water time


Critical Thinking in Action

By overlaying the government’s autopsy x-ray (which shows the president’s forehead skull blown out) over his photograph, we are forced to realize that the two do not match: the skull in the photo is intact. We therefore know that we are being lied to about the trajectory of the head shot. (For details google ‘JFK x-rays + Dr. David Mantik)

We’re zeroing in on the definition of critical thinking, trying to separate the men from the boys in its implementation, right? Part of it, the first part, is ferretting out a truth, in this case this one: The JFK autopsy photograph (of the back of his head) is a fake. We know this via our definition of impossible.

What are the implications of that photograph being a fake?

There are actually some doozy implications down the road but let’s start with an obvious one: Whoever faked the photo was probably involved in the assassination. In fact, we know that for sure, since the faking of the photo equals, at the very least, accessory after the fact.

Now, who had access to the photograph, which was locked up tight and under armed guard in the National Archives? The Secret Service and the FBI.

But through using our critical thinking faculty, we know it’s more complicated than that, since there were so many people who in fact had seen the wound (which was ‘erased’ from the autopsy photo). All or any of these folks could blow the whistle on the fabricator. Or at least on the fact of fabrication.

So, whoever faked the photograph knew that he/they would eventually be found out. And he/they were found out. This essay itself is proof of that, as is my film.

That he/they knew they would be found out is important, no? Why is it important? Because he/they did it anyway.

Hang in while we take a tiny detour:

In point of fact, the photograph was not made public until 1993, after the uproar that resulted from Oliver Stone’s film, JFK.

It’s a pretty safe bet that whoever faked the photo was involved in the thirty-year delay in us (you, me, the rest of us) seeing it. As I say, this is a detour, albeit an interesting one. Let’s go on to the biggie:

Whoever faked the photo has still not gotten caught. This is just a fact and not arguable. Right? Can we ferret still out another implication from this?

Try this thought: Given the extreme repercussions of getting caught – accessory to murder! -- it’s a safe bet that the guilty party knew from the get-go that he/they would not get caught.

Is there any other evidence that the guilty party knew from the get-go that he/they would not get caught? People do knowingly take chances in committing crimes.

Did you know that in 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), after a two-year investigation, came to the formal conclusion that JFK was in fact assassinated via a conspiracy? Sort of a mind blower when you think about it. Since this decision post-dated the Warren Commission (by more than a decade), it means that the official U.S. Government position is that ‘Oswald did not act alone.’ The HSCA in fact recommended further investigation to find out who (other than Oswald) was involved in the conspiracy, since they couldn’t seem to figure it out.

And you know what? Nobody did anything. No further government investigation whatsoever. The U.S. Congress itself decided that the killing of our president was via a conspiracy – meaning we likely had a coup d’etat in the good old U.S. of A. in 1963 – and no investigation was launched. Remember, there is no statute of limitations on murder, let alone on the assassination of a president to affect a coup d’etat.

If you didn’t know any of this, you might ask yourself why (after checking to see if I’m lying).

But my point here is simply to reinforce the obvious truth that whoever faked the photograph knew he/they would not get caught. That’s all I’m really saying.

It’s also a safe bet that back in 1963 this person/group was already living a comfy life: Plenty of money, country club membership, a yacht or two, you name it. Why the fuck would he/they risk all that?

Because there was no risk.

Once we get into implications, are you getting the idea of how it works?

Okay, let’s take a breather for a minute so I can ask if you think I’ve gone off the rails somewhere – lost the plot as the Brits say.

Let’s assume not. Let’s assume I’ve ferreted out another truth when I say that whomever faked the photo knew there was no risk in doing so. Now, what is the implication of this? The no-risk knowledge?
Power. The person/group who faked the autopsy photo had access to the ultimate power behind How the World Works in the U.S.A. And not only in 1963, but to this very day.

Otherwise, you’d have already known this stuff, before my film, before this essay. And the criminals who perpetrated the fakery would be household names. And in prison.

As Dan Rather says in the film, referring to the evidence you see in the film but which Rather appears to be ignorant of, ‘There couldn’t be a bigger story that we could ever break.’

But as far as you are concerned, Rather didn’t break that story. Honey and I did. How could that be?

That’s as good a segue as any, as we move on in our critical thinking…

Do you think it’s an accident that when the Mainstream Media (MSM) deigns to inquire into the veracity of the ‘Official Story’ they phrase it thus: ‘Did Oswald act alone?’  (But Oswald acting alone isn’t even the real official story, is it? Whoa!)

Try to find a MSM outlet (or even the usual ‘alternative media’) that phrases it any other way. (‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ Same shit, no? No matter how you answer the question, Oswald is assumed guilty. Do you think that this is an accident on the part of the MSM? Or are you so used to hearing it phrased that way that you have never thought about the implications?)

Thus the limits of debate are defined, even though Oswald had nothing to do with the crime, other than being the patsy. (Remember him calling out ‘I’m just a patsy’? Why didn’t he just say, ‘I didn’t do it’?)

But this essay is not about who killed JFK, so please forgive the above paragraph. What this essay is about is critical thinking (look at it as an offshoot of the film). I only use the issue of the faked autopsy photograph as a way of demonstrating how critical thinking can work, when properly performed.

But get a load of this: I fucking google ‘critical thinking,’ right? Here’s what I was subjected to, right up top:

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and 
imposing intellectual standards upon them.

What a load of crap! Aside from its spectacular vagueness, they use a version of the word ‘think’ four times in their definition. Isn’t it against the law or something to mindlessly repeat the word you are defining in the definition thereof?

How about if I give it a shot? Critical thinking: The ferreting out of truths about How the World Works via the implications of impossibilities

This way we get to include Sherlock’s aphorism in our definition, if indirectly:

‘Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.’

One more example of the however improbable concept, then I’m out of here, and I’ll again refer to my film in stating my critical thinking case. (I really hope you viewed it before reading this.) And again we begin by noticing that something we’ve been told – indeed, is ‘common knowledge’ -- is impossible. Then we advance further in our quest for truth via the implications of that impossibility.

(By the way, I’ll not define truth except to say this: There is only one ‘past’ in the history of this planet and of our species and it is not alterable for our convenience or psychological well-being. If you don’t accept this, well, again: Bye!)

You might have noticed that in my film I was subjected to a lot of nonsense, especially from the lawyer, Andy, the guy with the white beard. Here’s a bit more, on the subject of the MSM (again, the assumption being that you viewed my film, and paid at least a bit of attention while doing so):

Since it’s about time for a belly laugh (yes, there is room for humor in essays about critical thinking) and as a partial explanation for Andy’s inability to understand How the World Works, click for a short bit of stand up comedy from Michael Parenti (1978):

Although I probably laughed as hard as you did at Parenti’s reading from The Washington Post, there is a very serious side to the quoted editorial, and which does in fact bear upon the subject of my friend’s buffoonery. But first, just to give the editorial more ‘reality’ than spoken words from a ‘stand up’ (brilliant though Parenti is), bear with me and read the words as they appeared in the Post:

Could it have been some other malcontent who Mr. Oswald met casually? Could not as much as three or four societal outcasts with no ties to any one organization have developed in some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy? It is possible that two persons acting independently attempted to shoot the President at the very same time.

Do you understand the contempt implicit in the above? ? Contempt for you, for me, our intelligences, for the dead president and his family… but mainly, contempt for historical truth

From The Washington Post.


Do you see how this contempt from The Washington Post relates to Andy’s inability to see an obvious truth? No? Okay, give me a minute and we’ll come back to it.

Do you think the paper’s editorial staff, let alone the writer who penned it, wanted to publish that rubbish? Such utter rubbish that with the passage of time it became a full-blown belly laugh?

Of course he/they didn’t want to!

Implications. Think, folks!

As I showed in my film, every MSM outlet, along with each celebrity mouthpiece, without exception, concurs with the Post’s horseshit, if not as comedically.And have done so for 50 years. Half a century.

Do you think media outlets could get away with that sort of crap if the majority of the populace was not of the same mentality as my nitwit friend, who claims there is no evidence that the media is ‘controlled’ by the same force that fabricated the autopsy photograph? How did it go in our conversation?

ME: You have problems understanding that the media have been under the ‘control’ -- and I put quotes around ‘control’ -- of the people who did this (killed JFK) for 50 years. You refuse to see that--

ANDY: I have no evidence that the people in control have influenced the media. There is no evidence of that.

ME: There’s direct evidence-

ANDY: There’s evidence that there was another gunman. There’s no evidence that the people in control have influenced the media.

There’s no evidence, huh? I’ll ask again, rephrasing slightly: Would a writer and the publisher of a major (or any) newspaper voluntarily print these words, ‘It is possible that two persons acting independently attempted to shoot the president at the very same time’?

I’ll answer again: Of course not!

Then they were in fact under the ‘control’ of someone (or something) else, almost certainly the same ‘force’ (a person or a cabal or whatever) that fabricated the autopsy photo. And, again, since every other MSM outlet tells the same absurd lie, then we know they all are under this control. (How exactly that control is managed is a subject for another essay.)

By the way, the HSCA’s findings themselves were what is referred to in the spook trade as ‘a limited hangout,’ which means just enough truth to raise an eyebrow without upsetting the applecart of ‘history’… (excuse the mixed metaphors) but that too is another subject.

ANDY: The media are in competition. You couldn’t get them to agree on the same lie.

Since my little movie scooped all of them with material (various testimonies and physical evidence), then we know they in fact are not in competition, at least not on this subject. (When I say I scooped them all, I only refer to our little situation, yours and mine. Far better researchers than I originally uncovered most of the evidence I offer.)

If you don’t understand this, then you are not thinking critically. You are believing what you want to believe, like Andy is.

Please listen: If you are told something about an event of great importance – like who killed the last real president we ever had – and find that the explanation of the event includes an impossibility, you mustlook into the implications of that impossibility.

You just must.  



If you see something significant in my film or in what I’ve written here, I urge you to stay on top on my blog, and participate via Comments if you are so moved.

There is a lot more to talk about regarding How the World Works and critical thinking. A ton, actually. The JFK issue is just a starting point that happened to fit with my film.

I started filming Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan in the fall of 2007. That’s going on seven years ago. Although I did other stuff in those seven years, most of that time was spent in research and the actual making of the movie.

I don’t write or make films for the money. I do it… because I am driven to try to communicate with my fellow man. That’s the goddamn state of affairs with me. It’s nuts, I realize, but whaddarya gonna do?

However, I do have to live in the meantime.

I’ve never been good with money and over the past decade have gone through literally all my savings, mostly during the making of the film. No, not the film. The films. Plural.

See, I am hard at work in postproduction of Part Two of Water Time. I thought I could make a film, one film, about traveling down south with my dog and trying to figure out How the World Works (via critical thinking), plus surfing, but it didn’t work out that way. Turned out I had shot two films, and the second, Part Two, is the one.

Part Two is where I attempt to plumb the depths of the ‘rabbit warren,’ as the intellectual coward from down under in Water Time calls it. And I’ll tell you: I think I finally found the bottom. Rock bottom.  

That’s all I’m going to say about Part Two, except that I need financial help to finish it, and to continue with this blog.

If you donate to my cause, you get an e-book of Can’t You Get Along With Anyone; A Writer’s Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer’s Paradise. The book is my way of saying thank you with something near and dear to me. (If you read the book and view Water Time, you’ll see what I mean by ‘near and dear.’)

So use the Paypal Donate button or send me a few bucks via the U.S. Mail: Me, P.O. Box 395, Montauk, NY 11954.

Donations of $100 or more will get a hardcover of CYGAWA (sorry, no Zero’s or Banditos left) plus a Water Time DVD. Signed. If you donate the $100 via Paypal you need to alert me via an email at allan@banditobooks.com, along with your mailing address and who to thank in my book/DVD autograph.

You will also get a screen credit as Associate Producer in Part Two of Water Time.

But whether you help out or not, I urge you to refine your way of ferreting out truths about How the World Works via the implications of impossibilities



Onte-time Donation:
Monthly Donation Amount:

If you want a dvd, click here.