Winter Patriot Community Blog

Oswald took a paraffin test in Dallas on the afternoon of the assassination. This test involves an application of molten wax over the skin -- on the hands and face. When the wax cools, it is removed, and it takes with it anything that was on the skin. And they examine it for gunpowder residue.

If your paraffin test comes back positive -- if they find gunpowder residue on your skin -- it doesn't prove you fired a gun. You could have got the residue on yourself some other way.

But if your paraffin test comes back negative -- if they can't find any trace of residue on you -- it proves you haven't fired a gun recently. Otherwise you would have got some residue on your hands and face, especially with a cheaply made weapon.

The Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald allegedly used to kill JFK was an exceptionally cheap weapon. And Oswald's paraffin test came back negative.

This proves Oswald didn't kill Kennedy; it also proves Oswald didn't even shoot at him.

Hi Winter -

You've had some great posts lately. Thanks for all your work.

Just so you know, the Texas Theater is not in downtown Dallas. It is actually in a neighborhood south of downtown called Oak Cliff.

Also, there is a quote attributed to Jack Ruby which appears in the book "Treason: The New World Order" by Gurudas. I'm not sure what his source was.

Jack Ruby said that the Kennedy assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government . . . A whole new form of government is going to take over the country."

For what it's worth . . .

Thanks.

And it is worth noting that the Warren Commission was never asked to investigate the "crime of the century". Our leaders at the time were more concerned with being able "to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort".

The following memo was written by Nicholas Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General, three days after the assassination:

~~~~~

Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to inconsistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

~~~

Note that the "Mr. Moyers" to whom this memo was addressed is the very same Bill Moyers who was Lyndon Johnson's mouthpiece at the time and who now is regarded as a paragon of virtuous journalism.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Katzenbach.html

everyone that I have trusted through the years is.....not trust worthy?

I'm having a hard time here. It's not a question of the difference between my heart and my head. Well, okay, maybe it is.

I'm suddenly forlorn.

Winter post this?

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/history_military/ConjuringHitlergPG.html

Guido Giacomo Preparata. Conjuring Hitler: How Britain And America Made the Third Reich
Pluto Press (UK) | 2005-08 | 074532181X / 9780745321813 | 333 pages | PDF | 5 Mb

Nazism is usually depicted as the outcome of political blunders and unique economic factors: we are told that it could not be prevented, and that it will never be repeated.

In this explosive book, Guido Giacomo Preparata shows that the truth is very different: using meticulous economic analysis, he demonstrates that Hitler's extraordinary rise to power was in fact facilitated and eventually financed by the British and American political classes during the decade following World War I.

Through a close analysis of events in the Third Reich, Preparata unveils a startling history of Anglo-American geopolitical interests in the early twentieth century. He explains that Britain, still clinging to its empire, was terrified of an alliance forming between Germany and Russia. He shows how the UK, through the Bank of England, came to exercise control over Weimar Germany and how Anglo-American financial support for Hitler enabled the Nazis to seize power.

This controversial study shows that Nazism was not regarded as an aberration: for the British and American establishment of the time, it was regarded as a convenient way of destabilising Europe and driving Germany into conflict with Stalinist Russia, thus preventing the formation of any rival continental power block.

Guido Giacomo Preparata lays bare the economic forces at play in the Third Reich, and identifies the key players in the British and American establishment who aided Hitler's meteoric rise.

PS
President Kennedy was approached by military brass to consider a false flag attack against the United States, and he vociferously opposed it! The militarists wanted to execute a plan of violence and terrorism against American citizens and blame it upon another country, and President Kennedy found that prospect to be morally corrupt. See more about: Northwoods, via Google. Kennedy also was removing all military "advisors" from Vietnam, and Kennedy intended to GET US OUT OF VIETNAM ......and then he found himself facing the militarists in Dallas, Texas.

Cut-out figure made so useful.
Do you really think the 'lone wolf' assassin Lee Harvey Oswald vetted himself into the Navy, and obtained a high security clearance, all by himself, and got sent to Russia, all on his own?! Oswald was strictly manufactured as a perfect cutout figure.

It's impossible for one 'lone wolf' to triangulate live-fire from three separate positions, too; ah, but some still want Oswald to be known as the real sole assassin of President Kennedy. Why? Oswald never had any personal animosity toward President Kennedy; nor did he fire any rifle.

Who was Ruby (Rubenstein) connected to in Dallas and New York? Why was Ruby allowed into the secured halls of Dallas jail, and allowed to shoot Oswald dead? What did the collective inner-group want covered-up about Oswald? Why did they want Oswald shot dead? Which groups prospered from the American War in Vietnam?

It is a deep, desperate and pathetic shame that so many people want to believe in the impossible, merely that their fantasy of the relative honesty of the American Government will remain intact. Frequently one may read observations of a partisan sort, in which --for example-- "RePukes" are considered liars with purely selfish motives, while the Democrats are hailed as noble and honest. It seems that honesty is assumed in the party with which one has some sort of identification bias or other affiliation.

Deception and poker-faced lies are part and parcel of human acquisition and retention of power over fellow humans. I would assume most readers here encountered mean fellow children in elementary/grade school, children who in male gender are bullies or incorrigible liars, children who in female gender are catty manipulators or shameless deceivers. Why, then, would some of us assume these traits disappear as children become young adults, as young adults become full adults, as people age into middle and old age? Perhaps those who recall the sociopathic traits of fellow students simply assume that the sociopaths only become criminals of the blue-collar, violent sort, or petty thieves, or prostitutes, or con artists running 3-card Monte games in seedy bars and allies.

Why should anyone assume that education, wealth or privilege weed out sociopathy? More importantly, why should anyone assume that someone who rises to power in the most powerful nation on Earth would be noble, pure, and selfless in any sense?

Apparently it is shocking to many to contemplate that people would arrange for the death of John Kennedy, or that people would arrange for a false-flag operation to run airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and into the ground in Pennsylvania. But to comprehend and understand the possibility more fully one need only read about the types of persons who commit serial crimes of the most violent sort.

Any nation that would create a need to invade Vietnam, and would send hundreds of thousands of its youth to die there, would easily have people in power who wouldn't think twice about killing a few thousand on 9/11/2001.

Doubters should pick up a copy of Robert Greene's The 48 Laws of Power, and read that book cover-to-cover, to learn more about the deceptive ways humans have behaved for centuries, even millennia, for the sake of acquiring and maintaining power over fellow humans.