Saturday, November 30, 2013

I realize now that we can use this collage as a litmus test for sanity in the realm of JFK assassination research.

For Backes or bpete or anyone else to deny that it was Oswald in the doorway, they have to be willing to equate these two men as being the same man (Lovelady) at the same moment in time and space. 

That is despite the fact that one has a build like Charles Atlas while the other has a build like that Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz. The one on the left looks to be at least 30 pounds heavier. The one on the left has his shirt sprawled open in a way that you could never duplicate at home (shirts not actually behaving like that with boxed openings) but the one on the right isn't sprawled at all but rather cinched up. Their hair and their ears are visibly different, meaning that it jumps right out at you. 

Both Backes and bpete have repeatedly said that these two are indeed the same man at the same time and in the same place, despite the obvious impossibility of it.   

So, what I want to know is: who else is willing to say it? Robert Unger? Clark Rob? Mark Blase'? I'll put this up on McAdams' forum so you can respond. I advise you to think about it carefully. 
It is very strange that a guy like Joseph Backes, who claims to be a CT, and one who professes that Oswald was innocent, meaning nowhere near the 6th floor, would align himself with bpete (Duncan MacRae). That's because bpete DOES place Oswald up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.  

Backes just places Oswald "in the building" somewhere and he doesn't seem to care where he was except that he definitely was not up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. 

So, as a matter of rationality, why would Backes side with MacRae when they have diametrically opposite views?

It's because all rationality is gone with Backes. He lives in a Bizarro World of contradiction, irrationality, and just plain stupidity, and that is where he is going to spend the rest of his life. You want to hang out with him over there? 

And what about MacRae? He spends his whole time fighting CTs even though he speaks of there having been a second shooter from the Grassy Knoll. That makes him a HSCA CT in my book. 

But, that is contradictory as well because why would you be all chummy with people who advocate the "lone gunman" scenario when you don't? When has bpete ever attacked John McAdams? Even if you think the official story is mostly true, if you think there was a second gunman, it really means that you really believe that the official story is bull crap. After all, if there was a second shooter, it means there was a conspiracy, and that changes everything. 

So, why does MacRae spend all his time fighting CTs and not spend any time challenging the lone gunman myth, since apparently, he doesn't accept it? 

Note that Duncan MacRae and Steve Haydon seem to have the same view: that there was a conspiracy, but no, Oswald was not innocent; he did everything they said he did except there was also another shooter who missed. 

Well apparently, that guy was a much better escape artist than he was a marksman because he got clean away from Dealey Plaza without a hitch. If he was a friend and accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald, he was much luckier than that friend and accomplice of Timothy McVeigh, whose name was Terry Nichols.

But, my point is there is a deep level of contradiction in both Backes and MacRae, and we are going to put it to the test.  

I feel sorry for the schmoes who have to say that these two guys are the same man on the same day at the same time and in the same spot. The rational mind strongly resists such absurdities, and they have to push through their own resistance in order to do it.  

And that's why it's correct to say that as they continue to cling to the hopeless claim that Lovelady was Doorman, that they really are practicing a religion. And the religion is: statism. The state said it; ergo, it's true.  

These two guys have different builds, different weights, different hair, different shirt arrangements (one sprawled open, the other not). Even their relation to the desk is different, with one having his whole massive forearm resting on the table, while the other having his scrawny forearm hanging over the table with just his elbow resting on it. And obviously, they are facing different directions. If you watch the movies, the version with the guy on left never has him turning right, and the version with the guy on the right never has him turning left. They are different! The men are different; the movies are different; different, different, different. 

Lovelady was NEVER seated there. He never said he was. He said he never saw Oswald again that day after they broke for lunch. He never corrected that in his life. He never revised it. 

These were different versions of phony movies that were made to sell the idea that Lovelady wore a long-sleeved plaid shirt. He didn't. On November 22, 1963, he wore a short-sleeved, red and white striped shirt, which was put in writing at least twice by the FBI, which we have in our possession. And they photographed him wearing those clothes and posing like Doorman with his shirt open. 

Why would they do that unless it was the same clothes?  They wouldn't. They didn't. Everything about this plucking thing is a fake and a lie.  
No, I did not lose $700,000. That was the amount that the company had said the account had grown to after many years. It is not the amount I invested. That was reported wrong.

But, we have a prominent law firm that is suing the company and the large accounting firm which had backed their valuations, and we have Price Waterhouse working on our side, and it's looking very optimistic now that we are going to make a recovery.

So just relax. It's none of your business anyway.  
"Lance Uppercut" tried to post a link on my Facebook page, but I deleted it and banned him. 

 Except, he did it under the name of "Lee Oswald". And the link went to his crap about the shirts, where the idiot actually drew the lines on the shirt to show that they're there. 

How many times do I have to tell the idiot that you can't draw in the area under examination? You can point to it; you can write in the margins; but you can't draw over it. 

But, here's the interesting part: his link actually had "uk" in the address. 

That's UK, as in the place that "bpete" denies he is located. He's just an American who is a buddy/buddy with "Lance Armstrong" who is in the UK and Mike Williams who is in the UK and Steve Haydon who is in the UK and Clark Rob who is in the UK. He's an anglophile; that's all; but he's really in Cleveland. He lives there because that's where they have the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and he likes his music LOUD. 
I've been saying that they altered Oswald's hairline to make it look like Lovelady's, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. I found this gif that somebody else made- and not someone I know- which shows what they did and also shows how they obfuscated Lovelady's face. 

But, what they got wrong is the guy they're pegging for Lovelady. Obfuscated Man could NOT have been Lovelady, and you know that because he's wearing a white shirt and tie, and Lovelady certainly did not dress that way for work. Lovelady wasn't Ob Man; he was Black Hole Man- the guy with both arms up vizoring his eyes whose face was blackened out rather than whitened out. We have Richard Hooke to thank for figuring that out. 

But, what got changed on Oswald was not only the hairline but the shape of the top of the head, which became very oval. And you can see that in what this guy has done. From the eyes down, he is still Oswald.  They just moved Lovelady's cap over.

Jim Fetzer heard from a woman who is an artist, and she agrees with us from her perspective as an artist:

Dear Jim,
Firstly, thanks for all the work you have done on this photo. I agree with the conclusions you have reached regarding Doorman being Oswald.
I am looking at this from an artist’s perspective and can clearly see that there is a great deal of difference between Oswald’s eyes and Lovelady’s. Oswald’s eyes are set closer to his eyebrows than Lovelady’s, and therefore create more shadow in the photo. Also, Oswald’s left eye sits slightly lower then his right eye, while Lovelady’s left eye sits slightly higher than his right.
The man to Oswald’s right (left in the photo), has had his face blotched out, for he is looking not at Oswald, but at the motorcade because of the way his hat sits.
There are other anomalies in this photo. 

The latter person whom she is talking about is Fedora Man whom I still believe to be Jack Ruby. And I still believe that the Woman and Boy were put in front of him- photographically- in order to obscure his face. In fact, through Jim, I am going to contact that woman about that. 


All you have to do is take the woman out, and you can see the boy is standing. Nobody is holding him up. He is perfectly erect as in standing. 

Duncan MacRae (bpete) is still stating that the guy on the left below is Lovelady. But, how can he be Lovelady, when the guy on the right is also claimed to be Lovelady AT THE EXACT SAME MOMENT IN TIME AND SPACE?

They are not the same guy. One is muscular; the other is not. One has his shirt sprawled open in a weird rectangular sprawl; the other has his shirt buttoned up. One has his hair combed back; the other combed over. One has his whole forearm on the table; the other just his elbow. One has a large ear; the other a much smaller one. 

They are not the same guy. If we were talking about this in any other context but the JFK assassination, nobody in his right mind would say they are the same guy. 

They are both supposed to be Lovelady at the Dallas PD in the same room as Oswald, but Lovelady told us that it never happened.

Ball: Did you EVER see Oswald again THAT DAY?
Lovelady: No.

Not once in his life did Lovelady ever claim to have seen Oswald at the Dallas PD. Not once did he ever say he was sitting in the detectives' squad room when Oswald was led by. Not once did his wife say it, and she was more inclined to talk than he was. 

You know those two guys were not the same man, and therefore, you know the whole thing is a cock and bull story. 

When Joseph Backes and Duncan MacRae tell you that those two are the same man, they are telling you an absurdity. Who are you going to believe? Them? Or your own two eyes? Just look at the collage again and apply common sense. They aren't even close to be the same guy. Don't follow those idiots into the Bizarro World. 

Friday, November 29, 2013

Over 3800 hits now on the song, and these are people who chose to go to the post. And 24 have Liked it. And 4 people have posted it on their own sites. And their traffic is isn't even counted in my total.

It's a smash! And it's just the beginning. Wait til the Youtube video comes out.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

I posted He Didn't Do It this morning about 9 AM, and I boldly predicted that we would have 1000 hits by the end of the day. Here it is 7 PM, and we are already over 2000. This is having an even bigger effect than I expected, but it's only the beginning.

It's hard to read, but that says 2117 hits. And again, it's just the beginning. Wait until you see the Youtube video. We are bolting forward and my hapless enemies, like Duncan MacRae, can't even slow us down. I guess the music wasn't fast enough or loud enough for you, was it, Duncan? Too bad. We weren't trying to please you.

So far, Tony's performance of my song He Didn't Do It has generated over 300 hits on Facebook.

And that's just the very beginning. This is going to be big.

But meanwhile, here is an article on JFK conspiracy theories by Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine. It contains not one reference to any issue of substance, nothing pertaining to any evidence, nothing pertaining to anything except a psychological analysis of CTs.,0,5173879.story#axzz2ltIMuRrK

Pure psychobabble. That's all it is. Even Michael Shermer is afraid to debate the evidence in the JFK case. Instead, he turns it around and makes conspiracy theorists the subject and starts playing Freud. But, you could just as well say Fraud because that's what he is.

We did it. Last night, Tony Longo and Pacific Coast Blues Band recorded my song, He Didn't Do It, which is an anthem to Oswald Innocence and JFK Truth.

It was very frustrating for them because they were having technical problems with the recording equipment. Besides being the front man and vocalist and harpist, Tony was also the sound man. And being a perfectionist, he had them do it over and over until he was satisfied that they got it right.

Tony is a dyed-in-the-wool JFK truther, and this was much more than a gig for him. He is one of us. He knows the truth, that Oswald was innocent- framed and innocent.

The plan is that we are going to make a Youtube video of this music. It's going to include images of the band, particularly Tony, but also a compilation of our evidence: my collages, Richard Hooke's charts, and more. And then we are going to do everything in our power to take this video viral.

I am going to have the sound mastered by a sound editor I know in Austin. He's very good, and he'll get the bits of distortion out. But, it's not bad even the way it is. If you'd like to hear it, you just have to go to my Facebook page.

We are going to beat them- the liars, the fakers, the God-damn Kennedy-killers- and this song is going to be our rallying cry: He didn't do it; Oswald was an innocent man .

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

If you haven't watched this Alex Jones' encounter with the Gestapo in Dealey Plaza on November 22, you really should:

It is really fabulous. I realize there is a lot of controversy and divided opinions about Alex Jones even among truthers, but I say if it's going to be yeah or nay for Alex Jones, I make it yeah because he calls it like it is and never minces words no matter what, including on the JFK assassination.

It includes a very compelling interview with Jim Marrs (who has done a lot of good for us in the OIC) in which they discuss Oswald's elaborate CIA connections. For instance, Jim learned from Marina Oswald Porter that in route from Russia to the US, she and Lee spent several days at a safe house in Amsterdam that was entirely English-speaking. What do you think that could have been?

I am glad to know that while we were proclaiming the truth in Santa Barbara, Alex Jones and others were in Dealey Plaza standing up to the Establishment and facing off against the jackbooters.

Of course, Alex and his group were not permitted in Dealey Plaza during the dog and pony show, but they were kept out even after it was over. They had to congregate a couple of blocks away behind barricades.

We had it so easy in Santa Barbara in comparison. What we did was historic, but so was what Alec and his group did in Dallas. I salute them.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Idiot Backes is back spewing his shit. I said in my speech that I don't have the habit of standing the way Oswald did in the doorway with my hands clasped in front. I didn't say I NEVER did it. But, I don't do it repeatedly all day long the way Oswald did the last two days of his life, including the last conscious moment of his life when he was shot by Jack Ruby. So, how does it hurt my case that I sometimes do it? I'm sure there are millions and, maybe billions, of people who sometimes do it. But, Oswald definitely did it; he did it often; and he did it in the doorway.

You have lost, Backes. The case for Oswald in the doorway has been proven beyond any doubt. And, you are going to go down as one of those phony CTs who never John Kennedy any good and who certainly never did Lee Harvey Oswald any good.

And if anyone doubts that we had a successful conference in Santa Barbara, I just received this letter from Michael Pinchot, who is a cousin of Mary Pinchot Meyer and wrote his own book about her life entitled Mary Mary and JFK. And he gave me a signed and inscribed copy which I am now reading.

Backes, you are nothing but roadkill on the highway to JFK truth. We have grown, and we shall continue to grow, and there is nothing you can do about it.

It was so nice meeting you in Santa Barbara.
Thank you very much for all of your hard work put into the VERY successful Santa Barbara event.
Hope to see you at a future 'Oswald is innocent' event....put me on your mail list and keep me posted.
Enjoy the "MARY, MARY & JFK" read......
Michael Pinchot

Monday, November 25, 2013

Duncan MacRae (bpete) has already started trashing our JFK conference, but the fact is it was bigger and better than expected. Look at this television coverage we got on the Fox affiliate in Santa Barbara:

And look what the fool did: he put up an image of me standing exactly like Oswald did in the doorway:

And that's supposed to hurt my case that Oswald was standing in the doorway clasping his hands exactly as you see me doing above? That is what he was doing, and there is nothing else that he could possibly have been doing. Like my song says, "He was standing there just clasping his hands."

My hope is that MacRae ponies up the money to watch the speeches- or at least mine. That's because it is solid, and I mean iron-clad and air-tight. Any attempt to refute it is only going to fall flat and reinforce what I said, as I come back with a devastating counterattack.

So, bring it on, mo-fo. You will be floundering in that Scottish peat you people are famous for. It was Oswald in the doorway, and I know that everyone who saw and heard my presentation is now convinced. And it's not because of me- it's the absolute truth. The evidence is overwhelming.

Come one, Man. You listen to my speech; then we'll rock 'n roll.      

Sunday, November 24, 2013

More about the JFK truth conference: First, the whole thing was broadcast live on Revolution Radio. Second, it was also videotaped and recorded for putting on the internet. It is going to be installed on the website which we started to promote the event, which will now be a permanent site to showcase the event.

I believe that Jim Fetzer plans to charge a nominal fee to watch the lectures. I would have been just as happy to offer them for free. But, one consideration he has is that we have a lot of enemies in the JFK world who might want to watch the speeches to attack us, and at least they will have to pay to do it, and that may be enough to dissuade them. So, to keep the riff-raff away, he's willing to charge a small fee.

But, the speeches were very good. Phillip Nelson started it off talking about LBJ. He quoted a lot of famous people who made very revealing statements about LBJ's real character, which was evil. He included a photograph of Bobby Kennedy confronting LBJ when he asked him why he had his brother killed. You see RFK looking angry, his fist clenched, and LBJ looking startled and frightened. I had heard about the incident at the White House but didn't know there was a picture of it.

John Hankey was next talking about George HW Bush, and he spent as much time talking about the murder of JFK Jr. as JFK Sr. As to why they killed JFK Jr, Hankey thinks the decision was based on his extensive interview with Oliver Stone about his father's murder in George magazine and also his article about the murder of Israeli leader Yitzak Rabin which was treated as a Mossad hit and a coup. Of course, JFK Jr's intention to run for the Senate in New York and eventually for the Presidency was something they could not allow. Hankey believes not only that George HW Bush was in Dealey Plaza but that he was briefly arrested when he came out of the Dal-Tex building, identifying himself as an "independent oil operator from Houston." The whole story that Bush was giving a speech to the Kiwanis Club in Tyler, Texas at the time of the murder is a lie, says Hankey. Bush was in Dallas, in Dealey Plaza, and we have at least two images of him. He stayed at the Dallas Sheraton Hotel on the 21st and 22nd. And anyone who doubts that Bush was involved in the CIA at the time needs to explain how the 3 ships involved in the Bay of Pigs operation were called the Houston, the Barbara, and the Zapata (the name of Bush's oil company).

Peter Janney spoke next about the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, including his recent confrontation with Bill Mitchell, whom he believes was involved in her assassination and testified against the designated patsy, Ray Crump. And there was another guy there with a book about the Mary Pinchot Meyer case, Michael Pinchot, who is a cousin of MPMeyer. And in his book, he described what happened and then he gave an alternate history of what might have happened had JFK not been killed, including to the two of them, JFK and MPM. Michael gave me a copy of his book, Mary Mary and JFK, which I have begun to read. It's very interesting and very well written.

Larry Rivera came next, and I learned a lot from him about Buell Frazier. Did you know that Frazier had just started working at the TSBD shortly before Oswald did? Did you know that the M-C rifle, even disassembled could not fit under the arm the way Frazier said Oswald carried it? Did you know that Frazier was missing for 4 hours after the assassination? Did you know that the official story has it that Oswald reassembled the rifle using a dime like a screwdriver?

I was the first evening speaker, and of course, I spoke on Oswald in the doorway. I wouldn't judge my own speech, but I'm glad to know that Jim Fetzer was pleased with it:


Your talk was spectacular: it was clear and
convincing and presented in a powerful and
articulate fashion. I will have more to say to
everyone about the conference, but you were
simply wonderful! I cannot thank you enough.


I'm not trying to brag; I'm just glad that the Chairman was pleased. And Jim's talk was extremely comprehensive. He covered everything, including who the shooters were, their positions, the Secret Service involvement, Kennedy's exact wounds, and much, more. Jim is a very strong speaker. He has a commanding presence at the podium.

Another thing that happened is that there was a news outfit that filmed interviews of several of us, including Jim and me. And, the very day before the event, the Santa Barbara Independent newspaper published an interview of Jim Fetzer that included several of our images, including one of Oswald in the doorway. They did publish our central tenet that Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots and can be seen in the Altgens photo. So, I was glad for that. The only thing I did not like about their article was the title: "Conspiracy Theorists descend on Santa Barbara". To me, that sounds pejorative, like we are UFO type people. And it made me realize that Conspiracy Theorist is really a derogatory term not chosen by us and one that we should stop using. And I'm going to write about it. But, all in all, the conference was great, and there were no major glitches.
We had a great conference in Santa Barbara. Total attendance was about 80 guests. The Fess Parker hotel was a fabulous venue. All the speakers did very well and Richard Hooke's posters were magnificent. I had no idea he was going to do them up so professionally. One of the journalists who was there, John Friend, took some pictures which you can see on his blog:

At the end, we performed my song, He Didn't Do it, but it was more than I expected. I anticipated belting out some of the lyrics since I wrote them, and I wanted to be part of it. But, the stage was very small, and the band leader, Tony Longo, decided that it was too small to include an extra person. So, knowing that I play some, he told me that he wanted me replace their piano player at the keyboard, which I did, but reluctantly, since that guy is great, and I'm just a hack in comparison. But, he was very nice about it and encouraging to me, and so I did it. But, it was intimidating since I have never performed with professional musicians before. And believe me, you won't have any trouble telling who is the non-professional in the group. But, the important thing is that you can hear the lyrics, and the spirit of the song comes through. More soon.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

I finished my review of the Frontline program on PBS about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, which you can read on my Facebook page:

But, I want to point out how intriguing this image of LHO is from when he was a little kid. 

I said before that, based on the theory of John Armstrong, that has to be "Lee" and not "Harvey" since Lee is the one who had the two older brothers. But, I also thought that he looked more like Lee. But to test it, I put that little kid alongside "Lee" and "Harvey" and this is what I got:

It's Lee in the middle and Harvey on the right, as per John Armstrong. You can see that they look alike, but they certainly were not identical. There is no trouble telling that they had different DNA. But, who does the little boy look like?

I think he looks decidedly like Lee in the middle and not like Harvey on the right. I asked several others their opinion just to test myself, and so far everybody has agreed that Lee in the middle looks like the older version of that little kid. 
I watched Frontline bio of Oswald, and what an awful thing it is. It's mostly lies. Pure propaganda. But, I am left wondering about something.  

You may know that I am a supporter of John Armstrong. I consider the Two Oswalds theory a fact. There were not only two Oswalds but two Marguerites. I believe that in the early part of this program, they mixed and mingled images of "Lee" and "Harvey." For example, Harvey did not have brothers that we know of. Lee is the one who had a brother Robert and a half-brother John. 

That had to be Lee in the middle, and you can recognize Robert on our left.

But, at the start, they showed LHO as a boy living in New York City, and they showed this picture, which was Harvey.

So, they had both LHOs displayed. But, they only showed one Marguerite- the one with whom we are familiar. But they showed her younger than we're used to seeing her. But, here is my question: 

Does this look like the mother of a 3 year old? That's what they claimed in the program, that this was Oswald's mother when he was 3 years old. And he was in the picture with her, and he looked about 3, but he was turned away from us so you couldn't see his face. 

But, just concentrate on her age. If he was 3, and he was born in 1939, then the year was 1942.

To me, she looks too old to be the mother of a 3 year old. I don't say it was biologically impossible, just unlikely. And remember that today, there are women who put off childbearing until later in life, including their 40s, but I don't believe that was the case back then. Now look at this:

On the left and right, it looks like the Marguerite we know. But, the Marguerite in the middle is a different woman- a younger and more attractive Marguerite. She was the mother of Lee, which is also to say the mother of Robert and John. This is according to John Armstrong.

According to the program, Lee, at the age of 14, independently became interested in Communism because of the execution of the Rosenbergs for espionage.  

Do you remember when you were 14? Were you interested in stuff like that? Were your friends? How likely is it that that story is true? 

I am going to have my friend Pat Shannan take a look at this, and I'll get back to to you. If you want to watch the PBS program on the life of LHO, go here:

Monday, November 18, 2013

Here is the finalized program for our JFK Truth Conference in Santa Barbara on Friday. It sounds like we have a very enthusiastic group of people coming to attend. We are going to be discussing history, but we are also going to be making history because there has NEVER been a JFK conference like this before. We are taking an unmitigated, unabashed stand: it was a national security event, a coup d'etat involving the highest level of government, including the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and Vice President LBJ. Texas oil men were involved as financiers, and the Mafia was involved in providing some of the shooters. Oswald was the patsy- nothing more- and he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, which can be seen in both the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. That's our story, and we're sticking to it. This shall be a very unique event- the first of its kind. And, it will be the only meaningful response to the barrage of propaganda that will be spewing forth that day for the 50th. The state lie about how JFK died shall not endure.

My girlfriend Linda just made an interesting observation from a woman's perspective. If Oswald was involved in a torrid love affair with Judyth Baker the summer of 1963, why would he be interested in improving his Russian by using flash cards and borrowing Russian-learning LPs from the library, as JVB claims?

Again, I think it's ridiculous because Oswald was already fluent in Russian- way beyond the point of using flash cards. But even theoretically, it doesn't make sense. He wasn't going back to Russia, and the only one he needed to talk to in Russian was his wife Marina. 

So, in the midst of their torrid love affair, and in the midst of all the clandestine intelligence work they were doing trying to kill Castro and whatnot, why would he devote time to trying to learn Russian? At that point, what did he need it for?  And why didn't it bother Judyth that he was doing that? 
This concerns the claims of Judyth Vary Baker.

I know that some of the people I am associated with are enthusiastic supporters of hers. I am not. I am skeptical of some of Judyth's claims. For instance, I know that she has claimed that Lee (who was Harvey, according to John Armstrong) was assigned to be an assassin, to be up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, but he told her he intended instead to fire a warning shot for Kennedy or deliberately miss him. 

Obviously, we know that didn’t happen because we can see Oswald (Harvey) standing in the doorway during the shooting. (Note that by the summer of '63 when JVB knew him, Oswald was indeed going by "Lee" but previously he, the Russian-speaking Oswald who was married to Marina, went by "Harvey.")

But, the claim itself bothers me a lot because it maligns Oswald.  If Oswald (Harvey) knew that the murder of JFK was about to happen, and the only thing he did for Kennedy, to help him, was to not shoot at him, it wasn't much. And it wasn't enough. Any decent person would have done more. Any decent person would have taken it to the limit. He would have gone to the authorities- whichever authorities he thought he could trust. And if that didn't work, he'd have taken it to the street. He'd have stood out in the middle of Elm Street and made a scene, waving his arms and yelling, "Stop!” He'd have pointed to wherever he knew shooters were perched and yelled, "Killers!"  In this case, either you do everything you can to stop the slaughter OR you've got blood on your hands. 

I don’t believe "Harvey" Oswald (the Oswald we know) had blood on his hands, but "Lee" Oswald had been working undercover for two years setting Harvey up as the patsy. 

Moreover, the whole idea that anybody, least of all the CIA, would choose Harvey to be a shooter is preposterous. He wasn’t an assassin; he wasn’t even a marksman. He was just a guy who did the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines. He was never in combat. He practically flunked his last shooting test. And that was 5 years before, and he had done very little shooting since. The kind of shooting that was involved from the 6th floor he had never done in his life- not even once- or anything close to it. 

Do you understand that these people could afford to get the best? To get real pros? Professional killers? They weren’t going to put a gun in Harvey Oswald’s hands and have him start shooting in the direction of Jackie and Nellie and other people they didn’t want dead.  

So, that claim of Judyth’s bothers me a lot. But recently, Judyth Baker wrote a piece denouncing the claims of John Armstrong, whom I support. And one of the things she attacked was the whole idea that the Oswald she knew could speak Russian. She made it sound like he really couldn't speak it, and at the time she knew him, he was using flash cards to learn it.

What? That is insane! Harvey lived in Russia for three years. John Armstrong provides ample evidence that he grew up speaking Russian in a Russian-speaking household. Harvey was married to a Russian woman who, at the time, could speak very little English, practically none, and with whom he communicated exclusively in Russian. And when she, Marina, first met him at a dance in Minsk, he spoke Russian so well that she thought he was a native Russian speaker, perhaps from Lithuania, she thought. It never occurred to her that he was an American- he was that fluent in Russian. Harvey was known to speak, read, and write in Russian. As early as 1958 and 1959, he was speaking and reading Russian so well that his Marine buddies in California gave him the nickname "Oswaldavitch".  The idea that he was still at the flash card level in his Russian by the summer of 1963 is preposterous. It is totally absurd.    

Did Judyth Baker have a romance with Harvey (whom she knew as Lee)? I don't claim to know, but in order for me to believe it, I would have to have some independent verification, such as a photograph of the two of them together in a romantic way. Supposedly, there is a woman, Anna Lewis, who reported going on a "double date" with Oswald and Baker in New Orleans. Maybe if I saw her interview I would be impressed; then again, maybe I wouldn’t.    

And it raises another question which I think is important although highly personal: What was the true status of the Oswald marriage at the time of his death? Obviously, Harvey and Marina weren't living together. But, was it mostly because of his job situation or because of marital strife?  My understanding is that the night before the assassination, the Thursday, when Harvey spent the night at the Paine house in Irving that he slept with Marina. Talk all you want about marital strife, but if a couple is still sleeping together, they’re together.  There's no mention of him sleeping on the couch, is there? 

Then there is Marina's first public interview after the assassination, which you can see here:

In it, she said two things which struck me. First, she said repeatedly that she loved Lee. (Note: that was the only name that Marina ever knew her husband as) And second, she said she was visiting his grave twice a week. Twice a week? I wouldn't expect the people who love me to visit my grave twice a year- if at all- never mind twice a week. My impression, from that and other things, is that the Oswalds were still a married couple and still loved each other.   

Was Harvey really going to abandon his wife and kids to run off with Judyth Vary Baker? Reportedly, after being arrested and charged with murder, he told Lee's brother Robert that his daughter June needed new shoes. I find it hard to believe he would even consider such a thing. 

According to Judyth,  Harvey's famous trip to Mexico City was for the purpose of delivering a poison “cocktail” to an agent in the plot to murder Castro.

But, neither Oswald ever went to Mexico, and Harvey said so himself. You can read it here:

He said he never went to Mexico, except to go to Tijuana when he was stationed near there in the Marines.  

(If you lack the time, patience and funds to read Armstrong's classic 1,000-page epic, Harvey and Lee, I strongly recommend you read senior member Pat Shannan's synopsis of the same work titled The JFK Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds. You will never look at the news media propaganda stories in the same way again.)

Mark Lane, with whom I have had correspondence, is a senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and he states, emphatically, that Oswald did NOT go to Mexico. He also says that he was told- face to face- by David Atlee Phillips that Oswald did not go to Mexico and that the CIA knows full-well that he did not go to Mexico. So, I don’t believe that claim of Judyth’s either.

There’s more I could say, but I will only add that I wish Judyth well. I know she’s had a hard life.  But, she is not a member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, and she is not going to be- as long as I have any say. 

At the OIC conference in Santa Barbara, Jim Fetzer may be doing a short interview of Judyth by Skype. But if it happens, it will be in the afternoon, not the evening, and only for half an hour. It’s a compromise we worked out. 

Realize that, except for lone-nutters who are devotees of the Warren Report, students of the JFK assassination can agree about some things and disagree about others.  In the Oswald Innocence Campaign, the one thing that we all agree on is that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting and can be seen in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film. But, we have 26 senior members now, and I can’t tell you that we all agree on everything else. 

Sunday, November 17, 2013

I watched the CBS retrospective tonight on the JFK assassination, "As It Happened". Realize that CBS has been at the forefront of the cover-up of the bloody coup of 11/22/63 since it happened. There is no media company that has been worse than them, and they've all been bad. 

It was hosted by Bob Schieffer, who is the ultimate statist journalist. He is a statist journalist, meaning a mouthpiece for the state, the way Soviet journalists were during the Soviet era.

Here's a short video about it which includes an interview of Bob Schieffer, but I'm not going to tell you it's worth sitting through the 30 second ad they make you watch first:

So, as expected, this was a pure fluff piece. They defended the Warren Report to the letter- to every dotted i and crossed t. After 50 years, they didn't budge an inch. Amazing.

They featured Dan Rather- but only from early-on and as late as 2005. But, he's still alive. I know he's retired, but I'm sure he would have been willing to appear. And I bet you he would have done it for free. So, how about it, CBS? Why were you showing us Dan Rather from 2005 when this is 2013? Let's hear what he has to say today, if you don't mind.

And just think about it: bringing Dan Rather back out would have been downright nostalgic, considering how involved he was at the time. They must have had a mighty compelling reason not to do it. Is it possible that Dan Rather isn't singing the state's tune any more?

And get this: they admitted that the majority of Americans (61%) still doubt the Warren Report. But, as usual, the way they framed it was to say that these Americans doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

I wonder what percent of those 61% of Americans actually think that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act at all, that he was completely innocent. But, as far as CBS is concerned, people like us, who claim that Oswald was an innocent patsy who was set up and framed, don't even exist.

But, I can tell you that they blew it. CBS really blew it. They brought out a doctor, a neurosurgeon, from Parkland Hospital who was there. They cited his name, although I can't remember what it is.
That doctor told Bob Schieffer that the President had a huge hole in his head, and brought his right hand back to the right rear of his head. He said it was a big hole and with pieces of bone and brain falling out. How does that reckon with this autopsy drawing of JFK with an intact rear skull?

This doctor made the same gesture with his fisted hand to indicate the big blow-out in the back of Kennedy’s head that the rest of the Parkland medical staff did, including both doctors and nurses. Of course, Schieffer did not acknowledge it.

And then they brought out Dale Myers, who has been a leading defender of the official story. He restated his lingo about how his computer models proved that the Single Bullet Theory is true. He told one bold-faced lie for sure. He claimed that Connally was hit at Zapruder 222. Connally’s own doctor, his surgeon, testified to the Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission that as he watches the Zapruder film, he sees Connally reacting to being hit at Z235. And that is my opinion as well.

And, as I’ve said, it is PREPOSTEROUS to think that John Kennedy had a bullet tunneling through his neck from back to front because he is way too functional and intact in the seconds that follow for that to be the case, and all the way until the fatal head shot. For goodness sake; he is sitting upright, using his arms, maintaining his posture, etc. It’s ridiculous.

They did admit that Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson didn’t like each other. They didn’t use the word “hate” but they sort-of implied it. They also admitted that soon after finding out about his brother’s murder, Robert Kennedy called CIA Chief John McCone to a private meeting and asked him point-blank if the CIA had killed his brother. And McCone, of course, said no. But, it’s a curious thing that CBS chose to include that.

And they showed most all of the motorcade footage, starting at Love Field. But, one thing they left out was the Secret Service agent who had tried to ride on the floorboard of JFK’s limo but was waved off, followed by an exasperated gesture by the agent.

This was the ultimate fluff piece by the ultimate state mouthpiece: Bob Schieffer of CBS News. It was a pathetic, desperate attempt to preserve something that is going down as sure as the Titanic.

Hey Schieffer! Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and you can’t make that go away. You can ignore it, but you can’t hide from it. You’re nothing but a Lewis Prothero but without facial expressions.

Bob Schieffer is 76, so 13 years older than I am. And I hope he lives long- long enough to see this ugly dastardly state lie demolished to smithereens. We’re working on it, Bobby.
There is a logical basis to prove that Oswald could not have been getting change at the time of the shooting. 

The office where Geneva Hine worked was right next to the lunch room. It would have been a literally a hop, skip, and a jump to go from one to the other. So, if he was already there getting change during the shots, he'd have had his Coke in hand within what? 10 seconds? You want to make it 20? OK, we'll say 20.

Marrion Baker didn't reach the lunch room until about 80 seconds after the last shot. Remember, it was replicated, repeatedly, using Baker and others. The very fastest that anybody got there was 1 minute and 14 seconds after the last shot.  So, if we use that one, it was 74 seconds. Surely, if Oswald was getting change during the shooting, he'd have had his Coke within 74 seconds. But, he didn't have it: 

Marrion Baker's testimony:

Mr. BELIN- When you saw him, he then turned around, is that correct, and then walked back toward you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.

Roy Truly's testimony:

Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.

So, the problem for Robert Groden is that he's got too much time to kill. If Oswald was on the brink of getting a COKE during the shots, then surely he would have had one by the time Baker and Truly arrived.

So, how did Groden make that mistake? He probably made it because of the widely held presumption that Oswald did have a Coke when Baker and Truly arrived. But, Oswald didn't- as the above testimonies prove. 

I realize that some people presume Baker and Truly were lying, but there is no reason to suspect that. Baker and Truly did not know each other - not even each other's names. They would never have conspired to lie together. We are talking about perjury here. You'd have to know a person pretty darn well to conspire to lie with them- especially in a case like this. And remember that the tests- going up and going down to a stopwatch- hadn't been done yet.  The need to shave a few seconds off Oswald's timeline didn't surface yet. From their very first statements on 11/22/63, before they had any time to conspire to lie or any reason to conspire to lie, both Baker and Truly said Oswald had no Coke, no Coke, no Coke. 

This renders the whole getting change story, including "No pennies, no pennies," preposterous. 

Friday, November 15, 2013

Here is some correspondence I would like to make public without giving the guy's name:


I've read everything I can find on this topic and though I am still unsure of what to believe, I have one nagging question: if it is indeed Oswald in front of the building, why was he drinking a coke in the lunchroom immediately after the shooting ?? Am I to believe that after he just witnessed the president getting shot, and knowing the situation he is likely to be in, that he went back into the building and casually hung around ? That makes no sense at all.

Hope to meet you all in Dallas next week. I’m staying at the Adolphus and have a ticket for the memorial.


Ralph Cinque:

Well, you'll miss seeing me then because I'll be in Santa Barbara at the OIC JFK truth conference at the Fess Parker Resort:

But, Oswald did NOT get a Coke in the lunch room upon getting there. He had NO COKE when Baker and Truly arrived, and they both said so. And they did NOT know each other beforehand and had NO basis to conspire to lie. So, Oswald did not get a Coke upon reaching the lunch room. But, AFTER his encounter with Truly and Baker, then he apparently did get one since Mrs. Reid reported him with a "full Coke" as he walked through the office.

So, why did he get a Coke afterwards? Well, if he were a smoker, he probably would have lite a cigarette. But, he wasn't a smoker. He was a Coke drinker; that was his habit; and it's a habit just like smoking. Caffeine is a drug, just like nicotine is a drug, and he went for his drug of choice to calm his nerves, steady himself, and get a grip on things. But, it doesn't mean that he went to the lunch room explicitly to get a Coke because if he had, he'd have either had one or been in the process of getting one when Baker first saw him.

So, Oswald did not leave the doorway and go to the lunch room for the explicit purpose of getting a Coke. Odds are great that he went there because he was told to go there, just as he was told to go to the Texas Theater. You don't think he went to the theater because he had a hankering for a war movie do you? Likewise, he didn't go to the lunch room because he had a hankering for a Coke. 
This is an image that Robin Unger posted on McAdams' forum to show how much Mary Moorman's coat was blowing in the wind. 

As you can see, it was a pretty darn strong wind, and that is something that a shooter, from the 6th floor, would have to adjust for. But, when in his life did Lee Harvey Oswald ever do the kind of shooting for which wind speed had to be calculated and adjusted for? Furthermore, how could he know how windy it was? Did he feel a breeze at the window? Did he notice Moorman's coat blowing? But, never having done this kind of shooting before, how did he know how much adjustment to make? How many times in your life have you done something for the first time and done it well? How did it go the first time you swung a golf club? Don't you think this was at least as hard as that?

This would have been a first for Oswald in two respects: the technical demands of sighting and shooting a moving object under rapid-fire and highly irregular conditions AND the act of killing another human being. He had never shot at a person before. Forget about the attempt on General Walker which Oswald didn't do. Here is an apt analysis:

That Oswald could have pulled off the shooting feat is preposterous. When Criag Roberts, Army sniper and police SWAT officer, went up to the 6th floor and sized up the shooting, he immediately knew that Oswald could not have done it. And that's because he knew that HE could not have done it, and he knew that Oswald was not a better sniper than he was.

As for Oswald's Marine training, they don't shoot at moving targets at boot camp, and this wasn't just moving, but irregularly moving and with visual obstructions and the need for rapid fire and having to find and re-fix the moving target between shots after your cock the rifle each time. On his last marksman test with the Marines, Oswald scored only one point above failing. And he did very little shooting of any kind after that. Why even call him a marksman? Might as well call me one. That someone-anyone-would choose him to be a Presidential assassin is patently absurd. 

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Dave Reitzes:

But your witness, Judyth Vary Baker, says Oswald knew EXACTLY what was going on,, Ralph. Judyth says he told her all about it ahead of time. 

According to the outline of her story she circulated among dozens of researchers and prospective publishers (entitled "Deadly Alliance"), not only did Oswald know what was going to happen, but he even told her he planned to be in a window with a rifle to fire a warning shot and possibly save John F. Kennedy's life. 

Are you calling Judyth Vary Baker a liar? 


Ralph Cinque:

I do not endorse what Judyth Baker says about that. How could Oswald have said that when he was nowhere near the 6th floor? He was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots.

Oswald did not know what was going to happen. And it is INSANE to think that the conspirators would have armed him and had him shoot. For goodness sake, he wasn't an assassin. He wasn't even a marksman. He was just a guy who did the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines and practically failed his last exam 5 years before, and he did very little shooting since. He was never in combat. He never ever did any shooting that compared the least bit to the theoretical 6th floor shooting. The idea that the CIA or even the Mafia would have entrusted Oswald to kill Kennedy is a joke. It would be like entrusting a nurse's aid to perform brain surgery.

No friend of Lee Harvey Oswald should ever claim that he knew what was going to happen. Because if he knew, then he let it happen. He could have gone to the police. He could have gone to the FBI, whomever he thought he could trust. He could have ran out onto Elm Street waving his hands, making a scene- anything to stop it.

So no, I do not think that Lee Harvey Oswald went to work that morning knowing that JFK was going to get blown away that day. I do not think he calmly ate a cheese sandwich and an apple knowing that 10 minutes letter, the bloodbath would begin. He would be a monster if he did that, but he didn't do it. HE DIDN'T KNOW. He was the patsy, and they kept him in the dark, as they always do with patsies.

There is a guy named John Kornfeind who is, apparently, a conspiracy advocate, but he is also a vehement opponent of Oswald in the doorway. He joined the OIC group page on Facebook as an "agent provocateur" to use a favorite expression of the idiot Charles Drago. And by the way, Charles Drago, the proprietor of the Deep Politics forum, like Kornfeind, also claims Oswald innocence, but Oswald somewhere else not the doorway. But, like Joseph Backes, Drago doesn't claim to know where Oswald was- just that he wasn't in the doorway.  

But, getting back to Kornfeind, he showed up on the group page to joist with me, and I gave him as much time as he deserved but no more. Then afterwards, when I found out that he was debasing me on other forums and making false statements, I wrote the following piece in response to him:

John Kornfeind has complained to Judyth Baker about my advocacy of Oswald in the doorway. Well, Judyth Baker advocates Oswald in the doorway. So, why is he complaining to her about it? Is he not aware that she advocates Oswald in the doorway? 

He also told her the clothes don't match. What? Oswald's clothes don't match Doorman's, but Lovelady's do? I ask any honest and objective person to tell me which two match in clothing and which one is the odd man out: 

Lovelady's shirt isn't even unbuttoned and sprawled open. It's cinched up except at the very top button. 

Then Kornfeind goes on to say: 

"He (Cinque) thinks that if Lee wasn't in the doorway then he was a murderer." 

Nonsense. I never said that. If Lee was not in the doorway, there is plenty of other evidence that exonerates him. He could not possibly have accomplished that shooting even if he was up on the 6th floor. But, the fact is: he was in the doorway. And we're going to use it; it's the strongest card we've got. It is the Ace of Spades in our hand. But, stop putting words in my mouth, Kornfeind. 

It's true that I believe that Oswald had no awareness of what was going to happen that day. Kornfeind denigrates that position, but hear me out about it:

The following testimony by Junior Jarman shows that Oswald did NOT know the motorcade was going to pass the TSBD that day: 

Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him again that morning? 
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning. 
Mr. BALL - About what time? 
Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe. 
Mr. BALL - Where were you when you talked to him? 
Mr. JARMAN - In between two rows of bins. 
Mr. BALL - On what floor? 
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor. 
Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you? 
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all. 

Now, if you think Oswald killed Kennedy, then you might suggest that he was putting on an act for Junior Jarman in case he needed it later to deny guilt. But, if you know very well that Oswald did NOT kill Kennedy, then you also know that he had no need to set up any alibis. He had no need to put on any acts. 

The conspirators did NOT tell Oswald what was happening that day. Oswald was the patsy, and you keep the patsy in the dark. What could they possibly have told him? That they were going to kill Kennedy that day? Why would they tell him that? Why would they think he needed to know that? They had to know that he might spend some time in custody before he could be killed, so why would they endow him with incriminating knowledge against them that he could tell to police? 

And observe the fact that they let him wander around freely the last 45 minutes being seen by people reportedly as late as 12:25. Wasn't that stupid? Why didn't they have him hide out of sight? But, what reason could they possibly have given him? And then he could have reported that to the police as well. No, they took a chance on that and figured they could just deny any sightings, intimidate the witnesses, etc. But, they were not going to enlighten Oswald as to what was really going on knowing that he could spend time in police custody and squeal. As it is, he underwent 13 hours of interrogation. It might as well have been 13 days for all he could have told them. 

I maintain that Oswald did not know that motorcade was passing right by the TSBD building that day. Besides the evidence of Junior Jarman, we have the evidence of Marina Oswald. She reported that she and Lee discussed JFK's visit to Dallas the night before, and she told Lee that she wished that she could see Kennedy. But, at no time did Marina say that Lee responded by saying, "You know, JFK is going to be passing right by the Book Depository tomorrow." She didn't report it because he didn't say it. 

And why are there no reports of Buell Frazier and Lee Oswald talking about Kennedy passing their place of work? Try to imagine yourself in a car driving to work with a co-worker. If either or both of you knew that the President of the United States was going to pass the building in which you worked that day, wouldn't one or both of you say something about it? Neither did. 

Just the fact that Oswald was calmly eating his lunch in the domino room at 12;20 tells you that he didn't know that a slaughter was imminent. Could you eat knowing that in 10 minutes the leader of the free world was going to be gunned down in front of your eyes? Hey, I like to eat as much as the next guy, but that would be me right off my cheese sandwich and apple. 

Oswald was an intelligence agent, but he wasn't the kind that got involved with carnage. Why take the chance of telling him there was going to be a bloodbath, when he might not have showed up? He might have panicked and fled. He might have gone to police. He might have tried to stop it. Since he didn't have to do anything beforehand but act normal- his usual routine- why tell him? 

But, the most important reason not to tell him was because he could use it against you in police custody. Remember, he did say, "I'm just a patsy!" and I'm pretty sure he knew what the word meant. That's why they let him wander around freely the last 45 minutes before the assassination. 

Oswald was out of the loop. He was not told the truth about what was going to happen that day. I don't claim to know what he surmised, but explicit knowledge of the assassination he was not given. I don't know what they told him- they must have told him something- but it wasn't the truth.