911 and 77 (21)
On the day itself I checked the TV guide to see if there was anything on about this but there wasn't - in fact there doesn't appear to have been any mention at all anywhere about this anniversary - TV, newspapers, radio. All silent. What was on was a program called "Who murdered Princess Diana?" but it turned out to be a program that ought to have been called "Rubbishing the evidence for a conspiracy in the usual style" because while it did raise some of the evidence that warrants a conspiracy theory, murder in this case, it quickly dashed all of it and even stated categorically that she was not murdered. For those who are interested, the evidence clearly points to just that, that she was murdered. However, this is not about Diana but JFK.
What I want to get across in this article is that like Diana the evidence for a conspiracy is present, in fact, the evidence is actually more clearcut on what actually happened. I will explain.
Just after I realized that 9/11 was an inside job which is coming up to two years ago now, I rapidly reappraised my fairly ubiquitous attitude to some other suspicious events and thus it was that my previous see-saw verdict on JFK switched to it being another inside job.
It's not that I have any special connections to people who know - I simply have none at all. But there is a feature of consciousness which acts to provide answers if you ask the question in an appropriate way. To myself I had raised a lot of questions and these hung in the air in my own mind. Not many days or weeks later I found the answers were being given to me. With the JFK enigma it was a GIF file that provided the proof of the absolutely absurd - but unambiguously true - idea that it was the driver who shot him - and he was left handed. A GIF can be an animation and web pages frequently have these blinking and flashing everywhere but this was really one to watch and watch and watch and I have done just that. Someone had gone to the trouble of creating this GIF from the frames of the film that show the critical few seconds when the driver can be seen to point a gun at JFK.
When I first saw it I couldn't understand why there was any dispute about what had happened. Anyone can view those same frames just as I have done many times. So why is that?
First off there are at least two different versions of the Zapruder film that I have seen which in one way or another destroys vital information in the critical frames.
One is a black and white film which an artist has added a splodge to. It begins at the base of the limosine and moves until it obliterates the gun. Very clever and very obvious once you have seen the original.
Another version shows the gun but only the gun barrel is visible. When I saw this I wondered what it could possibly be and conjectured to myself if it could be a gun but had to come away not being able to form a definite conclusion about it other than it was an oddity. This film, this version had the right hand side of the frames cut, edited off. This is a very important version to my mind, which will seem a puzzling thing to say as the third version, not this one, is the give away version.
The third version shows the right hand side of the frames which the second version does not. What is of supreme importance is that in this extra view of what is to the right of the 'gun barrel' looking object is the arm of the driver! So in this version we not only see what must be a gun but we see it is in the drivers hand, his left hand, and we see his left arm too.
If you have seen version one, which will have been around on TV since the 1960s then you can admire the artists craftsmanship in creating a splodge. You can easily find each version on the web.
If you watch version two then you can admire the work of another editor who trimmed the right hand side so that the driver's left arm is not seen in any frame.
And if you watch version three then you will not only see what happened for yourself so that there is no longer any doubt about it but you will also be able to understand why version one and version two were created, except that a question should arise in your mind.
After you have done all that, and, please, don't take my word for it but track down these three versions, download them to you computer and treat them like the important evidence it all really is. After you have satisfied yourself and confirm my own findings then ask yourself why didn't version two also trim away the gun barrel. I mean if people can be fooled by the editing of the arm then a little bit more to remove the gun barrel is hardly going to make anyone sit up and pay attention. I have my own answer and it is an answer 'of hope', of optimism despite this evidence of evil, because it hints that even among the perpetrators (by the way do you ever notice how that is perpe-traitors and traitor, by the way again, is probably from the french word meaning butcher, but I severely digress)
I hope that we are long enough into the future now, 45 years on, that it won't jeopardise anyone's health and safety by giving my own explanation. I think there are only two realistic answers to this question, one is that it was officially sanctioned to let those few who might want to investigate that there is a clue - the gun barrel. This would suggest that the killers didn't want to completely hide their 'work' or rather the evidence of it but prefer to leave a clue either as a boast or as a message. Isn't that a hallmark of serial killers generally? We can go along that route but I leave it to others who may want to, instead I will move on. The other possibility as I see it is that the editor had to do his job but didn't want to go along with it so he, of his (or her) own accord did the job but left the gun visible so as to give some clue to the truth.
I believe that is probably what really happened.
If you have looked at the Pentagon missile video - the one that does show these few vital frames - then you will notice the same thing. There are frames missing, edited away so we don't see any missile but we do see a swirl of white steam or smoke and next we see a white flash. The swirl is characteristic of air launched missiles but not of airplanes at all, the white flash indicates an explosive event as opposed to a simple crash with no explosive involved. The white flash and the swirl are thus very important and really prove that what hit the Pentagon was not a plane but a missile. In fact each part, one the swirl and the other one the white flash, is proof on it's own without the other. But, if the missing frames showed a missile then clearly they would be the frames to remove and in doing so it would be very easy to overlook the evidence either side of the missile frame/s.
Another question is why there is so much mystery still on the subject of the JFK assassination. I mean the original vital frames that are total proof of what reallly happened have been out there in the public domain on the internet for many years - I surmise at least a decade. So why the debate and contention still? You know what, I think it is simply that it is always just a very few people who ever actually look at a thing to judge and decide but they nearly all join in the debate instead, as though they had done, think that is. If you want an analogy, look how forums work and newsgroups or usergroups. Isn't it the case that people indulge in juxtaposing their egos or their opinion and countering the ego or opinion of others that proliferates in these places and only if you are lucky is there also the answer that you wanted? So sure, there will be the vital information too but it is usually hidden among chaff and noise. That is what I think is the case now with JFK. The chaff and noise are uppermost while the number of people who actually get around to looking at the evidence and thinking it through for themselves must be a very poorly low number.
I mean, I figured this out without much trouble or effort and with no special connections to anyone, none at all. All I did was a bit of googling and youtubing out of my own personal interest.
I wrote this article as a way to mark the 45th anniversary but also because someone recently sent me two links to videos which I viewed, each one showing a different edit of the critical frames. These were sent to me to watch so that I would understand that I was wrong, supposedly, to say that the driver shot JFK (and that there was a shot from a drain which presumably helps explain something). Well I watched both. And the two videos contain the two different sets of critical frames. One with the driver's left arm and the other without. Thus this man had sent me, unwittingly, the very evidence I have just been explaining to you. He was trying to show me that I was wrong, that the driver didn't shoot JFK but that the shot came from a drain instead. I wrote back to him and explained that his two examples contained the two sets of frames and what it means. I have yet to hear back from him...
By the way, you really don't need to use anything other than your own eyes! Once you see for yourself that there are at least two different sets of critical frames then you have to decide which is the original (and in doing this, imagine trying to add a fictitious right hand side in order to claim the the extra part is an artistic invention, for instance) - quickly realizing that the wider frame must be the original. Therefore why the edited version? The cut off arm and gun was the edit order (in my opinion) but the editor only cut off the arm leaving the gun barrel. This edit is an anomaly both in that the gun barrel is then an anomaly AND, once you know this is an edited version, this copy is an anomaly inasumuch as it raises the question of why the barrel was left in situ. But the unedited frames are, the original film is, the proof. The edits shows how the cover up has been expertly managed and maintained for all these decades and continuing. As well as what it tells us about the JFK atrocity it reveals even more about ourselves, about how we face up to, or rather in reality we don't face up to at all really, such terrible incidents as this. What do I mean? Simply how we all herd-like join in any debate but don't look for ourselves to decide upon the basic facts, how we are fooled easily by, basically, a small group, how we, choose in effect, to live in the dark, how we agree, albeit not entirely at a conscious level, to engage in a pretence, a huge and utterly terrible pretence and an ongoing pretence, how we agree to take part, by not really objecting, in the engineering of the next atrocity because we constantly signal to such perpetrators that we will always behave in our own minds as though there is nothing that we ought to be alert and active towards. We share in the complicity in these ways. It is not that we all sit down at a negotiating table and sign away our right and our duty to keep our eyes open and even if we open them to quickly close them again and even then to say nothing about what we have seen, no, but we behave as if that is exactly what we have done, that we have all, in effect, signed up to such an insane pact.
The public just watches the TV and doesn't think much if at all. And the TV in turn changes in it's content to reflect this so that the term 'dumbing down' is apt. It's a similar story with the radio and the 'press'. The perpetrators monitor this phenomenon which is what it is after all - a default-choice to be asleep and to go along with the scheming and not to look at it but to look away from it. I just hope they won't shut down the internet or the web - I have a sort of joke about that idea: "What time will they turn-off the internet?" Answer: "Oh, about 9.11"
This, I think, is why 9/11 and 7/7 were able to be carried out - we continuously signal, as a crowd, 'the great public', society, communities - that we will accept and go along with it. It is not that we wilfully do so but that we choose not to look carefully or appoint anyone to look carefully. Because we consistently behave in this way we must inevitably invite such evil-doing and are joint conspirators albeit that we join in by being thoughtless, by being herdlike, by not using our individual ability to be vigilent and so on. It is not that each of us needs to be alert always but that each of us discards that option at a price and then we go on not to bother ensuring that someone is alert on our behalf. Before long virtually no one is alert and all are asleep. We of course like to think that government and the media is alert and watchful on our behalf but it doesn't need a great deal of inspection to show that is exactly wrong because they are now controlled, however it is actually done, so that they just are not alert and watchful on our behalf at all but just pretend to be so. The evidence shows this to be beyond all doubt. I don't know how that has been achieved exactly but I can see clearly that it has been extremely effectively achieved.
While this 45th anniversary of the JFK assassination ought to have revealed on TV and in the 'papers just what I have revealed to you here, it hasn't at all. What this shows is just how effectively we all join in a pretence. We don't really want the truth as a society, instead we want it neatly concealed if it is unpaletable. That is the only reason I can think of that explains why this blatant evidence has not been noticed. The more likely reality is that it has been noticed and noticed by many people but it's meaning still has to be concealed and so no mention of it is made.
To me, this is insanity, this is psychopathy, this is diseased thinking, this is duplicity, this is a diseased mentality. It is also wrong. If religion is something valuable then why are they so silent on the subject? Why are they joining in? I know that is getting away from the point here but one of the reasons people choose not to think for themselves is the influence of religion upon them, so it is an important point to at least make here.
What is one, anyone, to do? I think it is important to maintain balance and not to go 'overboard' with stuff like this. Those of us who can 'see this' feel greatly frustrated by the cold shoulder response that people give us when we broach anything like this - in my case, my sister, for example, completely ignores me. That has to be THEIR problem and not ours. That is my own attitude. I intend to carry on wanting to know the truth. For those many others who have greater priorities, I have to respect their right to keep their eyes firmly closed (as they often pray to god to make things better!). What is the alternative? To become some kind of 'activist'? That might be the right choice for some but it isn't for me at all. I have written this article, and I have carefully pruned and shaped it and tended to it, spending a number of hours on it, probably 4 to 8 hours in total. That's my contribution and if anyone asks me - and they never do - then I will give them all the information and answer their questions, but they don't and they are not likely to and I am not inviting anyone to anyway. This article, and this web site, they are my contribution. If just 1% of intelligent and knowledgable people did something similar we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. So exactly why should I do anything at all on their behalf? I think I have the balance right for myself. I am willing and I do contribute, as you can see for yourself, but I am not willing to take on my shoulders the burden that others create by their own choice not to contribute similarly in their own way.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
25 November 2008
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
