I regret to say that Richard Hooke is now promoting a theory of the assassination that is so abominable that further collaboration with him is impossible- for me. 

Richard now claims that Lee Harvey Oswald- the one we know- was part of the 6th floor hit team.  He was up on the 6th floor with Mac Wallace, Loy Factor, and Ruth Martinez, and he was perched in the Sniper's Nest with his Carcano rifle- according to Richard. But, shortly before the motorcade arrived, Oswald suddenly left with his rifle. 

It's strange that Richard could believe that because Loy Factor never said anything about it. Surely, if Oswald suddenly picked up and left, it would have been noticed by the others. It also seems likely that Mac Wallace would have said something or done something- and perhaps even physically stopped him. After all, if Oswald was suddenly bailing out, perhaps he was going to alert the authorities. Wouldn't Wallace have been concerned about that? Pursued him? Stopped him? And wouldn't Loy Factor have noticed it? But, it was entirely absent from Factor's account. 

But, according to Richard, Oswald did NOT alert authorities. He simply watched the slaughter from the doorway. And Richard feels Oswald deserves a Medal of Honor for that. Go figure. 

You know, if there is a 6 man firing squad all training their barrels on the heart of the condemned man, and say one of them doesn't show up because he has a cold, does it make any difference? Do you think the condemned man is going to wind up any less dead? Having 6 is just a formality, isn't it? 5 is every bit as good, isn't it? Did it really do JFK any good that Oswald decided to sit it out and just take in the slaughter as a spectator?

No, it couldn't make any difference to JFK or alter his fate. But, it may have made a difference to Jackie. That's because Oswald was a lousy shot who had NO experience at this kind of shooting- none whatsoever. He practically failed his last marksman exam in the Marines, which was in the Spring of 1959. One point less, and he would have failed. And following that, the only shooting he claimed to do was to go deer hunting with his buddies in Russia, where they used shotguns. It is outrageous to think that he was qualified to shoot from the 6th floor. None of his limited and sporadic experience had any bearing on the shooting task from the 6th floor. 

So, with Oswald's finger on the trigger, there was probably as much chance that he would hit Jackie as Jack. And that would have been a disaster for the conspirators. They very much wanted her alive and well so that she could stand next to LBJ at the swearing-in ceremony. Imagine if both President and Mrs. Kennedy had their brains blown out. How would that photo-op have looked without her?

But, according to Richard, the conspirators were willing to take that chance, that they were going to let Oswald fire a high-powered, scoped rifle, at a small moving target (a man's head) while traveling a curved, bumpy, descending roadway with compromised visibility under rapid-fire conditions- something he had never done before at any time in his life. And the very act at shooting at a human being is also something he had never done before. Remember that Oswald was not a combat Marine. 

But, getting back to the firing squad analogy, it made no difference if Oswald fired or not, and he was unlikely to hit Kennedy anyway even if he did fire. But, what would have made a difference is if, upon abandoning his post at the window, Oswald went outside and acted to save JFK's life.  

He could have grabbed the attention of a group of people and told them that he was a CIA agent and that he knew that Kennedy was about to be killed. He could have pointed to the location of the shooters. And then he could have asked them to stand out in the street with him, all with their arms raised and hands spread open to physically block the limousine from proceeding. 

I am sure that many wouldn't have, but I suspect that some would have. If Oswald communicated earnestly and soundly and cogently, which he was capable of doing, I believe that some people would have responded to him. 

And very likely, there would have been a chain reaction, meaning that if he and say one other person went out into the street, then others would have joined them as they became convinced, and it would have mushroomed from there.  

If a man is standing with his arms raised in the air and his fingers spread apart, how can any law enforcement officer shoot him? In all likelihood, they would probably think he was crazy. And they wouldn't shoot a crazy person who was not acting in a threatening manner. I don't doubt that they would train guns on him, in fact, I think it's a certainty, but I don't think they would fire. Who wants to be the one to shoot at a man with his arms held high in the air? It is the universal sign of a man surrendering.

But, even if there was a chance that such action would have resulted in Oswald being shot, or even killed, why wouldn't Oswald take the chance for Kennedy? In fact, I would rather say: how could he NOT take the chance for Kennedy? 

Fools will suggest that he was worried that his family would be killed. But, that is ridiculous. He would suddenly become world-famous for interrupting the Presidential motorcade, and there is no way the conspirators could have killed his family after that.

Besides, what good would it do them?  

But, if Oswald was on the side of good all along, then he had plenty of time to safeguard his family in advance. I mentioned that he could have taken them to the Soviet Embassy. The Soviets would surely have protected Marina and his daughters.  

Yet, even though Oswald did nothing to save Kennedy, even though he could have, Richard still thinks he deserves the Medal of Honor. Go figure. 

Then, according to Richard, after the assassination, Oswald rejoined the hit team. They apparently didn't mind that he bailed out on them. Although, who knows: maybe they chewed him out in the Nash Rambler. 

But apparently, there were no hard feelings, or at least they wore off quickly, because Wallace and Morales eventually turned the car over to Oswald- according to Richard. So, Oswald was driving around Dallas by himself; he stopped at the launderette, he made a phone call from the pay phone- speaking in Spanish- and then he proceeded to the theater by himself on foot- according to Richard.  

And then, after his arrest, Oswald fully protected the killers of JFK. He gave away no one. He lied in saying that he took the bus and cab. According to Richard, the conspirators told him to lie, so he lied. And the conspirators must have told him to lie in saying that he went to his room because he said that too, although according to Richard he didn't. 

And he said that he changed his pants. I wonder if the conspirators told him to throw that in. Again, according to Richard, he never went to his room. However, it seems that, somehow, his pants got changed because he wore grey pants to work, but the pants he had on when he was arrested were black. 

And then, after two days, Jack Ruby killed Oswald, but now, I have to wonder why. After all, Oswald knew everything- according to Richard. He was in on the plot. He was on the team. They were actually going to use him as a shooter- according to Richard. 

But since Oswald didn't rat on anyone, since he revealed nothing about the plot even though he knew all about it, or at least, more than enough, why was it so urgent to kill him? He was being faithful and loyal to the killers, and he was lying to the police for them. He withheld everything he knew about the plot to kill Kennedy. I can't imagine what more he could have done to abide the wishes and interests of the killers. 

Oswald was innocent. He was innocent of killing Kennedy, but he was also innocent of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy.  He had no explicit knowledge of the assassination plan. And what he was told about it was: nothing. He was certainly not part of any hit team. 

The other Oswald, "Lee", was up on the 6th floor with the hit team. Both James Douglass and John Armstrong are united about that. 

What Richard Hooke is trying to do, with his vivid imagination, is reconcile the stories of Loy Factor and Judyth Baker. He also wants to deny the Two Oswalds thesis of John Armstrong. And the result is that he has turned Oswald into a participant in the assassination, a collaborator with the killers, and their protector after his arrest.

It is all utter and complete nonsense. Richard Hooke is now slandering Oswald as much as the official story slanders him. There really is no difference. Richard pegs Oswald as a defacto murderer. Remember that in the eyes of the law, you don't have to pull the trigger to be a murderer. If you aid and abet murderers, you are a murderer. 

I denounce all this in the strongest terms, and I urge everyone to do the same. Oswald was innocent, not just of killing Kennedy, but of having anything to do with killing Kennedy.  








        



  

Here is an interesting exchange between me and Mark Florio on McAdams' forum. 

Mark Florio: Wow, Ralph, now you believe in "multiple Lovelady impostors?" That's a  first isn't it? You want to explain to us how not one employee of the TSBD  noticed that?  I'll say one thing for you.  You never cease to amaze.  

Ralph Cinque: There were no Lovelady impostors at the TSBD. I am referring to figures that were put into various films: the second Doorman in the Wiegman film was implanted- not in the doorway but in the film. The Lovelady milling 
around outside the TSBD after the assassination in the Martin and Hughes 
films was implanted in each film. 

Look, Lovelady told us himself that he left immediately for the railroad tracks. He was gone from the entrance BEFORE BAKER REACHED THE STEPS which he saw from a distance. He said he was 20-25 steps away. And then he went around to the back to re-enter. So, how could he be milling around in front at the same time? The Loveladys in the squad room were faked too. And I say Loveladys because there are two versions using wholly dissimilar Lovelady figures, with different faces, different builds, different hair, and different shirt arrangements, one splayed open and the other not. 

After Harold Weisberg started making a stink about Lovelady having worn a 
short-sleeved plaid shirt and having said so, and the FBI having 
acknowledged it, the FBI went into the movie business to produce visible 
evidence of Lovelady in a plaid shirt. He didn't wear a plaid shirt. He 
wore a short-sleeved striped shirt. Harold Weisberg was right about 
that. 

Florio, it takes an open and keen mind to analyze the evidence and 
recognize what they did. It was a very big deal. As I said, they actually 
went into the movie business. 

And you are uninformed. The citing of Lovelady impostors in the various 
films has been on the OIC website since we began in 2012. You never cease 
to disappoint.

Mark Florio: Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit, for your consideration, the above post, as to why we should all succumb to the overwhelming commonsense of the OIC.   If we don't our brains too will perform like they are on fried eggs. Oh wait, that's not right, but there was something from the Eighties about 
brains and drugs and eggs. Or was it the Nineties? Oh what the hell let's 
ask Ralph.

Ralph Cinque: Florio, you think it's a wild idea that there could have been multiple Lovelady impostors put into the films? You think it's so preposterous that the very idea of it speaks for itself, that it's from the Twilight Zone? 

But, that's only because you are biased. You're so certain that such a thing could never be done or even contemplated in the good ol' USA. 

But, here are the facts: There was NO mention and NO recognition of Lovelady in any film until 1966. That's 3 years after the assassination. It was 1966, and Harold Weisberg was screaming blood murder over the fact that Lovelady told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt, and they even photographed him in it- unbuttoned like Doorway Man. Why would they photograph him that way unless it was the same shirt? Weisberg covered it extensively in Photographic Whitewash which came out in 1966. 

And it was only after that that the first recognition of a film of Lovelady milling around in front of the TSBD after the assassination first surfaced, in the so-called Martin film. The VERY first reference to it, according to Weisberg, occurred in a debate on television, in which he was debating two other guys, and one of them brought it up and brought it out. That was in 1966.

How could 3 years go by with nobody noticing Lovelady outside the TSBD in a film taken just scant minutes after the assassination? And how could it be real when Lovelady said he left the entrance immediately, before Baker even reached the steps? And Lovelady never returned to the front; he went around to the back to re-enter, and therefore, there was NO CHANCE that he was milling around out in front at that time. 

And how come Lovelady was never asked about it? How come he never made a statement about it? The only statements he made contradicted it. And how come the Lovelady figure doesn't look like Lovelady and has grossly different anatomical features than Lovelady? 

And if Lovelady saw Oswald at the Dallas PD, how come he didn't say so? How come when Joseph Ball asked him if he ever saw Oswald again THAT DAY after they broke for lunch, Lovelady said, "NO." It was a media circus, so how could he forget? The most famous and notorious assassin in the history of assassins is led by him in a crowded room with camera lights flashing incessantly, and police and reporters crowded like sardines in a can, where he is perched in the very center of it, and he doesn't remember????? And how could he not tell his wife? She was much more vocal and much more defensive about it than he was, but she never once said: "You only have to look at the Dallas PD footage to see my Billy in a plaid shirt." Never said it. Never happened.

Today, in the CT community, at least half of the researchers believe that the Zapruder film was altered. And there are some mighty big names who advocate for it, such as Doug Horne and David Mantik. 

But, what I say to them and others is: think about it. If they had the mindset to alter the Zapruder film, it means they had the mindset to alter EVERY film. They all fell into government hands. They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to alter every single one of them, as needed. It is insane to think that they would have altered one and then quit. 

Of course, Dr. Mantik is big on pointing to the alterations in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Altgens photo alteration is widely recognized. Are you seeing a pattern here? There was a frenzy of image alteration in the aftermath of the JFK assassination making it, in all probability, the most photographically altered event in the history of the world. And that is certainly true for 1-day events.

So, Florio, if you are incensed at the idea that there were multiple films altered with phony images of a Lovelady impostor wearing a plaid shirt, get over it. Because, that is what happened. They actually did it. 

These are all supposed to be Lovelady on 11/22.  None of them were really him. And most of them, weren't even there. The ones at the upper right and upper left were Oswald, so they are real. But, all the others were Lovelady impostors who were not only not Lovelady, they weren't even there. It was just something done to the film, a photographic trick. 

 

 

Nolan J. Reynolds This two pics side by side is definitive proof of Oswald's innocence ... The doubled Lapelled vest is a slam dunk... No one else had this kind of vest on that day. Look at that match, let alone the face. I cannot believe Garrison was the ONLY man to ever bring trial against our corrupt government run by rogue elements... It's more than ridiculous. It's nauseating! Why don't the American people by the millions demand a trial?? In Europe they would be out in the streets in millions demanding it!

Olov Kalderén And you, Ralph Cinque are also making assumptions based on the scribble called The Fritz Notes. They are not evidence. They might be genuine but on the other hand they might not. Conclusion: we don't know what really happened during Oswalds interrogations since there aren't any real records. That's why "what if's" are one way of looking at other possibilities, evaluate them and discard if they don't work out. That is not being childish, that is keeping an open mind to all possibilities. 
By the way, why shouldn't Oswald want his wife to live with a CIA agent? He was CIA himself, so whats the problem? You and I wouldn't, but that's because we now know what CIA really are.

What? That is ridiculous. The Fritz Notes are hard physical evidence, and the discovery of "out with Bill Shelley in front" in the Fritz Notes is one of the biggest finds in all of JFK assassination research, and I mean in 51 years. 

Those notes were taken by Fritz, in his own handwriting, and for himself only. He never told anyone that they existed. He even denied having them- that's how private they were. 

So now you want to deny the validity of the Fritz Notes to continue your stubborn delusion that Oswald got into Ruth Paine's Nash Rambler that she didn't even own? 

And we know for sure that Fritz took those notes during the interrogations because at one point he repeated a question to Oswald, and Oswald said: "You've been taking notes, so look it up." 

So, you are suggesting that in the midst of taking these notes, Fritz was also fabricating lies for Oswald? That he had that mindset? How could he possibly think that fast?

Or are you suggesting that Fritz took real notes during the questioning, but then later concocted the notes we have? But, why would he do that when he did nothing with the notes in his lifetime except to deny having them and keep them in hiding? And why, if the notes are fake, would he include "out with Bill Shelley in front"? Since Bill Shelley wasn't out there in front after the assassination, having left with Lovelady immediately for the railroad tracks, it could only have been a reference to DURING the assassination. How could Oswald even have known that Bill Shelley was out there on the steps unless he was out there with him? 

And here's another proof that Shelley and Lovelady left immediately for the railroad tracks: Lovelady said that people were "hollering and crying". There was pandemonium, but it was short-lived; it was over very quickly. Shelley and Lovelady were part of that post-assassination throng, which happened very fast. We're not talking about 10 minutes later, and not even 5 minutes later. It was immediate. 

So, if the Fritz Notes are fake, if they were concocted to lie and mislead, Fritz never would have put down that Oswald said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front".  That is like the proof of authenticity. 

And, while questioning the authenticity of the Fritz Notes, you want to treat the Roger Craig claims as Gospel? Craig's claims aren't even consistent. Was the driver "colored" as in African-American or was he a Latin or was he a dark-skinned white? Who knows? Craig couldn't make up his mind. Was the Nash Rambler white or light green? Craig changed his mind about that too. Did Buddy Walthers report seeing the car at Ruth Paine's house? No, he did not, not in his affidavit nor in his testimony, but Craig said he did. Did Fritz use the word "station wagon" to Oswald or vice versa? Who knows because Craig was inconsistent about that too, and Fritz denied everything.  

The beauty of a written note is that it is immutable; it never changes. So, don't even begin compare the evidentiary value of the Fritz Notes to the claims of Roger Craig. 

And why shouldn't Oswald want his wife to live with a CIA agent? He never even told his wife that HE was a CIA agent. And when an FBI agent went to talk to his wife, he screamed bloody murder and read the guy the riot act. Right during the interrogation, with everything else going on, and with all the trouble he was in, he chewed the guy out for doing it. I am referring to Hosty. 

Oswald lived a double life. He separated his life with Marina and his children from his life as a CIA agent. When did Marina ever say that Oswald told her he was in the CIA? And all that CIA stuff he did in New Orleans, how come Oswald never said a word about it to Marina? And remember that for most of the time, Marina was living there with him in New Orleans. Oswald went there in April, and after he found a job there and a place to live, Ruth Paine drove his family down in May. Do you know how long Marina stayed there? Practically the whole time that Oswald was there. She didn't leave for Irving until September 23. Oswald followed 10 days later, arriving on October 3.

So, all that time that he was supposedly having an affair with Judyth, he was going home to Marina at night. I don't claim to know anything about that, but nobody has ever cited any evidence of this affair other than Judyth saying that it happened. I'm just pointing out that Judyth's claims aren't backed by anyone else. 

So, each of us must decide whether to believe her claim about it or not, but what is very clear is that Oswald kept his CIA life out of his home life. And that's why I am sure he did not want his wife living with a CIA agent. 

There is not a speck of evidence that Oswald thought of Ruth Paine as anything but this nice Quaker lady who was being charitable to his wife, and that her situation was that she was a mother raising two children in which she was separated on good terms from her husband, Michael. That's it! And it would be very presumptuous and unwarranted to assume anything else. 

If you are going to do it, you have to come up with some evidence. You can't just say that maybe he knew she was a CIA agent. Based on what? Your imagination doesn't count. 



     

  

Here's a thought that is worth considering. Oswald spent the night before the assassination at the home of Ruth Paine, and he slept in the same room, the same bed, as Marina. 

Are we to assume that he kept clothes at Ruth Paine's house? He did not live there, and he never lived there. Therefore, I do not think it is reasonable to assume that he kept clothes there.

Did he bring a change of clothes with him? I don't think we can make that assumption. If he did, then he would have had a bag with him on the drive out to Irving on Thursday, and Buell Frazier never claimed that. 

So, that would mean that Oswald wore the same clothes on Thursday that he did on Friday. And that would mean that Marina got a good and close look at those clothes, including the tattered outer shirt and the stretched, notched t-shirt. And that puts her in very good stead to say whether the Altgens Doorman was her husband or not. And within just the last week, she acknowledged to Tom Rossley that the Altgens Doorman was her husband and that she recognizes the clothes on his back. 

  
Note that on the right, it is Oswald in every way, the man and the clothing, EXCEPT for his hairline and the shape of the top of his head, which is what they moved over to turn him into Lovelady. That alteration cannot be denied because the difference is stark. 

This was my response to Aaron Pressman on Facebook, who still champions the idea that Oswald got into Roger Craig's Nash Rambler, which he thinks was Ruth Paine's Nash Rambler, even though there is not a smidgen of evidence that she owned a Nash Rambler and absolute proof that she owned a Chevrolet station wagon. 

*         *         *        *       *       *        *       *        *        *       *


Aaron, you can't claim to know that Oswald was referring to the same car as Roger Craig. Oswald never made a statement acknowledging that. Supposedly, according to just one person, Roger Craig, the exchange went: 

Fritz: "What about the car?" 
Oswald: "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine." 

Now, that statement does not constitute an admission that he got into Ruth Paine's station wagon that afternoon. It does not constitute an admission that Ruth Paine owned a Nash Rambler. And, it did not constitute a retraction of his previous statement to Fritz that he rode the bus. And it is belied by the fact that the very next day, Oswald informed Fritz that he also rode the cab and paid eighty five cents in fare. 

If what you say is true, it would mean that Oswald went from extolling the bus/cab story to extolling the Roger Craig story and then back to extolling the bus/cab story all within 24 hours and without once ever acknowledging that he was changing his mind and contradicting himself. It is not rational to think that Oswald would behave that way. People realize that when they change their story, especially to the police, it is a very big deal, and it has to be explained. 

And why would he lie to police about how he got transported? He knew that police suspected him of killing Tippit while he was out and about before his arrest. So, if he lied to them about how he moved around during that time, it would only lead them to think even monre strongly that he was guilty of killing Tippit. You and I know that he did not kill Tippit, nor did he commit any other crimes during that period.  Therefore, he had no reason to lie to police about his transportation, and he had every reason to tell them the truth. 

His first interrogation with police came before the exchange involving Roger Craig, and at that first interrogation, Oswald said he rode the bus. There is no reason to think he was lying then, and there is no reason to think Fritz lied in writing down what he said, which was: "home by bus changed britches".  


The bottom line is that you are making a lot of assumptions about the meaning of some very sparse dialogue. You are connecting dots that aren't there- except in your mind.

The issue of when the lone nut depiction of Oswald was decided upon is important in reference to the claim of Oswald being picked up in Dealey Plaza by a private driver. I am not a proponent of that theory, as you probably know. But frankly, it does not mesh with the lone nut idea at all because a lone nut assassin cannot have a getaway driver in a getaway car. That doesn't work. 

So, to surmount that problem, some CTs came up with the idea that it wasn't until later in the afternoon on 11/22 that the conspirators decided to go lone-nut, that prior to that, including at 12:40, they intended to portray Oswald as being part of a pro-Castro group. Then, supposedly, somebody got a flash of wisdom, and put in motion a sea-change to depict him as a lone nut- that they changed course in the middle of the afternoon. And supposedly, that explains how both things could be true, where you have a lone nut assassin being picked up in a getaway car by a getaway driver. 

But, this theory is a brazen argument of convenience which abandons all objectivity and reason. It is utter rationalization. The fact is that there is no basis to assume such a thing. For instance, there is no individual you can name who got this sudden jolt of wisdom that lone nut was the way to go. Who? Lyndon Johnson? There is no evidence of any execution of such a sudden sea-change in strategy. And there is concrete evidence that depicting Oswald as a "lone" operator was firmly in place long before November 22, particularly that they depicted him as the "lone" member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. 

What it is is just a desperate attempt to rationalize the contradiction of Oswald being a lone nut at the same time that he had a getaway driver and car. But, you can't have it both ways. There is no rationalizing it. 

And remember that Oswald had no friends in Dallas. It's not as though he could have arranged for the pickup. And why would he? He didn't have any plans of killing Kennedy that day. Why would Oswald have any expectation of leaving work that day at 12:40? When he arrived at work that morning, he asked Junior Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk outside. 

So, Oswald's handlers- the conspirators who were killing Kennedy and framing him- were the ONLY ones who could have arranged for the pickup. But, why would they do it when they knew he was supposed to be a lone nut?  

So, here's an idea: give it up. Just accept that the Lee Harvey Oswald we know did not get in any private car that afternoon. Whoever Roger Craig saw get in the Nash Rambler was somebody else. It had to be somebody else.  That makes sense to me.  

Linda and I are watching this series on Netflix called Orange is the New Black which is about a 30 year old woman, Piper Chapman, who has to serve 15 months in prison for having been peripherally involved in drug running earlier in her life. Actually, at the time, she was living as a lesbian, and her then girlfriend was the real culprit. Piper got finagled into moving some drug cash (and it wasn't hers) through an airport, and that's what landed her in prison. 

There are a lot of zany characters in the prison, including one called Lorna Morello, who is played by Australian actress, Yael Stone, and she is a real cutie-patootie, as you can see below. 

I had never seen her before, and I was curious about her, so I looked her up and rifled through her images. On the show, she looks as she does above, but I found a picture of her without hair.

What a difference, huh? And it goes to show the extent to which hair contributes to a person's looks. It affects the way we take in and perceive the whole face. And I believe the alterers of the Altgens photo realized that. They knew that if they changed Oswald's hair that it would go far to turn him into Lovelady. 

  That is really the only thing about Doorman that is of Lovelady, what I call his cap. They got rid of the whole pyramidal shape of Oswald's large head and gave him the more oval, monkey-like shape of Lovelady's head, using a photo of Lovelady from the 1950s. 

Now, if you don't think they moved the hairline of Young Lovelady over to Oswald, then you have to explain why Lovelady had the exact same hair in 1963 that he had in 1957.  Or, if you're willing to admit that Doorman was Oswald, you need to explain how Lee Harvey Oswald had the same hairline that Billy Lovelady did in 1957. What were the chances of that? Do you believe in coincidences? Well guess who doesn't? Me and V. 

The fact is that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man, and there is no way his hair remained stable over that long period. Furthermore, what are the chances that it would be the exact same length, the exact same style, the exact same lay- the exact same everything. 

They moved Lovelady's hairline over to Oswald. They did the opposite of what they did with the Backyard photos. There, they moved the face of Oswald over except for the chin. And of course, the late great Jack White was the point man on that. Here, they just moved over the cap of Lovelady, and from the eyes down, Doorman is Oswald. 

Hair has a powerful effect on our whole perception of a person's face, and the alterers of the Altgens photo knew that.  

On Facebook, David Boyer raised an interesting question concerning whether the conspirators may have changed their minds on the afternoon of November 22, not starting the day with the plan of depicting Oswald as the lone nut assassin, but switching to it in a sudden jolt that afternoon. Hence, they could have provided him a get-away car and driver at 12:40 and then soon later, after the sea-change struck someone, the plan changed to depicting him as a lone nut. Is it reasonable and plausible? I say no, and here is how I responded to David:

David, I have to think that by the morning of November 22, they knew exactly what they were doing and how they were going to do it.  By then, the plan to depict Oswald as a "lone gunman' was firmly in place. What I believe is that the plot to kill Kennedy may have started in connection with the anti-Castro operation, to use the assassination as a pretext to invade Cuba. But, over time, killing Kennedy became the end in itself, and Oswald's pro-Castro activities were just for the purpose of providing him a motive. 

Look how they portrayed Oswald's pro-Castro activities in New Orleans. They said that he was the sole member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. THE SOLE MEMBER! That tells you a lot. That shows you that they didn't want him to be associated with anybody, not even in New Orleans, and that was well before the assassination.   I'm sure they realized that if they tried to link him to Castro or pro-Castro activists that those links would have to be plumbed and exposed. And there really weren't any. Long before November 22, they realized that there would be no easy wrap-up if Oswald was linked, by more than idealism, to Castro and Cuba. 

Besides, when they switched their attention from Castro to Kennedy, they soon realized that Kennedy was a much bigger plum to pick. Whatever thorn in their side Castro was, he was nothing compared to the thorn that Kennedy was. Kennedy was a royal pain concerning Cuba, Vietnam, the oil industry, the banking industry, the steel industry, and perhaps most important, his whole attitude of wanting peace with the Soviet Union, and to end the Cold War, which they considered traitorous. He was even speaking of complete bilateral nuclear disarmament!  With all that, Castro paled into insignificance. 

They knew that there would be a lot of turmoil from the assassination, and it would be plenty enough to keep them busy without heaping a new war on top of it. Besides, their number one priority war-wise was escalating in Vietnam. That took precedence over Cuba. They knew that doing both at the same time was out of the question, and they chose Vietnam. LBJ reversed JFK's memo concerning troop withdrawals from Vietnam the Monday following the assassination. So no, I don't think that in the middle of the afternoon of November 22, someone made a sea-change and ordered a reversal of Oswald's depiction. It was all decided well in advance that Oswald would be the lone gunman. They realized that a lone nut who pulled it off without involving a single other person or even telling a soul about it was the cleanest, neatest, safest way for them to get away with the crime of the century.

The idea that the crime of the century, a crime of the "national security state" would depend on borrowing a car from Ruth Paine is ridiculous. This was a palace coup pulled off by Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. and financed by H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, H. David Byrd, etc. and the idea that these guys would have to borrow a car from Ruth Paine to get the job done is absurd. 

It's financially absurd, but it's also operationally absurd. They had plenty of time to prepare for the "Big Event", to anticipate everything they would need. The idea that at the last second they would have to borrow a car from a woman who lived in Irving is preposterous.

And linking Ruth Paine to Oswald's escape from Dealey Plaza would have been insane- like showing your hold cards in poker. Supposedly, she got him the job at the TSBD as a result of having afternoon tea with the neighborhood ladies in Irving. That story has enough credibility problems, but then to use her car to flight him out of Dealey Plaza? They might as well have announced from the rooftops that Ruth Paine was involved in the murder of JFK and the framing of Oswald. 

But, the people who champion this are doing a disservice to Lee Harvey Oswald, and they should not call themselves Oswald defenders. They are Oswald detractors. That's because they are claiming that scant minutes after the assassination, Oswald was in bed with the people who did it.

Oswald was told to go to the Texas Theater, but that was AFTER the assassination. A woman who worked across the street from the Book Depository reported that he was seen talking to Jack Ruby in broad daylight. It was never pursed by the Dallas Police or the FBI for obvious reasons. But, I think it's likely that that is when Ruby instructed him to go to the theater. And Ruby himself was reportedly seen at the theater- by George Applin, who wound up dead.  

But, being picked up by a driver 10 minutes after the assassination would have to be arranged beforehand. And in Ruth Paine's car? Remember what Oswald's perspective of Ruth Paine was, that she was this nice Quaker woman who was helping out his wife and kids. He even called her "Mrs. Paine". She was only 32 years old. Why would a 24 year old be so deferential to a 32 year old? Why didn't he call her Ruth? He was being respectful, and he certainly did not know that she was a CIA agent. So, why would he think that Mrs. Paine was connected to the men who killed Kennedy? When he was told that David Sanchez Morales would be picking him up in Ruth Paine's car, why wasn't he shocked? 

Richard Hooke keeps forgetting that Lee Harvey Oswald was completely unaware that Ruth Paine was a CIA agent. To his mind, she was just this nice, kind Quaker lady who was helping his wife and kids- and even letting him sleep at her house and undoubtedly feeding him. The lunch that he brought to work that day came from Mrs. Paine's house. She even gave him driving lessons. He thought she was this kind, generous woman and mother- not an intelligence agent. 

So, for Lee Harvey Oswald to have made an arrangement to get in a car driven by David Sanchez Morales and belonging to Ruth Paine ten minutes after the assassination of JFK means that he was not innocent. It means that he was in bed with the people who killed Kennedy. It means that he went to work that day knowing that something was going to happen that day that would enable him to leave work at 12:40. 

And why, if he was already in a moving car, would he have to go to the theater? If the idea was to get him to Redbird Airport, why not just go there? And if he had to be passed off to someone else, why do it at a theater? The person he was meeting had to have a car, right? If he didn't, what use would he be to Oswald? So, why didn't they just go to wherever this person was or meet someplace where a quick transfer from one car to the other could take place? Why take Oswald to the theater for him to have to try to find this person in the dark of the theater when it was totally unnecessary? 

And as I keep saying, Oswald was supposed to be the lone gunman, so why have him running down the Grassy Knoll in an excited state in broad daylight to be swifted away in a getaway car? 

But, the worst thing is what it says about Oswald's state of mind. If he was innocent, if he had no foreknowledge of the murder of the President Kennedy, then why would he be getting in a car with David Sanchez Morales ten minutes after the assassination? How could that possibly be consistent with him being innocent?

As I've said, the people who champion this cite all kinds of problems with the public transportation story but they ignore- with complete abandon- the many problems with the getaway car story, the worst being that it it impugns Oswald. If you really think that Lee Harvey Oswald was an American hero, Richard Hooke, then you shouldn't be saying that he got in a car with David Sanchez Morales ten minutes after the assassination. There would be nothing innocent about that.

The issue of Oswald being picked up and driven out of Dealey Plaza is not crucial to establishing his innocence. His presence in the doorway during the shooting, in which we can see his shirt, his t-shirt, etc., completely exonerates him no matter what he did afterwards. 

Still, it is important to know the truth about it. This is a matter in which knowing how to think and how to analyze evidence is paramount. 

Most of those who champion Oswald being picked up in a private car do so on the basis of the Roger Craig story. It's a vast majority, and I'll give them credit that at least it's based on something. There are a few, like Joseph Backes, who make the claim based on nothing. Without referring to anything concrete- not to any car, not to any driver, not to anything anybody saw, and not to anything substantial, Backes maintains that Oswald must have been picked up in a private car. His whole claim is based on nothing but his dislike for the claim of public transportation; not on any evidence of private transportation.  

But, JFK research is not like Imagination Day at kindergarten. You can't just make stuff up. Everything has to be based on actual evidence. If you have no evidence of Oswald being picked up, if you have no idea who picked him up or when and how it was arranged- in other words, if you know absolutely nothing about it- then you have nothing. 

But, getting back to the Roger Craig claim, it is definitely something, and Roger Craig was not the only person who reported seeing a Nash Rambler. I think it would be very foolish and misguided to dismiss the whole story.

However, when it comes to parsing the verbal exchange between Fritz and Oswald, as per Roger Craig, that is dicey. When you try to make sense of it, you realize it doesn't make sense. 

Of course, what matters most is what Oswald said. He confirmed that he told police that he left Dealey Plaza, but he never said that he left the way Craig said he did. And, it is absolutely certain that Oswald never said that to police: that he left in a private car. He said that he left by bus, and it is in the same Fritz note as "out with Bill Shelley in front". 

  
"home by bus changed britches" You see that. That is what he told police. And if he were going to revise that to what Roger Craig said, there would have been some acknowledgment. "I know I told you I took the bus, but actually, a friend picked me up." But, Oswald didn't say that. He never corrected or retracted his prior statement. 

Then Fritz asked him about the car, and Oswald said "that station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine." But, what car was he talking about? There is a certain minimum of exposition needed in order to communicate effectively. He never said, "I was picked up today in Mrs. Paine's station wagon. So-and-so was driving." It never happened. So, why would he be so obscure and cryptic?  It wasn't a crime to be picked up by a friend. No crime was committed while they were supposedly driving around. And since Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, it wasn't an escape from a crime scene for him. He may have been breaking a rule of the TSBD by leaving, but he was not committing a crime by leaving with a friend. So, why lie to police about it? 

And his last comment about everybody will know who he really is, who knows what the hell he meant. I certainly don't. 

So, the presumption that Oswald confirmed Craig's narrative is ridiculous. It didn't come close to confirming it. And it was after the encounter with Craig that Oswald went on to say that he took a cab and paid a fare of eighty-five cents. So, Oswald did NOT confirm Craig's narrative, and that is definite. 

And what is completely lacking from the whole story is any knowledge of when and how it was arranged. The who is also absent- except to those who are willing to jump to David Sanchez Morales just because Craig mentioned a "colored" or "dark-skinned" man. That's all it took for them to ID Morales. Talk about taking liberties.

But, this is a very important issue because if an arrangement was made before the assassination for Oswald to be picked up at 12:45 on a work day- it means that Oswald had foreknowledge of the assassination. Or, at the very least, it meant he was told that something monumental was going to happen that day.  

And how could it have been arranged afterwards? How could it have been communicated in that short a time? And by whom? According to Joseph Backes, there was no pre-arrangement nor post-arrangement, that Oswald was just hanging around outside, and somebody pulled up and yelled, "Oswald! Get in the fucking car!" That's how it happened according to Backes- pulled from straight out his ass. 

But, the Roger Craig people have to answer the same question. When and how was it arranged for Oswald to be picked up and by whom? And what was it based on? What was the understanding of what would happen? You don't arrange to pick somebody up at 12:45 on a work day for no reason. 

And then there is a larger question than that. Oswald, obviously, was being played like an instrument, manipulated like a puppet. He had no friends in Dallas- only handlers. So, any ride that was arranged was set up by the people who were running the whole show. And, you know how important the whole "long gunman" idea was to them. They very much wanted Oswald dead ASAP. It took them two days to accomplish it but that's because it got delayed by unforeseen circumstances. But, the whole idea was that once Oswald was dead, it was case closed, that there was no one else to pursue. 

Well, a get-away driver would have been someone else to pursue, and they didn't want that. So, if a get-away driver was bad for their story, why would they provide one? If it looked better for Oswald to use public transportation, why not let him? Why provide him a private driver only to have to concoct an elaborate lie about him using public transportation?  If it looked better for him to use public transportation, then why not let him? What was the harm?  

The more mature researchers who advocate for the private pickup will see the need to answer these questions. The childlike ones will evade them because that's what childlike people do. They don't care. They don't feel any responsibility to be sweeping and thorough and comprehensive in their analysis. 

As I said, Joseph Backes makes his claim of a private pickup based on nothing- absolutely nothing. He just doesn't like the official story. And those who live off the Roger Craig account need to take stock of what they really have. Did the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame really get into that Nash Rambler, or was it somebody else? And did the LHO of fame ever say that he did? He did not. I maintain that an honest appraisal of Oswald's response cannot be construed as a confirmation of what Roger Craig said. If English is a precise language, and if words have specific meanings, then he did not confirm it. 

This is fresh from the mind of John Armstrong. He has decided to create concise statements of the evidence of the Two Oswalds by year, starting with the year 1955. So, this is essentially all the crucial evidence relating to "Harvey" and "Lee" relating to 1955.

  

1955

Using fabricated government documents to merge the identities of HARVEY and LEE

In the 1950's two teenage boys with the last name of "Oswald" (HARVEY and LEE) were living in New Orleans, LA, were attending junior high school, and were employed by several local businesses. US intelligence was sponsoring and directing these boys in a multi-year operation that was designed to eventually allow them to switch identities (the "Oswald project"). Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald and American born LEE Oswald lived close to each other and often attended the same schools. HARVEY was able to acquire English language skills, become familiar with the American way of life, and learn about LEE Oswald, his family, and his life. Within a few short years, after military service, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald would be able to assume the identity of LEE Oswald and "defect" to the Soviet Union. American intelligence would then have an "American" spy inside the Soviet Union who could speak, read, and write near-perfect Russian.  

Following the assassination of President Kennedy FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover knew that the true identity of the accused assassin of President Kennedy was not American-born LEE Harvey Oswald. And he also knew that if Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald's true identity was ever discovered, it would expose the "Oswald Project" and lead directly to the agency responsible for the assassination of JFK. There are indications that Hoover knew about HARVEY and LEE for several years prior to the assassination. He knew that someone was using Oswald's identification in 1960, when (HARVEY) Oswald was in the Soviet Union.The FBI had numerous reports of a LEE Harvey Oswald in the USA, while (HARVEY) Oswald was in the Soviet Union. When Hoover first learned the Dallas Police had arrested Lee HARVEY Oswald he knew, immediately, that all records relating to HARVEY Oswald had to be confiscated because some of those records would conflict with records relating to LEE Oswald.   

In February, 1955 fifteen-year-old HARVEY Oswald and his caretaker/mother began working for the Dolly Shoe Company in New Orleans.  Store owner Maury Goodman, store manager Louis Marzialle, and co-workers Rita Paveur and Francis Mouton said that both (HARVEY) Oswald and his mother worked full time. Mr. Goodman asked Mrs. Oswald (heavy-set impostor) to fill out bonding forms that were required by the company's insurance group. A few months later, after repeated requests for the forms went unanswered, Goodman had no choice but to terminate Mrs. Oswald.  Store manager Louis Marzialle (click here for YouTube interview) fired young (HARVEY) Oswald a short time later. Louis clearly remembered that day, as it was the day his first son was born. While HARVEY Oswald was working full time at Dolly Shoe, LEE Oswald was in the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High, with a near perfect attendance record (January thru May, 1955). 

EMPLOYMENT AND SCHOOL RECORDS OF HARVEY AND LEE MERGED INTO "LEE HARVEY OSWALD."

Following the assassination the FBI confiscated all records relating to (HARVEY) Oswald from Dolly Shoe-including time cards, payroll checks, federal and Louisiana income tax statements, payments to Social Security, W-2 forms, Dept of Labor approval for child employment, and they also confiscated school records from Beauregard Junior High School. In an honest investigation these documents would have been preserved and made available to the public. But these records showed that (HARVEY) Oswald worked full time at Dolly Shoe, while LEE Oswald attended Beauregard JHS at the same time. These records could never be made public. Something had to be done. While in FBI custody, all original documents from Dolly Shoe were destroyed, and quickly replaced with photographs of fabricated documents. The FBI never gave the WC a single verifiable employment record or cancelled check or anything from Dolly Shoe that confirmed Oswald's dates of employment. Instead the FBI fabricated a single document in order to create the appearance that one person, Lee Harvey Oswald, had worked part-time at Dolly Shoe and attended Beauregard JHS at the same time during the spring of 1955. That document was a 1955 W-2 form and was likely created at FBI headquarters between November 23 and November 25, 1963 (see below). How do we know this document is fake, and how do we know when this document was created? 

Following the assassination Dallas police detectives searched Oswald's rooming house and Ruth Paine's. Each and every item taken from both locations was initialed and dated by DPD officers. The police made a handwritten inventory of all 225 items taken, which was then typed at DPD headquarters (WC exhibit Stovall A & B listed items taken from the Paine house; WC exhibit Turner #1 listed items taken from 1026 N. Beckley). All items were then photographed on the floor of the police station. But the 1955 Dolly Shoe W-2 form (pictured above) was not found by the Dallas detectives. It was not initialed or dated by DPD officers; it was not listed on the DPD handwritten or typed inventories (WC Exhibits-Stovall 1 & 2; Turner Ex. 1); and it was not photographed on the floor of the DPD station. 

At 3:10 AM on 11/23/63 FBI agent Vincent Drain departed Carswell Air Force Base aboard a C-130 tanker with the 225 items collected by the Dallas Police. FBI document specialist James Cadigan received the items at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. Cadigan told the WC, "Initially, the first big batch of evidence was brought into the laboratory on November 23 and this consisted of many, many items.....It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought in.....time was of the essence and this material (Oswald's possessions), I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days." We now know that Oswald's possessions (225 items) were taken to FBI headquarters in Washington, DC on Nov 23rd and held for 2 or 3 days. During this time a W-2 form was created that showed Oswald earned only a small amount of income at Dolly Shoe, in order to make it appear as though he worked part-time at Dolly Shoe (after school). This was necessary because HARVEY Oswald's full time employment at Dolly shoe conflicted with LEE Oswald's full-time attendance at Beauregard JHS. This fabricated W-2 form appears to have been initialed by FBI lab technician Robert Frazier. It was then photographed, and included among the 225 items of evidence received from Dallas on 11/23/63. On November 26 the FBI quietly returned the items of evidence to the Dallas Police.

After the evidence was returned to Dallas on 11/26/63 the FBI and Dallas Police jointly inventoried and photographed each item of evidence. But there were now 455 items of evidence (listed on CE #2003; pp. 259-283), far more items than were sent to FBI headquarters 3 days earlier. The FBI had added 230 items of "evidence" before returning the inventory to Dallas. One of those 230 items was a photograph of the Dolly Shoe W-2 form.  A photograph of the fabricated W-2 form was listed on the FBI/DPD inventory as item #168. It was from this inventory that the fabricated Dolly Shoe W-2 form first emerged, and it was soon given to the WC. From this one photograph the Warren Commission, without interviewing any of the Dolly Shoe Company owners or employees and without a single document to confirm the dates of his employment, concluded that "Lee Harvey Oswald" worked part-time at Dolly Shoe (after school) while attending the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS. Below is the fabricated W-2 form:

                                                                        

NOTE: It is easy to determine which items of "evidence" were added to the original 225 items of evidence taken to FBI headquarters on November 23. First, look at any of the 455 items listed on the joint DPD/FBI inventory of November 26, 1963 (WC Ex. 2003 

pp. 259-283

) and see if that item has the initials of a Dallas Police officer. If the item was initialed by DPD officers it will be listed on the handwritten and typed DPD inventory (WC exhibits-Stoval A; Stoval B; Turner 1). But if a particular item does not have the initials of a DPD officer and is not listed on the original DPD inventory (handwritten or typed), then that item was not found by the Dallas Police. If that item was initialed, it may have been by an FBI lab technician and 

was among the 230 additional items that were added to Oswald's possessions in Washington, DC. 

The item was then taken to the Dallas Police on November 26 and was inventoried, photographed, and listed among the 455 items that appear on Warren Commission Exhibit 2003-

pp. 259-283. We can now understand how certain items of "evidence" were added to Oswald's possessions in order to help frame him for the assassination and to help merge the backgrounds of HARVEY and LEE in order to make it appear as though there was only one "Lee Harvey Oswald."

After LEE Oswald graduated from the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS he began working as a messenger for the Gerard F. Tujague Company, located on the 3rd floor of the Sanlin Building at 442 Canal St. After his discharge from the Marines, older brother Robert Oswald briefly resided with his mother and brother (LEE Oswald) at 126 Exchange in New Orleans. Robert wrote in his book, "Lee", that during his visit LEE was working for an import/export company in July, 1955. Robert Oswald confirmed the beginning date of his brother's employment at Tujague's. And when LEE Oswald joined the Civil Air Patrol on July 27, 1955 it was Robert who helped him buy him a uniform from the Army-Navy Surplus store. Robert told the Warren Commission that during his one week stay "Lee was working for an export firm there in New Orleans". LEE said, "We're sending an order to Portugal this week" or "I received an order from Hong Kong just this morning." Oswald's direct supervisor was Frank DiBenedetto, who told the HSCA in 1978 that (LEE) Oswald worked at Tujague's "a year to a year and a half." Secretary Gloria Callaghan, who still worked at Tujague's in the mid-1990's, recalled, "I went on maternity leave in March, 1956 and he (LEE Oswald) was still working for us at that time." Frank DiBenedetto said, "he quit to join the marines......and when he quit it was hot, very hot." According to Robert Oswald, LEE Oswald was working at Tujague's in July, 1955. According to Frank DiBenedetto and Gloria Callaghan he worked at Tujague's a year to a year and a half and then quit to join the Marines-in the late summer or fall of 1956. 

NOTE: JFK researchers may recall that a "Lee Oswald" visited the Bolton Ford Dealership in New Orleans on January 20, 1961 (HARVEY Oswald was in Russia) and spoke with salesman Oscar Deslatte. Oswald and "Joseph Moore" requested special pricing on trucks they wanted to purchase and send to Cuba. The order was placed in the name "Friends of Democratic Cuba," of which Gerard F. Tujague was Vice-President and former FBI SAC Guy Banister was a Board Member. Was LEE Oswald working with Banister and Tujague while HARVEY Oswald was in Russia?

During the early afternoon of 11/22/63 Gerard Tujague told his employees about the assassination. Mr. Tujague said, "The FBI will be here soon, so you can all go home now." Mr. Tujague asked employee Jimmy Hudnell to gather up Oswald's payroll records, time cards, and canceled checks. When the FBI arrived they took anything and everything related to LEE Oswald's employment. They also confiscated Oswald's 1955 school records from Warren Easton High School. The FBI now had records that showed LEE Oswald worked an entire year at Tujague's (July, 1955 through August, 1956), while at the same time HARVEY Oswald was attending Warren Easton High School (Sept. 7 thru October 17, 1955). These records could never be made public, and the Bureau (thru Guy Banister) had good reason to believe they would receive full cooperation with respect to LEE Oswald's employment from Mr. Tujague. All original documents from Tujague's were destroyed-time cards, payroll checks, federal and Louisiana income tax statements, payments to Social Security, W-2 forms, Louisiana Dept of Labor approval for child employment, etc. But HARVEY Oswald's school records and attendance at Warren Easton in Sept and Oct, 1955 could not be destroyed, and his attendance would be remembered by fellow students and teachers. So, to eliminate the problem of LEE working at Tujague's while HARVEY was attending Warren Easton HS at the same time, the beginning date of LEE's employment at Tujague's  had to be changed. The FBI provided the Warren Commission with photographs of a few unsigned, handwritten time-cards and a fabricated payroll record (see below) that showed Oswald's beginning date of employment as November 11, 1955--which was after he stopped attending Warren Easton High School in October. But the Bureau never provided a single verifiable employment document to the commission.

The FBI also gave the WC a photograph of a fabricated 1955 W-2 form (shown below), which was not initialed by DPD officers, was not listed on the DPD inventory, and was not photographed on the floor of the Dallas Police station. This photograph was included among the 230 additional items of evidence returned to the Dallas Police on 11/26/63. The joint FBI/DPD inventory listed this fabricated W-2 form as number 169 (CE #2003; pp. 259-283). It was from this inventory that the fabricated Gerard F. Tujague Inc. W-2 form first emerged. To complete the charade of Oswald's employment in 1955, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover told the Warren Commission (WC) that the IRS had routinely destroyed Oswald's federal income tax return, but provided no supporting documents from the IRS. QUESTION: how many 16-year-olds file a federal income tax return? And how many 16-year-olds would keep their tax withholding statement for 8 years, but not keep a copy of their tax return?

                                          

NOTE: Researchers may want to look closely at the Dolly Shoe and Tujague W-2 forms for 1955, and focus on the social security number "433 54 3937" and "126 Exchange" on both forms. In the mid-1990's I made transparencies of each W-2 form. When these transparencies are overlaid onto one another, the address and social security numbers match perfectly. I then sent copies of both forms to Dawn Stanford, an archivist at the IBM Corporation. Dawn studied the forms and noted that the characters, pitch and typewriter offsets on each of these W-2 forms are identical. In her words these W-2 forms "were typed with the same typewriter."

It is clear that the FBI had been compiling a storehouse of information on Oswald for many years. Given the vast investigatory reach of the FBI, the bureau had the ability to locate and seize any and all documentation related to Oswald. Within 24 hours of the assassination the Bureau had original documents and evidence in its possession relating to both HARVEY and LEE. Their focus of attention, and primary objective, was to merge the identities of HARVEY and LEE into a single "Lee Harvey Oswald" by altering and fabricating evidence received from the Dallas Police. Within hours Hoover was telling President Johnson that Oswald was the lone assassin-no further investigation, no accomplices, case closed. Within a matter of weeks, Hoover was selling the same bill of goods to Warren Commission.  A year later, the Warren Report, the official, historical government conclusion about the deaths of both JFK and LHO, was built on Hoover’s initial, flimsy “house of cards.”  But when researchers begin to focus on the limited amount of evidence provided by the FBI, and compare it to eyewitness testimony, it becomes clear that a vast amount of evidence has been omitted, suppressed, altered, and fabricated in order to conceal the truth about the identities of the two young Oswalds--HARVEY and LEE. For example: within 24 hours of the assassination two FBI agents met with assistant principal Frank Kudlaty at Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth. Mr. Kudlaty gave the agents (HARVEY) Oswald's 9th grade school records for the fall of 1954  (click here for YouTube interview). Those records disappeared because they conflicted with LEE Oswald's attendance in the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans at the same time. Top FBI official William Sullivan said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed marked interest in limiting the scope of it or circumventing the scope of it and taking any action that might result in neutralizing it.....when an enormous organization like the FBI with tremendous power still can sit back and shuffle the deck of cards and pick up the card they want to show you it may be you're not going to get the entire picture. If there were documents that possibly he didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known." Warren Commission attorney Samuel Stern was skeptical and aware of potential problems.  Stern told the HSCA, "at the outset we realized that there was no possible way to penetrate any official involvement in a cover-up or conspiracy if there was such complicity......the FBI and CIA could formulate and maintain a cover-up which no one would ever penetrate."  Mr. Stern's skepticism and analysis proved to be correct. 

In the final analysis, the seemingly mundane records of employment at a shoe store and freight forwarding company in New Orleans remain a testament to how the "Crime of the Century" was turned into the "Lie of the Century" by the FBI and the Warren Commission.