This is Marina's very first interview with the press after the assassination. It's very touching. You can't help but feel sorry for her. She said at the time that she believed Lee did it, that she didn't want to believe it, but she couldn't deny the facts. But, she had been under a long intense period of heavy influence and total control after the assassination, as you know.
She also spoke of having loved Lee, and she said that she visited his grave one or two times a week. Would she have done that if all stories about wife-beating were true?
But, the most telling thing about the interview was her denial of having any idea that Lee was going to do such a thing. She could have said, for instance, that he spoke badly of Kennedy, but she didn't say that, and he didn't say that. The fact is that Oswald killing Kennedy was a crime completely lacking in any motive. Not even a little one. Note even a remote one. Here's the interview. As I said, it's very touching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRiOZlTTswQ
OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
www.oswald-innocent.com
Thursday, October 31, 2013
"I hope you got several escape routes planned out for how you'll be leaving the hotel. I wouldn't want you to get hurt out there." Joseph Backes
That sounds like a threat, Backes. I'll be sure to let people know you said it.
But for the record, I have no doubt that consideration of killing me goes on. I've already been threatened by phone. Twice. And I live cautiously and never take my safety for granted. I keep my doors locked and my guns loaded.
And we are going to have private security at the conference in Santa Barbara, there to protect me and all the speakers and guests. Licensed bodyguards.
But, let's consider what Backes is implying. He's implying that Oswald in the doorway is so dangerous to the official story of JFK that some may try to kill over it. Well, he's right about one thing: it is dangerous to the official story. It is deadly to the official story.
But, what's weird about this is that Backes claims to be a CT. So, you've got one CT relishing the death of another CT because of a disagreement over where Oswald was at the time of the shooting, one saying out the door on the landing and the other saying somewhere in the building but he doesn't know where. We agree that Oswald was not up on the 6th floor shooting at anybody but this is disagreement about where he was down below puts death on the line, according to Backes.
Is it possible for a CT to be that venomous towards another CT?
What's even weirder is that lately, a whole bunch of CTs have come to the conclusion that Oswald was in the doorway. Recently, Jim DiEugenio of CTKA was on Black Op Radio with Len Osanic extolling the idea of Oswald as Prayer Man, who was in the doorway. I wonder if Backes wishes DiEugenio dead too. Who knows, maybe Backes is going to get on the Prayer Man bandwagon. After all, it's Oswald in the doorway but in a form that is anti-Cinque. And that really is the bottom line for Backes. He doesn't give a shit where Oswald was or who he was. He couldn't care less. He just wants to get at me.
Let's be clear: if Joseph Backes came upon a newly discovered photograph of Oswald in the doorway that was close-up and perfect, he would destroy it. Seriously. That is the caliber of JFK researcher he is, and it also defines the kind of person he is.
Backes, there is no way that these two are the same guy at the same moment in time and space. One has his shirt open widely while the other is buttoned up almost to the top, save for the top button. One has a comb-over and the other has a Mohawk. One has large geometric forms on his shirt and the other has fine lines and 2 inch boxes. One has a visible white t-shirt and the other does not have any visible t-shirt at all. None of it is a function of camera position or pixelization. They simply can't be the same man. And you really are a stupid fool to advocate it.
That sounds like a threat, Backes. I'll be sure to let people know you said it.
But for the record, I have no doubt that consideration of killing me goes on. I've already been threatened by phone. Twice. And I live cautiously and never take my safety for granted. I keep my doors locked and my guns loaded.
And we are going to have private security at the conference in Santa Barbara, there to protect me and all the speakers and guests. Licensed bodyguards.
But, let's consider what Backes is implying. He's implying that Oswald in the doorway is so dangerous to the official story of JFK that some may try to kill over it. Well, he's right about one thing: it is dangerous to the official story. It is deadly to the official story.
But, what's weird about this is that Backes claims to be a CT. So, you've got one CT relishing the death of another CT because of a disagreement over where Oswald was at the time of the shooting, one saying out the door on the landing and the other saying somewhere in the building but he doesn't know where. We agree that Oswald was not up on the 6th floor shooting at anybody but this is disagreement about where he was down below puts death on the line, according to Backes.
Is it possible for a CT to be that venomous towards another CT?
What's even weirder is that lately, a whole bunch of CTs have come to the conclusion that Oswald was in the doorway. Recently, Jim DiEugenio of CTKA was on Black Op Radio with Len Osanic extolling the idea of Oswald as Prayer Man, who was in the doorway. I wonder if Backes wishes DiEugenio dead too. Who knows, maybe Backes is going to get on the Prayer Man bandwagon. After all, it's Oswald in the doorway but in a form that is anti-Cinque. And that really is the bottom line for Backes. He doesn't give a shit where Oswald was or who he was. He couldn't care less. He just wants to get at me.
Let's be clear: if Joseph Backes came upon a newly discovered photograph of Oswald in the doorway that was close-up and perfect, he would destroy it. Seriously. That is the caliber of JFK researcher he is, and it also defines the kind of person he is.
Backes, there is no way that these two are the same guy at the same moment in time and space. One has his shirt open widely while the other is buttoned up almost to the top, save for the top button. One has a comb-over and the other has a Mohawk. One has large geometric forms on his shirt and the other has fine lines and 2 inch boxes. One has a visible white t-shirt and the other does not have any visible t-shirt at all. None of it is a function of camera position or pixelization. They simply can't be the same man. And you really are a stupid fool to advocate it.
This is a late-breaking story. I just heard from the CBS affiliate in Santa Barbara, and they want to interview somebody for our event. I suggested Jim Fetzer, but it's for television, not radio. The man said that this is important enough that he is willing to travel several hours in any direction to do the interview. So, I suggested Richard Hooke, who lives in California, and he is going to contact Richard.
Today, Jim Fetzer is being interviewed about the event by the Santa Barbara Independent, which is a major newspaper in SB.
The OIC JFK Truth Conference is going to be of historic importance, and there is not going to be anything else like it. Ground Zero for JFK truth will be in Santa Barbara on 11/22/13.
I
Today, Jim Fetzer is being interviewed about the event by the Santa Barbara Independent, which is a major newspaper in SB.
The OIC JFK Truth Conference is going to be of historic importance, and there is not going to be anything else like it. Ground Zero for JFK truth will be in Santa Barbara on 11/22/13.
I
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Alright, Jim Fetzer gave me the go-ahead to announce what I've been holding back. He wanted to get something in writing first, and now we've got it.
I mentioned that Jim attended a JFK conference in Illinois last weekend. And there, he ran into Ed Tatro. If you don't know who Ed Tatro is, just Google him. He's been active JFK truther for a long time.
At that conference, Ed Tatro told Jim Fetzer that he talked to Marina Oswald Porter, and she told him that it was Oswald in the doorway, and she has no doubt about it. It's Lee's shirt, she told him, and she can remember washing it.
Jim was pretty stunned to hear it, but later, he decided that he wanted to get something from Ed Tatro in writing. And now we have it. This is a personal communication (email) from Ed Tatro to Jim Fetzer:
"It was a
simple phone conversation. Some people have been contacting her about the
Altgens photo and the controversy as to the identity of the man in the doorway. I
told her I was unsure what to believe, but the shirt of the doorway man and the
shirt Oswald was wearing after his arrest are remarkably similar. She said,
"That's Lee's shirt." I believe she made the comment that she knew it because
she had washed it in the
past." Ed Tatro
So now we have Marina Oswald Porter substantiating that it was Oswald in the doorway wearing Oswald's shirt, as only Oswald could do.
What's this weigh? A ton and a half. Where are we spreading it? Across the planet.
The thing is that even though the terrorists had box-cutters and the crew and passengers did not, it's not as though the latter were powerless and without weapons. There is an ax on the plane that is for emergencies- in case they have to cut their way out through the cabin. A pilot could have grabbed that ax and started swinging it. You think a box-cutter is any match to that?
I mentioned that I fly with a briefcase, and it's very solid. It's covered with leather, but the case is made of solid metal. A terrorist comes at me with a box-cutter and I'll slam that thing into his Adam's apple. I'll break his fucking windpipe. Me with that case and some guy with a box-cutter? I'll take that bet any day of the week.
A guy takes off his sizable belt, holds the strap end, and he starts whipping the buckle at his enemy. He can attack from a greater distance than the guy with a box-cutter. And he can lash at high speed, over and over again, raining down on him.
The attacker moves down the aisle. A lady throws hot coffee in his face. From behind a man jumps on his back, arm around his neck, starts choking him. Another man grabs the arm holding the box-cutter, and sinks his teeth into his hand, clamping down like he's got lockjaw. A lady with a nailfile starts stabbing him.
You think the crew and passengers are going to let 4 guys take over an airplane, including the cockpit, just because of a few box-cutters??? Is that what you think????? Because anyone who thinks that is a fucking idiot.
They are lying to us about 9/11. And the only thing holding up the terrible lie is the power of officialdom: the power of government and media to control the minds of the people.
It is pure Orwellian mind control. It is also pure bull shit. If you have been falling for this nonsense. I am telling you right now to snap out of it because the same people who killed Kennedy pulled off 9/11. And the only reason they thought they could get away with the latter one is from having gotten away with the former one.
But, both lies are going down and will be demolished. JFK first. Then the other 1960's assassinations, including RFK and MLK, and don't forget Marilyn Monroe. And then 9/11.
Box-cutters. Hell No. We're not buying that crap.
I mentioned that I fly with a briefcase, and it's very solid. It's covered with leather, but the case is made of solid metal. A terrorist comes at me with a box-cutter and I'll slam that thing into his Adam's apple. I'll break his fucking windpipe. Me with that case and some guy with a box-cutter? I'll take that bet any day of the week.
A guy takes off his sizable belt, holds the strap end, and he starts whipping the buckle at his enemy. He can attack from a greater distance than the guy with a box-cutter. And he can lash at high speed, over and over again, raining down on him.
The attacker moves down the aisle. A lady throws hot coffee in his face. From behind a man jumps on his back, arm around his neck, starts choking him. Another man grabs the arm holding the box-cutter, and sinks his teeth into his hand, clamping down like he's got lockjaw. A lady with a nailfile starts stabbing him.
You think the crew and passengers are going to let 4 guys take over an airplane, including the cockpit, just because of a few box-cutters??? Is that what you think????? Because anyone who thinks that is a fucking idiot.
They are lying to us about 9/11. And the only thing holding up the terrible lie is the power of officialdom: the power of government and media to control the minds of the people.
It is pure Orwellian mind control. It is also pure bull shit. If you have been falling for this nonsense. I am telling you right now to snap out of it because the same people who killed Kennedy pulled off 9/11. And the only reason they thought they could get away with the latter one is from having gotten away with the former one.
But, both lies are going down and will be demolished. JFK first. Then the other 1960's assassinations, including RFK and MLK, and don't forget Marilyn Monroe. And then 9/11.
Box-cutters. Hell No. We're not buying that crap.
Here is Lee in Minsk. Notice on his jacket how long the lapel is. It's huge. It goes down the whole length of the jacket.
They are really into lapels over there, and Oswald's arrest shirt was from Russia. It was soft material, with no stiffness, so the collar and margin folded over easily into a long lapel.
On Doorman, we can't see his left collar because of the placement of Black Tie Man into the picture. But, we can see that long lapel which is manifested by the thickness of the material on that side. It's twice as thick as the other side because it's folded over into a lapel, and it looks twice as thick. That is a Russian shirt. He brought it back with him from Russia after living there for three years from 1959 to 1962.
On Doorman, we can't see his left collar because of the placement of Black Tie Man into the picture. But, we can see that long lapel which is manifested by the thickness of the material on that side. It's twice as thick as the other side because it's folded over into a lapel, and it looks twice as thick. That is a Russian shirt. He brought it back with him from Russia after living there for three years from 1959 to 1962.
Hey Backes! Your buddy Quinlan used a flipped image of Lovelady. That is, he used a flipped image of Fake Lovelady. Actually, he used a flipped, artificially slimmed image of Fake Lovelady.
There's the match of the shirt, the t-shirt, and the man. Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. And you know it, Backes!
What he should have used, were he honest, was this image of Oswald.
There is no basis to explain all the divergence we see here because it involved two cameramen from two distances. The difference in distance wasn't even that great. It's just too much. Under no varying conditions could Lovelady's plaid pattern on the right come out like Groucho's geometric pattern on the left. Forget it, Backes. You're just being a stupid backass.
I'm not buying this Groucho guy on the left being real, myself.
I don't like his white skin coloring. I don't like his tufts of Mohawk hair, which looks like it's painted on, and I don't like the weirdness of his shirt-pattern, which is nothing like that of fake-Lovelady on the right.
Moreover, he is quite divergent from the other Hughes Lovelady who is supposed to be him.
We are supposed to be looking at the exact same frame here from the exact same movie. It looks to me like they realized that the weird geometric pattern and weird Mohawk were a mistake, so they washed them out.
I don't like his white skin coloring. I don't like his tufts of Mohawk hair, which looks like it's painted on, and I don't like the weirdness of his shirt-pattern, which is nothing like that of fake-Lovelady on the right.
Moreover, he is quite divergent from the other Hughes Lovelady who is supposed to be him.
Hey Backes! Your pal Quinlan flipped this image of Lovelady. Of course, the guy isn't really Lovelady, but we'll leave that aside. But, he flipped the image of the fake Lovelady. Can you see that cigarettes are in different pockets, left on the right, and right on the left? And they changed the aspect ratio on the left making his head long and slender. That was a trick, Backes, and it was not an accident. If JFK fakery were a crime, Quinlan would be arrested.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Here it is in color, Backes, and it doesn't help.
Backes, they are different shirts and different men. Don't make excuses for it. Don't try to spin it. You're just babbling.
On the left, the pattern consists of large geometric forms. On the right, it's checkered with fine lines and 2 inch square boxes. You can't reconcile that. You can't attribute it to different cameras, different cameramen, or different anything.
On the left, there doesn't appear to be any collar at all. And his hair is like a Mohawk- nothing like the other guy.
Stop defending this, Backes, because you are just making yourself look foolish. And yes, on the left, it doesn't even look photographic meaning that it doesn't look like the output of a camera.
Groucho Marx and Robert DeNiro: that's the best way to sum up the divergence between those two Loveladys.
You know, Backes, you are such a moron, you don't have enough sense to pick your battles. You let a lot of stuff I write pass by without comment. You've been totally quiet for days. But, now you decide to break the silence by defending this shit? This is one of the weakest, most laughable issues there is. You really want to defend this shit?
Those smarter than yourself would wisely take the 5th on this one and take a stand somewhere else. This is a weak hand for you, Backass. You should fold on this one; instead you go all in. Idiot. This is not a game you can win by bluffing.
Backes, they are different shirts and different men. Don't make excuses for it. Don't try to spin it. You're just babbling.
On the left, the pattern consists of large geometric forms. On the right, it's checkered with fine lines and 2 inch square boxes. You can't reconcile that. You can't attribute it to different cameras, different cameramen, or different anything.
On the left, there doesn't appear to be any collar at all. And his hair is like a Mohawk- nothing like the other guy.
Stop defending this, Backes, because you are just making yourself look foolish. And yes, on the left, it doesn't even look photographic meaning that it doesn't look like the output of a camera.
Groucho Marx and Robert DeNiro: that's the best way to sum up the divergence between those two Loveladys.
You know, Backes, you are such a moron, you don't have enough sense to pick your battles. You let a lot of stuff I write pass by without comment. You've been totally quiet for days. But, now you decide to break the silence by defending this shit? This is one of the weakest, most laughable issues there is. You really want to defend this shit?
I just received some good input from Nelson L.
Regarding your recent blog posts about Oswald's worn t-shirt: I wear my
t-shirts until they're ragged. The hole we see on Oswald's shirt is in a spot
that--as I know from experience--gives out quickest. I've never had a t-shirt
shred around the margin, however.
Also, Oswald's outer shirt was worn-out. Why would it be surprising that
his t-shirt was shot, too?
Yes, indeed, both Oswald's outer shirt and t-shirt were both getting well-worn and tattered. And like Nelson, I've seen t-shirts start falling apart at that that spot along the top seam where we see it on Oswald. But also like Nelson, I've never had a tear occur at the margin, and that's what we are talking about.
bpete is deluded in thinking that that t-shirt was high and round like Lovelady's until Oswald got into a scuffle with police at the theater. There is no evidence that that scuffle did anything of importance to that t-shirt. And, even with that invented argument, there is still the divergence between Lovelady's t-shirt and Doorman's.
What good is it to hypothesize that Oswald's shirt got torn at the theater when it doesn't solve the problem of the discrepancy between Doorman and Lovelady? This is the point where Occam would be getting out his razor.
I have to wonder if bpete isn't sending those letters himself or is in collusion with someone who is. It's clear that no friend of mine would do it, and it's beyond absurd to think that I would.
And no, I haven't tried to leave comments on any of their blogs either. I do my bashing right here; no need to leave home.
And Dennis Cimino wrote a stirring, praising letter to Mark Lane when he joined the OIC, and in case you don't know, Mark Lane is Jewish.
Let me make it clear that the Oswald Innocence Campaign is about JFK truth, and we are fighting the forces organized to perpetuate JFK lies. If you look at the history of the JFK truth movement, you see that Jewish researchers have been well represented, such as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, David Lifton... and what about Aaron Russo? I had the honor of meeting Aaron Russo. Aaron was a 9/11 truther, a JFK truther, and he was Jewish. Here is an interview he did with Alex Jones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3NA17CCboA
I can pretty much guarantee you that if Aaron Russo were alive today he would be a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
We have Jewish members, and we will get more Jewish members, which you can be certain of, and nothing will make me happier.
And no, I haven't tried to leave comments on any of their blogs either. I do my bashing right here; no need to leave home.
And Dennis Cimino wrote a stirring, praising letter to Mark Lane when he joined the OIC, and in case you don't know, Mark Lane is Jewish.
Let me make it clear that the Oswald Innocence Campaign is about JFK truth, and we are fighting the forces organized to perpetuate JFK lies. If you look at the history of the JFK truth movement, you see that Jewish researchers have been well represented, such as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, David Lifton... and what about Aaron Russo? I had the honor of meeting Aaron Russo. Aaron was a 9/11 truther, a JFK truther, and he was Jewish. Here is an interview he did with Alex Jones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3NA17CCboA
I can pretty much guarantee you that if Aaron Russo were alive today he would be a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.
We have Jewish members, and we will get more Jewish members, which you can be certain of, and nothing will make me happier.
P.S. from Dennis Cimino:
YES. and the cockpit door parameter is part of the data stream recorded by the flight data recorder, and the signal never toggled. meaning that not even a forced entry was attempted.
so, having said that, it was not possible for the cockpit crew to have been attacked by hijackers because they couldn't possibly fit under any door slot.
and they couldn't have taken the plane over without a struggle that would have guarantee'd the A/P would disengage and send the aircraft into an 'out of control 'state very rapidly.
we saw no evidence of A/P disengage, stick shaker kicking in, or overspeed warnings on an aircraft that according to the government, exceeded it's safe flight speed by over 150 knots as it descended to the Pentagon and circled first.
YES. and the cockpit door parameter is part of the data stream recorded by the flight data recorder, and the signal never toggled. meaning that not even a forced entry was attempted.
so, having said that, it was not possible for the cockpit crew to have been attacked by hijackers because they couldn't possibly fit under any door slot.
and they couldn't have taken the plane over without a struggle that would have guarantee'd the A/P would disengage and send the aircraft into an 'out of control 'state very rapidly.
we saw no evidence of A/P disengage, stick shaker kicking in, or overspeed warnings on an aircraft that according to the government, exceeded it's safe flight speed by over 150 knots as it descended to the Pentagon and circled first.
Have you ever tried to tear through the margin of a t-shirt? It isn't easy. It's very easy to tear through the body of the t-shirt- once you get past the margin. But that margin, that molding around the opening, is tough material, and it's hard to rip it.
It's hard even when you position it to greatest advantage. But, in that altercation at the theater, the cops weren't trying to rip his t-shirt. If it got ripped, it was accidental.
So, just as an experiment, take out a t-shirt, a round t-shirt, and grasp the margin between your two hands and try to tear it. Increase the effort slowly, but I think you will find that you can apply quite a lot of force without it tearing. You may find that you can't break it open no matter how hard you try.
But, it's not really a fair test because you're doing it concertedly, and the cops were doing no such thing.
Let's say a cop grabs Oswald by the t-shirt. It seems unlikely because Oswald did have his outer shirt on at the theater. But, we'll assume it anyway. So, the cop is gripping the t-shirt, and he pulls on it to pull Oswald to him. He is trying to control him, to dominate him, and he does that by pulling him in.
So, he pulls on the t-shirt, which has give, and so it stretches. But, it only stretches so far before the force he is applying gets transferred to Oswald himself. In other words, he accomplishes what he set out to do, which is to move Oswald toward him, to reel him in. Once Oswald starts moving, the policeman's force is transferred through the t-shirt to Oswald himself, and Oswald's movement absorbs the force of the policeman's effort.
So, in effect, the t-shirt is acting like a rope or a tie. The cop pulls on the t-shirt to the point of tension, and from that point on, the force gets transferred to Oswald, which is the whole idea.
It is very unlikely that the margin of the t-shirt would tear because the force isn't being concentrated there.
If the cop were pulling on Oswald's shirt and Oswald was immobile, then the force wouldn't pass through- it would remain with the t-shirt. And then it probably would tear.
I saw footage of two jackals chasing a young gazelle. They reached it at the same time. One got his jaws around one leg, the other jawed the other leg; and then they went in different directions. And they tore that young gazelle in half! But, if it had been just one jackal, he wouldn't have torn the gazelle in half because when he pulled, there would have been no resistance, and the young gazelle would have moved with him and remained intact.
So, unless you think there was one cop pulling one way on Oswald's t-shirt and another cop pulling another way on Oswald's t-shirt at the same time, there is no reason to think the margin of the t-shirt was torn through. But, how could that happen when most of the t-shirt was covered up by Oswald's outer shirt?
Oswald's t-shirt was tattered from wear, but the margin was intact.
I see the disruption on his left side. That's threadbareness from wear; it's not the result of violence. It was a very old, tattered t-shirt. But again, those defects are irrelevant to what the margin is doing because the margin, as you can see, is intact.
It's hard even when you position it to greatest advantage. But, in that altercation at the theater, the cops weren't trying to rip his t-shirt. If it got ripped, it was accidental.
So, just as an experiment, take out a t-shirt, a round t-shirt, and grasp the margin between your two hands and try to tear it. Increase the effort slowly, but I think you will find that you can apply quite a lot of force without it tearing. You may find that you can't break it open no matter how hard you try.
But, it's not really a fair test because you're doing it concertedly, and the cops were doing no such thing.
Let's say a cop grabs Oswald by the t-shirt. It seems unlikely because Oswald did have his outer shirt on at the theater. But, we'll assume it anyway. So, the cop is gripping the t-shirt, and he pulls on it to pull Oswald to him. He is trying to control him, to dominate him, and he does that by pulling him in.
So, he pulls on the t-shirt, which has give, and so it stretches. But, it only stretches so far before the force he is applying gets transferred to Oswald himself. In other words, he accomplishes what he set out to do, which is to move Oswald toward him, to reel him in. Once Oswald starts moving, the policeman's force is transferred through the t-shirt to Oswald himself, and Oswald's movement absorbs the force of the policeman's effort.
So, in effect, the t-shirt is acting like a rope or a tie. The cop pulls on the t-shirt to the point of tension, and from that point on, the force gets transferred to Oswald, which is the whole idea.
It is very unlikely that the margin of the t-shirt would tear because the force isn't being concentrated there.
If the cop were pulling on Oswald's shirt and Oswald was immobile, then the force wouldn't pass through- it would remain with the t-shirt. And then it probably would tear.
I saw footage of two jackals chasing a young gazelle. They reached it at the same time. One got his jaws around one leg, the other jawed the other leg; and then they went in different directions. And they tore that young gazelle in half! But, if it had been just one jackal, he wouldn't have torn the gazelle in half because when he pulled, there would have been no resistance, and the young gazelle would have moved with him and remained intact.
So, unless you think there was one cop pulling one way on Oswald's t-shirt and another cop pulling another way on Oswald's t-shirt at the same time, there is no reason to think the margin of the t-shirt was torn through. But, how could that happen when most of the t-shirt was covered up by Oswald's outer shirt?
Oswald's t-shirt was tattered from wear, but the margin was intact.
I see the disruption on his left side. That's threadbareness from wear; it's not the result of violence. It was a very old, tattered t-shirt. But again, those defects are irrelevant to what the margin is doing because the margin, as you can see, is intact.
You see this picture, bpete? There is no tear in the margin of that shirt. There may be a hole in the left shoulder, but it's irrelevant because it has having no effect on the margin or the way the shirt is hanging, and that is what we are talking about. The vee-ish shape of Oswald's t-shirt was not the result of any tears because the margin is not torn. And if you want to claim it's torn in back where we can't see it, it's just an arbitrary assumption. But even if true, it has no effect on what the front of the shirt is doing. The vee is in the front, not the back. So forget about the back.
There is no reason to think the vee we see here had anything to do with the fracas in the theater. None whatsoever. It was present when Oswald was standing in the doorway as Doorway Man.
There is no reason to think the vee we see here had anything to do with the fracas in the theater. None whatsoever. It was present when Oswald was standing in the doorway as Doorway Man.
These guys shock the Hell out of me sometimes. Unger actually posted this, claiming that it's Lovelady.
Hey Unger! How can that be Lovelady? It looks more like a cartoon figure installed into the image. Is he even photographic? I doubt it.
But regardless, if he's Lovelady, how could this also be Lovelady?
They are supposed to be the same guy in the same place at the same time. Same exact situation, Hughes shooting on the left and Martin shooting on the right.
So, how are we supposed to make sense of this? As you say, one has his shirt sprawled open and his t-shirt showing while the other is cinched up with no t-shirt showing. Their shirt patterns are grossly different- not even remotely alike. Their faces are different; their hair is different. And the guy on the left looks like a freaking cartoon. He doesn't even look like a real person. He looks like art. Bad art.
What is wrong with you, Unger? How could you be so stupid as to brandish this obvious fakery and obvious contradiction? They both can't be real. Am I making myself clear? You are an infantile fool, and so are the people who made this caricature and thought they could get away with it. Idiots, and that includes you.
Hey Unger! How can that be Lovelady? It looks more like a cartoon figure installed into the image. Is he even photographic? I doubt it.
But regardless, if he's Lovelady, how could this also be Lovelady?
So, how are we supposed to make sense of this? As you say, one has his shirt sprawled open and his t-shirt showing while the other is cinched up with no t-shirt showing. Their shirt patterns are grossly different- not even remotely alike. Their faces are different; their hair is different. And the guy on the left looks like a freaking cartoon. He doesn't even look like a real person. He looks like art. Bad art.
What is wrong with you, Unger? How could you be so stupid as to brandish this obvious fakery and obvious contradiction? They both can't be real. Am I making myself clear? You are an infantile fool, and so are the people who made this caricature and thought they could get away with it. Idiots, and that includes you.
A few words to bpete from OIC senior member Dennis Cimino, former Navy test pilot:
no autopilot disengages took place on FLT 77 during its flight until the very end, according to the data record from the FAKE FDR data that had many many many discrepancies in it.
ask BPETE to tell us about how duress signals are sent. Let him elucidate us clueless ones out here about that shit, eh?
BPETE, being the awesome airman that he is, with
flight time in all types of aircraft over years and countless hours, is completely
qualified to determine whether NORAD could be totally unplugged by virtue of
NONE OF THEIR PHONES COULD CALL OUT THAT DAY, by 19 clueless dufuses who
couldn't even fly a Cessna 172 adequately to check one out at a flight
school.
therefore I give BPETE the LEGEND IN HIS
OWN MIND award for pushing HORSE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
good rebuttal, Ralph. Fuck that
delusional lying bastard.
no autopilot disengages took place on FLT 77 during its flight until the very end, according to the data record from the FAKE FDR data that had many many many discrepancies in it.
so ask Bpete how the cockpits got taken
over. because the crew would have fought them, as you said, Ralph, to the very death if necessary, and that would have taken a long time.
and as they died, they would have
transmitted duress signals to the ground via the transponder, or the push to
talk button on the yoke, as they were fighting for their lives. none of this
occurred.
the cockpit door never opened. I can
prove that.
ask BPETE to tell us about how duress signals are sent. Let him elucidate us clueless ones out here about that shit, eh?
Lance Uppercut: "I have demonstrated that the shirt is an exact match to Lovelady's plaid."
The magnitude of the falsehood of the above statement is staggering to behold.
First, Lovelady didn't wear plaid. He wore striped. Every single image of Lovelady wearing plaid on 11/22/63 is fake. And when we put them side by side, we see that they were different men, and not one of them was Lovelady.
As you can readily see, these are three different men. Their hair is different. Their faces are different. Their builds are different. One has his shirt propped open in a weird (impossible) rectangular sprawl while the other two aren't sprawled at all. One has a big pocket-flap, the other two don't have one. All three ears are different. All three men are different. Vividly.
And it so happens that none of them are Lovelady.
So now we have 4 different men, and only one of them (the one above) was Lovelady. And notice what kind of shirt he is wearing: a striped one. Lovelady told the FBI that that was the shirt he wore on 11/22/63. We have that in writing twice: once in a FBI letter to the Warren Commission signed by two FBI agents, and once in an internal FBI memo: "He stated he was wearing and red and white striped shirt and blue jeans."
And just think about it: why would they photograph him with his shirt unbuttoned like Doorman unless it was the same shirt? What would be the point?
Do you think it was Lovelady's idea to pose like that? For a photograph? Of course not. He wasn't calling the shots. He wasn't telling the FBI what to do. Lovelady was following orders, not giving them.
The FBI was obviously trying to duplicate the look of Doorman. It was their idea that he pose like that, and what I'm saying is that they, the FBI, told him, in advance, to wear the same clothes he wore on 11/22. When the appointment was set up, they must have told him to wear those clothes. Because otherwise, it was just a coincidence that he happened to show up wearing those clothes on 2/29/64, and you know where I think JFK coincidences can be shoved- the same place Joseph Backes shoves his proscenium arches.
So Lance, you being the dungeon master that you are ....
you know where you can go and what you can do when you get there. And while you're at it, you might as well play that awful raucous music that you make because it fits right in with what you're doing. Besides, it might drown out the screams.
But, is Doorman's shirt even a match to un-Lovelady's plaid?
Lance goes in for naked sports, but I go in for naked analysis when it comes to images. That is, when we're comparing images, I say we use naked images and not ones with lines and markings drawn over key areas being examined.
On unLovelady's plaid, we see fine white lines that are both vertical and horizontal. On Doorman we see no such lines. The white marks that we see are too thick, too substantial, and too crude to correspond to the fine, delicate, precise lines on unLovelady's shirt.
The area of Doorman's shirt that is the cleanest, that is, the most free of haze and distortion, is his upper right quadrant (on our left). Using that and comparing it to unLovelady's shirt, we see no correlation whatsoever.
There is nothing there. We are left with a complete zero with no correlation whatsoever between the two. So, not only does Doorman's shirt not match Lovelady's, it doesn't even match unLovelady's.
Doorman's shirt was a match to Oswald's. We can see that clearly.
Oswald's shirt pattern was grainy, and that is what we see on Doorman: the same pattern, the same fit, the same lay, the same open sprawl, the same right collar, the same left lapel, the same everything. Same shirt, same t-shirt, same man.
The magnitude of the falsehood of the above statement is staggering to behold.
First, Lovelady didn't wear plaid. He wore striped. Every single image of Lovelady wearing plaid on 11/22/63 is fake. And when we put them side by side, we see that they were different men, and not one of them was Lovelady.
As you can readily see, these are three different men. Their hair is different. Their faces are different. Their builds are different. One has his shirt propped open in a weird (impossible) rectangular sprawl while the other two aren't sprawled at all. One has a big pocket-flap, the other two don't have one. All three ears are different. All three men are different. Vividly.
And it so happens that none of them are Lovelady.
So now we have 4 different men, and only one of them (the one above) was Lovelady. And notice what kind of shirt he is wearing: a striped one. Lovelady told the FBI that that was the shirt he wore on 11/22/63. We have that in writing twice: once in a FBI letter to the Warren Commission signed by two FBI agents, and once in an internal FBI memo: "He stated he was wearing and red and white striped shirt and blue jeans."
And just think about it: why would they photograph him with his shirt unbuttoned like Doorman unless it was the same shirt? What would be the point?
Do you think it was Lovelady's idea to pose like that? For a photograph? Of course not. He wasn't calling the shots. He wasn't telling the FBI what to do. Lovelady was following orders, not giving them.
The FBI was obviously trying to duplicate the look of Doorman. It was their idea that he pose like that, and what I'm saying is that they, the FBI, told him, in advance, to wear the same clothes he wore on 11/22. When the appointment was set up, they must have told him to wear those clothes. Because otherwise, it was just a coincidence that he happened to show up wearing those clothes on 2/29/64, and you know where I think JFK coincidences can be shoved- the same place Joseph Backes shoves his proscenium arches.
So Lance, you being the dungeon master that you are ....
you know where you can go and what you can do when you get there. And while you're at it, you might as well play that awful raucous music that you make because it fits right in with what you're doing. Besides, it might drown out the screams.
But, is Doorman's shirt even a match to un-Lovelady's plaid?
Lance goes in for naked sports, but I go in for naked analysis when it comes to images. That is, when we're comparing images, I say we use naked images and not ones with lines and markings drawn over key areas being examined.
On unLovelady's plaid, we see fine white lines that are both vertical and horizontal. On Doorman we see no such lines. The white marks that we see are too thick, too substantial, and too crude to correspond to the fine, delicate, precise lines on unLovelady's shirt.
The area of Doorman's shirt that is the cleanest, that is, the most free of haze and distortion, is his upper right quadrant (on our left). Using that and comparing it to unLovelady's shirt, we see no correlation whatsoever.
There is nothing there. We are left with a complete zero with no correlation whatsoever between the two. So, not only does Doorman's shirt not match Lovelady's, it doesn't even match unLovelady's.
Doorman's shirt was a match to Oswald's. We can see that clearly.
Let's continue discussing the probability that fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt- worn on a previous occasion in which he handled the gun- got wedged into the butt plate.
Now obviously, if he just handled the gun, meaning picked it up from the post office, transported it somewhere, put it in storage somewhere, there is no reason to think that shirt-fibers would get wedged in the butt plate.
Even theoretically, for fibers to get "wedged" there, the butt plate itself would have to be pressed firmly against the shirt as in firing it.
Look at a close-up of the back of Oswald's rifle:
The butt, of course, is the thick piece of wood for bracing against your shoulder, and the butt plate is a cap that goes over it which is usually made of metal. The butt plate is screwed onto the gun stock.
Below shows a guy removing the butt plate from a Mannlicher/Carcano rifle:
So, where would the "wedging" of shirt fibers take place?
According to the Warren Report: "In a crevice between the butt plate of the rifle and the wooden stock was a tuft of several cotton fibers."
Above, we can see the crevice, but how could fibers get in there? Wouldn't it take a certain amount of pressure to get fibers wedged in there? Would just handling the rifle get fibers stuck in there? Why even assume that that part of the gun would even come in contact with Oswald's shirt? If they had claimed that fibers were found on the back of the plate, the part that braced against his shoulder, it's understandable that contact, firm contact, would took place, by which fibers could theoretically have been wedged in. (although I still think it's a stretch) But, the crevice they're talking about isn't in back; it's on the side. You hold the back of the rifle to your shirt; you don't hold the side of the rifle to your shirt.
So, are they claiming that the incidental handling of the rifle, not the use of it, but just the handling of it resulted in fibers getting wedged into that crevice? Yes, that seems to be what they are suggesting.
If this kind of thing actually happens, then it must happen a lot. Right? Therefore, we should be able to take any old rifle and find shirt fibers wedged in the crevice between the butt plate and the stock. Or we should be able to give a guy a rifle, have him handle it a while- just carrying it, moving it from here to there- and then find fibers from his shirt wedged in the crevice.
But, I seriously doubt it. Why should handling a gun drive, force, press fibers into that crevice?
But, returning to the Warren Report:
"The Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt,72 but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow. 73 Moreover, the bus transfer which he obtained as he left. the bus was still in the pocket when he was arrested."
"Although Oswald returned to his rooming house after the assassination and when questioned by police claimed to have changed his shirt,75 the evidence indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."
Cinque: Note that when first asked about it by Fritz, Oswald said he only changed his "britches".
"In light of these findings the Commission evaluated the additional testimony of Stombaugh that the fibers were caught in the crevice of the rifle's butt plate "in the recent past."76 Although Stombaugh was unable to estimate the period of time the fibers were on the rifle he said that the fibers "were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up." 77 The relative freshness of the fibers is strong evidence that they were caught on the rifle on the morning of the assassination or during the preceding evening."
Cinque: They went on to say that the rifle had not been handled at all for 8 weeks prior to the assassination, that it just lay in a blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage and was never handled by Oswald. So, if fibers from that shirt got onto that rifle from a previous day, it had to be prior to September 23- two months before.
How airy is it to speculate that maybe Oswald wore that shirt and handled the rifle MONTHS before and that fibers from it got wedged in the crevice on the side of the rifle and persisted until November 22?
People, we are in the Bizarro World here. There is no evidence that Oswald EVER ordered that rifle. There is no evidence that Oswald EVER handled that rifle. And there is no evidence that handling such a rifle would cause shirt-fibers to get wedged in a crevice on the side of the rifle. The whole thing is just a bunch of bull. The Warren Commission was full of crap, and Duncan MacRae is just adding his own crap to it. Oswald was innocent. He was standing in the doorway during the shooting. He never in his life saw, touched, handled or had anything whatsoever to do with that rifle. Period.
Now obviously, if he just handled the gun, meaning picked it up from the post office, transported it somewhere, put it in storage somewhere, there is no reason to think that shirt-fibers would get wedged in the butt plate.
Even theoretically, for fibers to get "wedged" there, the butt plate itself would have to be pressed firmly against the shirt as in firing it.
Look at a close-up of the back of Oswald's rifle:
The butt, of course, is the thick piece of wood for bracing against your shoulder, and the butt plate is a cap that goes over it which is usually made of metal. The butt plate is screwed onto the gun stock.
Below shows a guy removing the butt plate from a Mannlicher/Carcano rifle:
So, where would the "wedging" of shirt fibers take place?
According to the Warren Report: "In a crevice between the butt plate of the rifle and the wooden stock was a tuft of several cotton fibers."
Above, we can see the crevice, but how could fibers get in there? Wouldn't it take a certain amount of pressure to get fibers wedged in there? Would just handling the rifle get fibers stuck in there? Why even assume that that part of the gun would even come in contact with Oswald's shirt? If they had claimed that fibers were found on the back of the plate, the part that braced against his shoulder, it's understandable that contact, firm contact, would took place, by which fibers could theoretically have been wedged in. (although I still think it's a stretch) But, the crevice they're talking about isn't in back; it's on the side. You hold the back of the rifle to your shirt; you don't hold the side of the rifle to your shirt.
So, are they claiming that the incidental handling of the rifle, not the use of it, but just the handling of it resulted in fibers getting wedged into that crevice? Yes, that seems to be what they are suggesting.
If this kind of thing actually happens, then it must happen a lot. Right? Therefore, we should be able to take any old rifle and find shirt fibers wedged in the crevice between the butt plate and the stock. Or we should be able to give a guy a rifle, have him handle it a while- just carrying it, moving it from here to there- and then find fibers from his shirt wedged in the crevice.
But, I seriously doubt it. Why should handling a gun drive, force, press fibers into that crevice?
But, returning to the Warren Report:
"The Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt,72 but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow. 73 Moreover, the bus transfer which he obtained as he left. the bus was still in the pocket when he was arrested."
"Although Oswald returned to his rooming house after the assassination and when questioned by police claimed to have changed his shirt,75 the evidence indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."
Cinque: Note that when first asked about it by Fritz, Oswald said he only changed his "britches".
"In light of these findings the Commission evaluated the additional testimony of Stombaugh that the fibers were caught in the crevice of the rifle's butt plate "in the recent past."76 Although Stombaugh was unable to estimate the period of time the fibers were on the rifle he said that the fibers "were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up." 77 The relative freshness of the fibers is strong evidence that they were caught on the rifle on the morning of the assassination or during the preceding evening."
Cinque: They went on to say that the rifle had not been handled at all for 8 weeks prior to the assassination, that it just lay in a blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage and was never handled by Oswald. So, if fibers from that shirt got onto that rifle from a previous day, it had to be prior to September 23- two months before.
How airy is it to speculate that maybe Oswald wore that shirt and handled the rifle MONTHS before and that fibers from it got wedged in the crevice on the side of the rifle and persisted until November 22?
People, we are in the Bizarro World here. There is no evidence that Oswald EVER ordered that rifle. There is no evidence that Oswald EVER handled that rifle. And there is no evidence that handling such a rifle would cause shirt-fibers to get wedged in a crevice on the side of the rifle. The whole thing is just a bunch of bull. The Warren Commission was full of crap, and Duncan MacRae is just adding his own crap to it. Oswald was innocent. He was standing in the doorway during the shooting. He never in his life saw, touched, handled or had anything whatsoever to do with that rifle. Period.
Granted, I made a mistake in referencing fibers on the shirt, since the fibers were on the rifle. But, that is now corrected, and my thesis- that Oswald did not change his shirt- is not harmed in the slightest.
That's right, MacRae. There's been harm done to your ears from that crap music you make than has been done to my thesis.
And regarding what Jerry Kroth wrote about Oswald changing his shirt, I have discussed it with him at length, and he now sees it differently, and any future edition of his book will reflect that.
So, let's talk further about your crappy theory that Oswald changed his shirt because you haven't corrected a thing, and you're still just making noise- after all these years.
First, I want to point out -again- that no one besides YOU, Duncan MacRae, has ever suggested that fibers from the shirt clung to the gun from a prior day. After 50 years, it took an aging rocker, still clinging to his boyhood glory, to come up with "Clung to the gun". Sounds like the title to one of your songs.
Second, the whole idea of the shirt-fibers getting "wedged in the butt plate" is far-fetched. They were no fibers from the blanket in which the gun was supposedly wrapped on the gun. And there is no reason to think that mere "handling" of the gun on any prior day would get shirt-fibers wedged into the butt plate. But, we'll start with this:
"I never owned a rifle. . . I didn't shoot John Kennedy. . . I didn't even know Gov. John Connally had been shot. . . I don't own a rifle. . . I don't own a rifle at all. . . I did have a small rifle some years in the past."
So, we start off with the dubiousness of Oswald EVER having handled the rifle, period. I realize that that is not a position that LNs are attracted to, but what reason to CTs have to doubt it? And when I say CTs, I mean real CTs, not phony ones like Duncan MacRae who claim Oswald did the shooting but had an accomplice on the Grassy Knoll who missed. I have already explained why that is a maniacal position to take and will expound on it further if MacRae tries to defend it.
So, if you are a real CT, and you know Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed, you have no reason to think he was lying when he denied owning the rifle.
I also found this:
http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/about.html
Again, if you are a real CT, you have no reason to doubt what Oswald said. You know he was innocent, and people who are innocent have NO reason to lie to the police. People who are innocent know that IF they lie to the police, it will MAKE them look guilty. Since they're innocent, they have nothing to hide, and therefore, they have no reason to lie. Oswald was not lying.
But, besides Oswald's denial, there is no evidence that Oswald EVER handled that gun. And as I said, it would take more than "handling" to even theoretically get fibers wedged in the butt plate.
If he was just handling the gun, moving the gun, cleaning the gun, how could that get shirt-fibers wedged into the butt plate? Even theoretically, he would have to be USING the gun right? Holding the butt plate against his shoulder firmly, something like this?
What evidence is there that Oswald ever had a shooting session with that rifle on any prior occasion? Even the phony reports of him going to the firing range and cross-shooting at other people's targets did not include the claim of him doing it with that particular rifle. That wasn't part of it. There is no evidence of Oswald having gone to the firing range with that particular rifle and done that, and there is no basis to think that he did. And it's not as though he owned land in the country where he could go shoot or that he had a friend with such land. I don't know that anybody has ever claimed such a thing. I don't know that anybody has even suggested such a thing even as hypothetical possibility.
Let's go back to this "elderly negro" guy, and it's his term, not mine. I don't know who he is:
"Oswald is supposed to have ordered the weapon by mail on March 12, 1963, long before he could have known that Kennedy would ever be coming to Dallas or that, stripped of the usual presidential protections, Kennedy would take part in a motorcade that would pass by his place of employment - a place where he would not even be employed until October. Even if Oswald's decision to purchase the gun was prompted by the idea of shooting at General Edwin Walker (Cinque: which is totally bogus; Oswald never shot at Walker), which he is alleged to have done within days of the rifle being shipped to him, he would not have been so foolish as to order a weapon by mail order. By ordering his intended firearm by this means, he was only creating a paper trail that would link him to the crime. He is supposed to have ordered it under an alias, A.J. Hidell. But not only did Oswald have to supply a money order to purchase the rifle, the package was to be delivered to a downtown Dallas mail box he kept in his own name. Why would someone planning to commit a crime with the weapon take such the risk of betraying his tracks, when he could purchase a similar (or superior) weapon anywhere in Texas for no more money without creating such a paper trail? And why, since he is alleged to have used the name 'A.J. Hidell' on a number of occasions, would he have ordered the rifle with an alias that could easily be connected with him rather than a completely fictitious name that no one could ever prove had anything to do with him?"
"What's more, according to the brief notes which remain of his interrogations, Oswald denied owning a gun at all. Numerous circumstances that support this claim, not least the fact that after the assassination his wife, Marina, admitted that she had not known that Oswald owned a rifle or a pistol. (Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, p. 343) A major problem with the view of Oswald as assassin is the unsatisfactory state of the documentary record of his alleged purchase of the weapon supposedly used to execute the crime. First, the 40-inch Mannlicher Carcano in the National Archives was never advertised for sale by the company from which it was allegedly ordered, Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago. According to the Warren Report, Oswald responded to an advertisement in the February issue of the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine. However, the American Rifleman ad was for a 36-inch 'carbine' with scope. If the mail-order coupon is authentic, where is the documentation explaining why the customer was supplied with a 40-inch weapon instead?"
"Even if the problems with the mail-order paperwork could be resolved, there is no evidence that Oswald ever received the gun in the mail. As a rifle would have been too large to have been left for him to find in his mail box, he would have been left a card telling him to collect the package from inside the post office. However, no such card exists and no post office employee recalls handing Oswald a package large enough to have been a gun."
"Two circumstances prove that, even if Oswald did order and receive the gun, he did so without the least intention of using it. First, like all firearms, the Mannlicher Carcano requires bullets to be fired. There is no evidence that Oswald ever purchased any. Second, the weapon was never cared for. After the assassination, investigators never found any gun cleaning equipment among Oswald's possessions. Oswald would have taken care of his rifle, if he had actually intended to use it. Instead, according to the Warren Commission, for many weeks before the assassination he left it lying around the garage of Mrs Ruth Hyde Paine in Irving, Texas. The neglected condition of the gun is indirectly attested by the fact that FBI experts asked to test it initially declined to do so on the grounds that its firing pin was so badly rusted it could not be fired safely. A rifle in such disrepair undoubtedly posed more of a threat to the person firing it than fired upon."
"Even if Oswald did own the Mannlicher Carcano, obtained ammunition by covert means and was stupid enough to think that a badly maintained piece of junk could be used to pull off the crime of the century, we cannot assume that he even brought his weapon into the TSBD. The official story of how Oswald is supposed to have smuggled the rifle inside the TSBD is risible. The only two persons who claim to have seen him bring a long package to work with him that day, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, described a package some two feet long - too short to have been a disassembled Mannlicher Carcano."
Cinque: I am going to get this post up since it's already lengthy, but I shall continue immediately. I'm not finished, MacRae.
That's right, MacRae. There's been harm done to your ears from that crap music you make than has been done to my thesis.
And regarding what Jerry Kroth wrote about Oswald changing his shirt, I have discussed it with him at length, and he now sees it differently, and any future edition of his book will reflect that.
So, let's talk further about your crappy theory that Oswald changed his shirt because you haven't corrected a thing, and you're still just making noise- after all these years.
First, I want to point out -again- that no one besides YOU, Duncan MacRae, has ever suggested that fibers from the shirt clung to the gun from a prior day. After 50 years, it took an aging rocker, still clinging to his boyhood glory, to come up with "Clung to the gun". Sounds like the title to one of your songs.
Second, the whole idea of the shirt-fibers getting "wedged in the butt plate" is far-fetched. They were no fibers from the blanket in which the gun was supposedly wrapped on the gun. And there is no reason to think that mere "handling" of the gun on any prior day would get shirt-fibers wedged into the butt plate. But, we'll start with this:
"I never owned a rifle. . . I didn't shoot John Kennedy. . . I didn't even know Gov. John Connally had been shot. . . I don't own a rifle. . . I don't own a rifle at all. . . I did have a small rifle some years in the past."
So, we start off with the dubiousness of Oswald EVER having handled the rifle, period. I realize that that is not a position that LNs are attracted to, but what reason to CTs have to doubt it? And when I say CTs, I mean real CTs, not phony ones like Duncan MacRae who claim Oswald did the shooting but had an accomplice on the Grassy Knoll who missed. I have already explained why that is a maniacal position to take and will expound on it further if MacRae tries to defend it.
So, if you are a real CT, and you know Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed, you have no reason to think he was lying when he denied owning the rifle.
I also found this:
http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/about.html
Again, if you are a real CT, you have no reason to doubt what Oswald said. You know he was innocent, and people who are innocent have NO reason to lie to the police. People who are innocent know that IF they lie to the police, it will MAKE them look guilty. Since they're innocent, they have nothing to hide, and therefore, they have no reason to lie. Oswald was not lying.
But, besides Oswald's denial, there is no evidence that Oswald EVER handled that gun. And as I said, it would take more than "handling" to even theoretically get fibers wedged in the butt plate.
If he was just handling the gun, moving the gun, cleaning the gun, how could that get shirt-fibers wedged into the butt plate? Even theoretically, he would have to be USING the gun right? Holding the butt plate against his shoulder firmly, something like this?
What evidence is there that Oswald ever had a shooting session with that rifle on any prior occasion? Even the phony reports of him going to the firing range and cross-shooting at other people's targets did not include the claim of him doing it with that particular rifle. That wasn't part of it. There is no evidence of Oswald having gone to the firing range with that particular rifle and done that, and there is no basis to think that he did. And it's not as though he owned land in the country where he could go shoot or that he had a friend with such land. I don't know that anybody has ever claimed such a thing. I don't know that anybody has even suggested such a thing even as hypothetical possibility.
Let's go back to this "elderly negro" guy, and it's his term, not mine. I don't know who he is:
"Oswald is supposed to have ordered the weapon by mail on March 12, 1963, long before he could have known that Kennedy would ever be coming to Dallas or that, stripped of the usual presidential protections, Kennedy would take part in a motorcade that would pass by his place of employment - a place where he would not even be employed until October. Even if Oswald's decision to purchase the gun was prompted by the idea of shooting at General Edwin Walker (Cinque: which is totally bogus; Oswald never shot at Walker), which he is alleged to have done within days of the rifle being shipped to him, he would not have been so foolish as to order a weapon by mail order. By ordering his intended firearm by this means, he was only creating a paper trail that would link him to the crime. He is supposed to have ordered it under an alias, A.J. Hidell. But not only did Oswald have to supply a money order to purchase the rifle, the package was to be delivered to a downtown Dallas mail box he kept in his own name. Why would someone planning to commit a crime with the weapon take such the risk of betraying his tracks, when he could purchase a similar (or superior) weapon anywhere in Texas for no more money without creating such a paper trail? And why, since he is alleged to have used the name 'A.J. Hidell' on a number of occasions, would he have ordered the rifle with an alias that could easily be connected with him rather than a completely fictitious name that no one could ever prove had anything to do with him?"
"What's more, according to the brief notes which remain of his interrogations, Oswald denied owning a gun at all. Numerous circumstances that support this claim, not least the fact that after the assassination his wife, Marina, admitted that she had not known that Oswald owned a rifle or a pistol. (Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, p. 343) A major problem with the view of Oswald as assassin is the unsatisfactory state of the documentary record of his alleged purchase of the weapon supposedly used to execute the crime. First, the 40-inch Mannlicher Carcano in the National Archives was never advertised for sale by the company from which it was allegedly ordered, Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago. According to the Warren Report, Oswald responded to an advertisement in the February issue of the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine. However, the American Rifleman ad was for a 36-inch 'carbine' with scope. If the mail-order coupon is authentic, where is the documentation explaining why the customer was supplied with a 40-inch weapon instead?"
"Even if the problems with the mail-order paperwork could be resolved, there is no evidence that Oswald ever received the gun in the mail. As a rifle would have been too large to have been left for him to find in his mail box, he would have been left a card telling him to collect the package from inside the post office. However, no such card exists and no post office employee recalls handing Oswald a package large enough to have been a gun."
"Two circumstances prove that, even if Oswald did order and receive the gun, he did so without the least intention of using it. First, like all firearms, the Mannlicher Carcano requires bullets to be fired. There is no evidence that Oswald ever purchased any. Second, the weapon was never cared for. After the assassination, investigators never found any gun cleaning equipment among Oswald's possessions. Oswald would have taken care of his rifle, if he had actually intended to use it. Instead, according to the Warren Commission, for many weeks before the assassination he left it lying around the garage of Mrs Ruth Hyde Paine in Irving, Texas. The neglected condition of the gun is indirectly attested by the fact that FBI experts asked to test it initially declined to do so on the grounds that its firing pin was so badly rusted it could not be fired safely. A rifle in such disrepair undoubtedly posed more of a threat to the person firing it than fired upon."
"Even if Oswald did own the Mannlicher Carcano, obtained ammunition by covert means and was stupid enough to think that a badly maintained piece of junk could be used to pull off the crime of the century, we cannot assume that he even brought his weapon into the TSBD. The official story of how Oswald is supposed to have smuggled the rifle inside the TSBD is risible. The only two persons who claim to have seen him bring a long package to work with him that day, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, described a package some two feet long - too short to have been a disassembled Mannlicher Carcano."
Cinque: I am going to get this post up since it's already lengthy, but I shall continue immediately. I'm not finished, MacRae.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Let's bottom-line this. There is no tear in the margin of Oswald's t-shirt as we look at it from the front.
Is that a tear on his left shoulder? If it is, it's more like a hole than a tear. It does not extend to the margin. Therefore, it cannot be having any effect on what the margin is doing. So, it is irrelevant, even if it is a tear.
So, is that a tear or just a thin spot in the fabric? Here it looks like just a thin spot to me. But again, it doesn't matter because the margin is intact.
Now, we can't see the back of the t-shirt, but there is no conclusive evidence that the margin was torn in back either. But even if it was, why would that cause the margin to descend in front? It wouldn't.
The bottom line is that no tearing anywhere, whether imaginary or real, can be used to explain the vee-ish tendency of Oswald's t-shirt, and at times, it was decidedly vee-ish.
The vee-ish tendency was there, and it was there before the scuffle at the theater. It was the result of Oswald's habit of tugging on it. The kind of violent action that is assumed to have occurred at the theater would have caused overt damage, not the remolding of the margin that took place over time from the regular exercise Oswald gave it.
But again, it is only an assumption and unwarranted one that the t-shirt got torn at the theater. Oswald was wearing his outer shirt over his t-shirt at the theater. So, how could the t-shirt be grabbed and torn? You can see above what was available for the grabbing, and there is definitely no tear there.
Fools also try to claim that Oswald's buttons got torn off in the fight too. Fortunately, Mrs. Bledsoe saw him on the bus with his shirt unbuttoned and with his buttons missing. That was before the theater action.
So, is that a tear or just a thin spot in the fabric? Here it looks like just a thin spot to me. But again, it doesn't matter because the margin is intact.
Now, we can't see the back of the t-shirt, but there is no conclusive evidence that the margin was torn in back either. But even if it was, why would that cause the margin to descend in front? It wouldn't.
The bottom line is that no tearing anywhere, whether imaginary or real, can be used to explain the vee-ish tendency of Oswald's t-shirt, and at times, it was decidedly vee-ish.
But again, it is only an assumption and unwarranted one that the t-shirt got torn at the theater. Oswald was wearing his outer shirt over his t-shirt at the theater. So, how could the t-shirt be grabbed and torn? You can see above what was available for the grabbing, and there is definitely no tear there.
Fools also try to claim that Oswald's buttons got torn off in the fight too. Fortunately, Mrs. Bledsoe saw him on the bus with his shirt unbuttoned and with his buttons missing. That was before the theater action.
Another thing to consider is that even if bpete's argument is true (and it is not true) it still would not account for the vee we see on Doorman.
You see, the disparity to Lovelady would still exist. Lovelady's t-shirt was not v-shaped. And bpete seems to be willing to concede that nobody was wearing store-bought v-neck t-shirts back then, certainly none of our boys. In every picture we have of Lovelady- from 1963 until 1976 when he repeatedly posed as Doorman, he always wore a crewneck t-shirt. There is simply no basis whatsoever to say that Billy Lovelady wore a v-neck t-shirt on 11/22/63. In fact, it would be quite absurd to say so.
So, if you are going to to argue that Doorman was Lovelady, how come their t-shirts don't match? But wait! Say it isn't so! Don't tell me you are going to merge the "tear" claim with the "shadow" claim and use both.
I thought we were done with the shadow claim. I have already announced its demise.
Besides, if you're going to use the shadow claim, why do you even need the tear claim? If Doorman's vee is the result of Lovelady's round t-shirt being overlain with neck shadow making it look vee, then what difference does it make what happened to Oswald? It seems to me that it's a wasted effort.
Anyway, you think about it, bpete, and try to explain the divergence between Doorman and the guy whom you think he is. Oswald's fight at the theater can't help you.
You see, the disparity to Lovelady would still exist. Lovelady's t-shirt was not v-shaped. And bpete seems to be willing to concede that nobody was wearing store-bought v-neck t-shirts back then, certainly none of our boys. In every picture we have of Lovelady- from 1963 until 1976 when he repeatedly posed as Doorman, he always wore a crewneck t-shirt. There is simply no basis whatsoever to say that Billy Lovelady wore a v-neck t-shirt on 11/22/63. In fact, it would be quite absurd to say so.
So, if you are going to to argue that Doorman was Lovelady, how come their t-shirts don't match? But wait! Say it isn't so! Don't tell me you are going to merge the "tear" claim with the "shadow" claim and use both.
I thought we were done with the shadow claim. I have already announced its demise.
Besides, if you're going to use the shadow claim, why do you even need the tear claim? If Doorman's vee is the result of Lovelady's round t-shirt being overlain with neck shadow making it look vee, then what difference does it make what happened to Oswald? It seems to me that it's a wasted effort.
Anyway, you think about it, bpete, and try to explain the divergence between Doorman and the guy whom you think he is. Oswald's fight at the theater can't help you.
Duncan is taking this as evidence of a tear. But is it?
Are you sure it's not just twisted and scrunched? When we look at him from the front, we don't see any tear.
Look at the margin all that you can see. Does it look ripped, severed anywhere? Let's look at it closer:
I said: Is the margin of that t-shirt ripped anywhere? Do you see a tear in the margin of that t-shirt? If you don't, you don't. What we see is a non-torn, non-severed, non-cut but wavy deformity to the margin which was the result of Oswald's habit of tugging on his t-shirt. And it is that tugging that caused the depression of the margin not anything that happened at the theater. I'll put an arrow where Oswald applied the force.
You can clearly see where the force was applied. But, it didn't tear the margin. It was a gradual thing that stretched the margin without tearing it.
Prediction: Just like bpete's stupid, idiotic idea that shirt fibers got on the rifle from a prior wearing of the shirt in which he handled the rifle, an idea which nobody said before bpete and nobody is likely to say after him, this idea that the vee in Oswald's t-shirt is all due to a tear is going to go nowhere. bpete is juvenile. He hasn't changed a bit since he was making rock n roll as as a teenager. Not a bit. Same adolescent fool.
Are you sure it's not just twisted and scrunched? When we look at him from the front, we don't see any tear.
Look at the margin all that you can see. Does it look ripped, severed anywhere? Let's look at it closer:
I said: Is the margin of that t-shirt ripped anywhere? Do you see a tear in the margin of that t-shirt? If you don't, you don't. What we see is a non-torn, non-severed, non-cut but wavy deformity to the margin which was the result of Oswald's habit of tugging on his t-shirt. And it is that tugging that caused the depression of the margin not anything that happened at the theater. I'll put an arrow where Oswald applied the force.
You can clearly see where the force was applied. But, it didn't tear the margin. It was a gradual thing that stretched the margin without tearing it.
Prediction: Just like bpete's stupid, idiotic idea that shirt fibers got on the rifle from a prior wearing of the shirt in which he handled the rifle, an idea which nobody said before bpete and nobody is likely to say after him, this idea that the vee in Oswald's t-shirt is all due to a tear is going to go nowhere. bpete is juvenile. He hasn't changed a bit since he was making rock n roll as as a teenager. Not a bit. Same adolescent fool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)