Friday, February 24, 2017

One of the things that Harold Norman said is that he was a "checker." He wasn't an "order-filler" but a "checker." The checker checked the work of the order-filler, making sure he filled the order correctly.

But, was this really necessary? It was the simplest thing in the world. If every company needed a checker to check the completion of the most simple tasks, then it would effectively double the cost of fulfillment.  

Was it a common thing that instead grabbing Dick and Jane go the
Zoo
that the order-filler would mistakenly grab Dick and Jane go to the Beach? So, order-fillers like Buell Frazier and Lee Oswald couldn't be counted on to complete the simple task of getting the right title they were looking for? Their work had to be checked? They had to show their work, like a little kid in the 4th grade showing his work to the teacher?


Imagine if it was you. Imagine you were working that dreary, low-paying job, and they wouldn't even trust you to pull titles correctly, that you had to show your work to a checker. 

"As you can see, Mr. Norman, I was supposed to get 3 copies of Dick and Jane visit the Museum, and that is indeed what I have here, 3 copies of Dick and Jane visit the Museum. Count them. 1, 2, 3. So now, if you would be so kind as to check off your approval so that I can take these to our one and only mailer, Mr. Troy West, and then I shall undertake a new order with the same gusto and due diligence that I applied to this one."

Isn't that special?

Also, I have a nice clear image of the stacks.



Obviously, at this distance, we can't tell what's in any of the boxes. So, let's move in closer:



What is that? Some kind of code? But, why would it be necessary to mark it in code? You've got all that space on the box. So, why not put the title in plain English? You know, make it easy? Instead of hard? 

So, Buell Frazier or Lee Oswald show up here:



Most of the boxes are sealed, so doesn't that mean that every order-filler had to be supplied with a "box-cutter" in order to open them? And unless they want to leave opened boxes all over this rat-infested warehouse, shouldn't they also have packing tape to seal them up again? But, we are told that the only thing the order-fillers walked around with was a clipboard. Alright, so they get there with their clipboard, and then what? How do they access the boxes on top of the stacks? There is no ladder. Let's look at some more writing:



3219? What could that possibly stand for? How could that possibly help anybody? What does it say underneath? LETS DRIVE? Who the pluck knows. Do you realize that with all the images we have of the book stacks, we don't have a single one with legible writing?

Frazier, you need to tell us, in minute detail, what you did, how you operated, as an order-filler. I'm not interested in your other shit. Yeah, I know, Oswald was a nice guy; he liked kids; he liked to play with the kids; he liked animals, he liked to pet the animals, blah, blah, blah, blah. Shut the pluck up about that, Frazier. Now tell us about the business. Tell us about your work. Tell us how you were able to find anything in that maze, in that mess. Because: I don't believe there was a real book-distributing business going on there. I think it was all a shell, a sham, and a facade. And before you leave this world, you need to tell us what was really going on there.    


This is a very important statement by the late Harold Norman.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXVpmAT5PqE

He said that he saw Oswald 30 minutes before the motorcade on the 1st floor. Well, that's exactly what Oswald said, that he went to the 1st floor lunch room, the domino room, to eat lunch, and he saw Junior (Jarmin) and another negro who was short (Norman). It's in the Fritz Notes.
Morning of the 23rd refers to the time of the interview. 11-21-63 is a mistake; Fritz obviously meant 11-22-63. So, Oswald said that two negroes came in; one was Junior Jarmin, and the other was a short guy (definitely a reference to Norman). It's not clear what "ask?" means, but Oswald's lunch consisted of cheese sandwiches + apple. So, when he was at the 1st floor lunch room, Oswald saw Jarman and Norman. He didn't say that he ate with them, but that he saw them while he was eating or when he went to eat. Oswald didn't eat with anybody. He wasn't very friendly. All that friendliness that he showed to people in Russia never surfaced at the TSBD. He was a loner there; a recluse. The only time he talked to people is when he needed something from them. 

But, the point is that Oswald's spotting and citing of Jarman and Norman was definitely a reference to the 12:00 time frame. Some loudmouthed fools on McAdams forum try to make it that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room close to 12:30 and spotted Jarman and Norman as they re-entered the building to go up to the 5th floor. No, that is not what he said and not what he meant. He was talking about early in the lunch break. Basically: they broke for lunch and Oswald went and ate lunch. And why wouldn't he? He had nothing else to do. And he hadn't eaten that day. All he had that morning at Ruth Paine's house was coffee. So, why would he have put off eating lunch? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

And then there are the foolish Prayermanites who claim that Oswald was eating lunch in the doorway at 12:30, that the "other employees" were the doorway gang, that Oswald was eating with them as he watched the motorcade, a reference to Prayer Man. 

I'll tell you again that the whole Prayer Man clip is HIGHLY suspect. Its incongruities are so great, it should be rejected out of hand as an elaborate fraud. It did not even surface until 29 years after the assassination. And it exists only as a clip- not within an intact film. And there is no excuse for that. It is foolish to think that somebody took scissors to these films. 

Oswald's doings during the lunch break are very simple. He went to the lunch on the first floor in the domino room- which is where he always PUT his lunch when he arrived in the morning and where he always ATE his lunch. So, he ate his lunch there, and when he finished he may have read the newspaper, which he often did. And then he went to the entrance and looked out through the glass, and that is when Carolyn Arnold spotted him through the glass. That's the nice thing about glass; you can see through it. The time is in question. The FBI agent who wrote down what she said made it 12:15, but it was probably later than that, like 12:25. That's what Professor Gerald McKnight thinks. The FBI agent was trying to leave enough time for Oswald to get up to the 6th floor, which is why he made it 12:15. But, the truth is that even 12:15 is extremely exonerating for Oswald, which is why the higher-ups at the FBI got rid of it. They didn't want any reports of anyone seeing Oswald close to the time of the assassination. 

But, after peering through the glass, Oswald went out the door and took a position right in the center of the doorway on the landing. So really, he just went through the door and walked 3 feet to the edge of the landing. And that is where he stood during the motorcade. That is where his image was captured by Ike Altgens and by Dave Wiegman.  And it was from there that he went back through the door and turned right at the stairwell, taking the one-flight of stairs up to the 6th floor, and walking through the office area to the lunch room in the northwest corner, where he had his encounter with Truly and Baker. Oswald reached the lunch room a couple of seconds before Baker. Baker spotted Oswald entering the lunch room from the office side. So, Oswald did NOT come down 4 flights of stairs from the 6th floor on that side of the building; he came up 1 flight of stairs from the opposite side of the building which was caddy-corner. 

And those were all of Oswald's doings from 11:50 to 12:31. He may have had a bathroom stop in-between, but that's it. He didn't go anywhere else, and he didn't do anything else. 

Thursday, February 23, 2017

You have to understand something: there are men, and there are clothes. Men differ. Each and every one is distinct and unique, and no two are the same, except for identical twins. 

But, there is no connection whatsoever between men and clothes. Any man can wear any clothes. 

So, even if two men look alike, there is NO likelihood from that, that they will also dress alike. It doesn't spill over. It's like a separate drawing in the lottery. 

But, in this case, we have a very good likeness of the man, and we also have a very good likeness of the clothes.




And it goes way beyond the limits of reason to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald LOOKED that much alike and also DRESSED that much alike. Just from being co-workers at the same company? 

Here is a group of ATI employees. You see any two men or any two women there who look and dress the same?


Point out the Oswald and Lovelady equivalents to me. 

Here's a group of BSU employees:


Again: where are the Oswald/Lovelady equivalents as per the official story?



This is a company called Newell Brands.


The world of clothing is vast. This is reality. This involves stepping out of the dark, twisted, corrupt, evil world of JFK and getting into the light. This is real. And this is the same man. They look the same and are dressed the same because they are the same man. 



Oswald and Lovelady did not look alike, and they certainly did not dress alike. The likeness we see above- in both the man and the clothing- can only come from it being the same man. 

Trump spoke of politics being a swamp. Well, if politics is a swamp, then the JFK realm is a cesspool. 

This collage is best at showing how matching the shirt is between Oswald and Doorman. Oswald's shirt had a fine grain, and you can think of it like the fine grain of a piece of wood. And in the direct light, it would often reflect the light, as you can see on the right. He didn't spill flour on his shirt. That is light reflection. And the net effect was to give the shirt a mottled look. Mottled. That's the word. Both look mottled. And, the very layout, with the open sprawl, and the exposed t-shirt, and the sunken collar on the t-shirt, and this:

The only way Oswald and Lovelady could have been dressed that much alike is if they required the wearing of uniforms at the TSBD. But, they didn't. And the idea that Oswald and Lovelady just woke up that morning and did it spontaneously? Anyone older than 3 should know that that didn't happen. 
Warning: this is off-topic. The retired admiral said to be the "architect" of the bin laden raid in Pakistan in 2011 is outraged with Trump for saying that the US media is the enemy of the American people. He said it is the biggest threat to democracy in his lifetime.

Well, first, there was no bin laden raid. Bin laden was already dead, with multiple confirmations of that, including from Pakistan, that is from President Musharraf. But the most compelling thing to me is what I can see. On the left is bin laden from 2001. On the right is an image that was released at the time of the raid.


The man on the right is clearly younger. The man on the left dates to 2001, and the image on the right was released at the time of the raid in 2011. Keep in mind that bin laden had failing kidneys and was on renal dialysis. So, after 10 years, he looked like that? Healthier? Younger? 


Notice how brawny he looks on the right, with thick shoulders and very solid trapezius muscles. By 2001, bin laden was bordering on emaciation. And renal dialysis is known to cause muscle wasting. There is a ton written on it. Such as:

http://www.renalandurologynews.com/expert-reviews/counteracting-muscle-wasting-in-dialysis-patients/article/162102/

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2013/643954/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4269363/

https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/31/7/1070/1751670/Muscle-wasting-in-end-stage-renal-disease

https://www.einstein.yu.edu/departments/medicine/divisions/geriatrics/research/kidney-disease-and-muscle-wasting.aspx


So, how did bin laden not only not lose muscle but heap on muscle over 10 years of dialysis? And don't believe the dis-info lie that he never really had kidney failure, but just kidney stones. The following page documents the medical history and decline of Osama bin laden:

http://www.anonews.co/bin-laden-2001/

You know that besides having kidney failure, he had Marfan syndrome, hepatitis C, and other ailments. 

Hare 10 facts proving the bin laden fable is a hoax, by Paul Watson who works with Alex Jones.

http://www.infowars.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax/

OK, now let's get back to this jerk:



McCraven: You know damn well that whoever you killed that day, it wasn't Osama bin laden, who was already dead. The threat to American democracy are people like YOU. Bin laden was dead, and your story was, and is, false. The US media is like the Soviet Pravda. The only difference is that the Soviet Pravda was state-owned, and the US media is corporate-owned. And that's why we call it the corporate media. And it has NEVER been more tethered to the State- the federal government of the United States- than it is today. 








Let's continue comparing these images of Marguerite. And first note that in this image with Mark Lane, that you can very clearly see the mole she had under her right eye.




Do you, or do you not, see that she had a mole under her right eye? So, any image of a Marguerite without the mole should be the real Marguerite. 


You see the mole there too, right? So, that's the impostor. And frankly, she matches the impostor perfectly in all the other ways. 

But, here is the most reliable image we have of the real Marguerite, precisely because John Armstrong got it from a private source, a co-worker of hers, from his personal, private photo collection.





So, she was the real Marguerite. But, what about this one?




Well, there is no clear appearance of a mole on her. But, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to take out. I still think, for the reasons given in the previous post, that she is the Marguerite impostor. 
According to Robert Oswald, the image below is of his mother in 1956, taken for Mother's Day. That would make her 49 years old, which he says himself, since Margaret Claverie was born in 1907. But tell me, does this look like a 49 year old to you? She looks older than 49 to me. And I'm 66. 


She looks awfully matronly for 49. Yikes. And she's got an awful lot of white hair for 49 too. Don't you think? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly is uncommon. Furthermore, a 49 year old wouldn't want to go around like that. She would be VERY likely to dye her hair. Why? Because she doesn't want to look like an old lady; that's why.

 This next image, according to RO, is from 1958, so two years later.


Well, if anything, she looks younger. And notice that her hair is much darker. You want to say she dyed it? But usually, when a woman is willing to pose for a Mother's Day picture without dying her hair, it usually means that she is done dying it. I remember that my mother used to dye her hair. It was a big ordeal. And I remember that my father would help her. She would lean over the sink, and he would squirt the solution on her hair in back. It was a tri-weekly ritual for years. But once she stopped dying it, she never went back to dying it. And if you look closely at the above picture, you'll see she has quite a bit of grey on the left side of her head, at her temple, which is on our right. So, I am inclined to think that that was the natural color of her hair. Let's look at them together. 


They don't look like the same woman to me. The woman on the right is more attractive, frankly. The woman on the left had really puffy cheeks, as in super-puffy, fat cheeks. The woman on the right did not have them. The woman on the right had a larger, wider forehead, and it makes the top of her head look rectangular. The woman on the left has an oval shaped head, and there is nothing rectangular about it. 

Let's consider their heights. We know that the Marguerite impostor was very short. But, the woman on the right, in her sitting height, does not appear to be shorter than average. She is not shorter than the other women at that table. They weren't all shrimps, were they? 


So, that woman in back is definitely the real Marguerite and not the impostor. 

Let's make another comparison to the real Marguerite.



Notice again that we get the sense of a rectangular shaped top of the head on the right and an oval shape on the left. Again, we get the sense of the much puffier cheeks on the left. Although it's hard to see, the teeth are misaligned on the left but not on the right.





Finally, let's compare the image on the left to a known picture of the impostor:




Keep in mind that on the right, the Marguerite impostor was standing with her lawyer, Mark Lane. And it was definitely the Marguerite impostor who hired him. (although, he worked pro-bono) So, that is definitely the Marguerite of fame on the right, who was the impostor. So, let's now compare her to the one on the left and look for a deal-breaker. It only takes one. Just one deal-breaker calls off the match. Well, I don't see one. And there is no way the real Marguerite and the Marguerite impostor looked THAT much alike.

But, there is one more reason why I think the Mother's Day picture has to be the impostor. It's because Robert Oswald showcases it on his website. He does have some images of the real Marguerite, but not close-up like this. I don't think he would showcase such a close-up image of his real mother. 

http://oswald-photos.blogspot.com/2012/09/marguerite-claverie-oswald-1907-1981.html

So, I maintain that the 1956 Mother's Day picture is of the impostor, not the real Marguerite, although we have no way to verify the date.