Search News from Limbo


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Obvious discrepancies in Oswald photos

Use contol + to blow up pictures.  Or go to

Image result for oswald backyard photos
C133A is on left, C133B in middle, C133C on right. 

C133A: Oswald's feet are slightly forward of a sandbag under the staircase.The top of his head is substantially above the top of the fence behind him.

C133C: Oswald's feet are in almost the same place as in A, but in C the top of his head is even with the top of the fence behind him.

C133C did not appear in Warren Commission exhibits.

There doesn't seem to be enough of a difference in the positions of the feet to account for the difference in head positions. The closer a person being photographed is to the fence, the more the perspective changes.

The pistol on Oswald's hip matches the fence background exactly in C133A and C133C, but his head is not even close.

The change in head perspective might be accounted for if the photographer stood at different distances from Oswald for C133A and C133C. However, the staircase perspective seems to be about the same in A and C, though A's staircase shows less than C's.

If one were to push up C so that the feet are on the same horizontal line as the feet in A, then the staircase perspectives would be identical.

House assassinations committee experts connected to the FBI said that differences were attributable to changes in photo shooting angle.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

CIA's rogue crazy unit abolished
Clandestine Services scrapped as revamp
brings agency to heel under Obama's man

The Intercept's story

Babylon the Great is fallen! The sinister arm used for shadowy aims of unruly power freaks has perished. Shock waves circle the globe as power elites everywhere reassess their positions.

Next miracle we hope to see: The revitalized agency getting more honest about -- or at least walking back -- the official malarkey about the 9/11 and anthrax attacks.

Desperate efforts to project an illusion of power can be expected from the the disgruntled top command of the junked division, which has been a fixture of the CIA since its creation in the late 1940s. During that period it became notorious as a law unto itself, its brass hats routinely sneering at presidents and lawmakers.

How will the corporate media react? Many of the rotten division's flunkies in media must be out of their minds with fear. In the meantime, expect jostling for plum jobs as those who have been overly cozy with the junked unit become vulnerable to rivals seeking their jobs.

CIA description of revamp

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Bill Gates's nightmare
Microsoft founder Bill Gates joined other notables who have been warning of the potential for artificial intelligence to get out of control. Real problems could emerge within decades, he said.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Should Facebook flag its own story?
Facebook and iInstagram, both owned by the Facebook company, went down for a while earlier today. Somebody at Facebook said the sites went down because of an internal glitch in a Facebook computer, and gave out that hackers weren't responsible.
Yet, at the same time, other social media sites, such as HipChat and Tinder, also went down.
I suppose that that blackout was also a result of computer glitches happening on those sites in a remarkable case of random coincidence. Couldn't possibly be true that the hacker collective Lizard Squad was, as it implied, responsible.
Well, maybe the snowstorm disrupted a common computer linkage, but, if so, Facebook isn't admitting it.
Here is one excerpt from a news account:
“This was not the result of a third party attack but instead occurred after we introduced a change that affected our configuration systems. We moved quickly to fix the problem, and both services are back to 100 percent for everyone,” CNBC reports, citing the company’s statement received via email.
Interestingly, Facebook's newsroom is mum on the topic.
So perhaps those stories conveying the views of anonymous FB spokespersons on this incident should be flagged as "false news" put out by corporate types concerned about FB's reputation for security.
Another possibility: the other social media sites have business arrangements with Facebook to use FB technology, but FB said nothing about that.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

CIA'S black ops division
is going out of business
The departure of the head of Clandestine Services shows that the semi-autonomous division has a lost a fateful Washington power struggle, with President Obama's appointee moving to exercise firm control over the agency.

Though the proposed overhaul isn't a done deal, it seems probable that the division's support will be somewhat cool on Capitol Hill -- in the aftermath of the decision to spy on Senate staff members concerning the highly charged "enhanced interrogation" report.
It may be that some in the GOP will accuse Obama of unilateralism, but, as chief executive, he has a great deal of leeway in how departments of government are organized. Lawmakers may be more interested in making hay over the issue than in actually protecting the division.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

We need a worldwide campaign to reproduce this and other such cartoons.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Some may regard the Alex Jones web sites as unreliable. This isn't quite fair. The reliability varies. The doctor's claims in the interview linked below make sense in light of the maneuvering to play down anything to do with Ebola in America. For example, if authorities are refusing to disclose which facilities are designated for Ebola patients in order to head off "hysteria," it seems quite likely they wouldn't want attention drawn to those facilities by actual Ebola cases.

Plus, PrisonPlanet published my report on a 9/11 investigation by NIST. So the Jones outfit can't be all bad.

As PrisonPlanet noted:

According to [Sharyl] Attkisson, a CDC representative answering questions on potential Ebola cases admitted that the agency has refused to update their website with current information.

"I called CDC not long ago and I said how many cases are being monitored in the United States and they said 1,400. I said, ‘Where are these updates on your web site?’” Attkisson said. “They said they’re not putting it on the web. This is public information we have a right to know and the media should not hype it, but should cover it.”

The statement comes as no surprise given an admission in Forbes last November that major media outlets had agreed to not report on potential cases for the federal government. [That statement has been modified, but, as shown below, AP has decided to play down coverage.]

“The Associated Press and other press outlets have agreed not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive viral RNA test is completed,” the article said.

I add that Attkinson made an excellent point: The scary publicity was beneficial, forcing the Obama administration to institute screening at U.S. airports and daily monitoring of persons at risk for Ebola.

The deal to tamp down Ebola coverage -- which as it happens followed President Obama's appointment of a political operative as "Ebola czar" -- is something the New York Times's public editor might wish to examine. However, it should be noted that the Times has at least made a show of continuing to report on Ebola matters.

In an October advisory to editors, the Associated Press told news editors of its decision to play down Ebola coverage.

"We’re increasingly hearing reports of “suspected” cases of Ebola in the United States and Europe. The AP has exercised caution in reporting these cases and will continue to do so.

"Most of these suspected cases turn out to be negative. Our bureaus monitor them, but we have not been moving stories or imagery simply because a doctor suspects Ebola and routine precautions are taken while the patient is tested. To report such a case, we look for a solid source saying Ebola is suspected and some sense the case has caused serious disruption or reaction. Are buildings being closed and substantial numbers of people being evacuated or isolated? Is a plane being diverted? Is the suspected case closely related to another, confirmed Ebola case?

"When we do report a suspected case, we will seek to keep our stories brief and in perspective."

Where are the Ebola treatment centers? It's a state secret

Physician tells broadcaster of strange doings

A secret U.S, plan to fly more Ebola victims to America

Ebola blackout discussed on Fox News

At the very least, it is apparent that the Obama administration doesn't really believe that the American citizenry owns America, entitling it to know what's going on, especially as this matter has nothing to do with a shooting war.


Catholic Online
concedes that Alex Jones's site may be playing the sensationalism card. But the publication doesn't wish to discount the reports out of hand because of its experience with press coverage of the Syrian conflict. I would never say that simply because a Catholic Online writer is troubled, we should automatically follow suit. Yet, from a political standpoint, it is noteworthy that Catholic Online publishes the Catholic Encyclopedia,

"There are some immediately apparent questions. Is Infowars playing up the hype for its audience? It's possible, however these claims should be considered. Not all of the news is actually news. Often, the truth is obscured by mainstream media outlets and Americans need to turn to alternative media sources for information. Catholic Online has already confirmed that some kind of coordinated censorship is happening in real time, particularly concerning the terror conflict in Syria and Iraq."

If there is any agreement to play down Ebola coverage, it appears that it isn't all that effective.

Still, this story doesn't dispel concerns about secret treatment of Ebola victims. This man was ill, but not with Ebola.

Whenever blood testing is done, there is an error rate. Some errors are "false negatives" (the test fails to detect the disease) and some are "false positives" (the test wrongly indicates presence of disease).

It may seem a good thing that "false positives" aren't finding their way into news reports. Who needs groundless hysteria?

But what's wrong with this picture is that a false positive should require more than another blood test or two to be certain there is no virus present. If a person has an initially low level of virus in his system, other tests done right away could well return negative results. Hence, in a case where a person has been potentially exposed to Ebola, has flu-like symotoms and a positive tes result, the only solution is close monitoring over a period of days or weeks.

And yet, there are at present zero positive cases being reported in America, meaning there have been no recent cases eventually turn out to be false positives. This strongly suggests that either somehow the blood tests are now infallible, or there is collusion to keep Americans unaware of patients who could very well be infected with Ebola.