I greatly appreciate the support I have gotten from Staffan on this Moorman photo debacle, in which a "mob mentality" (to use the term of another friend and supporter, Dan Hart) has set in, and suddenly I am being portrayed as attacking and harassing an elderly woman. I have NEVER criticized Mary Moorman in any way, nor have I ever spoken ill of her.
But, in this new article, Staffan and Pete offer some real food for thought. Remember when Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison said, "We are through the Looking Glass, People." Well, Staffan and Pete say it in spades.
A (wacky) Theory of How Nothing is
Believable in the Official Narrative
By Staffan H Westerberg and Pete Engwall
It is not our intent to upset anyone with this highly
speculative theory, but sometimes it is important to have the guts to go where researchers
seldom go. Even to go where one stand a great chance of making a fool of one
self.
In this essay, we will try to unveil the idea that the
entire official narrative of the murder of President Kennedy was a staged act,
where every important scene had nothing to do with reality but was simply
executed according to a well thought through plan. We imagine that the people
behind the murder/cover-up were in cahoots with the ones behind the official
narrative. Therefore, the only real research we can do is to scrutinize the
official narrative. Researching documents and reading affidavits and
testimonies are all fine, but we can never be sure if they have been planted,
are falsified, fabricated or changed in some ways. In other words: there is
very little to be sure of in this case, everything could be tampered with or
fake in some way. All we know beyond any doubt is that Kennedy was in Dallas
that day, it was sunny and he was shot. Beyond that, your guess is as good as
ours is.
It all comes down to identifying a pattern of something
man made, something forcefully added to the story. If we initially believe,
let’s say 70 percent of the official story is fake, can we suspect that the
last 30 percent also is fake if the pattern is similar?
For instance, most of us do not believe Oswald fired a
shot that day, which among many other circumstances the nitrate test showed. We
don’t believe he shot Officer Tippit either. Those two claims are the
foundation of the “official narrative”, even if there is nothing that really
supports that. On the contrary, there are many indications that support the
opposite.
We know that many of you (OIC-researchers) believe that
the lunchroom incident took place, that Oswald went home by bus and taxi, that
he in fact went home to change clothes and get a revolver, that Oswald was
interrogated by the Dallas Police and the FBI, that Captain Fritz’s notes are
genuine and so on. We ask, what if nothing of these established facts ever
really happened, what if they were
just planned scenes made well in advance?
How many “truths” out there were really well schemed
lies? How many genuine witnesses were actors working from a script?
Consider the source
For instance: was Oswald really interrogated that first
day? Pete and I have looked if there are any clues that will support the idea
of that being a hoax of sorts. The first thing that we get stuck on is Oswald’s
statement:
“Nobody has told me what this is all about?”
Now, think about this statement for a while and ask
yourself what it could mean. Did Oswald play a role when he said that, was he
acting as an intelligence agent who was sure everything would soon be cleared
up soon and he would be free?
If that was not the case then it
suggests that nobody had asked Oswald any revealing hardcore questions, which
presumably would be the case, had he been subjected to a real interrogation.
Real questions put to Oswald would have told him he was a suspect in the
killing of the President.
Therefore, we are open to the idea that Oswald was not interrogated
before charged with the crime. Instead, the Police and the FBI perhaps asked
him innocent questions, which is why he never received legal counseling. Maybe
Oswald noticed that he was not the only one taken in for questioning? Maybe the
Plotters didn’t know what to do with him? Perhaps he was supposed to be killed
at the theatre according to the plan and now they were at a loss for how to
handle matters? Legal counseling would also have left a real paper trail.
Today we know that people we don’t trust, people in the
Dallas Police, the FBI, Ruth and Michael Paine etc., were the ones that relayed
what Oswald allegedly had said during those “interrogations”. The question
becomes, how can anyone be sure that this information is not disinformation?
It’s like asking the wolf where the sheep have gone. We cannot trust any of
these sources. In addition, if it is disinformation, how can you then use it as
part of the foundation of your research?
One exception is of course Roger Craig. We trust Craig’s
statements (in his manuscript) which we do believe are close to reality. Beside
the point that Craig was a human being and could have heard something wrong or
misunderstood something Oswald said, at least he most likely intended to report
the truth to the world. Still, his report of having met Oswald in Captain
Fritz’s office does not really reveal much - just that weird thing about Mrs.
Paine’s station wagon.
Consequently, we are skeptical towards any of Oswald’s so
called statements to the Dallas Police and the FBI. The only thing to rely on
is what Oswald said to the TV cameras. That is of course if that footage has
not been tampered with.
Press conference!?
If it is possible to detect what is planted, fabricated
and fake information, and if one can identify who delivered the information,
then there is a small chance that one also can see how it was done and by whom.
This case is full of “none-coincidences” – one of them being a murder
suspect dragged out to a press conference before charged with the crime. A
murder suspect in a press conference before any real interrogation had been
conducted? That move by the Dallas Police/Dallas DA must be unique in the
history of crime investigation. Since we don’t believe this was only a
weird spur-of-the-moment-act by the Dallas Police or Henry
Wade – but why was this done?
We can think of one reason: They had failed to kill
Oswald in the theatre and hadn’t just yet figured out how to get rid of him.
They just knew they were in conflict with the “plan”. This was one of a very
few actions within the operation that did not go according to plan. Had Oswald
been killed at the theatre, this would have been an open and shut case that
would perhaps have made “conspiracy theorists” like Mark Lane and others enter
the scene several years later. This is also, why there were no notes and no
legal counseling, cause they didn’t know what the hell to do with Oswald!
They knew they had to kill him sooner than later, because
as soon as Oswald was charged with the crime, and knew he had been set up to be
the fall guy, he most probably was no longer going to follow the game
plan (if there was one) and keep his mouth shut. Up to that point,
(when charged) someone, perhaps Phillips, could have coached him. But when
Oswald realized that they were selling him down the river, he instantly became
dangerous and could jeopardize the whole operation. Logically, this had to have
been the case.
We can certainly understand the impossibility of having
Oswald talking to the Press after he was charged with killing
JFK and Tippit and after all the hours of interrogation. If
bringing him out to meet the Press was part of a newly created plan, he at that
time had to have been in the dark as to their intentions and thought that his
status as an agent would straighten things out eventually. Maybe he thought he
was just one of many brought in for questioning?
Boy, was he wrong.
Still, why drag him out to a press conference? Why parade
him in front of reporters back and forth – or more adequate, why let reporters
have access to Oswald between the line-ups?
Perhaps the new plan was to kill him on Sunday in front
of all the police officers in some kind of altercation. That (as a singled out
event) would cast suspicion on the Dallas Police, for sure. So, they had to
take steps to make the American public used to see him, sort of getting the TV
viewers used to seeing Oswald in front of people and to personally dislike him.
In that environment, they could then create the situation in which Ruby shot
Oswald. A spur of the moment thing and everyone could see that the Dallas
Police was innocent.
Bird Eye Perspective
If you look at the case from above, a pattern emerges in
which Lee Harvey Oswald was set up to be a patsy. That process started already
in the spring of 1963 (perhaps even earlier). The scenario with Oswald as a
(fake) commie going back to Banister and the FPFC leaflets suggests that he was
about to be sacrificed. This whole development of “sheep dipping” Oswald turned
into a major operation and we have all seen the tracks or traces of it. It goes
on: was Oswald a real defector to the Soviet Union? Not likely. Was Oswald a
real communist? Hardly, since he had too much to do with Banister and other
right wing people. Did he order the Carcano rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods
in Chicago? Nope, Armstrong has proven he did not. Did he shoot at General
Walker in the spring of -63? Research and Walker himself has shown Oswald did
not. Did Oswald own the revolver “found” on him at the Texas Theatre? Not
likely, which another part of Armstrong’s findings shows. Did Oswald go to the
Cuban consulate in Mexico City in September of -63? No, no proof shows that and
for whatever its worth - David Atlee Phillips have admitted to Mark Lane it
never happened. Did Oswald carry curtain rods to work on the 22nd of
November? Not likely – since he didn’t need neither curtain rods nor a rifle.
Finally, did Oswald shoot President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit? No, we know that
cannot be true.
Therefore, is it such a stretch to think that everything
in the official narrative was planned one way or another?
Why shouldn’t it be?
Or, are any of you guys suggesting the Plotters just got
lucky?
Are you saying that they had created and executed a
complex plan for many months, all the way to 12:30 on the 22nd of
November 1963, but after the shots, the plan evaporated and they had to rely
solely on luck?
If luck had no part of it then everything in the official
narrative that could be used to support the lone assassin theory had to have
been part of a plan.
Baker & Tippit
We will start with the two most important scenes in the
path leading up to the arrest: the lunchroom incident and
the Tippit killing. All can agree that Oswald never killed Tippit,
so we will not address that scene here. Instead, we will focus on the lunchroom
incident.
In the evening of the assassination reporters asked Chief
Curry what lead the Dallas Police to arrest Oswald, and Curry presented two
explanations:
“He worked in the building and the officer (Baker) was
told he worked there” and “he was seen at the Tippit scene”.
It cannot be much clearer than that; Curry used the Baker
story and the Tippit killing as the vehicles with which they could explain
Oswald’s arrest.
Still, many of you think the lunchroom incident, or
everything pertaining to Marrion Baker, is legit. However, without these two
“incidents” the Dallas Police and the Dallas DA had nothing.
If the Plotters had planned this murder/cover-up
meticulously for months and when the plan went into the end stages, into the
most critical point, and they at that point used two scenes that would support
the story, two scenes that in fact would be the only thing to rely on, what are
the odds of those two scenes not being part of a plan?
Again, without those two scenes/events the
Dallas Police had nothing.
Consequently, had Oswald never left the TSBD he would not
have been a suspect in the Tippit killing and the police could never have had
him arrested. In the developing scenario, after Kennedy was killed, they had to
be able to show something that would tie Oswald to the 6th floor
in the TSBD. That plan couldn’t let him stay.
Do you see this dilemma?
When you begin to see the importance of this, you realize
it had to have been part of a plan – to get him away from the murder scene,
make him a fugitive, a cop killer etc., so they could arrest him. One
additional scene that supports this theory is that Roger Craig saw Oswald get
into a station wagon and was driven off. Why is that believable? Because they
had to control him every step of the way and he couldn’t be left alone. The consequence of that is of course that
Oswald never left on a bus and in a taxi. Would any sensible planner of a
crime this big ever consider to let the only insurance of success wander off by
himself at the most critical hour with the risk of jeopardizing the whole
operation? Or, would you think they had him under control all the way to the
Texas Theatre?
In the midst of this, did Chief Curry have a part in
this murder/cover-up? Or: was he somehow manipulated without realizing it?
We don’t know what the answer is, but we find it almost
impossible to believe that he wouldn’t know. When Curry in later years
indicated that the police really didn’t know if Oswald was a lone assassin or
not, it could have been his way of making amends. Maybe his conscious bothered
him in later years?
The Lunchroom Incident
In order to be able to assess the credibility of the
lunchroom incident ever taking place, we have to look closely at all important
aspects of the scene. First, did Oswald set himself apart from his fellow workers
that day and sat on his own in the second floor lunchroom 60-90 seconds after
the last shot? Who actually places Oswald in the second floor lunchroom? Here
we have to read through documents and identify who said what at what time.
Was it Officer Marrion Baker who said if first? No, it
wasn’t. In Baker’s affidavit from the 22nd of November 1963
there is no mention of Oswald.
Was the initial source Roy Truly? No, not him either. The
first time anyone explained that it was Oswald who Baker and Truly had met,
(beside the fact that Chief Curry told the reporters on the 22nd of
November) it was first said during the Commission hearing with Officer Baker,
but not by Baker himself.
Interestingly enough it was Allen Dulles who said it
first when he told David Belin that Baker had met Oswald!
Before we get in to Officer Baker’s claims, we shift
focus towards the director and superintendent Roy Truly. What points to
Truly in some instance having been involved in the assassination of President
Kennedy?
Actually, there are several indications of that being the
case. First and foremost, Truly was the building manager (for 34 years) at a
company that had been the front for covert intelligence operations for many
years; drugs, gun running etc. Anybody who reads William Weston’s article “The
Spider’s Web: The Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas Conspiracy”
will realize it was not an innocent outfit operating at 411 Elm Street, and the
man responsible for the building had an important position, no doubt. Truly being
“Building Manager” is not a complete description since he was also on the board
of directors. This was the same man who took on Oswald as a new
employee. The day before Ruth Paine called Truly and asked if he had any
work for Oswald, Truly had actually laid off eight black employees due to
redundancies, according to researcher Greg Parker. Still Oswald got the
job. Many believe Ruth Paine had a part in framing Oswald; it was in her garage
where Oswald supposedly stored his rifle in a blanket, it was Ruth Paine who
discovered the (fake) backyard photos and called the “Walker Note” something
Oswald wrote to Hosty regarding Hosty contacting Marina. In reality, Paine
turned Oswald over to Truly and the conspirators had to count on Oswald being
inside the building at the time (or right after) the shooting, something that
Truly could make sure of. Also, it was Roy Truly who told the police that
Oswald was missing, while on the other hand he had purportedly told Oswald
“there wouldn’t be any more work done that day”, meaning it was OK for Oswald
to leave. Had Oswald been picked up by the station wagon, like Craig claims,
then either Truly had something to do with that, or Truly told a small lie with
large consequences. When asked by the Warren Commission about Oswald not being
there (at the TSBD) Truly couldn’t really explain why he noticed that only
Oswald was missing. Truly was also the one behind the so-called head counts,
one at 12:50 PM (many employees were missing) and the next one at 2:00 PM (when
Oswald had been in custody for 9 minutes). It is a definite problem with the
first head count since Roy Truly reportedly conducted it ten minutes before the
building was sealed off, this when many employees were all over the place.
Another major problem is what Truly told commissioner Gerald Ford, namely that
he (Truly) didn’t know for sure how many people worked in the building..! This
would of course disqualify the validity of doing a head count.
Going back to Marrion Baker. Let’s start from the
beginning. The beginning in this case is something Baker told
the Warren Commission four months after the assassination:
Officer Baker rode beside the seventh car in the
motorcade, some half a block behind the Presidents limousine. When JFKs car
turned on to Elm Street, Marrion Baker made the turn from Main to Houston
Street. According to Baker, the motorcade was “creeping along real slowly”.
When Baker was 20 to 30 feet into Houston Street he heard
“these (3) shots come out”. He then “happened to look straight up”.
This testimony before the Warren Commission on March 25
1964 reveals that Officer Baker had already met with Commission lawyer David W.
Belin in Dallas some five days earlier. Belin and Baker had walked along
Houston and Elm Street, allegedly to “inform” the Commission of Baker’s
different positions in Dealey Plaza. If you wanted to coach a witness before
testifying this would be a good time to do so.
Anyway, Baker said he looked up and saw a flock of
pigeons flying up. He did not see a rifle barrel, nor a shooter, let alone
anyone firing a weapon. All he did was hearing three rifle shots
while he saw those pigeons. From Baker’s point of view on the
motorcycle, the distance between the roof of the Book Depository and the 6thfloor
window was more or less in the same field of vision. For that reason it is hard
to believe that Baker wouldn’t have seen a shooter had someone actually fired
from up there – at the same time as a half blind man (Brennan) and a 14 year
old boy could see the shooter (but not any shooting).
Baker’s explanation feels constructed and false.
Baker: “I immediately revved that motorcycle up and was
going up there to see if I could help anybody../ /.. I heard the, you know, the
two extra shots, the three shots.”
Baker told the Commission he only “glanced over the
windows” and couldn’t see anything besides the pigeons flying around up there.
The three shots were also evenly spaced – bang-bang-bang – but he wasn’t sure
from where the shots came. Still… without any apprehension, he got off his bike
and ran quickly towards the Book Depository.
Meanwhile, many people rushed to the parking area due
west, also known as the Grassy Knoll, where over 50 witnesses had thought the
shots had come from. Officer Baker was the only one (to our knowledge) who ran
in the opposite direction.
Is it not strange that Baker didn’t run towards the place
where the shots most likely had come from, but to the place where the shots
officially came from?
Let’s review: Baker trailed the Limo in the motorcade by
half a block, he heard three shots, saw pigeons above a roof, parked his bike
and ran like a cop bent on suicide - to do what? Catch an assassin? Catch
several sniper teams? Engage in a shootout? How would he know how many
assassins there were? Officially he didn’t know. He sure didn’t act the way the
Dallas Police normally did when they were going to catch an armed killer, or
killers, namely send many cops armed to their teeth – like they did during the
arrest of Oswald at the theatre. No, this guy just rushed in waving a revolver,
not knowing anything about how dangerous this could be. Or did he know
beforehand exactly what to expect?
Or: was he just ordered by someone over the radio to do
what he did, and thus created a pre-planned scene that could be given a
creative finish afterwards? Maybe the “pigeons” were just something they came
up with later so Baker with confidence could explain why he chose the Book
Depository and not the knoll to run to.
Now, we get to the lunchroom incident. Excuse the
language now but how in the hell did that scene ever come about? Because this
is what Officer Baker wrote (or told Mary Rattan) in his affidavit from the 22nd of
November 1963:
“As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man
walking away from the stairway (far-far away from the lunchroom). I called to
the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, ‘I know
that man, he works here’. I then turned the man loose and went up to the top
floor.”
In this first affidavit Baker is not even near the
lunchroom. Neither is the man who doesn’t even resemble Oswald (according to
Baker’s description). Four months later, in front of Dulles, Ford, Belin and
others in the Commission, Baker states:
“As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was
ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and
I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened
to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him,
but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.”
Baker almost said it again: walking away from
this… He was about to say stairway, but then he miraculously gets
further from the stairs, all the way to the door with the window leading into
the lunchroom. Now, Baker implies that the man – a man - was in the room on the
other side.
Baker then starts talking about the doors leading into
the lunchroom using very strange and unnecessary details about its size. Now,
he suddenly remembers a whole pile of awkward details and suddenly he says the
magic words:
“I could see him, he was walking away from me about 20
feet away from me in the lunchroom.”
In small increments, they had now moved the scene from
the stairway to the lunchroom. Still, no one had said it was Oswald that Baker
had seen and met.
The former CIA Director now felt the need to cut in
and explain to David Belin:
“Can I suggest if you will do this, put on there where
the officer was and where Lee
Oswald was, or the man who turned out to be Lee Oswald, and which direction
he was walking in. I think that is quite important.”
There it was. No one had to beat around the bush anymore,
Dulles was the one who placed Oswald in the lunchroom - and he met no protest
from Officer Baker.
As we understand this scene; Truly told Baker that
Oswald (the man) worked in the building (so Baker could therefore ignore
him). Still Baker felt the need to register the description of a man who was of
no significance – what was possibly the point of that?
Two weeks after Marrion Baker’s testimony, Roy Truly was
questioned. He saw things differently and told the Commission that as he and
Officer Baker rushed up the stairs, all of a sudden Baker wasn’t behind him. He
was gone. So Truly went back down to the second floor to look for the officer.
He then proceeded through the hallway leading in to the lunchroom. Then he
opened the first glass door and saw Officer Baker directly in the doorway of
the lunchroom. Baker was facing Lee Harvey Oswald with the revolver pointed at
him. Oswald was not far inside the lunchroom.
There is nothing about a soft drink machine or a Coca
Cola in Truly’s testimony; “Oswald had nothing in his hand”. But, apparently
Officer Baker confronted Oswald well inside the lunchroom after having closed
the door behind him.
Later that day (22nd of November 1963)
Captain Fritz would supposedly tell Postal inspector Harry D. Holmes something
Oswald had said during the interrogation:
”Then he (Oswald) said when all this commotion started,
"I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the
elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see
what it was all about, a police
officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started
to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and
told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he
told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I
just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
What is true and what is false? All information comes
from the crowd where the real suspects were hiding and we sense they mixed
true- and false information beyond the ability for anyone to really establish
anything with certainty.
The Coca Cola
What about Oswald drinking a Coke?
Neither Baker, nor Truly told of this being a fact in
their affidavits or WC testimonies. However, The Washington Post could furnish
this information in an article from December 1st 1963:
“As they made their way to a back stairway, the policeman
saw Oswald standing beside a soft drink machine, sipping from a Coke bottle.”
Today we know of CIAs Operation Mockingbird and The
Post’s major role in it; the Coke story could very well have been something
originated from the CIA through The Post.
The other source is reportedly Lee Harvey Oswald!
In 1997 the ARRB managed to declassify Captain Will Fritz
notes, supposedly taken a week or two after the heinous event in Dallas. Many
researchers think those few scribbled pages are legitimate and some even use
them as proof of Oswald being outside the Book Depository at the time of the
shooting. We wonder why the Chief of Homicide would take down notes a few weeks
after he had spoken to the suspect, who was dead by then? Why he did that has
never been satisfactorily established.
When you do some form of light analysis of the notes one
can’t help but get stuck on the phrase allegedly coming from Oswald: “Claims
2nd floor Coke when off came in”. We guess this would mean that during the
interrogation, Oswald told Captain Fritz that he had a Coke when Officer Marrion
Baker came in.
Having already established that this incident in the
lunchroom is not to be trusted, why trust anything from these notes? They seem
to be appealing to both conspiracy theorists and lone nutters – which is why we
believe it is disinformation, something meant to get stuck on.
The notes tell us that at some time Oswald was out with
Bill Shelley. But we don’t know what questions he was answering. It becomes a
guessing game. What question would precede Oswald’s claims of having had a Coke
when an officer came in?
What did you do after the shooting?
After the shots you went back into the building, where
did you go, did you meet anyone?
From the looks of the notes, after Oswald had met Baker
he then went “to 1st floor had lunch”, and after that he was
“out with Bill Shelley in front”.
The question of where Oswald was when the shots were
fired may not have been asked of him at all. Or are we supposed to read Fritz’s
notes backwards?
In 1964 Will Fritz told Joseph Ball of the Warren
Commission “the questions may be in the wrong place” – which makes the notes
even harder to interpret.
The way we read the notes is: Oswald was never asked what
he did when the shots were fired, and after the shots, he went to the second
floor lunchroom to buy a Coke, then he went down stairs to the first floor to
have lunch, and after lunch he went outside with Bill Shelley. If you follow
that chronology, this is what he said. But, as Fritz sort of told Ball, it
could have been the other way around. Oswald could have been asked where he was
during the shooting, and told Fritz he was out with Bill Shelley in front.
Consequently, many researchers have used the “out with
Bill Shelley in front” as proof of Oswald being outside when the shots
occurred. This could be true, but it could also be totally false. We simply
don’t know what the question was. Further more, we don’t really know if the
real source is Oswald..! After all, the note was created at a later date and
made to look like an authentically scribbled note, why?
However, one gets the impression that Fritz’ notes try to
hide something. It might be the fact that they were written some time later, or
much later, yet Fritz still retained the look of his notes being taken during
the interrogation; using abbreviations and a “quick and dirty” appearance. Even
if they were written a week later, would they not be written with the idea of
wanting to communicate the information given to him by Oswald? Why does it look
like Fritz was running out of space when writing the notes?
Why abbreviate when you should try to clarify?
Why make it barely legible?
These notes actually look like an attempt at making
a recreation of a note that would or could have been taken,
which of course has no evidentiary value at all. And when you combine the fact
that Baker ran straight to the building because of pigeons when all witnesses
to the shooting went towards the knoll; and when Baker pointed his revolver to
the man he later would see as the arrested man, but still failed to remember
that he had met him in the second floor lunchroom by the Coke machine; and the
fact that Baker gave out almost the same wrong description of Oswald as was
published in the radio message at 12:45! On top of that, Fritz wrote the notes
a week or more later and made them look like real notes taken during the
interrogation. The many questionable circumstances are enough to doubt the
validity of Baker’s actions, the Coke incident and Captain Fritz’ notes –
actually it’s enough to question the entire scene.
Oswald never went home
So far in this highly speculative theory we have now more
or less killed the idea of Baker’s story being true. At least we think there
are enough anomalies that points to a constructed story. So, if it didn’t
happened the way they say, maybe there are other parts of the official
narrative that we can question?
No matter what, in order for the planned setup to fully
work there are risks that could not be taken. There had to be control of Oswald
and of the "evidence" that were still not in their designated spots;
the jacket, the holster, the Tippit killing and
the suspicious behavior – alone in the lunchroom - that
would enable Oswald to be singled out and arrested.
Our thoughts are centered on what had to be the hard
events that were planned and also circumstantial add-ons. As long as Oswald was
the Patsy, then it was imperative that he appeared as the preplanned
schedule called for - arresting LHO at the TSBD would have meant at least ten
people that could have vouched for his "non assassin role" but away
from the TSBD he becomes "accusable".
Because of the logical need to control Oswald he was
likely taken straight to the Texas Theatre and was never left on his own to go
home. Consequently, Oswald going home was also a pre-planned scene.
Since he did not kill Tippit or JFK there was no reason
for him to hurry home to change clothes and get a revolver. There is no reason
why an innocent person would have to change clothes and get a revolver before
going to see a movie.
The information surrounding Mrs. Earline Roberts supports
this suspicion. The signs of manipulation are in fact all over this part of the
Oswald legend: Mrs. Robert’s affidavits are a lot about something she never saw
– the revolver and jacket, and the affidavits are not even signed by her.
Further more, she was blind on one eye, upset over what had happened in Dealey
Plaza minutes earlier, upset over the fact that her TV didn’t work properly.
If anyone trusts Mrs. Robert’s statements, that must be
on faith and not logic. She was no better than Mrs. Markham.
Instead, we believe there could have been an impostor, a
“second Oswald”, present at the rooming house around 1:00 PM. At that time (or
close to it) the real Oswald stepped into the foyer in the Texas Theatre and
was seen by Butch Burroughs, while two other individuals a mile away shot and
killed Officer Tippit. The “Oswald getting to the rooming house”, the “Oswald
buying a movie ticket to see ‘War Is Hell’” and the “Oswald killing Tippit”
happened in the same timeframe, a mile apart. These scenes were all independent
of each other.
Who lived at 1026 North
Beckley?
Anything and everything in the official version fake?
Really? Everything!?
What about Oswald renting the room at Beckley Avenue,
could that also be false? Well, anything surrounding Mrs. Robert’s alleged
statements certainly opens up the possibility. We will start with two questions: How did the Dallas
Police find out where Oswald lived, and when did they find
that out?
According to Mrs. Robert’s in her
affidavit from the 5th of December 1963 three Dallas police
officers arrived at the rooming house some 20 minutes before they
arrested Oswald at the Texas Theatre.
No, you are reading it right: Around
1:30 PM three officers allegedly conducted a search in Oswald rented room. And,
while they were doing that two FBI agents arrived.
Five individuals from law enforcement in
Oswald’s small room well before the arrest. How? And why? To
plant a holster to the revolver he supposedly brought with? Or something else?
As you all know, at that time
the Dallas Police didn’t know who they were looking for, who they were chasing.
That is officially of course. So how does the Warren Commission explain this
timing problem? Well, they simply ignored that part of Mrs. Robert’s statement
and indicated that it was Officer Gerald Hill who told Captain Fritz about
Oswald’s address. But Officer Hill denied he ever did that. Instead Hill
thought it must have been Officer Charles Walker who told Fritz.
Researcher Hasan Yusuf writes about this
in an essay:
“Evidently becoming frustrated, Belin
then asked Hill, “Well, did you hear any Beckley Street address mentioned?” Hill remarked
that he didn’t hear anything about a Beckley address until “probably” 7 or 8 pm
on the evening of the assassination (ibid). Following this question, Hill was
asked if Walker ever mentioned to him (Hill) any conversation, which he had
with Oswald inside the interrogation room (ibid). One is at a loss to
understand why Belin asked Hill these questions; unless of course, he had information
that it was Hill who told Fritz that Oswald was living at the rooming house!”
To this day, (to our knowledge) no one
has been able to prove at what (official) moment the Dallas Police and the FBI
knew of Oswald’s address. Officially it had to have been after 1:51 PM. But if
our assumption is correct, suggesting that nothing in the official story is
true, then what about Oswald’s rooming house, did he actually live there under
the name O.H. Lee?
Well, there are some in the research
community that hold the provocative idea that Oswald never lived there.
Researcher Lee Farley believes that it could have been Larry Crafard who was
living at 1026 North Beckley Avenue, not Oswald.
Hasan Yusuf:
“Researcher Lee Farley believes that
Oswald’s belongings may have been moved into the rooming house following the
assassination by certain DPD officers such as Harry Olsen; whilst all of
Crafard’s belongings were moved out.”
There are many indicators that at least
make you wonder if Oswald really lived at 1026 Beckley Avenue. The pattern is
the same as in every other aspect of our analysis of the case. If one takes
Mrs. Robert’s statements into account and add the research done by Farley,
Yusuf and Parker into the mysterious whereabouts of Larry Crafard, the fact that
Marina Oswald never visited the address – and on top of that apply our analysis
of the official narrative – then it is very possible that we are so far from
the truth it is ridiculous. Perhaps Oswald was keeping busy as a controlled
agent and stayed at one of the safe houses?
TSBD
If the official narrative says the shots came from the
Book Depository, then perhaps no shot came from there in reality. We believe
that the TSBD was the only place no one actually used in the assassination.
Why?
For one thing, the extremely low number of witnesses (one
- a 14 year old boy) that saw shots being fired from up there - in contrast
with the amount of people that claimed to have seen shots being fired from the
knoll.
Secondly, no one reported the smell of gunpowder from the
“snipers nest”, that would have been present had someone shot from up there.
Thirdly, had the shooter been standing inside the
building, the three shots would have been muffled, and not like it was
reported; clear rifle shots that could be heard; and, had the shooter, like
Brennan claimed, stuck the barrel out the window and fired, most likely many
people would have seen it. This part of the story just doesn’t hold together.
Lastly, since they sealed off the TSBD but no other place
or building in the area, it seems likely that they used the building on 411 Elm
Street as a stage.
Marina Oswald
Listening to the HSCA hearings with Marina Oswald leaves
one rather suspicious. While she has a hard time understanding some easy words,
and equally has problems with pronouncing fairly easy words, she later in the
hearings sort of forgets herself and suddenly speaks at a more difficult
English level, using several advanced words and complicated sentences. What’s
up with that?
As we see it, there is something fishy with Marina
Oswald. Exactly what it is, we cannot say, but she is likely hiding something.
One thing that comes to mind is her claim of having taken the backyard photos.
Today we know those photographs are fake, no question about it, so if she says
she took them, what exactly does that mean?
It all goes back to how easy it was for Oswald to leave
the Soviet Union and travel back to the US with his Russian wife and newborn
child. What exactly is true when it comes to that part of the
Oswald legend? If it wasn’t for the fact that no one in Russia ever said that
this story never happened, one could lean towards that Oswald never went to the
Soviet Union and Marina is just someone they picked from the White Russian
community in Dallas. Even if the truth is not that weird,
there is something very wrong with her story. We do not believe it for a
second.
The Altercation
Did Oswald start an altercation with Officer MacDonald in
the Texas Theatre, just like Nick MacDonald claims? Well, we can now (thanks to
Armstrong) have doubts about the alleged “Oswald revolver” ever been in his
possession, and since the Police allegedly found an empty holster in “Oswald’s
room”, (20 minutes before they arrested him) and the fact that the revolver
didn’t work properly, we can see the pattern of both these scenes as being
bull-crap. Then MacDonald will have us believe that Oswald threw the first
punch. It was Oswald who supposedly started the so-called altercation in the
theatre. Several cops with weapons drawn moved in on him from all sides. That
would be suicide, right? Now, the policemen asserted that Oswald drew his
revolver and tried to fire, but MacDonald stopped the gun from firing (with his
hand). How much of a suicide-crazy-move wouldn’t that be!?
Now, other people have said (not anyone from the Dallas Police) that Oswald
hollered out: “I am not resisting arrest, I am not resisting arrest!”
Doesn’t this strike you as very contradicting – from a
psychological point of view? First go for the OK Corral and surely be gunned
down like a dog, then seconds later say the magic words that probably keeps the
Police from following “the Plan” – to kill him at the theatre? We are sure that
those words were more than any of the Dallas officers “could handle”, if they
were to kill him right there.
Later in the evening a reporter asked Oswald what had
happened to his eye. Oswald clearly upset: “A policeman hit me!”
That statement seems spontaneous and sincere coming from
Oswald. Would someone who started an altercation later complain about being
hit? We suppose it is possible, but not likely. One among many strange
circumstances that also seem to contradict the official narrative.
Babushka Lady
The Babushka Lady is another silent
major player in the story of what happened in Dealey Plaza that fateful day.
Beverly Oliver claims she is the one in the outfit that prevents her from being
identified. According to Oliver, she filmed the entire event and the FBI took
her film, never to return it.
No matter how nice and accommodating Oliver is to friends
and strangers, it would be very wrong if researchers just take her word for it
without even consider the idea of the woman in the big scarf being someone
else, perhaps the person, like Ralph Cinque believes, that took the so
called Moorman photo.
Because that is the thing about the Babushka Lady, if it
was she the one who took the famous photo, we can be sure of that photo also
being part of a fake narrative.
What if Beverly Oliver was not the Babushka Lady?
It is almost sacrilegious to even entertain the thought
that she is a liar – I know I have a hard time doing just that because she is
really a very nice and believable person – still, it would almost be a crime
not to spend time with the thought. And, if Oliver is not on the level, then she
was most likely part of the cast in the JFK murder plot, just like we believe
James Altgens had to have been.
Because, what are the odds of Altgens having been there
by chance?
Let’s say you are the boss at AP, and you want to send
someone out to take pictures of the motorcade with the President. Where would
you send him? It is a long way from Love Field to the Trade Mart. Therefore, is
it not peculiar and strange to send him to the very spot where Kennedy is hit?
How lucky is that! Actually, there are a lot of photos and films taken at
Dealey Plaza, much more than was taken elsewhere along the parade route. Why is
that? Funny that Kennedy would both be massively filmed and shot at the same
spot!
To us, that is no coincidence. Possibly all known films
and photos where either planned before the killing, or manipulated after the
fact. It was just as if Kennedy’s limousine drove for a long while until he
arrived into an ambush arena where he was executed according to plan. Within
the hour, Jean Hill was taken in for questioning to a nearby building, and she
described a room where several G-men sat with a perfect view overlooking the
plaza, almost like in a movie theatre.
Still, it is hard to digest the thought of Beverly Oliver
being a fake. No, we don’t really believe that. The Moorman photo could have
been taken by someone else, someone who was cut out from all the films.
Finally, you might think this whole line of thinking is
hogwash, and perhaps rightly so. Maybe this is just a weird and wacky theory.
But, just remember where you read it first.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.