Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Time for another musical interlude, and this song has a JFK connection, which I’ll explain. First, I think it’s the prettiest song ever written to a woman by name. The woman was Laura; the song is Laura; and the movie was Laura, from 1944.

Except: in the movie, it was the musical score, not a song.  And, it was an integral part of the story.  Laura was a beautiful woman who had been brutally murdered. A police detective, played by Dana Andrews, was assigned to investigate, and he quickly finds out that Laura cast a spell over every man she met. Young or old, they fell madly in love with her.  And then it happens to him; he falls madly in love with her. He starts buying her possessions as they become available, including a large portrait of her. He keeps listening to this music, the score, over and over because he was told it was her favorite.  And he hangs around her apartment because it makes him feel close to her. And he also descends into alcoholism because of the hopelessness of being in love with a dead woman. 

So, there he is, sitting in her apartment alone, listening to this haunting music, half-drunk and half-asleep, and suddenly, Laura walks in. It turns out that another woman had been murdered, not her.  

The beautiful score was written by David Raksin, who went on to teach film score composition at USC and UCLA.  And, after the movie came out, they brought in famed lyricist Johnny Mercer to write lyrics for it.  The very palpable, visual lyrics that Johnny Mercer wrote are some of the most inspired I have ever heard.

Laura is the face in the misty light,
Footsteps that you hear down the hall,
The laugh that floats on a summer night,
That you can never quite recall.

And you see Laura on a train that is passing through,
Those eyes, how familiar they seem,
She gave your very first kiss to you.
That was Laura, but she’s only a dream.

The song Laura went on to become one of the most widely covered of all time.

Now, the JFK connection is this: the actress who played Laura was one of the great screen sirens of Hollywood’s Golden Era: Gene Tierney.  And she had a romantic relationship with JFK.

And it was more than just a fling. They were contemplating marriage; at least, she was. They met in Hollywood in 1945 during the making of her next film, Dragonwck. JFK arranged it. He sought her out; not vice versa.  And I’d be willing to bet he saw the movie Laura, and she had the same effect on him that her character had on all the men in the movie.

It was a whirlwind romance, with them meeting in California, New York, Washington, and Paris.  She was estranged from her father, but she took him home to meet her mother and brother.  That didn’t go too well, because her brother Butch knew JFK at Harvard when they were both students, and he wasn’t a fan.  Gene knew of Jack’s intention to enter politics, and she agreed to drop everything to become his wife. And yes, the thought of becoming First Lady did cross her mind. But, as you know, it was not to be, and I think it was Papa Joe who nixed it, not regarding Gene as a proper political wife for Jack. At the time, she was separated and headed for divorce from dress designer Oleg Cassini (who went on to become Jackie Kennedy’s favorite designer), but divorce was considered scandalous in those days.  And, he being Catholic and she being Episcopalian was another problem.  As you know, he wound up marrying Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953- with his father’s blessing and approval.

For Gene Tierney, it was a difficult life. Her daughter Daria was born deaf and nearly blind, and she was also severely retarded mentally.  It came about from Gene doing volunteer work during WW2 when she was pregnant, and she contracted German measles from a female soldier. Daria had to be institutionalized her whole life, and that was ongoing when Gene met Jack.  In fact, Jack shared with her his family’s heartache over his mentally ill sister Rosemary to commiserate.  And Gene went on to experience severe, debilitating depression and had to be institutionalized herself. She underwent many brutal electro-shock treatments. The stress of it all, plus heavy smoking, took a toll on her looks. But, she was considered one of the most beautiful actresses of her day, and even today, she is considered one of the most beautiful of all time. And she was perfectly cast in Laura as the breathtaking woman who could dazzle any man, including the future President of the United States.

To us, it seems monstrous what they did to Kennedy, but did the men who ordered it and directed it think of themselves as monsters? I doubt it. 

Do you think Allen Dulles suffered any guilt about killing Kennedy? Do you think John McCloy did? How about Poppy Bush? You think any of them ever lost a night's sleep over it?

I don't think it troubled them at all. I think they felt completely justified. I think they looked it as the execution of a traitor. Doesn't the US Constitution allow the death penalty for treason? To them, JFK capitulated to Castro and the Soviets, and he was a traitor to the United States- in their eyes. They had no qualms whatsoever about killing him. 

But, what about Oswald? They framed Oswald for killing Kennedy, and then they killed him. What did Oswald do to deserve such a thing? What crime had he committed? And I mean: ever. 

And let nobody say that "they" didn't kill Oswald, that Jack Ruby did. Nonsense. The morning of the 24th, I don't know how many times it was repeated on the radio that Dallas Police were concerned that there may be an attack on Oswald. Well, if they were concerned, why did they do what they did? If they had to move Oswald to a different jail, why didn't they do it in the dark of night and without announcing anything beforehand? They could have announced it afterwards that they had done it, moved him. Why did they have to turn his transfer from one jail to another into a media event?  

Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy, and he was innocent, period. What possible justification could they have had- in their minds- for killing him?

Bush had a family, and he was always family-oriented. Even as a boy, he was very close to his parents, especially his mother, and to his entire birth family. Barbara was essentially his high school sweetheart, and when they started having kids, he was devoted to all of them. They went through the agony of watching a daughter die of leukemia, despite the best that Medicine could offer. It's easy to value the life of someone you know and love, but if you're smart, you realize that even strangers (to you) have people who know and love them. So, that makes every human life precious.

So, how did George HW Bush, a family man, feel about the slaughter of Lee Harvey Oswald, who also had a family? Why was Oswald's family less important than Bush's family? 

Of course, John F. Kennedy also had a family. But again, they justified killing him on the basis of treason. Bush fought in World War II. He killed enemies of the United States- whether they had families or not. That's how it is in war. 

But, this wasn't a war. This was a coup. And summarily killing Oswald was as vicious, as cold-blooded, and as dastardly as any killing ever was. So, how did they justify it? How did they sleep at night? How did they look themselves in the mirror and not see a monster? I honestly don't know.   
The idea that these two guys looked alike and could have been mistaken for each other is really pretty preposterous. 

How does a guy go from having a bigger honker when he's 20 than when he's 30? The nose continues to grow throughout life. You're going to have a bigger nose 10 years from now than you have today, and the same was true for Lovelady. What we are seeing above is impossible. 
I want to point out that on the left, we are viewing the target with our naked eye, not through a scope; but, on the right, we're seeing the target through the scope.

So, the disparity is even greater than it appears. It's another sleight of hand trick. 

I consider this an important collage, the Lovelady nose collage. On the left, we see two images which show Lovelady's nose authentically. In the middle is the CBS photo where they pared his nose down quite a bit. And, I want to say for the first time ever that I am not sure that the guy on the right, the Lovelady of Bob Jackson from 1971 was really him. I think that may have been another man.

So, that's 1964, 1971, and 1976, and obviously, the guy in the middle looks markedly different from the other two. 64 and 76 Lovelady look like a natural aging progression, but the guy in the middle? I am having a lot of trouble buying it. 
This image really shows JFK's moon face from all the steroids.

I wonder if he was in pain there, physical pain. He looks pained. 

Monday, June 29, 2015

Mary Moorman is on Facebook, Backes.

Tell me something, Backes: Why do you have to be so very stupid? 
I asked Mary Moorman, and she said she recalls them happening simultaneously: the fatal head shot and her snapping the picture.

I'm sure she's being honest, and I don't doubt that she remembers it correctly. But remember that we are talking about a tiny fraction of a second difference. If the fatal head shot occurred at Z-313, and she took her picture at Z-316, as I suspect, that difference is only 3/18 of a second, which is to say 1/6 of a second. In the midst of everything that was going on, that could easily be perceived as simultaneous. 
The issue of whether the Moorman photo was taken before or after the fatal head shot is, obviously, very important. It is a very close call, and I don't claim to know for sure. All I can do is compare the frames and look for subtle differences. It reminds me of those magazine puzzles where they have two nearly identical photos and ask you to identify the subtle differences. 

And when I do it, I find myself concluding that it was taken AFTER the fatal head shot. But, it is a tenuous conclusion at this point because I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. But, if I had to say one or the other, before or after, I would say after, and here's why:

Start by looking at the Moorman photo. Notice that Jackie's head is not that close to JFK's. There is a gap between them. Notice also that her head is a little lower than his. He's a little higher than her. In Z-310, her head is a little higher than his, and it is also very close to his. But, after the fatal head shot, she moves downward and forward in relation to him. That's when the relative positions line up very well. So, I think Jackie's position in relation to JFK correlates better to Z-316, that it is a better match to Moorman. 

In other words, before the fatal head shot, she is very huddled up with him. But, after the fatal head shot, there is separation between them, and I am going by that separation.  

It's complicated by the fact that we're looking at them from opposite sides and different angles. And again, I don't claim certainty about this. But, after studying their precise positions in relation to each other, I have to say that I think that Z-316 is the better match to Moorman. Therefore, I'm saying that I think the conventional wisdom is correct that the Moorman photo was taken a tiny split-second AFTER the fatal headshot and not before. 

That's my considered opinion at this juncture, but again, I could be wrong. And if somebody pointed out something that I am overlooking, I could swiftly change my mind. But, that's where I am at right now.  

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Project Unspeakable was started by Jim Douglass, author of JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It now involves a lot of people, including celebrities, such as Martin Sheen. 

It seeks truth and justice concerning all 4 of the 1960s assassinations: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and Malcolm X. 

I think it is a fabulous development. Here is the link:


Here's Z-310 compared to Moorman (one frame before the fatal head shot) and Z-315 compared to Moorman (two frames after the fatal head shot). Which matches better?

Maybe we should consider the possibility that the Moorman photo occurred before the fatal head shot, even though there is widespread agreement that it occurred after. Here is Z-310 and Moorman. It isn't a bad match.

This, of course, is the Moorman photo. The consensus seems to be that it corresponds in time to Zapruder 315-316, and I accept that. However, if you believe as I do that Kennedy's head got blown out in back, how come we are not seeing that in the Moorman photo? His head in back looks perfectly intact to me. 

So, on that basis, I have to think that ANYONE of any stripe who believes that the official story is nonsense, who believes that a Grassy Knoll shooter struck Kennedy in the right temple with a frangible (explosive) bullet, driving his head back and to the left, and causing a blowout of his head in back, must conclude that this photo was altered.  

So, it seems to me that you CAN'T be an Oswald defender without endorsing photographic alteration in the JFK assassination. The two are inseparable. 

So, here's Bogart questioning three men about who shot the priest, but they won't say. So, he starts with the rifle of the man on our right.

Then, he proceeds with the rifle of the man on our left.

And then he proceeds to the rifle of the man in the middle.

And he knows right away that he's the one who shot the priest.

So, why didn't they do the similarly with the 6th floor rifle and with Oswald's revolver from the theater? How come we have heard nothing about anyone sniffing the muzzles of these weapons? 

What Hosty and Bookhout said blows your story right out of the water, 
since Oswald said he was "out front with Bill Shelley" AFTER the TSBD was 
being searched, Cinque, ie AFTER Kennedy had been shot. 

Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about, Ralph. 

Ralph Cinque:

I don't know what I'm talking about? But, I'm not the one saying that Oswald stood around outside in front of the building chewing the fat with Bill Shelley FOR FIVE OR TEN MINUTES after the assassination. That is so impossibly impossible it's laughable. 

Bill Shelley left the front of the building immediately with Billy Lovelady. They were part of the throng of people who rushed into the railway area behind the Grassy Knoll looking for the killers. It was chaotic and loud, and Lovelady reported it as such. That was immediate, and afterwards, they went around to the back and reentered through the back door and were inside for a long time, therefore, Bill Shelley could not possibly have been out in front at the time Oswald left the building at 12:33 to 12:34. Shelley was definitely not there then.   

What Hosty and Bookhout said amounted to a reshuffling of the order of the things that Oswald said. They even had Oswald eating lunch AFTER the assassination, which is ridiculous.  

So, let's see: according to them, he eats his lunch after the assassination, and that takes 10 minutes. Then, he chews the fat with Shelley in front, which takes 10 minutes. By the time he heads for home, it's 12: 54, And yet somehow he still manages to get home by 1:00? There wasn't nearly enough time there to do all that. Plus, it's insane to suggest anyway because the facts are clear: Oswald ate lunch in the Domino Room BEFORE the assassination, and even Vincent Bugliosi said so. Bugliosi has him getting there shortly after noon and finishing his lunch by 12:15. That, of course, left 15 minutes for Oswald to get up to the 6th floor, assemble the rifle, set up the Sniper's Nest, etc. That part is all BS, but the part about Oswald eating lunch before the assassination in the Domino room is absolutely correct.

There is NO CHANCE that Oswald ate lunch afterwards, and today, NOBODY takes that claim by Hosty and Bookhout seriously- except misinformed miscreants like yourself.   

What wicked irony that Hosty and Bookhout had Oswald eating lunch AFTER the assassination; while Will Fritz had Oswald eating lunch DURING the assassination, with "other employees" no less; while the truth was that Oswald ate lunch, by himself as he always did, in the Domino room BEFORE the assassination. It's an indisputable fact, Brennan. 
In the movie, The Left Hand of God, Humphrey Bogart has to determine which of three men fired the shot that killed a priest, so one by one, he sniffs the muzzle of each of their rifles. He quickly determines that the man in the middle fired the shot. 

So, why didn't Dallas Police report sniffing the muzzle of the 6th floor rifle and that of Oswald's revolver to determine if either had been recently fired? Wasn't the sniff test used in those days? 

And why didn't they report finding shooting residue inside Oswald's revolver? Shouldn't there have been some soot if he had recently fired it several times? Here is a picture of a dirty cylinder.

  Here is another one with a heavier layer of soot.

So, what did they see when they opened Oswald's revolver?

There is nothing definitive about that, but that doesn't look to me like a dirty cylinder. It certainly doesn't jump out at you that it is a dirty cylinder. And don't you think that the detective holding it and examining it would be able to see signs of discharge? So, is there a Dallas Police report observing signs of gunshot residue inside Oswald's revolver? If not, why not? 

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The first floor of a large building is too big an area to designate as the location of a human being. It would be evasive and obscure to indicate your location so largely. Plus, inherent in the question, "Where were you?" is the attached question: "What were you doing?" And especially if you were being accused of committing a horrific crime, you would want to be as explicit as possible about where you were and what you were doing.

So, if Oswald were asked where he was at the time of the murder, and he just said he was on the first floor, without saying exactly where he was on the first floor and what he was doing, it would sound an alarm that he was withholding something and being duplicitous. 

So, why would Oswald, who was innocent, want to make an impression like that? He wouldn't. So surely, when they asked him where he was during the murder, he told them precisely: the doorway. And it was on the first floor. And the doing, of course, was watching the motorcade.

But, speaking of withholding something and being duplicitous, that is what Hosty and Bookhout were doing when they said that Oswald said he was on the first floor during the motorcade. It was too big an area, and it included no reference to what he was doing. Oswald surely would not have left it like that, so why did Hosty and Bookhout? 

It's because the rest of Oswald's statement was that he was out with Bill Shelley in front, and they didn't want to include that. So, they left it out. But, what they said wasn't technically a lie. 

However, the deficiency of their statement is just as glaring as if Oswald had said it- but the duplicity applies to them, not to him. 

Why wasn't it noted at the time? Because there was no will to do anything but see everything in the light of Oswald's guilt. 

I'll say it again: Because there was no will to do anything but see everything in the light of Oswald's guilt. 

If you're going to say that somebody lied, you can't do it just because what he said conflicts with your paradigm. You can only do it if you have evidence that he lied. 

For instance: I say Fritz lied when he told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees at 12:30 during the assassination. And the evidence that he lied is this photograph:

This is one of the employees that Fritz was talking about (Norman) and he obviously wasn't eating lunch with Oswald at 12:30. 

And, in case you're thinking that Oswald was the one who lied, I say no. And that's on the grounds that Oswald wasn't an idiot. 

What does a guilty person do to create an alibi? He might falsely say that he was with someone else when the crime occurred but only if he worked it out in advance with that person- to lie. Otherwise, it's self-sabotage because he has to know the police will talk to the person.   

So, if he didn't work it out in advance with someone to lie, then he'll create a phony alibi that involves himself alone. "I was home alone. I had a headache, so I went to bed early." You don't cite someone as your alibi witness unless you know he's going to back you up. So, that's why I say that Oswald NEVER would have said that- even if he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. 

So, Fritz lied, and there is a good basis to say that he lied. 

Besides, the whole exchange was bizarre because after Fritz said what he did, Joseph Ball never responded appropriately. He never said: "He said he was eating lunch with other employees? Which employees? What are their names? We need to talk to them about this."

But, in this case, it just got glossed over.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left." 

This whole exchange is terribly evasive- on both their parts. Why did Ball phrase it that way: Did you ask him what happened that day, where he had been? Why did Ball leave out the most crucial thing: "during the shooting"?  That was the critical thing to define. 

But, Fritz got the gist of it; he and Ball were both talking in code. So, he answered and then tried to segue to something else immediately before Ball could even respond to what he said. 

So, according to Fritz, Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees when 'this' happened. "This." Then, Oswald saw all the excitement resulting from it. Then, he didn't think something- which got cut off. And then presto: Fritz moved on to something else: why Oswald left work to go home. 

So, cryptically, Ball asked Fritz about Oswald's alibi. Fritz replied with the story about eating lunch with other employees, and without saying who the other employees were or giving Ball a chance to inquire about who they were, he moved on to something else.   And Ball welcomed the segue and took full advantage of it.

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor? 

What the fuck? So now Ball was ready to talk about Oswald's lunch room encounter with Baker and Truly which occurred after the assassination? But, they were talking about Oswald's alibi for the assassination.

So, Fritz didn't want to say who the other employees were whom Oswald said he was eating lunch with during the assassination, and Ball didn't want to know. They both quickly moved on to something else. 

So, Fritz lied, and Ball cooperated with the lie. They didn't want to go down that road, which is the exact opposite of what good investigative police work would entail.

So, that was a lie, and there is solid evidence for saying it was a lie- evidence that we can look at.

But, what evidence is there that Hosty and Bookhout lied when they said that Oswald said that he rode the bus? There is none. It conforms with what Fritz wrote down- repeatedly- in his notes. It conforms with the discovery of the bus transfer ticket on Oswald. There is no photograph of Oswald being somewhere else when he supposedly rode the bus. And, the only alternative story to the bus story is the Roger Craig story which entailed Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler at 12:45. but, if Oswald had said he had done that, then why would Hosty and Bookhout say that he claimed to ride a bus? Hosty and Bookhout were not being interrogated. It wasn't a hostile cross-examination. They weren't being put on the spot. They didn't have to say anything about what Oswald said about how he left Dealey Plaza. They could have just left it out, and that way, if something were to surface about it later- such as the driver coming forward- they wouldn't be seen as liars. The idea that they would bold-faced lie and say that Oswald said he rode a bus when he said something entirely different is preposterous. It is wild and preposterous. Such an accusation is childish, thoughtless, and very stupid. 


Friday, June 26, 2015

I can't imagine that Hosty and Bookhout would say that Oswald said he rode a bus if he, in fact, told them something else. I can't imagine that they would expect to get away with that lie. And I can't imagine that they would take such a chance.

Just imagine the interrogation. Fritz asks Oswald how he got home from Dealey Plaza. Oswald has no reason to lie about it. When you are accused of killing the President of the United States, and you know you're innocent, you don't start telling lies about how you got home.  

Fritz: How'd you get home?

(So, we'll assume he didn't say he took the bus.)

Oswald: A friend picked me up.

Fritz: A friend? What friend?

Oswald: His name is xxxx.

Fritz: Who is he?

Oswald: He's a friend of mine. I know him from yyyy.

Fritz: Well, when did you arrange this ride? If you didn't kill Kennedy, and you didn't know anything about it, as you claim, then you had no expectation of leaving work at 12:35.

Oswald: Right, well, So-and-so told me that xxxx would be coming to get me, and that's how I knew.

Fritz: Well, we are going to have to talk to So-and-so, and we're also going to have to talk to xxxx.

Alright, so something like that presumably happened, but Hosty and Bookhout decided to lie and say that Oswald said he took the bus.

How could they possibly expect that to work? Wouldn't So-and-so and xxxx have to be dealt with? Wouldn't their stories eventually come out? Wasn't Oswald likely to repeat the account again and to others? And even if they had the idea that Oswald was going to be killed soon, how soon? And what if he didn't die? How many times did the CIA try to kill Castro? And while you're thinking about it, remember that Fidel Castro is still alive in 2015.

So, after hearing Oswald say that he left Dealey Plaza in a private car, how could they possibly have the nerve to lie and say he said he rode the bus?

The blowing up of a lie like that would have been enough to torpedo the whole effort to frame Oswald. It would have sunk everything. Why would Hosty and Bookhout take it on themselves to put their names, their signatures, to this wild lie? I say they never would have done it in a million years. 

They said that Oswald said that he rode the bus. And that can only mean one thing: Oswald said he rode the bus. 

Therefore, anyone who wants to continue with this crazy idea that the bus and cab rides were faked had better start by explaining why Oswald lied and said he rode the bus if he didn't.      
Jun 21
Hi All,

This FBI report of an interview with Oswald places him INSIDE the TSBD at
the time JFK passed the building:


So it looks like even Oswald doesn't support Ralph Cinque and his Doorman


Tim Brennan 

Ralph Cinque:

Not true. This refers to the Hosty/Bookhout statement in which they said that Oswald said he was on the first floor when the motorcade passed. Their exact wording was that Oswald said he was "on the first floor" when the President was shot. They never used the word "inside". Brennan did; they didn't. Brennan even put it in caps, as if they said it, the bastard. The landing of the doorway was on the first floor. 

And why cite a statement by Hosty and Bookhout as if it's Gospel. HOSTY AND BOOKHOUT??????? They were FBI agents.  And they were both present when Oswald said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." They heard him say it, just as Will Fritz heard him say it and wrote it down.

So, why didn't they report it? Because the dye was already cast, and it would have completely decimated the story that the FBI was trying to
tell. So, Hosty and Bookhout simply left it out.

But, what they said is still valuable because it lays out what happens where we can re-establish Oswald's doorway interlude, and the time line all works.

First, Hosty and Bookhout admitted that Oswald said, when asked, that he did NOT own a rifle. I hope you realize that that statement comprises a
categorical denial of the whole official story.

Second, Hosty and Bookhout admitted that Oswald denied ever being in Mexico except for one visit to Tijuana, which was almost certainly when he
was in the Marines stationed in Southern California.

Third, Hosty and Bookhout said that Oswald admitted going to lunch at Noon and that he ate in the first floor lunch room. The implication of that is
that not too much past Noon, he arrived at the first floor lunch room to begin eating his lunch. So, how long does it take to eat a cheese sandwich and an apple?

Fourth, Hosty and Bookhout then stated that Oswald said he went to the 2nd floor lunch room to get a Coke, and there are two implications involved in the statement: the first being that he went directly from the 1st floor lunch room to the 2nd floor lunch room. But, for multiple reasons, that does not follow from the evidence. We know that Oswald took the front stairs at the southeast corner of the building, and if he had gone directly from the first floor lunch room to the second floor lunch room, he most surely would have used the rear stairs in the northwest corner. That can easily be discerned by looking at a schematic of the two floors. We know that Oswald did not arrive at the 2nd floor lunch room until Baker did. They reached it at the same time from different sides: Baker was in the stairwell of the
northwest stairs when he saw Oswald, and Oswald was entering the vestibule from the other side, which means he used the southeast stairs. It means that Oswald did not get to the lunch room until approximately `12:31.5, and it is unfounded to claim he was in the 1st floor lunch room before that. Oswald placed himself in the 1st floor lunch room in keeping with Jarman and Norman being there, which was well before the assassination.
Considering how little he had to eat, it is unreasonable to think that having arrived there shortly after Noon that he would still be there at
12:30.  It makes much more sense for Oswald to have eaten his lunch there, and then walked to the doorway (where he was seen there between the double doors at 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold), stepped outside and watched the motorcade, and then left immediately for the 2nd floor lunch room after
being instructed to do so. The fact that Fritz wrote down "out with Bill Shelley in front", and Hosty and Bookhout didn't mention it suggests that they realized the importance that this admission by Oswald had and how damaging it was to the official story.

Fifth: Hosty and Bookhout claimed that "Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President Kennedy passed the building."

What???? THE DOORWAY IS ON THE FIRST FLOOR! That is where on the first floor that he was. He was just a couple feet out the front door in the
foyer. It was on the first floor, and that is what he meant. It must have been what he meant because he could not possibly have still been eating lunch in
the lunch room at 12:30.

Sixth: Hosty and Bookhout said that Oswald said that he went home by bus.
And that is true. That is what Oswald said. He didn't say anything about also having taken a cab until the next morning. Therefore, the people who say that Oswald did not ride the bus are calling Oswald a liar. He said he did, and there is no doubt about that.

Seven: Hosty and Bookhout said that Oswald admitting to fighting with Dallas police in the theater, but I have to wonder what Oswald's exact words were. Neither he nor they said anything about him having pulled the trigger at a policeman in the theater, which is a despicable lie. Then, Hosty and Bookhout admitted that Oswald FRANTICALLY denied killing the President and Tippit. Frantically. That's the word they used. Frantically.

So, the bottom line is that you've got nothing, Brennan. Hosty and Bookhout carefully avoided repeating what Oswald said about being "out
with Bill Shelley in front" which they must have heard as readily as Fritz did. So, they rephrased it and converted it to him saying that he was on the first floor. But, no one would pick a whole floor as their location, and especially not in establishing an alibi in a case like this.  

But, everything else they said conforms perfectly with Oswald having gone to the first floor lunch room shortly after 12 to eat, eaten his lunch there and seen Jarman and Norman, and then gone to the doorway and watched the motorcade, and then taken the southeast stairs next to the doorway up to the 2nd floor and made his way to the lunch room, which he reached at the same time that Marrion Baker did using the other stairs. Your
inference that even Oswald said he wasn't Doorman is a terrible lie.
Furthermore, neither the Dallas Police nor the FBI dared bring up the Altgens photo with Oswald for fear of what he would say.

What do you think Oswald would have said? That the Man in the Doorway was Lovelady? That's a joke, a very sick joke. .

And by the way, Brennan: I'm making you famous.   

JFK Jr. Told The World Who Murdered His Father – But Nobody Was Paying Attention

Friday, June 26, 2015 5:27

I suppose most people think that from the day he saluted his father’s casket at just three years old, til the evening his plane went down, he just went about his business, playing the game of life like everyone else.

After all, he did live, for the most part, a relatively ordinary life, in spite of being the Prince of America’s Camelot.
So, what do you suppose was going on in the mind of the sexiest man alive? He could have written his own political ticket, yet he went into publishing. Many expected him to land in politics and most likely were a bit perplexed when he decided to publish a magazine instead.
Some thought he was afraid to go into politics because of the “Kennedy Curse.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. What he did proved to be more dangerous than any political arena, and he knew that from the start. But…John-John had a mission…and that mission was to expose the villain who orchestrated that “dastardly act” upon his father.
Unbeknownst to the public, John-John was digging deep for proof. And, how else could he expose the truth when all the media outlets were controlled by the very cabal he planned to expose? Enter…”George.”
When he presented his magazine, “George,” to the world, he was, for all practical purposes, signing his own death warrant.
“George” was a veiled threat…in a symbolic sort of way. Do you see? How many men named “George” comes to mind at just the thought of President John F. Kennedy’s so called assassination? The cabal wanted his father dead, that is a fact, but the namesake of John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s magazine…their minion, arranged it. And…once he had the proof, the truth would come out in his very own magazine. Do you see?

To continue reading this excellent article, go to Before It's News:

This is by OIC member Tom Rossley concerning the ABC shooting experiment in which they used an oversized target.

That is grossly too big compared to Kennedy.

 "WRONG!  The target was indeed enlarged and it is more obvious in the video clip of the tests.  The target was hand painted and they did NOT use the standard paper targets that are usually pinned up.  The expert shooters all had minutes to test fire a similar rifle to the MC, but they did NOT have rifles with the scope misaligned, and the bolt very sticky that forced you off your aim each time you reloaded, or a double-pull trigger." 

"Doesn't matter anyway, JFK was killed by a lead bullet or one that went to small fragments upon hitting the target.  The MC ammunition was FMJ and would have gone through without coming apart into hundreds of small bits, as shown by the X-ray." 

Thank you, Tom.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Let's just look at the Hosty/Bookhout statement by itself, without comparing it to anything else. In other words, let's make believe we don't know anything about "out with Bill Shelley in front." It still doesn't pass muster.

Why would Oswald designate his location as the "first floor"? It's way too big. He couldn't occupy the whole first floor. It would have been evasive to give such an answer. Since when does the FBI settle for evasive answers? 

Why would Oswald cite a location without saying exactly what he was doing at the location? Real life isn't like that. We've all watched enough detective shows to know that the defendant will always say, "I was at XXX doing YYY." So, how could Hosty and Bookhout cite this huge location (the first floor) and say nothing about what what he was doing there?

And why wouldn't they have asked him why he wasn't watching the motorcade at that time? What could he have been doing that was more important to him than watching the historic Presidential motorcade? Didn't they have to ask him? Didn't he have to tell them? Wouldn't it have come out automatically and spontaneously? How could that have been left out of their report?

I really think Hosty and Bookhout twisted Oswald's words, but they did it without telling a brash lie, which they did not want to do. In other words, they protected themselves so that no matter what happened afterwards, they could not be accused of lying. 

But, when they said Oswald said he was on the first floor, they (Hosty and Bookhout) were being evasive. When they said he was on the first floor but did not stipulate what he said he was doing, they were being evasive. And when they implied that Oswald's activity was something other than watching the motorcade (which was implied, as I read it) and offered no explanation as to why he preferred to do something other than watch the motorcade, they were being evasive.    

Oswald was watching the motorcade at the time of the motorcade, but they didn't want to say it. So, instead of lying outright, which would have been very risky, they just said nothing. 

Oswald said he was in the doorway where Bill Shelley was. And who knows? He may have used the word "doorway" or "entrance" or "steps". We just don't know. Fritz wrote down "out with Bill Shelley in front" but we mustn't assume to know that those were Oswald's exact words. He might have said, "I was out in front on the steps with Bill Shelley."  There is shorthand involved in taking hastily written notes, and the Fritz notes certainly look hastily written. And you can be sure that Fritz took the notes during the interrogations because at one point Oswald said to him, "You've been taking notes; so why don't you look it up?" 

Plus, it is outright preposterous to think that Fritz interrogated Oswald for many hours over two days time, and then some days after Oswald was dead, Fritz finally said to himself, "I suppose I should sit down the jot down the things that Oswald told me" as if he could retain all the details in his head. That is ridiculous. 

All that Hosty and Bookhout provided was one glib statement that Oswald said that during the motorcade he was on the first floor. That is insufficient. It is lacking in substance. It is lacking in detail. It is evasive. 
This is another sentence from the Hosty/Bookhout joint statement of November 23 concerning Oswald's first interrogation the day before, and it is inherently disingenuous:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President Kennedy passed the building."

If Oswald said that he was in the first floor lunch room eating when the President passed the building, why didn't they say so? The first floor was a big area, so surely he would have been more precise than that. He was being accused of killing the President of the United States, and his alibi meant everything. Since we know he didn't do it, surely he would have been as straightforward and forthcoming as possible with his alibi. After all: why not?

But the second thing that makes it disingenuous is that the natural and automatic follow-up question was, "Didn't you want to see the President and First Lady? Why weren't you outside with the others watching it or doing so from a window?"

The way Hosty and Bookhout put it, the inference is that Oswald was doing something unspecified on the first floor, and he wasn't interested in seeing the President and First Lady. But, they didn't bluntly say so, and they should have. They needed to. That's because it's unusual. It's unexpected. And you definitely want to know the reason why.

But, Hosty and Bookhout said nothing about it. They just said that he said that he was on the first floor. Why didn't they expound? I'll tell you why: it's because they didn't want to tell the truth, which was that Oswald said he was out with Bill Shelley in front, but nor did they want to lie and make up something because they knew there was a lot of risk in doing that. They did not want to get caught in a trap. So, shrewdly, they just said that Oswald said he was on the first floor, which was arguably true if you consider the doorway a part of the first floor. 

But, the point is that the very vague designation of "first floor" had to be more vague than whatever Oswald told them, and the omission of addressing why Oswald refrained from watching the motorcade is a major and glaring omission. And, it leads the astute observer to conclude that when Hosty and Bookhout said that Oswald said he was on the first floor during the motorcade, what they really meant was that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." 



That is Hosty and Bookhout's statement to the FBI about what they heard at Oswald's first interrogation. Notice that it says that Oswald said he went home by bus. 

So, you think Hosty and Bookhout made that up, Backes? You think they put the words in Oswald's mouth? You think he said something else and they changed it to 'home by bus'? Because why would he lie about how he got home? He didn't commit any crime while going home. He didn't commit any crime, period. So, why would he lie about it?

So, you think they just made it up? But, note the date that the report was filed: November 23, 1963. Oswald was still alive. So, you think that when Oswald was still alive that Hosty and Bookhout were willing to assign other words to him than what he said, when they knew for sure that he was likely to repeat what he said to them to others? So, you think they were willing to bold-faced lie when it was certain to come back and crush them? 

That makes no sense, Backes. For their own sakes alone, they wouldn't have perjured themselves, knowing, for sure, that it would backfire.

Or, do you think they knew for sure that Oswald was going to be killed the next morning?  Well, it is preposterous to make such an assumption. You have no right to do it. And I won't let you do it. You hear me? I have told you countless times: You can't just pull stuff from out your ass. And the fact is: even if they had prior knowledge that Ruby was going to murder Oswald the next day, that still left approximately 24 hours for Oswald to tell someone else what his transit out of Dealey Plaza consisted of. And even if he didn't get around to doing that, it was still possible that something would surface about it, such as someone else coming forward, someone who saw Oswald doing it, or someone who did it with him, such as a driver who picked him up. 

In other words, if Oswald had told them that he was picked up by a private driver, and they didn't want to repeat it, they would have just left it out. They wouldn't have committed themselves in writing to telling a lie that he said he rode the bus. It wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth the risk.

Oswald told them that he rode the bus. Hosty and Bookhout said it, and Fritz wrote it down. And all that happened for one simple reason: the fact that Oswald said it.  
About an hour's drive south of Pyongyang, North Korea is the "Sinchon Museum of American War Atrocities".  It relates to the Korean War and alleged atrocities committed by American troops. 

They also claim that the Korean War, which killed many millions of people, was started by the US and South Korea and not by them, the North Koreans. 

That, of course, is polar-opposite to what we are taught, and I'm sure that most Americans consider it an outrageous, preposterous lie. 

But, I want you to know that there is a Political Science professor at UC Berkeley whose name is John Quigley who maintains that that is exactly what happened: that the US and its South Korean puppets started the Korean War.  

The name of Quigley's book is Ruses for War which I have read.


 It starts with the Korean War and devotes about 100 pages to it. And in it, Quigley makes a very convincing case that the US ordered South Korea to attack the North. It includes documents, testimonies, and also strategic maps which show battle plans and troop movements which prove that it was South Korea that crossed the border and initiated the attack on North Korea.  

In the US media, I am seeing ridicule of the statements coming out of Pyongyang, but I am not seeing any mention of Dr. Quigley's book. And he isn't North Korean; he is American. And, he is a prominent professor from a prominent American university. 

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination? Nothing directly. Except: both the invasion of North Korea and the JFK assassination arose from a virulent anti-communist ideology- the same virulent anti-communist ideology. And, both constitute major historical events whose histories have been completely corrupted and falsified, and continue to be corrupted and falsified, by political correctness and the power of officialdom. 

And no, I am not a fan of Kim Jong Un or any of his predecessors or any other strongarm dictator anywhere in the world, past or present. But, I know a lie when I see one, and in this case, about this particular thing, their side is telling the truth, and our side is lying. And I know that from reading Professor John Quigley's book, which I highly recommend.  

Backes, you're too stupid to waste much time on. 

John Lattimer tried to claim that Kennedy's actions were all reflexes, that there was no intent or purpose to anything he did. That is bull shit. Kennedy's actions were voluntary and purposeful. 
But, it also involved a massive discharge of his sympathetic nervous system from the shock of it all, which can be called an adrenergic reaction. 

This sums it up well:

Adrenergic Vs Cholinergic

Within the human body there are lots of receptors that receive messages from certain biologic messengers in order for the specific body systems to function or make an appropriate response. Like the autonomic nervous system (ANS), the division responsible for automatic responses like the beating of the heart and other organ functions involving smooth muscles, this system is further regulated by two specific branches called the adrenergic and cholinergic pathways. Each pathway has its own unique set of receptors and triggers to induce a certain action.
The adrenergic pathway is otherwise known as the SNS or sympathetic nervous system. The other one is the cholinergic pathway which is also regarded as the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS). The main difference between the two is their neurotransmitters. For the cholinergic line, acetylcholine (ACh) is used while the adrenergic line makes use of either norepinephrine or epinephrine (also known as adrenaline); no wonder the adrenergic line came to be named as such because adrenaline is involved.
Because of the action of these neurotransmitters, they will trigger different kinds of effects onto the body. Generally, the PNS or cholinergic induces the ‘digest and rest’ effects while the SNS or adrenergic mimics the effect of the ‘fight or flight response’ as in the case when there is too much excitement. Inducing the digest and rest means that the gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) systems’ effects are increased (excited) while imitating the fight or flight response excites all other system effects except the GI and GU.
The two pathways also have different kinds of receptors that are either excitatory in nature or inhibitory. Nicotinic and muscarinic receptors are part of the cholinergic line while alpha and beta receptors are part of the adrenergic line. These receptors are located in many areas within the body like for the nicotinic receptors, they are mostly found at the skeletal muscles whereas the adrenergic receptors are vastly distributed throughout many parts of the body.
Overall, although both are part of the bigger ANS, the two still differ (in fact, their actions oppose each other) because of the following:

1. Adrenergic involves the use of the neurotransmitters epinephrine and norepinehprine while cholinergic involves acetylcholine.
2. Adrenergic is called the sympathetic line (SNS) while cholinergic is called the parasympathetic line (PNS).
3. In general, cholinergic effects or symptoms are like the ‘digest and rest’ while adrenergic effects are congruent to the ‘fight or flight’ response symptoms.