Author Reply said (June 24, 2010):

Reply from co-author Mark Anderson

Richard Evans’ book review was written by someone who skimmed rather than read the book, My God, I’m Hit, that I edited and co-authored. Not to mention the reviewer’s shaky reasoning. He noted the following passage from the book:

"The text and photos are primarily for persons born after 1977 because they are detached from the emotions, prejudices and brainwashing that their parents and grandparents experienced as the Kennedy saga unfolded and evolved."

And then Evans said this:

This statement was the first red flag for me, because it's a circular argument. We've seen this before. "eye witness testimony isn't reliable because they're emotionally involved, so the only credible witnesses weren't there."

Actually, that statement by Evans was my first red flag, indicating he misunderstands to a degree what he read and that he hadn’t completely read the book.

We meant that people born later are more detached from the event and therefore are more open to new information of whatever kind about this event. People who were young adults or a little older when the Elm Street event occurred are naturally more prone to believe the official story. Only a tiny fraction of people were in Dallas to actually witness the event. It’s not a circular argument at all. Someone born later without any presuppositions is not as propagandized. Is that really so hard to understand?

The posted comment by the reader “molecule” at this website is indeed interesting. He would have no reason to lie about such a thing, and his recollection of Nelson Rockefeller and the boys boozing and yapping about the Kennedy assassination being staged sounds completely plausible.

The fact is that back in 1963 it would have been quite easy to fake a fatal shooting, amongst a population that had not yet used cell phones with cameras, mini-camcorders and handy digital cameras. There were but a handful of easily controlled media outlets. Our book outlines a host of things that bring to light the manner in which the “Elm Street shuffle” was apparently done. Generally speaking, think about the following:

If you were the powers that be, you would create the magic bullet theory, complete with the nearly pristine bullet itself, to concoct a false scenario. You would then doctor the Z-film so you could say, “See JFK reach for his throat. This magic bullet, that just happened to turned up later, is the bullet that hit JFK in the back of the neck or high upper back and came out where his tie was tied. That is why he reached for his throat. The bullet zig-zagged around en route as it entered Gov Connally. We know that is not physically possible, but we are the elite and you will believe it. If we say you saw a unicorn, then you did.”

But the best-placed witnesses we cite all indicated that no such body motions by JFK took place. And, I am sorry Mr. Evans, but you cannot assign equal merit to each and every witness, so we cited the closest ones who were best-placed – which demolishes the argument that we consider eyewitnesses inherently unreliable.

Now, stay with me. This gets interesting.

To pull this off, two key things had to happen.

You had to get the highly efficient ambulance crew of Al Rike out of that sector of Dallas that they routinely covered. That is why no ambulance was involved as should have been the case. The stage managers would tolerate no interlopers.

And, having invented the magic bullet that would comport with the film script, you then would doctor JFK’s jacket to cover up the one and only nonfatal shoulder wound, and then fake the bullet hole that supports the Z-film and magic bullet. (Gerald Ford was known to have moved the entry wound’s location around on different spots of the jacket when he considered this subject during, and I believe after, the Warren Inquisition on which he served.)

Notably, the mere fact that the Presidential Limo sped away, acting as the ambulance, is odd when looked at objectively, as is the observation that JFK’s Secret Service man, Roy Kellerman, enjoyed a leisurely limo ride in a “stand down” position. He was nowhere near being in position to jump on and cover JFK when the shots were fired. And no Secret Service men stood on the back of the Presidential Limo; they instead enjoyed a leisurely ride on the car behind the Limo. No prying eyes allowed.

Anyway, the noted epileptic-seizure guy, on cue, had his seizure and Rike’s ambulance picked him up in Dealey Plaza and sped away just a few minutes before the JFK motorcade came.

So, the quick version is the fake bullet and fake film creates a false reality. Real rifle shot hits JFK once in shoulder, nonfatal. Other shots are diversionary, as are the “tramps on the train,” and other “stage extras” who were only there to confuse and confound. Explosive device is used to simulate fatal head wound. Limo speeds away. Ambulance help is gone. A switch occurs in the Limo (read the book) and a little later the Secret Service is mean and hell-bent to get “JFK” out of Parkland and not allow a local autopsy and closer body inspection.

We’re told “assassination” so we will forever argue on that premise and never solve the case. It may sound like a stretch, of course, but in this case you “have to believe it to see it,” in many respects. You’re dealing with a sophisticated through-the-looking-glass operation and you have to deduce what happened from an abstract angle.

We, Brian and I, really feel this is what happened. The book explains the network utilized to pull it off, as best as we could discern given the circumstances nearly 50 years later.

Jim said (June 22, 2010):

The Zapruder film no doubt was doctored. They claim the driver shot him, but I doubt it. He had to drive the car. Not many know that Jackie was Jewish. I believe he was shot from the storm drain. There may have been a shooter on the grassy knoll, but the storm drain would make more sense. The other shooters were in place to cover this guy. The limo driver was told to slow down when he saw someone pump and umbrella. Each person had something they had to do, but they didn't know each other. I've looked at the film. It doesn't appear Jackie did anything.

But they guess as to who shot him? The mafia didn't like him, but they don't even like to kill Cops, because of the heat. LBJ wanted Kennedy out of the way and he knew what was up. But Kennedy was going to put money into circulation and bypass the Jewish bankers and this was why he was shot. Kennedy made enemies with the CIA talking about eliminating that agency. LBJ and George Bush all were in on it. But Mossad killed the guy.

I think they did it like they did to show others what they can do. The the secret service guy in the car behind JFK told the secret service guy to get off the rear of the car, because he would be in the way of a shot from the building. Plus he would have been very close and might have seen something.

So we know the limo driver slowed down at the place where he saw the guy pump the umbrella. We know the limo driver turned around to see. We know the other shooters were in place to frame Oswald. We know Kennedy had made many enemies. So this means nobody would want to get to the truth and they would cover up the crime.

These presidents talk about bypassing International bankers could issue money from our own government, but it would be wise they do this from the safety of The White House. They should only have secret service people around they know they can trust. Since LBJ took office no presidents have done anything to piss off the Jews. Nixon didn't like them and this is why they erased some of the parts on his tapes. They wanted us to hear some things, but not all. What they erased is where he was saying things about the Jews that they would just assume the American public didn't hear. So they claim the parts were erased three times, but they can still hear something being said. They claim they'll have the technology to know what was said on the tapes. That will probably be about the same time the FBI opens the records they have on Martin Luther King. By then it won't matter.

Most Americans have a good idea of who did it. The Mossad is not going to admit to it.

Deb said (June 22, 2010):

There is one positive comment I'd like to make on this piece of fluff book, and that is that the authors seem to see what I do in the Zapruder film: that Jackie did do "something" to John Kennedy at the point of impact to his head, either faked or real. I'm currently working on a novel, just for my own enjoyment mind you, based on the premise that Jacqueline Kennedy, due to threats to her children by the PTB (aka Zionist Jewish Mafia/Mossad Israeli Gov't), did fire a head shot to her husband in the limo at nearly the same instant a shot rang in from the grassy knoll by Officer J. D. Tippit (aka "Badgeman"), who's later-murdered body served as a body double for the autopsy photos in order to control where the desired gunshot wounds would be located. My offering's working title is: "Jackie In the Confessional: 'I Shot Jack!'" To all skeptics, I say: Watch the Z film in slo mo and keep your eyes on Jackie instead of just on the victim!

Matt said (June 22, 2010):

pparently, an ardent Zionist named Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a
key figure behind the JFK hit.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbloomfield.htm

I believe "Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal" by William Torbitt
is invaluable for anyone wanting information about the entities behind
the incident. This is the most revealing article I have ever come
across regarding the JFK hit.

http://scribblguy.50megs.com/torbitt.htm

Molecule said (June 22, 2010):

My uncle (now deceased) was a member of the LI chapter of the SAR (Sons of the American Revolution). His club of alcoholic has-beens used to get together every month at his farm on Eastern LI once a month, where they would hang out and get drunk. Occasionally Nelson Rockefeller would show up in blue jeans. One time, after they had been blue fishing in the race at Plum Gut (off Orient Point), they were all sloshed and crooning about their catch, they explained to me (I was only 14 at the time) that the JFK assassination was entirely a staged event.

Barely coherent, they explained that JFK had found out he had a terminal disease (Addisons?) that would have disabled him while in office, so HE decided to stage his own assassination. JFK was in on it every step of the way.

That theory was kind of supported by a video which William Cooper (Behold a Pale Horse) sold, which showed that the "assassination" was clearly a high noon ceremony per Free Masonic rituals. The execution was timed to within minutes of exact local noon (Sun at perfect due south), and it occurred at the southern-most tip of a five pointed star (Dealy Plaza being a point on a pentagram street design or something). I never saw the video, but I remember Wm Cooper describing more about this Masonic ceremony on his shortwave show, The Hour of the Time (?). Wm Cooper was killed on his place in Arizona. The video is probably available somewhere.

I don't know about JFK doing LSD with Mary Pinchot -- that sounds like total FUD to me. I don't believe Kennedy was the clueless reckless party boy, nor Mary Pinchot the sex crazed milf that the zionist mafia wants us to believe they were. Timothy Leary was working with the right-wing MKUltra crowd, trying to perfect the art of making sex zombies out of children, for extortion, assassination, etc.

That same MK-Ultra crowd included Cord Meyer, who Pinchot divorced. She was a high minded artist. I do think however that Pinchot's notebook, wherein she recorded notes from her secret meetings with JFK, was a hot item. Pinchot and JFK shared the same personal enemy - namely Cord Meyer, the MK-Ultra crowd, and the Illuminati. So there may have been real friendship there, instead of endless LSD and hallucination sex. (Total FUD!)

Within minutes of her assassination on the toe path on the B&O Canal (an odd place for someone of her economic status to go jogging IMHO), James Jesus Angleton and Ben Bradley (?) broke into her house, ransacked it until they found her notebook, whereupon they quickly disappeared into the night.

Supposedly, Angleton, who got there first, gave it to his buddy, Cord Meyer, who, like Trotsky, supposedly died in Mexico City. Meyer, Angleton, Bradley, and the rest of the et al of the CIA and Pentagon were (ARE) all agenturas of the Illuminati. Castro, also on the CIA payroll, was trained by the Pentagon (Col. Henry Morgan, US Army Special Forces) on a unique piece of CIA-connected property near Mexico City, that is 60 sq. miles in area and has guard towers on the property corners. E. Howard Hunt was CIA station chief in Mexico City when Castro got his terrorism training there.

I also remember my uncle explaining that I need not worry about Strontium-90 getting in farm grass and then in dairy milk. (That was supposedly the big scare about nuclear war.) He said that when we were attacked, the attack would begin with PsyOps takeouts of our national symbols, starting with the Empire State Building and the Pentagon as the symbols of our financial and military strength.

The idea was that loss of these symbols of our strength would so break us psychologically, we surrender. (... his idea, not mine). The WTC hadn't been built at that time, so the Empire State building would have been the big PysOps target of the time. The events of 911 were in effect fully described to me in 1962, by a different uncle but from the same crowd ... while fishing for blues in Plum Gut, again.

--

Thanks Molecule,

If JFK was an enemy of the Illuminati, why would he assist in their phony assassination? Again, where is the motive, disease or no disease?

h

David said (June 22, 2010):

One needs to look no further than executive order 11110 ( i believe ) to find out who assassinated Kennedy. The fact that people are starting to join the dots on this issue explains the timely release of this non-sense.

True there were many groups motivated but only one group stood to lose billions upon billions of dollars. You can be assured they are the ones who kept people swimming in a sea of "conspiracy theories " for years. You are an intelligent person i have read your work for years.........so i say this with the utmost of respect one needs to look no further than the owners of the federal reserve to find out who enabled the assassination.

Steve (general comment) said (June 22, 2010):

Hi Henry

I was at a local club here in Australia NSW and used the courtesy internet laptop while waiting for a friend

I surfed a few sites and then tried yours only to be amazed that an instruction page came up saying:
"You have tried to access a web page which is in violation of your internet usage policy
URL: www.henrymakow.com
Category: Racism and Hate "
Further:
"To have web page re-evaluated click: url.fortinet.net/rate/submit.php?id ...."

This was on a government provided "Broadband for Seniors" i.e., {Australian Government}

The filtering system used was Forti Guard Web Filtering real time network protection.

Henry I will leave this with you as this filtering system is only on an Australia wide free seniors internet provided by the Aust. Gov

Unfortunately it is the thin end of the wedge for free speech - as I see it.
--

Thanks Steve

If I ever needed proof that I am right, this is it.

henry

---

From Robert:

I believe that there must be a deliberate policy not to encourage seniors in our society from becoming familiar with the Internet. Many of them are withering away in boredom, not aware of the world of information and experience now accessible to practically everybody, yet little is being done to connect them to it. Why would this be a policy? Because most seniors have lots of time on their hands and, being out of the career racket with its chilling effect on candour, nothing to lose from expressing their real views. Thus, they constitute a huge potential problem for the ruling elites. This is undoubtedly why the Australian government is censoring the information available to them in that country.

In contrast, in China a large proportion of seniors use the Internet regularly for communication, but of course there the censorship is global (although not of many western anti-establishment sites; e.g., I'll bet one could readily access savethemales.ca) and in any case there is no tradition of freedom of speech about politics.

Hilf said (June 22, 2010):

On a similar note to the JFK assassination, I feel certain that Saddam Hussain was never "captured" in that humiliating fashion {from a hole in the ground] nor executed. Had the US actually killed him, then the incentive to act as faithful puppets would have been removed from the other leaders in the region. Very little was said in the media on this subject and I for one am very sceptical. Much has been written about JFK but I doubt anything revealed at this stage would actually make any difference. It becomes old news and no one is interested. In a few years' time we will no doubt have the "truth" revealed about 9 11 in an amazing tell-all publication! People will shake their heads and say that it was in the past, the work of a former government and things are "different" now!