plotting there is to kill the prosecutor and police chief, more is awaiting Ofcr Wilson. Now he can live in fear for the remainder of his life, thanks, in part, to his stupid "clear conscience" declaration to the world.

The shooting was magnified by the stupid explanation that Ofc Wilson gave. He had a long time to rehearse this long-awaited statement and he could not fit a tiny phrase of sympathy for Brown's family. He could easily have said that he felt he had no choice but to use deadly force against Brown, but he WISHED that he didn't have to. He could have said "I'm sorry it happened the way it did, and I hope his family and friends could forgive me." But like the huge idiot that Ofc Wilson is, he had to sound totally indifferent, satisfied he killed a raging beast, he did not care in the least, and therefore he will be the target in a civil case, and will face death threats for the rest of his life. What a fool. His career as a cop on the beat is terminated by putting his foot in his mouth at a most critical moment.

That is true. In order to protest, you need to be certain about something. I think the only thing the protesters and rioters are certain about is they have felt mistreated by the police over an intollerable long time. However, they are not certain about the facts surrounding the shooting. That has become a spectacular event to rally their frustration. They WANT to believe Brown was a good guy, shot for no good reason, by a no good cop, creating a myth to believe in.

Officer Wilson will most likely lose his job, and probably we will see a civil suit.

Thanks for the link Mike. Wikipedia.org already has a page on the movie. Below is a summary of the plot, exactly what I was looking for. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(film)

The grand jury will not indict Ofcr Wilson, so a riot. Michael Brown getting killed is only the straw that broke the camel's back. The majority black communities have a long history of grievances against their majority white police forces. The fact that Ofcr Wilson was justified in self defense does not erase decades of mistreatment of young black males. Cops should wear video cameras. Ofcr Wilson should have shot Brown in the legs. Brown should not have acted like a raging idiot. Young black males need to be recruited to law enforcement so the ethnic balance in the police force is comparable to the community they serve. If they don't want to be cops in their own community, then they need to be paid more, enough to motivate them to become good cops for their own communities.