Thursday, November 19, 2009

How "Patsies" are Framed--The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald

This is the kind of research that has fallen to private investigators who have assumed the responsibility of pursuing the truth in cases where the official investigations cover it up. Similar techniques of fabricating evidence and framing the innocent were employed in the Lockerbie bombing, Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, the 9/11, Madrid, and 7/7 "terrorist attacks". If we don't understand how and why these things are done, we are consigning ourselves to their repetition by powerful forces that act in their own self- interest. JFK was the epitome of "false flag" operations. We must learn from our past.

It would be a mistake to think that the focus of this study is narrow and esoteric. The piece has great "content and breadth" when you consider that everyone in the world knows of Lee Harvey Oswald, but very few understand the mechanisms by means of which he was framed. Multiple experts on photographic fakery are presented and proof of the fakery in this case is demonstrated in the article itself! Jim Marrs and I are two of the leading experts on the death of JFK in the world today.

More than a half-dozen experts on JFK are cited in this article, none of whom agree with Hany Farid. Indeed, it is obvious that he did not know what he was doing, since the nose shadow--which he claims to have studied--remains constant across several different photographs with different poses taken at different times, which is a photographic impossibility. The face was pasted onto someone else's body, precisely as Oswald claimed at the time. There is no more familiar case of a false flag event in world history. Everyone can learn from this.

What happened to JFK? - Jim Marrs interviewed on "The Real Deal" with Jim Fetzer (7 December 2009)


The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco
Co-authored by Jim Fetzer* and Jim Marrs*

OpEdNews
20 November 2009

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) November 20, 2009 — Professor Hany Farid, a member of the computer science faculty at Dartmouth, in a recent article injected himself into a long-running dispute concerning the authenticity of photographs related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. These photos reportedly of the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are collectively known as “the backyard photographs.”

Farid's analysis immediately raised the ire of many assassination researchers, who for years have claimed the photos are clever fakes. In an article published in The Huffington Post (November 5, 2009), he has claimed that it is “extremely unlikely” that backyard photographs of Oswald are fake, based upon his digital analysis of the shadows.

Apparently referring to the more famous of the backyard photos — the one published on the cover of Life on February 21, 1964 nearly eight months before the Warren Commission handpicked by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin — Farid says, “You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect. As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake.”

Farid, who has previously conducted research on how poorly the human visual system can be at correctly judging how shadows are cast, admitted, “[W]e are really bad at judging shadows. I'm bad at it and this is what I do for a living.”

Despite this caveat, Farid jumped feet first into the controversy of the backyard photos, causing further tumult in the issue. While his announcement of no fakery, propelled by an unquestioning mass media, caused a sensation with some segments of the public, serious students of the photos expressed dismay and concern that Farid had further muddied the issue without seriously delving into the abundant literature on the issue, which remains quite important as the Life cover-photo was successfully used to convince the public of Oswald's guilt.

Most researchers into the backyard photos, which includes an official with the Canadian Defense Department and a retired British detective expert, consider the evidence of fakery to be simply overwhelming. But Farid appears to be unaware that other experts have studied them before him.

To appreciate the magnitude of the issue, consider the words of Robert Blakey, now a professor of law at Notre Dame but who served as Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during its reinvestigation of the deaths of JFK and of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1977-78. Speaking to the committee about these very photographs, Blakey stated,

“If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.”

It might be recalled that Oswald himself used that same word — “patsy” — meaning a person set up to take the blame for a crime. In light of the major importance of the backyard photograph issue, Farid immediately drew critics, who claimed his research was superficial and not as definitive as he implied.

No Literature Search

If Farid had only conducted a literature search, he would have known that the shadows were but one of multiple indications of fakery and that, even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photos.

Unfortunately, neither the news reporters nor the professor seems to have known enough to appreciate that his conclusion is contradicted by multiple lines of proof, including digital analyses, which are easily accessible — even by Google!

Such proofs include that the chin in the photos is not Oswald's chin; that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip; that the finger tips of one hand are missing; and that the figure in the image is too short to be Oswald.

Farid's involvement therefore raises serious questions about the integrity of his research and the abuse of his standing as a Dartmouth professor to make public pronouncements impressionable to a wide general audience.

According to the Manchester, NH, Union Leader (November 6-7, 2009), Farid created a 3-dimensional model of Oswald's head using a computer program called “Facegen” to determine if he could replicate the shadow beneath his nose by manipulating a source of light that simulated the sun. He said he had a difficult time until he realized that he had modeled the neck “too thin”.

Farid told the Union Leader that, given the technology available 46 years ago, “there is no way someone would have been able to get the internal and external elements of the photo just right in order to fabricate not only the one photo, but two others in the series.” But his own conclusions make it difficult to believe that he was even aware of, much less that he had studied, even two of them.

The professor could have learned much more had he only conducted a search of the literature. Even YouTube includes this documentary, FAKE: The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald. One of the most interesting has been posted by Judyth Vary Baker, whom we believe to be who she claims — a cancer researcher who became acquainted with Oswald in New Orleans.

In her study, she notes that digitizing a backyard photo creates a problem of trustworthiness, where the strongest conclusion he is justified in drawing is that the pixels in the copy of a copy of a copy he analyzed were not tampered with. He simply reconstructed portions of a backyard photo — we do not know which one he chose — but only seems to have reconstructed the head and neck, not a full figure corresponding to the image.

Nor does he appear to have used the sun as his light source, which means that his “conclusion” is based upon a flawed methodology. Since digital photography did not exist in 1963, it is also relatively effortless to state — with a high degree of confidence — that no digital tampering of the original photos took place.

Misleading JFK Studies

The manipulation of the scene and pre-positioning of the elements to achieve a desired effect is reminiscent of a recent Discovery Channel program, “Inside the Target Car”, in which a rifle anchored to scaffolding was fired into a carefully-designed wooden box representing Kennedy's limousine striking dummies with gelatin heads. The resultant splatter of matter was then studied in an attempt to prove the Warren Commission's theory of one bullet causing seven wounds to both Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally.

The program assured its audience that all the elements were exactly the same as in Dealey Plaza in 1963 — except that a modern telescopic sight was used for greater accuracy. Of course, Oswald did not have the advantage of a modern telescopic sight and no mention was made of the fact that, even according to the official version of the assassination, Oswald was firing at a target moving laterally and downhill away from him with tree branches obscuring the line of sight.

And this is far from the only time that “documentaries” and other studies that claim to have vindicated The Warren Report (1964) have appeared, many of which attempt to support the “magic bullet” theory, even though it has not only been proven to be false but is not even anatomically possible. If you have any doubt, Google “Reasoning about Assassinations”. And there are many more.

There appear to have been at least four photos — plus a negative and a missing color transparency — in the entire set. We suspect Farid thought there was only one. Oswald's face is tilted in different directions in different photos, yet the v-shaped shadow under the nose never varies, which is an obvious indication of fakery. Since he studied the nose shadow, he should have discovered this.

The most charitable interpretation of his work is that he naively assumed that the shadow beneath the figure's nose in the image that was published in Life was the basis for rejecting the photographs as fakes — and nothing else.



Had Farid simply entered the words, “backyard photographs, Oswald”, on Google, he would have found a study entitled, “EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION // BACKYARD PHOTOS EVIDENCE OR FAKERY // PRESENTED BY RALPH THOMAS”. It should have captured his attention, since Farid was planning to do a digital analysis himself.

Thomas illustrates and explains not only that there is an apparent inconsistency in the shadow of the nose in relation to the shadow of the body but also that the body shadows in different photos indicates they were taken at different times. And, under the heading, “Close Ups Of The Two Faces”, he makes key points about two of the backyard photographs:
For many years researchers have said these faces were faked. (1) A fine line runs through the chin. (2) The shadows appear to be the same under the nose. (3) The second head has merely been tilted to fit into the rest of the photo. (4) Although taken just seconds or minutes apart, the tilt of the head on the second photo also tilts the nose shadow.

Under the heading, “Overlay Of The Two Faces”, he also explains that, when the second face is turned into a transparency and titled to the same angle of the first one and the photos are overlaid on top of each other, (5) they match up perfectly, as indeed he shows in an additional third photo. But this would be impossible if the photos were authentic.
These studies contradict Farid — even about the shadows that he claims to have studied. They raise serious questions about the integrity of Farid's research and suggest he considered only a single aspect of a single photograph. And this is far from the only contrary evidence that a Google search would have produced.

Ignoring Expert Testimony

The day following the assassination two photographs and the negative to one of these were found by Dallas police in the garage of the Irving home where Oswald's wife was staying. These two were designated as Warren Commission Exhibits (CE) 133-A and B.

In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered yet another backyard photo in the hands of the widow of a Dallas policeman. Mrs. Roscoe White said her husband once told her the picture would be very valuable some day. In this heretofore unknown version of the backyard photo, Oswald is depicted holding the rifle in his left hand and newspapers in his right.

This is the same pose used by Dallas police in reenacting the photo for the Warren Commission — clear evidence that authorities were aware of the suppressed picture long before it became known to the public. This photo has been identified as CE 133-C by researchers.

In the same study, Thomas himself provides a summary of far more detailed testimony from Jack White, a longtime analyst of JFK photos and films, who presented his findings of fakery to the HSCA but which the HSCA chose to disregard. Here are his observations:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concluded that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm where Oswald is holding the rifle. Attempts to duplicate this pose have been unsuccessful.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: In the photographs, the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand appears too stubby to be normal.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be, raising the prospect that the photo was retouched before being found by the Dallas police.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a broad flat chin but Oswald's Dallas Police mug shots depicted him with a pointed and cleft chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where a cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph. This strongly supports Oswald's complaint to police that someone had pasted his face onto another's body.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B, adjusted and overlaid them, nothing in the background or figure matched up as expected in two separate photos made moments apart with a handheld camera, as stated in the official testimony. However, the face of Oswald was a complete match on both photographs. This could only be explained if someone made a composite photo by pasting the same Oswald face on both pictures.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V-shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow in the opposite angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The figure's collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula, which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a size 14-1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15-inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off making it appear as if they were two separate pictures. However, except for small differences, the backgrounds matched on both photographs, meaning the camera never changed position which contradicts the official story of Oswald's wife reluctantly walking into the backyard to take the photo.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds as they were not off by much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appeared to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

An elementary “literature search” would not only have revealed to Farid that much more than the shadows he claims to have studied themselves afford multiple indications of fakery, as White notes in points (3), (11) and (12)! If he had been determined to conduct a serious and objective study, it's difficult to imagine how he could have missed them.

Questions of Authenticity

These photos are authentic only if they are authentic in every respect. Even if he had been successful in his study of the nose shadows, disproving one out of more than a dozen proofs of photo fakery cannot show that these photos are “unlikely to have been faked”, much less that they are authentic. There turn out to have been five versions of these photographs — plus a negative of one and a separate color transparency — as we explain below.

The more we have thought about this, the more obvious it becomes that Farid was unaware of any problem besides the nose shadow or of any photos than the one he studied. Either Farid does not understand the requirements to prove their authenticity — which is absurd, since this is one of his areas of specialization — or he did not conduct a literature search and did not know the history of research on these photos. The only alternative would appear to be that he has deliberately perpetrated a fraud.

Incredible as it may seem, the photo shown here — a “ghost” image, in the words of researcher Robert Groden — was discovered in the files of the Dallas Police files more than 20 years after the fact. In his classic study, The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald (1995), Groden provides an excellent introduction to the problems with the backyard photos on pages 90-95. Indeed, 404 evidence photos that have now been released from an official archive not only include ten photographs of the backyard without figure — which would have been indispensable to fake them, which using multiple lines of proof we know was done in this case — and two “ghost” images, which suggest that they were either produced or planted by members of the Dallas Police Department.

Farid has in fact published numerous articles regarding the use of digital analysis of photographs, which suggests that he possesses the academic ability to have analyzed them properly. Even on our charitable interpretation — that he was simply unaware of other problems and had not done a search of the literature to dispel his ignorance — then at the very least we would expect that his analysis of the nose shadows would be competent.

His conclusion supports our inference. If Farid studied more than one of these photographs, as he claims, then he should have noticed that the nose shadow remains constant across different photos, an obvious indication of fakery. In fact, the figure's entire face remains constant in these different photographs. Either he did not know there was more than one or he is deliberately deceiving us.

Clearly, Farid has violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. It is impossible to demonstrate that a photo is not fake by selecting one issue, excluding consideration of the rest of the evidence, and showing that it would have been possible under special conditions.

Farid focused on the nose shadow, but ignored inconsistencies between the nose shadow and the shadows the figure casts, the similarity in the nose shadow from one photograph to another, and problems with the shadows on the neck.

Farid was competent to investigate the shadows, but he did not perform that task in a competent fashion. The question becomes, why was he doing this at all?

Jim Marr's Response

The author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), Jim Marrs has long been persuaded that the backyard photos are indeed composites, just as Oswald asserted. When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match. The problem is Oswald's face (above the chin) is a near-perfect match when they are superimposed, as shown here.



The only difference that Marrs has detected is slight distortion of the mouth in one of the photos, which could have been done with retouching. In "The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald" (YouTube), Jack White has compared the thick neck and block chin of the figure with the narrow neck and pointed chin of Oswald. He also noticed a bump on the backyard figure's wrist (CE-133A) not on Oswald. A rookie with the Dallas Police Deparatment, Roscoe White, had a thick neck and a block chin, like the image in the photographs, and a similar bump on his wrist.

The first, depicting a man holding a rifle up over his head with both hands, was shown by Marina to Oswald's mother. Marguerite, the night of the assassination and then again at the Executive Inn, where Marguerite burned it and flushed it down a toilet (WC Vol. I, pp. 146-152). So that photo is no longer available.

The second is the version of CE 133-A with “Hunter of Fascists” handwritten on the back in Russian, which was found long after the assassination in the belongings left behind by George DeMohrenshildt, who appears to have been Oswald's CIA handler and had filed several reports with the agency. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, George's widow, told Marrs during an interview that she had never seen the photo before and believed it was planted in their belongings while they were traveling in Haiti.

Another copy and a third version (CE-133-A and B) were both found in the garage of Ruth and Michael Paine on the Saturday following the assassination, but Marrs has observed there is a major discrepancy in the record. Detectives Guy Rose and R. S. Stovall of the Dallas Police Department told the Warren Commission that they arrived at the Paine home after noon ("about 1 p.m." quoting Stovall in Vol. VII of the Warren Commission Supporting Volumes, p. 193) on Saturday, November 23, 1963, but only brought the backyard photos discovered in the Paine's garage back to DPD headquarters around two hours later (Rose, WC Vol. VII, p. 231).

Yet, in his statement to the Warren Commission, Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the JFK homicide, related how Oswald was brought back to his office for further interrogation at 12:30 p.m. that same day, "... in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked to be the same rifle we recovered. This picture showed [by its own internal features] to be taken near a stairway with many identifying things in the backyard.... He was placed back in jail at 1:10 p.m." (WC Report, Appendix XI, p. 607.)

But how could Fritz have seen a backyard photo before Stovall and Rose found two of them in the garage and had brought them back to the police headquarters?

This account lends great support to the stories of Pat and Robert Hester, a husband and wife team called from home on November 22, 1963, the day of the assassination, to help process assassination-related photos for the FBI and the Dallas police at National Photo in Dallas.

Both of the Hesters told Marrs that they had seen an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos and that one of those Robert processed had no figure in the picture. Hester's claim was corroborated by his wife, Patricia, who also helped process film on the day of the assassination.

Marrs believes that the FBI had the photos as early as Friday evening and either passed them to the Dallas police (who lied about finding them) or planted the photos in the Paine garage (where a thorough search of the Paine home Friday had not produced them) in order to be found by the detectives prior to the police search during which they claimed to have found the photographs.

He suspects that the fabrication of the photos can be traced back to J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, who was intent on having proof that Oswald would have been convicted of the assassination had he lived to stand trial. And, indeed, there are multiple indications that Hoover took steps necessary to block a real investigation, which made him at least guilty as an accessory after the fact.

CROSSFIRE (1989)

Most of what Marrs wrote about the backyard photos in Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), one of the main sources for Oliver Stone's “JFK”, remains valid today. The book is a classic in this field and one that anyone with a serious interest in the case should have read. If Farid had only read it, he would have known that multiple experts had studied the photos long before and concluded that they were fakes as well as a great deal more.

The Warren Commission heard from Oswald's accommodating wife, Marina, that she had taken these snapshots with a hand-held Imperial Reflex camera at the insistence of her husband. The Commission, based on Marina's testimony and the order form for Oswald's rifle, pinpointed the date as March 31, 1963, a date which later investigation with the US Weather Service showed had been overcast and cloudy, making it impossible to have made them that day, since they evince bright sunlight and dark shadows. She said she took one shot then handed the camera back to Oswald, who advanced the film and had her take another picture.

When shown one of the backyard photographs by Dallas police, Capt. Will Fritz has said, Oswald made the following remarks:

“He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before. . . . He told me that he understood photography real well, and that in time, he would be able to show that it was not his picture, and that it had been made by someone else.”

Photo experts told the HSCA that the most famous backyard picture — CE 133-A, which was used on the cover of Life — was obviously made from the original negative while in the hands of Dallas authorities. And yet the negative itself was never accounted for by the Dallas police. As the Committee astutely observed, “There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.”

Marrs also discusses questions regarding the Imperial Reflex camera that was said to have been used to make these photographs. Oswald's brother Robert claimed to have obtained the camera from the Paine home on December 8, 1963. He said he did not mention it to authorities because he didn't realize anyone would be interested. Robert was only told the camera belonged to his brother by Ruth Paine; and the FBI did not receive the camera until February 24, 1964. About that time, Marina was shown two cameras but failed to identify either as belonging to her husband.

When the government received the camera, it was inoperable. FBI photographic expert Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt told the Warren Commission, “In order to be able to make a photograph with the camera, I had to make slight repairs to the shutter lever, which had been bent. I straightened it and cleaned the lens in order to remove the dirt which had accumulated.”

Then, in June 1964, Marina identified the camera as the one she used to take the photographs. Marina, who originally claimed to have only taken one picture, had revised this statement in her testimony to the Commission in February 1964. She said, “I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.”

She never mentioned any other photos. But this incident was not the only time Marina's testimony reflected inconsistencies and rehearsal.

Experts told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that the most famous backyard picture — the one used on the cover of Life magazine — was obviously made from the original negative [and the fifth of the total set of five] while in the hands of Dallas authorities. Yet the negative itself was never accounted for by the Dallas police. The Committee noted: “There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.

Internal Problems

As Marrs notes, objective viewing of the three available backyard photographs reveals internal problems aplenty. Although all three pictures were reportedly taken with a hand-held camera, the background of all three is identical when brought to the same size.

That is, while they are cropped differently, in the three photos, the elements of the background — shadows, leaves, branches, stairs, etc. — are exactly identical. This sameness of background could be produced with a stationary camera on a heavy tripod, but it is almost impossible with a hand-held camera.

In addition to the v-shaped shadow under Oswald's nose, the photos all show a discernible line marking a break in the print's emulsion across Oswald's face just above a flat, broad chin. In Dallas police photos, it is clear that Oswald had a sharply pointed, cleft chin.

It was pointed out in Marrs' 1989 book that when all three photos are brought to the same size and placed on top of each other as transparencies, nothing matches except the face of Lee Harvey Oswald — strong evidence that he was telling the truth when he said his face had been superimposed on another body.

Oswald's assessment that the photos are superimposed fakes has been confirmed by two foreign authorities. In 1977, Major John Pickard, commander of the photographic department at the Canadian Defense Department, made these statements after studying the backyard pictures:
“The pictures have the earmarks of being faked. The shadows fall in conflicting directions. The shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction and that of his body in another. The photos were shot from a slightly different angle, a different distance, with the gun in a different hand. So, if one photo is laid on top of another, nothing could match exactly. Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger, in the other the heads match perfectly, bearing out Oswald's charge that his head was pasted on an incriminating photograph.”
Author and British Broadcasting Corporation investigative reporter Anthony Summers had the photos studied by retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England. Thompson said he detected retouching in the photos around the area of Oswald's head and on the butt of the rifle. He also noted inconsistencies in the location of shadows and the different chin on Oswald.

Thompson stated: “One can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin which is not Oswald's chin. . . . My opinion is that those photographs are faked. . . . I consider the pictures to be the result of a montage.” However, like Farid, neither Pickard nor Thompson had access to the original photos.



Astonishingly, the Photographic Evidence Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which did study the originals, concluded in 1978 that it could find “no evidence of fakery” in the backyard photos.

This conclusion rested primarily on studies that showed markings on the edges of the negative of one of the original photographs were identical to markings on other photographs made by the Imperial Reflex camera. This ballistics-type evidence convinced the panel that the photos must be genuine.

However, Texas graphics expert White pointed out that if a knowledgeable person wanted to fake the backyard pictures, it would have been a simple matter to produce a high-quality montage photograph using one backyard scene, a figure with rifle and papers and a head shot of Oswald, which then could be photocopied using the Imperial Reflex camera. This procedure would produce a backyard photo that could be proven to have come from the camera traced to Oswald.

Another method to achieve the same results, according to White, would be to make an exposure through the Imperial Reflex camera that would include the markings on the edge but nothing else. Then, when the composite photo is combined with this, the markings become part of the negative.

Asked to study the sameness of the different photos' backgrounds, the House Committee's experts said they measured the distances between certain objects in the pictures — such as wooden fence posts — and determined differences in distance, indicating that the photos were indeed separate shots.

White, on the other hand, claimed that the differences were simply the result of “keystoning” or tilting the easel on which the photograph was exposed in an enlarger. He said he, too, had been concerned with what appeared to be differences in the photos but discovered that, by simply tilting the photographic print in an enlarger's easel, the backgrounds of the supposedly separate pictures overlapped and matched perfectly.

Furthermore, in recent years White discovered other problems with the backyard photos. In one picture, the tips of Oswald's fingers appear to be missing as does one end of the rifle's telescopic scope. White believes this resulted from sloppy airbrushing. In another, the figure can be seen to be wearing a large ring on his right hand, yet the ring is missing in the other photos. That point alone ought to have been enough to prove that these photos are fakes.

JFK Evidence Fakery

A search of the literature on a subject is usually the first stage in defining the scope of a research project, since it would be pointless to undertake studies that have been previously conducted, unless there happen to be good reasons to suppose they had not been conducted properly. That has occurred in relation to the autopsy X-rays, which David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., demonstrated to have been altered in studies published in Assassination Science (1998).

A Ph.D. in physics who is board-certified in radiation oncology, the treatment of cancer by using X-ray therapy, Mantik used a simple technique from physics called “optical densitometry” to evaluate the X-rays in the National Archives and found evidence that none of them are originals, that there are indications of a second shot to the head in the lateral-cranial X-ray, and that a 6.5 mm diameter, metallic sliver had been added to the anterior-posterior X-ray.

Mantik's discovery of X-ray alteration has been substantiated by Jerrol F. Custer, the Bethesda Naval Hospital radiation technician who actually took the JFK X-rays. In May 1992, Custer told the news media that the negatives in the National Archives presented by the government as assassination evidence were “fake X-rays, which has been reinforced by other research by serious students of the crime.

Blakey's words concerning conspiracy surely apply with even greater force to the alternation of X-rays that were under the control of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, and the president's personal physician. Adding a 6.5 mm metallic slice was an obvious attempt to implicate an obscure WWII Italian Mannlicher-Carcano as “the assassination weapon”.

But the conspirators committed a blunder by this choice of weapon. As other authors — Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (1976) and Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason (1989), among others — have observed, the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high velocity weapon.

Since The Warren Report (1964), The Final Report of the HSCA (1979), and articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1992) all affirm that JFK was killed by the impact of high-velocity bullets, Oswald cannot have fired them.

It seems preposterous that, with instance after instance of conclusive proof that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have assassinated JFK, the debate continues. As Martin Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us (1996), has observed, the objective of disinformation is not to convince us of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

As Marrs has noted relative to the backyard photos in spite of the sameness of backgrounds and especially of Oswald's face, conflicting shadows and distances, and the loss of portions of the photos, this vital piece of evidence remains “controversial” even though their inconsistencies can be viewed by any layman and their lack of authenticity has been the studied opinion of multiple experts.

“Of course, this is the cover-up in the Kennedy assassination,” said Marrs. “There has been no real cover-up from the standpoint of lack of evidence. Instead, it has been a cover-up of obfuscation, with one expert countering another expert in order to create controversy and confusing the issue — until the public grows tired and turns away.”

And now Hany Farid continues a “controversy” long thought resolved, not by government officials or a formal investigation, but by private experts who have contributed their time and effort in the only sincere search for truth about the death of JFK.

The Dartmouth Dilemma

Anyone who wants to know the latest research on the administration of JFK and the assassination that brought it to an abrupt end should read David Talbot, Brothers (2005) or James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008). Or they can access John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy (2009), including “Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to JFK?”, which features a backyard photograph.

James H. Fetzer, who presented this material during the conference held at the University of North Dakota on November 22-23, 2008, was introduced by John R. Tunheim, now a federal judge in Minneapolis, who served as the Chair of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), a five-member civilian panel with the authority to declassify documents and records held by CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies.

Created by legislation that was motivated by the resurgence of public interest in the case after the release of “JFK”, the ARRB succeeded in declassifying some 60,000 documents and records, which was a remarkable achievement and where their work is discussed in his edited book, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), which begins with 16 “smoking guns,” each refuting the official account.

Darmouth, alas, confronts a dilemma. Hany Farid is not a teaching assistant but a full professor of computer science. He has immersed himself in a controversy that he could have avoided had he conducted due diligence in his research. A literature search would have revealed the full dimensions of the problem and have afforded ample indication that the photos are fakes.

Farid appears to have proceeded on the false assumption that the nose shadows were the source of concern about their authenticity. Yet, even in relation to the nose shadows, his work has been incompetent, as we have demonstrated here — unless controversy was his goal. Even if he were right about the shadows, he would still be wrong about the photos.

If Dartmouth wants to perform a service on behalf of the nation, then it should conduct an objective and comprehensive review of Hany Farid's research and publish the results. Unless this bastion of Ivy League academia desires to bear the stain of incompetence in a matter of this magnitude, this appears to be the least that it can do.



Jim Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences, edited three books and produced a 4 1/2 hour documentary on the death of JFK. He co-edits the on-line journal assassinationresearch.com.

Jim Marrs, one of our nation's foremost investigative journalists, has authored many books, but is best known for Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, which was a basis for Oliver Stone's film, "JFK".

Was 9/11 an "Inside Job"?

This Flash animation was presented by Dr. James H. Fetzer on September 11, 2009, at the International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice in Buenos Aires (Argentina). It reveals the basic discrepancies of the US official account of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Dr. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is a philosopher of science and public intellectual. He is Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Dr. Fetzer has pioneered a novel area of research he has labeled "assassination science", which involves the application of principles of scientific reasoning, especially "inference to the best explanation", to evaluate official reports to insure they are not serving the purpose of covering up crimes.

Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?

This Flash animation complements the last chapter of John D. Williams and Robert G. Waite, John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy (2009). The chapter Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?, written by Dr. James H. Fetzer, reviews some of the crucial evidence that shattered the cover-up in the assassination of JFK. Dr. Fetzer, a philosopher of science and public intellectual, is Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Dr. Fetzer has pioneered a novel area of research he has labelled "assassination science", which involves the application of principles of scientific reasoning, especially "inference to the best explanation", to evaluate official reports to insure they are not serving the purpose of covering up crimes. He has edited three books on the death of JFK, Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

While the latest studies on JFK may be found archived at the web sites assassinationscience.com and assassinationresearch.com, the most important book on the reasons why he was taken out has now been published by James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008). This superb volume traces his evolution from a cold warrior to a man of peace in a gripping, effortlessly readable study of impeccable scholarship. This may be the single best volume to understand why he died and why it matters. Between this book and Murder in Dealey Plaza (2003), the reader will learn 95% of what there is to know about the assassination of our 35th president. An excellent review of Douglass' book has just appeared, which we are delighted to feature here today. Another excellent volume, by the way, which views the assassination form the point of view of RFK by David Talbot, Brothers (2007), is also very good. But JFK and the Unspeakable is better.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin


Global Research, November 25, 2009

Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.


Talk by Jim Douglass author of "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" given June 6, 2008 at Elliott Bay Books in Seattle.

It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behavior has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.

Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA . Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.

We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.”

Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.

First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.

Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”

Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”

He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”

Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.

These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.

But who killed him?

Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.

He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.

Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination - that plus the thought that it no longer matters.

It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.

There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters.

As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?”

After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife - during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union - he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department.

He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.

Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide.

Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI,CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former FBI agent, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.

During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg. Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.

From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.

Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up - clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.

He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”

Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.

False Flag Attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994

This article originated in an interview between me and Adrian Salbuchi on "The Real Deal", which took place on 21 September 2009, and is archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. My interest in the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and of the Jewish Community Center in 1994 had been peaked by discussions in Buenos Aires when I presented my lecture, "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", at The National Library with Kurt Sonnenfeld, Dr. Oscar Abudara Bini and others on 11 September 2009. When I learned after my return that Adrian was an expert on these attacks, I invited him to be my guest on the program.

Our interview was received with great interest by Thierry Meyssan, the editor of Voltaire Network, who invited us to submit a transcript for publication. We did so, and it was published there on 13 October 2009. It has now been translated into Spanish, French and Italian. These events, like those in Mexico City and, indeed, in London on 7/7, are on a sufficiently small scale that their character as "false flag" attacks can be more easily understood than the complex cases of JFK and of 9/11.

Salbuchi - False Flag Attacks in Argentina: AMIA and Israeli Embassy Bldgs - Part 1 of 3

Argentina suffered its two worst terrorist bomb attcks in March 1992 and July 1994 against the Israeli Embassy and AMIA Jewish Mutual Building, respectively. Both were in Buenos Aires and show all the traces of False Flags. Regarding the AMIA attack, especially, Israel, Zionist organizations and the US have exerted enormous and blatant pressure so facts would be falsified, false evidence planted and Argentina's authorities coaxed into accusing Iran, Hezbollah and Syria for the attack. And indeed, they have succeeded! (Part 2, Part 3)

"False Flag" Attacks in Argentina - Adrian Salbuchi interviewed on "The Real Deal" with Jim Fetzer (21 September 2009):


False Flag Attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994
by Adrian Salbuchi*, James Fetzer*

Voltaire Network
13 October 2009

Coinciding with ’s earlier conclusions and with those of other Argentinian investigators, economist and globalization expert Adrian Salbuchi chronicles the events that shook Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, contouring their unmistakable false-flag profile and irrefutable Israeli footprint, and connecting them to a wider pattern of similar "terrorist attacks". Far from being fortuitous, Salbuchi offers a coherent picture in which all these events tie in together, revealing the same web of complicity, and are consistent with a grand scheme for economic and military global domination better known as the "New World Order".



Adrian Salbuchi was interviewed by Dr. James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and host of "The Real Deal", who spoke at The National Library of Argentina on 11 September 2009. It was Fetzer’s second visit to Buenos Aires to participate in a 9/11 commemorative event.

Site of former Israeli Embassy in the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha Streets in Buenos Aires.
Site of former Israeli Embassy in the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha Streets in Buenos Aires.

The interview:

James Fetzer: My special guest today is Adrian Salbuchi of Argentina, host of the Buenos Aires radio talk-show, “Bienvenidos a la Jungla” (“Welcome to the Jungle”), and founder of the Argentine Second Republic Movement (Movimiento por la Segunda República Argentina). He is author of several books on geopolitics, that include El Cerebro del Mundo: la Cara Oculta de la Globalización (“The World’s Mastermind: The Hidden Face of Globalization”) and Bienvenidos a la Jungla: Dominio y Supervivencia en el Nuevo Orden Mundial (“Welcome to the Jungle: Domination and Survival in the New World Order”).

Today, we are discussing the alleged terrorists attacks in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994.

Adrian, welcome to "The Real Deal"!

Adrian Salbuchi: Thank you, Jim. Good Evening to you, and thanks for having me on your show.

JF: Why don’t you give us a brief sketch of the two deadly attacks in central Buenos Aires, one on the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and the other, on the Jewish Community Center in 1994, to orient our audience.

AS: Argentina suffered its worst terrorist bomb attacks, which targeted two specific buildings in downtown Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, those years. The first took place in March 1992, and completely demolished the Israeli Embassy, with 29 people dead. The second one similarly brought down the headquarters of the AMIA Jewish Mutual Association in July 1994, and killed 86 people.

Both attacks took our country by surprise, as we had not seen such dreadful acts since Argentina was targeted by international guerrilla movements in the seventies, nor have we had anything like that ever since. We are, as a people, a veritable melting pot bringing together myriads of immigrants and ethnic groups living peacefully side-by-side with little or no racial or religious conflict.

These two attacks occurred under the administration of former president Carlos Menem, who was closely aligned with US global policies (George Bush Senior was President of the US at the time) and, by extension, with the policies of the State of Israel and of global Zionist organizations.

Notably, in both cases, the government and the media immediately placed the blame squarely on alleged “Islamic Fundamentalist Terror Groups” who were supposed to have used car bombs to blow up both buildings. As the years went by, however, any “Islamic Terror Group” links became weaker and increasingly ambiguous. Neither of the alleged car-bomb vehicles were ever found. Today, these two cases have become paradigms of systematic interference by a wide array of pressure groups acting upon our government, the courts and, through the media, on public opinion.

Notably, such leverage – extreme at times – was brought to bear by local and foreign Zionist organizations, local and international media, NGO’s, and “eminent individuals”, whose opinions bear much weight and – last but not least – the embassies of foreign powers, notably, the United States and the State of Israel.

JF: What were the differences between the explosions at the Embassy and at the AMIA, if they were not identical?

AS: Well, the earlier case involving the Israeli Embassy has suffered a gradual information black-out as time has passed for various “understandable reasons”, at least, from a Zionist standpoint. To begin with, because the target was the embassy of a foreign power, understandably Israel had a strong influence on actions that were taken and the dissemination of information.

However, the case for a car bomb melted away when the State Prosecutor and the Court hearing on this case invited technical specialist surveyors from the Argentine National Engineers Academy to determine what caused the Israeli Embassy building to collapse. Their conclusion was that the explosion took place from inside the building and was not caused by an alleged car-bomb. To make matters worse for Zionist pressure groups, a passer-by had filmed from several blocks away the mushroom cloud that rose from that explosion, a characteristic effect that also pointed to an internal explosion.

1992 bomb attack at the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.
1992 bomb attack at the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

The embassy building was in a very densely populated part of Buenos Aires and, although the shock wave broke glass windows and plaster of practically all the buildings across the street from the Embassy – even blowing-in a vitreaux of a church across the street, which sadly fell on a priest and killed him – the only building structurally affected was the Embassy itself. Clearly, we either had a car bomb with an unrealistically selective shock wave or the explosion took place inside the building and there was no car bomb.

There are many other signs that point to this conclusion. Probably, for this reason, the case of the Embassy was mentioned less and less frequently by the media, especially after strong rumours surfaced that what actually blew up was an arsenal that the Israelis apparently had housed in the building’s basement. At the time of the explosion, a group of Israeli Labour Government officers were meeting to discuss matters pertaining to the recently initiated Madrid Peace Conference process, but “luckily” left the building just before the explosion. The same occurred with the Ambassador himself who, fortuitously, also happened to depart the premises before the blast.

A very different situation altogether has arisen with the circumstances surrounding the second and more deadly attack on the AMIA building, which has always received very high profile coverage in the local and even some international media to this very day. In contrast with the Embassy, this building housed a private, Argentine organization AMIA, and its sister political organization, DAIA. Those killed were all Argentine citizens, and the whole tragedy fell strictly under Argentine jurisdiction. And yet, on the very same day the explosion took place, then President Carlos Menem officially requested the assistance of the FBI and CIA from the United States and the Mossad intelligence service and the armed forces of Israel.

JPEG - 22.7 kb
AMIA building after 1994 attack.

In the ensuing chaos amidst the rubble, tempers ran very high with local police when Israeli Army intelligence officers planted an Israeli flag in the rubble. Almost immediately, those same Israelis “luckily” found a piece of the alleged car-bomb – a white Renault ‘Traffic” van – that “luckily” just happened to have the manufacturer’s serial number on it. This was reminiscent of other highly unlikely but “lucky” finds, such as the FBI’s locating alleged suicide bomber Mohammed Atta’s intact passport in the rubble of the World Trade Center just after 9/11!

From the beginning, the AMIA case has been riddled with corruption, fraud and lies, inconsistencies, even flagrant contradictions and crime in the highest places. The case has gone through seven Federal courts. A special “AMIA Department” was actually set up by the Judiciary to house literally hundreds of thousands of pages of declarations, evidence, reports, surveys, studies, accusations and counteraccusations that have built up over the more than fifteen years that have lapsed since the attack occurred.

For a number of years, the case was heard in the District Court presided by a Federal Judge by the name of Juan Galeano, who was so weak – if not downright stupid – that he allowed himself to be coaxed and pressured by local Zionist organizations – the AMIA and DAIA themselves – into authorizing payment of a 400,000 USD kickback to a shady used-car dealer by the name of Carlos Telleldín, who had sold the alleged car bomb van to alleged Hizbollah operatives in return for his formally accusing three Buenos Aires Police officers of being the “local connection” that would lead first to Syria, then to Hizbollah, and finally to Iran.

The money for that 400,000 USD kickback was provided by the then-president of the DAIA, Rubén Beraja through his (now defunct) bank Banco Mayo. Beraja recently spent several years in jail because of the fraudulent collapse of that bank. But, to understand how these global power networks actually work, let me point out that before that, in 1996, when Paul Volcker set up a so-called “Commission of Eminent Persons” to “investigate” dormant Jewish accounts in major Swiss Banks – through which they extracted more than 1.25 billion USD from those banks – he (Volker) actually chose as one of the “eminent persons” to sit on the Commission the very same shady character, Rubén Beraja.

The corruption, wheeling and dealing got so bad that, under the Kirchner government, it was decided to scrap everything and “start from scratch”, which we would soon discover actually meant using the CIA and the Mossad to fabricate false accusations against Iran. That’s where we stand today.

JF: You mention the official accounts maintain both attacks were caused by car bombs. But my impression is that the explosions were just the opposite – that they both occurred from the inside out. Is that right?

AS: That’s what the technical experts say. And, if we use common sense, we all know that, every time there is an attack with real car-bombs, you always find large parts of the vehicles used by the terrorists. In these two attacks, however, nothing was found of either of the alleged bomb-carrying vehicles except for false evidence apparently planted by Israeli officers, as I mentioned above.

In the case of the AMIA, the Court asked a Border Police (Gendarmería) surveyor to give an “official opinion” about the alleged car-bomb van and this person, by the name of Commander Osvaldo Laborda, officially said that no more parts were found “because the explosion buried it deep under the entrance to the former AMIA building”, if you can believe that.

Now, I’m a close friend of defence lawyer Juan Gabriel Labaké, who represents two Argentine citizens of Syrian descent who have been falsely accused of involvement. (I say “falsely” because, after 15 years, not a shred of evidence has been brought against them.) Since the case against his clients and against Iran hinge on that elusive car-bomb van, Dr. Labaké recently asked Special State Prosecutor Alberto Nisman to dig four meters under the entrance to the former AMIA building in order to determine, once and for all, if the remains of that vehicle exist. Prosecutor Nisman refused to do so, which is not surprising when you consider that he tours the world spreading a fanatically pro-Israel and anti-Arab message regarding the AMIA attack.

At the end of 2007, for example, Mr. Nisman was a special guest at the Annual Meeting of the American Jewish Congress. In March 2009, he gave a presentation at the Queensborough Holocaust Library in New York City. At the end of 2008 he personally submitted a full report on the status of this case to the Supreme Court – not of Argentina, as you might expect, but of Israel in Tel Aviv. Clearly, Mr Nisman acts as Special Prosecutor not on behalf of Argentina but of the State of Israel!

JF: In the aftermath of the Embassy Attack, you mentioned that a professional engineering society undertook research and determined that the explosion was from the inside. Is that right?

AS: Yes, the Argentine National Academiy of Engineers reached that conclusion and when then Supreme Court Judge Adolfo Vazquez quite reasonably accepted its report, he was publicly rebuked and even insulted by Mr. Ram Aviram, Israel’s ambassador to Argentina.

JF: Adrian, you also mentioned that the Mossad participated in gathering information on one or both of these attacks. That, to me, is simply incredible. How did that come about?

AS: Well, the real culprit was former president Carlos Menem who deferred to Israeli, Zionist, and US pressure and actually “called on the US and Israel” to help in the investigation, to which both willingly agreed.

JF: You have explained that the Mossad even produced a part of a vehicle, which just happened to include a vehicle identification plate?

AS: Yes, as unikely as that sounds. This “evidence” was finally rejected by the Court when it became so flagrantly obvious that it had been planted at the scene of the crime. They then came up with several other pieces of “the car-bomb van”, which, when sent to the local Renault plant for verification, turned out to belong to two different vehicles, one of which apparently didn’t have a fuel pump installed, so it could have hardly gone anywhere!

JF: How embarrassing! How did the Argentine courts handle this? Were even the courts deferring to US and Israeli interference?

AS: It was shameful. The courts were accommodating to Israeli and US interference. The media whipped up a huge frenzy. The Zionist organizations set up one teary-eyed public manifestation after another wailing for “justice”, asking for “Memory” lest the world forget these attacks – which you couldn’t if you tried! – and accused the Argentine judiciary of being “non-performing, inefficient, sluggish” when they did not immediately perform as required by Zionist objectives and interests, i.e., flagrantly accept all falsifications and lies.

The best example of what I say is the one I have referred to regarding pro-Zionist Judge Galeano. Can you imagine a Federal Judge authorizing that a jailed criminal be given a kick-back to falsely incriminate the local police and thus mislead the entire case? On top of it, the money for the kick-back was provided by the president of AMIA’s sister organization DAIA!

JF: In Argentina, many citizens believe that the AMIA case is riddled with corruption, irregularities and false information. From what you have said, I take it that this is indeed the case.

AS: Unfortunately! But this was on account of a very sad combination of our having a weak government and weaker collateral institutions – especially Argentina’s judiciary – an accomplice press, which systematically supports the Zionist Message and helps them publicize their Holocaust-like woes, in order to attract the sympathy of public opinion. This is true in Argentina as it is in most Western countries.

Today, under the Kirchner government, Zionist pressures have managed to twist Argentina’s foreign policy way out of shape – so much so that the Argentine government has formally accused former Iranian president Ali Rafsanjani and seven of his key cabinet members – which by the way includes president Ahmadinejad’s recently named Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi – on trumped-up charges of having financed and planned the AMIA attack via Hezbollah. All these allegations are based exclusively on blatantly false intelligence provided by the CIA and Mossad. Can anyone actually believe that these two intelligence services are impartial and objective? The situation is a farce.

JF: Adrian, why were there such unlikely "official accounts" in the first place? My impression is that politics was affecting the investigations – actually dominating them.

AS: The Argentine Courts have spent 15 years searching for proof of an “Iranian – Syrian – Hezbollah Connection”, which they have never found, for the simple but powerful reason that such a link does not exist.

However, both terror attacks fall quite neatly into place in a much more logical way when you insert them within the rationale, not of a non-existent “Iranian Connection”, but rather of a very concrete “Israeli Connection”.

Why do I say this? Well let’s take a look of what was happening in Israel in the early 90s when these attacks took place. In 1991, we saw the Madrid Peace Conference begin. In Israel, the Labour party clearly had the upper hand, especially when General Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister. By June 1992. Rabin seemed to have honestly tried to reach some sort of mutual agreement with the Palestinians, which, however, would have meant stopping and dismantling a good part of the illegal settlements set up by the fanatical fundamentalist ultra-right wing Nazi Zionists, who maintain that anyone that gives up even a square inch of “Sacred Israeli Land” is a traitor.

Rabin and his Labour party tried to move forward with the peace process and, in September 1993, we saw Rabin – albeit, reluctantly – shaking hands with Yasser Arafat as overseen by Bill Clinton in the White House Rose Garden. He then reached out to Syria to arrange final peace terms over the Golan Heights. Rabin even allowed Arafat to return to Palestine after 27 years of exile, which took place at the beginning of July 1994.

To put it mildly, the ultra-right wing Zionists went berserk. In February of that year, a New York Jew by the name of Baruch Goldstein, a member of the fanatic Kach Group, broke into a Hebron Mosque and machined gunned more than 40 Muslims while they were at prayer. “Surprisingly”, he had passed through Israeli “security” with no trouble! Goldstein was killed in turn; and his tomb in Israel has since become a place of pilgrimage and worship for the ultra-rightwing Zionist Nazi’s.

Look at the timeline: on 14 July 1994, right smack in the middle of the unfolding of this insidious internal fighting amongst Zionists and inside Israel, the AMIA building was blown up. AMIA’s leadership at that time was pro-Labour, so it was clearly a “warning shot” from the ultra-right Nazi-Zionist wing for Rabin and his Labour government to stop negotiating “Land for Peace” with the Palestinians.

It now appears that prime minister Rabin, who was a tough guy, did not “get the message”. So, when does this whole sequence come to a head? On 4 November 1995 – just 16 months after the AMIA attack – Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down, JFK-like, on the streets of Tel-Aviv, not by a Neo-Nazi nor by an Islamic Fundamentalist, but by one Ygal Amir, a young ultra-right-wing student member of the settler’s movement linked to the internal security service Shin Beth, which was being vigorously reshuffled by Rabin.

Shimon Peres then stayed on as prime minister for a while, but when elections were finally called, the Labour Party was swept away and the right-wing Zionist won the day, when Benjamin Netanyahu was ushered in as prime minister in 1997. The ultra right has been in power ever since, with Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and now, once again, Netanyahu.

The in-fighting among Zionists had as one of its bloody episodes the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and later the AMIA building in Argentina, which was perceived by the Zionist Nazis at the time as a symbol of Labour’s stronghold. Why Buenos Aires, you might ask? Simple – because Argentine public security has always been, and still is, very weak, thus making both terror operations relatively easy with Argentine targets.

Nevertheless, and similar to 9/11, although they have shown the technical capability to carry out false flag attacks with (almost) technical perfection – using bombs, controlled demolitions, and all – they still are extremely sloppy in that they have left their fingerprints all over the place when perpetrating these attacks which have been revealed by inconsistencies that have proven impossible to explain away.

JF: I am troubled by what you have had so say about the courts and the media. Not only have the courts been partial but the coverage has been anything but "fair and balanced".

AS: The problem with Argentina is that over the past forty years our Nation-State has eroded so badly that it has ceased being a Sovereign Institution and become a highly dependent Colonial Administration entity. Now, how can you expect a totally dependent nation like Argentina to have an “independent judiciary”? No way. Our judiciary does the bidding for those people who really control and run the country, where a global power network of think tanks, NGO’s, lobbies and pressure groups has the final say.

This network includes not just entities like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conference, and Chatham House, but also embedded within it are The World Jewish Council, AIPAC, the B’Nai B’Rith Masonic Lodge, the World Zionist Organization, the ADL, and the American Jewish Congress, among many, many others. It is this power network that calls the shots and twists our government’s arms!

Harvard professor Stephen Walt and Chicago University professor John Mearsheimer in their watershed book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, have convincingly shown that Zionist organizations control US Foreign policy in the Middle East. Their work has been widely admired abroad but given scant notice in the United States itself.

If this consortium wields such power over the US, can you imagine what it can do with a weak country like Argentina? Naturally, the global think-tank network also drafts what the global media should report and say. They are those who decide who will appear as “good guys” and who as “bad guys” on CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, and so on. More still, they are the ones who decide what is and what isn’t news!

JF: These two cases took place under the administration of President Carlos Menem. Since then several presidents have come and gone. Over the last 6 1/2 years, your country has been governed by the Kirchners (Nestor and Cristina). How have they been handling this case?

AS: Dreadfully! Before leaving as president, Nestor Kirchner practically imposed his wife, Cristina, as his successor in the presidency. Before that, she was a senator who sat on the commission investigating the AMIA attack and she appears to have struck up a very close relationship with Zionist organizations.

President Cristina Kircher in a meeting with Zionist groups.
President Cristina Kircher in a meeting with Zionist groups.

A year before they changed places, then President Nestor Kirchner, his wife Cristina and Foreign Minister (then and now) Jorge Taiana, held a secret meeting in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City on 21 September 2006, with eight major Zionist pro-Israel organizations, including The American Jewish Congress, B’Nai B’Rith, ADL and others.

We don’t know what they discussed because, as I say, it was held in secret; but, one month later, the Kirchners dispatched special prosecutor Alberto Nisman to the US, where he met with CIA and Mossad agents and, upon his return, launched a formal accusation against the former Iranian government of Ali Rafsanjani. The judge hearing this case at the time, Dr. Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, immediately obliged by accepting it.

This was headline news and prompted Rabbi Israel Singer, the political director of the World Jewish Congress, to “congratulate the Argentine government” as Argentina’s accusation against Iran “confirmed the commitment the Kirchners undertook during that secret meeting”. Commitment? To do what? Why? In exchange for what? [1]

I personally wrote open letters to the Kirchners asking for an answer. Naturally, they would never even acknowledge receipt to any letter sent by a “common citizen”. That’s Argentina’s “democracy” for you! A country where a president can do all sorts of treacherous wheeling and dealing with foreign powers in broad daylight and there’s nothing that the “common citizen” can do to stop them!

JF: Have Zionist lobbying groups and organizations been exerting massive pressure?

AS: Yes. They wield decisive power, not just over foreign policy, as we see in the case of the AMIA, but over our media, banking, government, universities, NGO’s, cultural and social life. Yet, official Jewish sources indicate that there are a mere 200,000 Jews living in Argentina – just 0.5% of our population of 40 million people. Either they are truly a superior ethnic group, which would warrant their being so very heavily over-represented in Argentina’s social life, or maybe – just maybe – they are abusing their well-known economic wealth and international support from Zionist organizations and the global power network to which I have I referred, which is fully aligned to Zionist objectives and interests.

JF: What are the domestic and international political interests that have been clashing over these two cases since their occurrence?

AS: I think we must see this all as part of the Israeli and US hawks’ war-mongering, which in recent years has so unabashedly targeted Iran, where every day we hear new threats of unilateral military attack against a peaceful nation, which, by the way, has never attacked nor invaded any other country in modern times, something we can hardly say about the US and Israel – even though JFK had affirmed that the US would never attack another nation. [2]

Iran not only has never attacked any other nation but has been repeatedly attacked by “The West”! For example, in 1941, Churchill and Stalin invaded what was then Persia to grab its oil so they could fight their war against Hitler. In 1953, Iran’s democratically-elected President, Mahmoud Mossadegh, was ousted by a CIA-orchestrated coup after he nationalised foreign oil companies. And, when in 1979 Iran finally got rid of what had been pro-US/UK oil companies under Shah Pahlevi, the US armed then ”good guy” Saddam Hussein with chemical WMD’s so Iraq could wage a brutal and genocidal war against Iran for 8 years during the 80s. It’s quite a record!

JF: What has been the reaction of the Jewish community in Argentina to these two purported attacks, which have been blamed on Iran?

AS: Local Zionist Jews – and non-Jews alike – have been hysterically pro-Israel and anti-Iran/Muslim. Sadly, while there is a substantial portion of anti- or non-Zionist Jews in Argentina, but they dare not open their mouths beause they know that, if they do, the local Zionist lobbies – with AMIA and DAIA at the helm – will immediately brand them as “bad Jews”.

We have been asking the healthy part of the local Jewish community to stand up and against AMIA, DAIA and the Israeli Embassy, saying that they have NO right to say they “speak on behalf of all Jews”. We insist that they should speak up and speak for themselves. As a form of self-preservation, however it seems their mental bonds and fears are too strong to break. Consequently, not a lot can be expected from this segment of the community.

Demonstration against Avigdor Lieberman’s visit to Argentina
Demonstration against Avigdor Lieberman’s visit to Argentina (Buenos Aires, 23 July 2009).

JF: When we ask, "Who benefits?", it is not Iran but another nation in the Middle East, one that has a substantial nuclear arsenal but which has never been challenged by the UN. Why is that?

AS: Yes. All these events, lies, distractions, misleadings, wrong directions and wrong turns seem to have one sole beneficiary: the State of Israel. It has always been that way – and that is grossly unfair to Argentina where all ethnic groups and races live peacefully together. Clearly, we need to better identify the rotten apples in our barrel.

JF: These events appear to me to have been orchestrated with the objective of undermining technical and scientific cooperation between Argentina and Iran in relation to the development of peacefull atomic energy. Iran would never have committed such attacks because it would have been contrary to its interests. Israel appears to me to be the culprit. Am I right that you agree?

AS: Yes. In fact, Argentina was always in the forefront in our region on nuclear investigation and technology. This all goes back to the shrewd policies of former president Juan Domingo Perón, who, irrespective of his mistakes, always had the nation’s interests very much in mind. As soon as Carlos Menem came to power in 1989, he bowed down to George Bush Senior’s pressure and halted the nuclear technology cooperation agreement we had with Iran at the time.

The Iranians meanwhile seem to have been able to replace this with Chinese, Russian and even German technology; so the real looser was Argentina, who lost a loyal trade partner and a strategic ally in Iran. The cover up story invented by the CIA, Mossad, Israel, AMIA, DAIA, the Kirchners and others, would have you believe that President Rafsanjani planned the attack on AMIA in revenge for Argentina having discontinued its nuclear cooperation. All I can say is, that is a lot of rubbish!

JF: What similarities do you find with other attacks in the US on 9/11, in the UK on 7/7, and in Madrid on 3/11?

AS: Well, they all seem to have the same “fingerprint” so to speak. As I say above:

• these false flag events all had near-perfect technical performance, where the buildings they wanted to be blown up and collapse, always did so – reflecting massive technological support and planning;

• but they left “loose ends” that were impossible to explain-away – their lies ended up showing glaringly;

• they all had episodes of planted evidence;

• the “right people” – common workers – died, while top brass – ambassadors, CEOs, governors, billionaires – were “luckily” out of the buildings at the time; and,

• finally, they all served to support the “Global War on Islamic Terror”.

In short, all of them played perfectly into Israel’s circumstantial needs and objectives: they all had the “right” media coverage, and “politically correct” explanations, which were repeated ad nauseam. Yes, AMIA and the Israeli Embassy belong in the same league as 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid! [3]

JF: How do these two attacks tie in with a grander global strategy on the part of Zionist powers?

AS: As I mentioned, Zionist lobbies, power groups, and NGOs are part of the highly complex, intricate network of a discreet – not secret – Global Private Power Network that seems to have been running the world over the past 6 or 7 decades.

I’m referring to the CFRers, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, AIPACs and World Jewish Congress, among many others, including AMIA and DAIA in Argentina. It is this power network that carries out the long-term planning for the New World Order power elite.

Look at the CFR, for example: they are 4,500 members-strong, brainy people in all professions, all led by a compact group of the truly powerful folks – the Rockefellers, Bushes, Harrimans, Schiffs, Clintons, Warburgs, Greenspans, Goldman Sachs’, Forbe’s, Rothchilds, Wolfowitzs, and many, many others.

The CFR provides the key people and whiz kids who sit on the boards and run Corporate America’s S&P 1000 as CEO’s and other key posts, but they also run your major banks, and they always run multilateral agencies like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, and they also run the FED. When I say “run” I mean there is always a CFR/Trilateral man or woman at the helm. But they also run your key media outlets, and they determine the politically correct paradigms in academic life (Ivy-League universities) and – perhaps, most important – they are systematically in charge of key governmental posts of executive power, State Department, Treasury, Defence, CIA, FBI, NSA, key embassies, key Congressional posts, and so on – whether Republican or Democrat matters little.

JF: That is a powerful indictment. Can you elaborate on the reasoning that supports it?

AS: Let me explain this in another way. I like classical music, and when you go to the theatre to hear Beethoven’s 9th Symphony “Chorale”, for example, what do you see? 100 musicians, 4 soloist singers, and another 100 in the chorus on stage. All are ready to produce the right sounds and music of Beethoven. But before they can begin, one last man shows up, takes a bow, gives his back to the audience and with a little stick makes the magic of Beethoven happen.

He stands right in the middle of the orchestra pit and can hear exactly how everything sounds and must ensure that it sounds right – the way Beethoven wanted it to sound. Then it often happens that the brass plays too loud, or the violins too low, or a singer might loose his way – but he, the Conductor, makes sure that the first violins, second violins, violas, cellos, basses, woodwinds, brass, percussion, soloists and chorus, each do “their thing” at the right time, with the right level and all in perfect unison.

But he does not do things at his whim – never, sir; he conducts based on a piece of paper which has the musical score to Beethoven’s symphony on it, with very precise directions as to tempo, volume, and so forth. In other words, the conductor directs exactly what a man who died in 1827 – Beethoven – wanted him to direct.

This metaphor helps us understand the inner workings of the present world order: the counterpart of each instrument/singer are the corporations, banks, multilateral agencies, organizations, media outlets, government posts, military commanders, and so on, who actually run the world. The conductor here would be the compact global power network or web of think tanks/lobbies/pressure groups. The musical score is the long-term plan of the truly powerful who run this world. It is a shame that instead of producing beauty as Beethoven and our musicians do, they create a monstrous world based on violence, injustice, greed, war, blood, sweat and tears!

JF: What does the Argentine public currently think about all this?

AS: Nothing! Almost nobody understands how the world really works! And not just here. The same happens in the US, Europe and mostly everywhere. That’s why it is so important to awaken people to this reality, even if we have to do it one by one.

JF: What is Argentina’s place within the scheme of "The New World Order"?

AS: Oh, we have been earmarked as suppliers of cheap commodities – energy, mining, foodstuffs, and water – and maybe some suitably oriented good New World Order trained whiz kids to help run the show for them – to become their well-paid managers.

This is why Argentina has been kept artificially underpopulated. We have the world’s 8th largest territory, and yet our population is around only 40 million people. We should be 140-240 million! Even worse, 80% of the population is crammed into a handful of mega-cities: Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Rosario, Tucumán. Especially the southern part of Argentina – oil, mining and water-rich Patagonia – is all but uninhabited.

Water-rich Patagonia.
Water-rich Patagonia.

Zionists have set their eyes on Patagonia – both on the Argentine as well as Chilean sides – for many years now, as they probably plan on setting up a second Jewish State there. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, actually mentioned this in his book “A Jewish State” published in 1896, which set off the Zionist movement. The title of one of its chapters says it all: it’s called “Palestine or Argentine?” I leave the rest to your informed imagination!

JF: You have sketched a plan for economic and military global domination. Am I right and, if so, what can we do about it? Where do we go from here?

AS: Yes. They are aiming at setting up a formal World Government which is to replace Globalization. Globalization has all the trappings of a world government, however it is still Informal.

Yes. They are aiming at setting up a formal World Government which is to replace Globalization. While globalization has all the trappings of a world government, it is still informal. Major changes are on the horizon.

“Coming events cast their shadows forwards”, German playwright Johann Goethe once said. Having an inkling of what’s coming is sort of like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where as you put the pieces together – an image starts to appear. Now, if, as you are doing this, the front side of a boat appears, you don’t need to be a genius to know that what you have to look for are the remaining pieces of the boat! Out of sheer common sense, you will not look for the back of a train or a house: it’ll no doubt be a boat. Any blue pieces will probably be sky – so move them upwards – and the green ones will be grass – so move them downwards. As you do so, the image will become more and more complete. You need only have about 60% of the pieces in place to have an idea of the whole picture. It’s the art of using common sense to infer the pieces that are missing. Same with this New World Order, you don’t need to have all the pieces in place to know what it will look like.

Based on this, I say that what is coming will be a FORMAL public world government run from a higher PRIVATE level. I envision it will have several specialized key centers: New York City (as Financial Capital of the World), Washington DC (as the Military Administrative Capital of a Global Armed Force), London (as the Political Capital, the “World’s Mastermind” as I call it, as it has always been), Rome (or rather, the Vatican, as the “World’s Religious Ecumenical Clearing House”, which explains why many decadent clergy under Joseph Ratzinger are so eager to blend-in in as “politically correct” a manner as they can, into the New World Order), and finally Jerusalem will be the “Spiritual Capital” of the world, where the NWO Zionists plan on executing their centuries-old dream of enthroning the “King of the World”.

This last part ties in with certain Biblical prophesy they wish to make “come true”, and which Zionist Christians in the US link up with the “Second Coming”. “Proof” of this, they say, is the return of the Jews to Israel. Now they need to (re)build the Third Temple of Solomon. The problem is that the Dome of the Rock Mosque, one of Islam’s most holy shrines, sits on that site. I wonder if there’s another bomb on the way there?

JF: Adrian, I can’t thank you enough for coming on the show to discuss these events, which, in my view, shed light on a host of related events in the United States and elsewhere. We must understand them if we want to remain free of manipulation by forces that want to control us. For more of Adrian Salbuchi’s research, visit his web sites at www.asalbuchi.com.ar and at www.eltraductorradial.com.ar. For those who want to make direct contact, email him at salbuchi@fibertel.com.ar.

==


[1] See document attached: Letter of September 30, 2009, from Hector Timerman, Argentinian Ambassador to Washington, to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

[2] John F. Kennedy, American University Commencement Address, 10 June 1963. Bush and Cheney needed 9/11 as pseudo-justification for their illegal wars.

[3] An even earlier case occurred in Mexico where Mossad agents were arrested attempting to bomb the Congress on 10 October 2001. That would have made it a 10/10 attack.



James Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Adrian Salbuchi, Author, economist, and expert on globalization, founder of the Argentine Second Republic Movement.