Saturday, October 31, 2015

Have I ever mentioned how I despise people who use aliases? It's true.  

And it's the ones who use aliases to foster their vicious attacks on others whom I despise the most. 

Well, I have found another alias guy who is attacking Oswald in the doorway. Let's see what we know about this latest jerk: 


I was born in 1968. I am a huge Robert Kennedy fan. I was a history major at Eastern Nazarene College. I spent a great deal of my college life at the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library researching in the archives. I make yearly trips to the archives and love to research.

Hmm. Sounds to me like just the kind of guy they would turn into an Op. I'm not saying they would give him any of the heavy lifting to do, such as committing interstate crimes, him not being a soldier and all. But, when it comes to lipflapping, yeah, I suppose he could do it as well as the others- which isn't saying much. 

But, let's take a look at his case against Oswald in the doorway. He put a nifty spin on it:

You are correct! He was outside just before he went home!

He claims that:

One of the pieces of evidence that is used in debates about the location of Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of the assassination is Captain Will Fritz’s handwritten notes about the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald.  An argument that has been around since the assassination is that Lee Oswald was on the steps in the famous Altgens-6 photograph.
One thing that is not debatable is that Cpt. Fritz’s notes do not support this argument.

The basis of his claim is the reference to the order of the remarks. But, I covered that in the new article, showing how there is NO WAY the order can be chronological.

The Fritz Notes from the first interrogation contains the following lines in this order:

Claims 2nd floor Coke when Off(icer) came in
To 1st floor had lunch
Out with Bill Shelley in front
Left work opinion nothing be done that day

Those lines are, obviously, not chronologically correct because Oswald certainly did not eat his lunch after the assassination. That is impossible. As Oswald later explained, he ate his lunch before the assassination in the domino room when Jarman and Norman were there. That was definitely before the motorcade arrived. But, in addition, there was no time for him to eat lunch afterwards. How could he possibly eat lunch after the assassination and do all that he needed to do before reaching home by 1:00? So, we know, with absolute certainty, that the notes are not chronological.

Next, Dreadsox quoted Fritz' claim that Oswald claimed to be eating lunch during the motorcade. 

In examining this, one can say that Fritz omitted that Oswald said he was out front with Shelley.  Some might even draw the conclusion that this is evidence that Fritz was in on it and ignored Oswald’s claims to have been out front.  This does not hold water.  FBI agent James W. Bookout was also in the room and present during the interrogation of Oswald.  His report reads, interestingly enough, closer to Fritz’s notes than Fritz’s report does.

Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Holmes- by that point in time they were ALL in on it, that is, the cover-up. I'm not talking about the murder but the cover-up- although if you told me that anyone who engaged in the cover-up was guilty of the murder as an accessory after the fact, I wouldn't fight with you.

But yes, the truth is that supporting the official story and convicting Oswald became a systemic obsession, and all of them- every fucking last one of those government bastards- did their part. They played their role. They knew exactly what was expected from them, and they delivered. 

Notice that Fritz NEVER cited "out with Bill Shelley in front" at all. Not in reference to the shooting; not in reference to the aftermath, not at all. Fritz was so afraid to bring it up, he was unwilling to even admit that he ever wrote it down, meaning, the existence of the notes.   

DreadSox posted James Bookhout's 11/24 statement in which he said that "at the time of the search of the TSBD" Oswald said he was in the lunch room sipping a Coke. 

But wait. That doesn't even make sense. Why would they ask him: Where were you during the search? They would have asked him: Where were you when it happened? What was Oswald's alibi for the shooting? That's what they would have asked him. That's what they had to ask him. But, Bookhout just left it out. Of course, not being smart or observant, DreadSox wasn't bothered.  

So, that filthy dirty Bookhout started with the aftermath, but he even got that wrong because Oswald did NOT get a Coke until after Baker and Truly left. And then after that, he did NOT eat lunch in the first floor lunch room because he had already eaten it in the first floor lunch room before the assassination. And there can be no doubt about that because there is no way he would have had the time. According to the Warren Commission, Oswald exited the building for good at 12:33. 

That's 12:33, you miserable, bloodsoaked Kennedy-killer. What, do you think he stuffed the food down his gullet like people do at hot dog eating contest?

And then, as I amply explained in the new article, Bill Shelley was not out in front at that time. He left. He left right away. He never returned to the front. There is NO CHANCE that Shelley was out front when Oswald left for home.

It is important to note that during this interrogation, Oswald had not made reference to eating lunch with two other employees in the depository which comes into play in another questioning session, quite different from the order he expressed here.

But, Oswald did name those employees the next time, and he named two employees who were definitely there: James Jarman and Harold Norman. So, out of 70 TSBD employees, he correctly named two who were there in the 12 to 12:20 time frame. There is no way that Oswald could have been lying about them because he could not have guessed that they were there. He had to see them.

Then DreadSox quoted Shelley:

Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.

And DreadSox added:

It is very clear, that Mr. Shelley was not with Lee Harvey Oswald on the steps of the School Book Depository Building before, during or after the assassination of President Kennedy. 

Oh, I get it: This twirp is casting Oswald as guilty. He's got him lying about everything. But, why would Oswald lie about chatting it up with Bill Shelley out front after the assassination? I mean: what would be the point of lying? Oswald wasn't stupid. What point is there in telling a lie which they can easily expose? 

Oswald wasn't lying. He never said he saw and talked to Bill Shelley after the assassination. He said he was in the doorway with Shelley during the assassination. And he said it because he assumed Shelley would confirm it. Of course, Shelley didn't, but that's because Shelley was in on the plot; he was a conspirator; he framed Oswald.  

DreadSox said that not a single witness placed Oswald at the doorway. Not true. Carolyn Arnold did. She said that shortly before the assassination, she saw Oswald between the glass door and the double doors, which means: at the doorway. That she told to an FBI agent on November 26, 1963. 

And, we are very, very lucky to have that because word spread very quickly- like wildfire- that NOBODY saw Oswald when they weren't supposed to. The FBI descended on that place like the fucking Gestapo. Capisce?

"Out with Bill Shelley in front" was DEFINITELY Oswald's alibi, and to those who say it wasn't, then you find me his fucking alibi in the Fritz Notes. Because: it's got to be there. They were accusing him of killing the President of the United States, and he said he didn't do it. What do you think was going to be the next thing to come out of his fucking mouth?????  HIS ALIBI!

So, if you don't think "out with Bill Shelley in front" was his alibi, then you find me his alibi.  You show me his alibi in the notations, above or below.  
You see anything else in there that sounds like an alibi besides "out with Bill Shelley in front"? And if you try to tell me that they talked to him for a whole fucking hour without soliciting his alibi or without him shouting it out spontaneously by his own free will, I tell you that you are nothing but a murdering, blood-soaked Kennedy-killer, that you murder him over and over, every day of your stinking, miserable life. What a fucking way to make a living!

Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting, and that is an absolute, inviolable, irrefutable, undeniable fact.

And just as absolute is the fact that that is where he said he was. He said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the slaughter of JFK. 

Someone contacted me and said that Robert Kennedy's closest advisers warned him that if he interfered with what was going on after the assassination, if he opposed what they were saying and doing, that it would throw the entire government into chaos, and not just the whole government but the whole country, and maybe even the whole economy, because, after all, an economy, especially a modern, industrial one, needs a strong, effective, and legitimate government- or at least one that seems legitimate. 

But, it goes to show you how different people are because my response to them would have been:

"I don't care. We have to do it because we can't let the forces of evil  take over this country- even temporarily. The American people are strong; they are resilient; and they are resourceful. They'll survive. This was a bloody coup, and we can't let it succeed. We have to fight them and fight them now."

And here's the clincher: Those advisers? The ones who urged Robert Kennedy to lay low and keep his mouth shut? They didn't do anything even after the same bloodied bastards killed him. They never did anything. I guess the time was never right for them.

What they said wasn't a rationale- it was a rationalization. 

But, I also received a much appreciated message from a prominent researcher. It's not someone I have ever mentioned; I don't think. I'm not going to provide his name or even his initials. And that's because I know how vicious the people who are opposing me. If he was a nobody, I might tell you, but he's a somebody. But, here is what he said: 

Hello, Ralph,

I agree with you 100%.

By maintaining "political correctness," personal silence and tip-toeing through the Washington political matrix, RFK failed his brother, failed his family, failed his country, and he paid for that lapse of judgment with his life.

RFK's silence and his own death at the hands of the same men who killed his brother are the reasons why it has befallen upon us to do "a brother's work" on his behalf.  And only when we have succeeded will both of their souls truly "Rest in Peace." 


JFK had no one. That is, after his assassination, he had no one in the government who stood up for him. 

Not even his own brother. What did Robert Kennedy do? He became Lyndon Johnson's Attorney General, although LBJ effectively cut his legs off and put Nicholas Katzenbach in charge. 

That's Nicholas Katzenbach who said in a memo 3 days after Oswald's death that the important thing was to convince the public that Oswald did it alone without confederates and would have been convicted in a court of law had he lived.

A year later, RFK resigned to run for Senator from New York. And after a very short stint in the Senate, he began his campaign for President. But, he never denounced the killers, at least not publicly. He could have become the face of the resistance, but he didn't. 

Would he have done something, had he become President? I mean to uncover the truth and bring the perpetrators to justice. I know a lot of people would like to think so. But, it's only speculation. We just don't know. But, I can tell you that it were me, and they did that to my brother, I wouldn't have waited. I'd have acted decisively and immediately.   

But, I am not saying this to bash Robert Kennedy, specifically. He's just an example. He's one of many. The fact is that all of JFK's friends and confidantes within the government failed him, abandoned him. And most of his friends and confidantes outside the government did too. There is one exception which Dr. Marty Schotz keeps pointing to: Mort Sahl. 

Mort Sahl, the stand-up comedian, went public in his rejection of the official story and the Warren Report, and he paid a price for it too, including professional alienation. It almost destroyed his career. It was not OK to be doing what he did. But, it was very personal to him. He knew JFK.  He was a speechwriter for JFK. Specifically, JFK went to Mort Sahl to insert humor into his speeches. 

Mort Sahl is still alive. Here's to you, Mort. You're a real and true American hero. 

So, here's the mindset of the people who put stock in Carolyn Arnold's revised story:

"Well, I guess she lied to the FBI in 1963 and 1964, but then 15 years later, she finally had a pang of conscience and decided to tell the truth to a reporter."

Remember that her second FBI statement in March 1964, she signed. Therefore, there could not have been any misunderstanding about the contents of it. She knew what she was signing. She read it before she signed it. 

Do you think perhaps she withheld the truth in fear for her life?

But, why would she have any less fear for her life in 1978? JFK people were dropping like flies at that time, including witnesses and even FBI agents. 

No, no, no. What happened was that she told the truth in 1963 because it was natural to do so, and she was naive. She didn't realize how dangerous it was- to her. But, by March 1964 she did, and so she revised her story to say that she didn't see Oswald at all. 

So then it's 1978, the HSCA is going strong, the JFK assassination is again in the limelight, witnesses are dropping like flies: George DeMohreschildt, Billy Lovelady, David Sanchez Morales, and more, including  
seven (7) high level FBI officials who died within a six-month period in 1977 just before they were due to testify to the HSCA. 

So, you think, out of conscience, Carolyn Arnold decided at that moment to finally spring the truth? But, what she said defied what Oswald himself said and what others said. He did NOT eat his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room. 

Why then did she say it? And I'll bet she didn't even know that Oswald said he ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room. 

One thing you can be absolutely sure of is that Carolyn Arnold was acting on behalf of Carolyn Arnold. If she had any desire to tell the truth, it would have happened long before 1978. The fact that she did it then, and the fact that it got published in the Dallas Morning News and perhaps other papers tells  you that "they" wanted that story out. Carolyn Arnold was doing what "they" wanted. Carolyn Arnold was protecting Carolyn Arnold. Carolyn Arnold was not defying authority; she was submitting to authority. 

And the authorities knew that the big danger was the story about Oswald being in the doorway- which was her first story. So, they needed her to renounce that and make some noise in another direction. So, they got her to say what she did.

There is NO CHANCE that Oswald ate lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room. He NEVER did. It was his daily practice, his habit, to eat in the 1st floor lunch room, which was where all the grunt workers, the "order-fillers" ate lunch. There was no exceptions to that. In the mornings, he would put his lunch on the counter by the window in the domino room, as many did. Then, he would go back there at noon, retrieve his lunch, sit down, and eat.  He would eat and then sometimes afterwards he would read the newspaper, and that was in the domino room. Again: there is NO CHANCE that what Carolyn Arnold claimed in 1978 was true. It was just noise. It was just static. It was just a diversion away from the truth, that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the murder of JFK.  
Ralph Cinque:
Anthony Marsh 
10:13 AM (1 hour ago)
On 10/29/2015 2:00 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> This is my response to Marsh.

Of course you are not brave enough to post that text here:

  Ralph Cinque:

I get it, Marsh. Now you're making it that Oswald was so paranoid that a
cop only had to blink at him, and he would open fire. But, what is that
based on? What is there in the record, and I mean the real record not the
lore they created about him that justifies that view of him? What is the
real evidence that he was paranoid? And what is the evidence that he
disliked cops?

Well, here is, apparently, an image of Oswald talking to a cop scant
minutes after the assassination:

Tippit did not wink. He talked to Oswald through the open window and then
started to get out of the police car to confront Oswald. He may already
have had his service revolver drawn by the time he got to the front of the
police car. He didn't just let Oswald go on his way.

FYI, Oswald pulled out his revolver and showed it to the KGB officers at
the Soviet embassy in Mexico City, telling them that he always carried it
because he was afraid that the authorities were out to get him. He did not
single out the DPD over the Sheriff's Department.

BTW, your photo is phony as usual. That is not Oswald. He was paranoid
because the government was opening his mail and trying to get him fired
and harassing him, questioning his wife. 

Ralph Cinque:

Brave enough? There are images in the article which I couldn't post here. Am I brave enough? Are you completely out of your mind? 

It's not a rhetorical question, Marsh. How can you possibly claim to divine all that about the Tippit shooting? What witness claimed to see Tippit draw his gun?   

For your information, Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. There is not a stitch of evidence that he did, and several images of impostors are part of the official record. Oswald repeatedly denied going to Mexico City, and he had no reason to lie about it because it wasn't a crime to go there, and he wasn't being accused of committing any crimes there. So, why would he lie about it?

And if my photo is phony I'm not the one who phonied it. And, why would they make a phony photo of Oswald with the Three Tramps?

You are completely hapless, Marsh, and you are the only person I know who disputes the official story but keeps Oswald as a maniacal killer. 

Friday, October 30, 2015

This is Part 4 of my analysis of Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission. And from having taken it as far as I have, I can tell you that if I could pose one and only one question to Marina Oswald, it would be:
What did they do to you during the 2+ months that you were held in captivity?

So, Marina let Ruth Paine drive her down to New Orleans to be with Lee after he found a job and an apartment.

But, Rankin interrupted that train of thought to ask about Lee's dealings with the FBI. Marina said that two agents visited their home in August 1962 and spent 2 hours with him out in the car. She said dinner got cold, so she got a little upset.

But, if Oswald knew that the FBI was watching him, keeping tabs on him, why didn't that discourage him from shooting at Walker? It makes it all the more brazen.  

Here's some important testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. After you had discussed with your husband your going to Russia, was anything done about that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I wrote a letter to the Soviet Embassy with a request to be permitted to return. And then it seems to me after I was already in New Orleans, I wrote another letter in which I told the Embassy that my husband wants to return with me.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the date of the first letter that you just referred to?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. But that is easily determined.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you asking for a visa to return to Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss with your husband his returning with you before you wrote the second letter that you have described?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't ask him. He asked me to do so one day when he was extremely upset. He appeared to be very unhappy and he said that nothing keeps him here, and that he would not lose anything if he returned to the Soviet Union, and that he wants to be with me.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this a change in his attitude?
Mrs. OSWALD. Towards me or towards Russia?
Mr. RANKIN. Towards going to Russia.
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think that he was too fond of Russia, but simply that he knew that he would have work assured him there, because he had---after all, he had to think about his family.

So, it was back to the idea of them all going back to Russia- not just her. If you recall, she cited the discussion about returning to Russia as the provocation for Oswald beating her. Beating; with all that that entails. 

And again, we have testimony that the rifle was definitely in New Orleans, and Lee must have brought it because how could she "first notice" something that she brought? 

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first notice the rifle at New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. As soon as I arrived in New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. Where was it kept there?
Mrs. OSWALD. He again had a closet-like room with his things in it. He had his clothes hanging there, all his other belongings.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle in a cover there?
Mr. RANKIN. Did you notice him take it away from your home there in New Orleans at any time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting. Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us an idea of how often this happened that you recall?
Mrs. OSWALD. It began to happen quite frequently.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he had a real fetish for that rifle. But, I still have to wonder how he brought it down with him on the bus, even in 1963.  

She said that she would see him on the back porch practicing with the telescopic lens. But, if you're not firing, how can you practice? If you're not shooting and seeing the results, how can you know if you're using the scope right?

Next came the claim that Oswald wanted to go to Cuba by way of hijacking an airplane. He wanted to do it, and he wanted her to help him. Perhaps he was going to arm June with a box-cutter. 

But, despite all that, during this period, they "got along pretty well." Excuse me for laughing. 

That Oswald thought that he and his pregnant wife could hijack an airplane, with their little daughter in tow, evinces not only a criminal mind but a very insane mind. It sounds insane now, but it was just as insane then. So, you heap that on top of the Walker shooting and the Nixon near-shooting, how does she go on living with him on any basis? And how does she subject her daughter to it? 

If Oswald was that criminal, that twisted, that violent, and that insane, how was it that not one bit of that part of him got revealed to any of the people he knew in Russia?

I've been saying all along that they didn't have a motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy, and that's why they had to go with insanity. But, how credible is that story? And how credible is it from the standpoint of Marina's behavior in continuing to live with a maniac? 

Next comes Mexico City. Note that both Hosty and Bookhout reported that Oswald denied ever going to Mexico City. Marina said he went there to get a visa to go to Cuba, and if that failed, to get the Russian Embassy to weigh on the Cubans to let him in. She denied that he wanted to go to Russia at that time. But, she cited and provided absolutely nothing to substantiate that he ever went to Mexico City. 

Here's something interesting about their social life in N.O.
Mr. RANKIN. Outside of the Murrets, were there some people from New Orleans that visited you at your home in New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. Once or twice a woman visited who was a friend of Ruth Paine's. Ruth Paine has written her. She had written to Ruth Paine to find out whether she knew any Russians there. And once or twice this woman visited us. But other than that, no one.
Mr. RANKIN. What was the name of this woman?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. I only remember that her first name is also Ruth.
Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband have friends of his that visited you there at New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, never.

There's a lot of testimony about his Fair Play for Cuba work but nothing riveting. Just exactly as it is always depicted. 

And then we're done with New Orleans. It's late September, and she is heading back to Dallas with Ruth Paine.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you move your household goods in her station wagon at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.

So, she claimed the rifle went back with her and Ruth. Now, that strikes me as strange, after she described him sitting with it at night, petting it. Wasn't he gong to miss it? Furthermore, since he carried it with him when he moved to New Orleans, why didn't he return with it the same way? 

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived (back in Irving), I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

Hmm. That is hard to imagine. Mrs. Paine drove down in her station wagon with her own two kids, and then there was 8 month pregnant Marina, and June. And she got all their belongings into the vehicle, plus whatever travel miscellany that Ruth had to bring with her. And it included a crib? A crib is a piece of furniture. How could they possibly get all that into the car? 

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

Wait a second! She's making it sound like she didn't know that the rifle came back with them, that she only found out about it when she was assembling the crib and she came across it. But, that would mean that Oswald put his beloved rifle into the car without telling either of them. That he just snuck it in. That he just sent it on its merry way with no understanding with anybody about its disposition. Would a guy who was that attached to his rifle do that?

Mr. RANKIN. Before you went back to Mrs. Paine's house, did you discuss whether you would be paying her anything for board and room?
Mrs. OSWALD. She proposed that I again live with her on the same conditions as before. Because this was more advantageous for her than to pay a (Russian language) school. She received better instruction that way. In any case, she didn't spend any extra money for me she didn't spend any more than she usually spent.

I assume I don't have to tell you that that was patently false because nobody lives for free. Everybody eats and drinks and bathes and requires transportation and all kinds of stuff. What about the responsibility? She was pregnant, about to give birth. Nobody challenged her on that?

Mr. RANKIN. When you found the rifle wrapped in the blanket, upon your return to Mrs. Paine's, where was it located?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the garage, where all the rest of the things were.
Mr. RANKIN. In what part of the garage?
Mrs. OSWALD. In that part which is closer to the street, because that garage is connected to the house. One door opens on the kitchen, and the other out in the street.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle lying down or was it standing up on the butt end?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was lying down on the floor.

But, how did it get where it wound up? Didn't she have to put it there? Or did Ruth Paine bring it in, not realizing that it was a rifle? I know. It was Michael Paine. He brought it in without realizing it was a rifle. By the way, he was in the Army, but he was sick the day they took out the rifles. 

Back to Mexico City:

Mr. RANKIN When your husband talked about going to Mexico City, did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to get to Cuba.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. In a hotel.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you the name?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he didn't know where he would stop.
Mr. RANKIN. Was there any discussion about the expense of making the trip?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always had some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he say how much it would cost?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had a little over $100 and he said that that would be sufficient.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he talk about getting you a silver bracelet or any presents before he went?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is perhaps more truth to say that he asked me what I would like and I told him that I would like Mexican silver bracelets. But what he did buy me I didn't like at all. When he returned to Irving, from Mexico City, and I saw the bracelet, I was fairly sure that he had bought it in New Orleans and not in Mexico City, because I had seen bracelets like that for sale there. That is why I am not sure that the bracelet was purchased in Mexico.

How about he did buy the bracelet in New Orleans because he never went to Mexico City? It's just a thought.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he discuss other things that he planned to do in Mexico City, such as see the bullfights or jai alai games or anything of that kind?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I was already questioned about this game by the FBI, but I never heard of it. But I had asked Lee to buy some Mexican records, but he did not do that.

Yes, him giving her something he could only have gotten in Mexico City would have been a nice touch. Too bad it didn't happen.

And while in Mexico, do as the Mexicans do:

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him what he did the rest of the time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I think he said that he visited a bull fight, that he spent most of his time in museums, and that he did some sightseeing in the city.

Now, I find that hard to believe. He goes down to Mexico, desperate to get into Cuba, so desperate he would even hijack a plane, but he figures while he's there, he might as well take in the local amenities?  A bull fight?  A slew of museums? Can't get enough of that mesoamerican art. Never saw a Mayan artifact he didn't like. 

Now, here is a biggie: With the FBI, Marina had at first refused to go along with the Mexico City story.

Mr. RANKIN. When you were asked before about the trip to Mexico, you did not say that you knew anything about it. Do you want to explain to the Commission how that happened?

Her answer was so wishy-washy, it's not even worth posting. My take on it is that it took them a while to drill that story into her head. 

So, Lee is back from, cough, cough, Mexico City, and he has rented himself a room in Dallas and is looking for work. Marina claims that she too was at the neighborhood ladies tea at which Ruth found out about the openings at the TSBD. 

That was the end of the first day's testimony, which was continued the very next day. And that's where we'll pick it up in Part 5.  


I notice that there are a lot of people who push Carolyn Arnold's revised story told 15 years after the assassination: that she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. 

And among the people pushing it are people I consider to be Ops. 

You need to realize that the CIA- and whoever else is involved in working the JFK coverup- decided a long time ago that they needed to be well represented in the conspiracy community, that they needed to feign being Oswald defenders, that they needed to control both sides of the debate. 

And, it was smart too because they knew they were never going to eliminate the JFK conspiracy movement. But, if they took the movement over, then they could control which direction it went and what issues it focused on. And they could steer it away from the really powerful evidence of conspiracy, such as Oswald in the doorway. And I can guarantee you, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Oswald in the doorway is the issue that scares them most. They know full-well that it is the biggest threat to JFK officialdom and by a wide margin. 

But, getting back to Carolyn Arnold, hers is a very strange tale. 

Her first statement was reportedly made on November 26. That was the Tuesday after the assassination. The killing took place on a Friday, and then it was the weekend. So, the soonest the FBI could start canvassing the employees was the Monday. So, I'm satisfied that it was the Tuesday that they got to her. Sounds about right. 

Special Agent Richard E. Harrison is the one who canvassed her. I wonder what you have to do to become a "special" agent as opposed to just a regular agent.  It seems to me that there are so God-damn many special agents that there's nothing particularly special about them. But, that's just me. 

So, Harrison queries her, and he writes down what she said. 

It's important to remember that it was only 4 days later, but Oswald was already dead for half that time. A hell of a lot had happened. And by that date, November 26, 1963, the official story was already cast in stone: 

Oswald did it; He did it alone; Jack Ruby blew him away to spare Jackie the agony of a trial. End of story.

What I'm saying is that the official story was as rock-solid, cast in stone on that date as it was on September 30, 1964 when the Warren Commission released its Report. 

But, I'm thinking that Carolyn Arnold didn't know that. She didn't quite realize- yet- that nobody saw Oswald when she shouldn't have; when he was supposedly up on the 6th floor.

The wording of Harrison's statement was chosen by him. HE COMPOSED IT; not her. What were her words? We don't know. 

But, the gist of what he wrote was that a few minutes before 12:15, Carolyn Arnold believes she saw Lee Harvey Oswald standing between the glass door and the double doors, meaning: at the doorway. 

Remember that the FBI did most of the investigative work for the Warren Commission. And in March 1964, the FBI returned to the TSBD to take statements from all or nearly all the employees; statements that they had to sign. 

Now, there is quite a lot of time between November in March, and it's enough time that Carolyn Arnold got the message: that nobody wanted her to say that she saw Oswald by the doorway at 12:15. 

So, she changed her story and made it that she didn't see Oswald at all, but she also didn't get outside until 12:25. And she signed that statement. 

What about the fact that it contradicted her first statement? Huh. There were plenty of people whose first statements didn't match their later statements. Buell Frazier hasn't told his story the same way twice in 52 years. It's not considered a problem in the world of JFK.

But, here's what bothers me: the same people who are fighting me: about Oswald in the doorway; about Altgens photo alteration; about Lovelady having worn a short-sleeved striped shirt; and about all the images of Lovelady in plaid shirt being fake and false (which they are), are also supporting Carolyn Arnold's 1978 statement to Earl Golz.  

Officialdom likes that statement. They really do. And they always have. They got it published in the Dallas Morning News. 

But, why would officialdom like a statement about Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25? 

It's clear as a bell that officialdom considers that statement much less of a threat than saying that Oswald was at or in the doorway. 

But, why is that because either story completely exonerates him. If Oswald was seated in a booth in that lunch room at 12:25, then obviously, he couldn't be shooting Kennedy five minutes later.

Again: officialdom let that story see daylight in a mainstream newspaper, an establishment newspaper, the Dallas Morning News. 

Fifteen years after the assassination, they put it in the paper. In a major Dallas newspaper. It was their way of saying that if you insist on thinking that Oswald was innocent and not on the 6th floor, this is where we want you to place him. 

But, why was that their preference, and why did they like it so much better than Oswald in the doorway?

I think it's because they knew that it is NOT where Oswald ate his lunch; hence it's a false story, a conflicted story.  In multiple reports, including the Fritz Notes, it says that Oswald said that he ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room.

When it comes to what they were doing, they could never go wrong leading people wrong. 

And, in the final analysis, there was no place that Arnold's revised story could go. There was no photo of Oswald in the lunch room. There was no way the story could be developed into anything larger. So, I think they decided that they would push the idea that he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the motorcade- for those that needed it- because it was as safe a place as any to put him. 

Gotta throw those conspiracy believers a bone once in a while- just make sure it has no meat on it.  

But, the important thing was to distance Oswald from the doorway because that would have brought down the whole stinking lie- the place that he really was.

But, Carolyn Arnold's revised story makes NO sense because if Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room sprawled in front of a lunch table at 12:25, then how could he be walking to the lunch room at 12:31? Are they suggesting that, after finishing his lunch, he left by way of the offices and then suddenly had an inspiration that a Coke would hit the spot, so he turned around and went back to the lunch room? Is that the story? The fact is: he was just reaching the lunch room when Baker saw him. 

But, if he was in the lunch room, and he had the stimulation, the provocation, of seeing the Coke machine, isn't it far more likely that he would have gotten one at the time? I mean without leaving and coming back. How likely is it, how reasonable is it that he got up and left and then promptly came back?

As a behavior, getting Oswald from Carolyn Arnold's sighting of Oswald, as told in 1978, to Marrion Baker's sighting of Oswald doesn't make sense. 

But, their two stories do coordinate if he was down in the doorway, where Carolyn Arnold first said he was, and he went from there to the lunch room by way of the front steps and the offices, according to what Marrion Baker said. 

Rule of thumb: when the Ops like something- and I mean the ones who are pretending to be CTs- it must be a lure, a decoy, a distraction, and a blind alley. The Ops like Carolyn Arnold's revised story. Do the Math. 

It's worth repeating and insisting that anyone who maintains Oswald was innocent must admit that the Backyard photos were photographically faked. That's because they show Oswald brandishing the murder weapon 8 months before the crime, a weapon he denied ordering, owning, or knowing anything about. So, if this is him, he ain't innocent:

So, decide what you are: an Oswald defender or an Oswald accuser. That's your decision, but what is not your decision is what defines them. 
Fact: You can't be an Oswald defender without recognizing photographic alteration in the case.   
Just for good measure, I put an announcement about the new "Out with Bill Shelley" article on the Home page of the OIC website. Or maybe I did it out of God-damn spite. It's a real possibility.

An Op named Tim Brennan decided that he wanted to go to war over the Fritz Notes and "Out with Bill Shelley in front". Well, if war is what he wanted, war is what he got.

I have written a new article all about "out with Bill Shelley" which is now posted at the top of the Wrap page of the OIC website. 

I hope you realize that that statement is the most important piece of evidence to be discovered in the JFK assassination since November 22, 1963.

It is Oswald's alibi, that he was in the doorway with Bill Shelley during the motorcade, and it, combined with the images we have of him in the doorway, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that that is where he was when JFK was being killed. 

So, please read my new article on "Out with Bill Shelley in front" and share it however you can.

I pointed out last night that Marina testified that George DeMo knew, somehow, that Oswald had been the one who shot and nearly killed General Walker. 

If true, then George too should have been arrested because if he really believed it, then he had a moral and legal duty to inform the police, which he didn't.

They arrest you for trying to shoot someone, even if you miss. Squeaky Fromme served 34 years in federal prison for trying to shoot Gerald Ford- and she not only didn't get a shot off; she didn't even have a cartridge in the chamber.  

But, George DeMo was asked specifically about what Marina said, and he denied it.

Mr. JENNER. Was there ever an occasion after this time, when you and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt came to see the Oswalds, that as soon as you opened the door, you said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?"
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Never. I don't recall that incident.

Then DeMo clarified what he really said:

"I remember very distinctly saying, "Did you take the potshot at General Walker?"

And Oswald's response was:

He sort of shriveled, you see, when I asked this question.
Mr. JENNER. He became tense?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Became tense, you see, and didn't answer anything, smiled, you know, made a sarcastic--not sarcastic, made a peculiar face.
Mr. JENNER. The expression on his face?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. That is right, changed the expression on his face.
Mr. JENNER. You saw that your remark to him----
Mr. JENNER. Had an effect on him.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Had an effect on him. But naturally he did not say yes or no, but that was it.

Is not the implication of that that Oswald's response suggested that he did it? What if there was a shooting attempt in your neighboorhood and a friend visited you and asked if you did it? How would you respond? Wouldn't it be something like, "Are you out of your freakin' mind?" Wouldn't you be offended and irritated that he would think, even for a second, that you could do such a thing? And apparently, Oswald didn't take it jokingly, and neither did Marina.      

Mr. JENNER. Did you see the weapon?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I did not see the weapon. 

Hmm. That's weird because his wife reported seeing the weapon and discussing it with Marina. And DeMo had to know that since he asked Oswald if he shot at Walker. You need a weapon to do that, right? So, let me get this straight: 

They get to the house. Mrs. DeMo follows Marina into a room where she sees the rifle leaning in a corner. She notices the scope on it, and they discuss it. Marina tells her that Lee goes to the park and shoots leaves with it. That's leaves. Those little green things. That's what Mrs. DeMo said in her testimony. And, even though George heard that Oswald now owned a rifle, at no point did he get up and go look at it. He wasn't interested, even though he owned a rifle himself. 

"I was standing there and then Jeanne told us, or Marina did, that here is a gun,"

So, he was on his feet, and he heard that, yet, he didn't go look at the rifle. Just wasn't interested. That's his story, apparently.  

Mr. JENNER. I won't show it to you then. Was there any discussion about the weapon thereafter?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No, no discussion. That ended the conversation, the remark about Walker, ended the conversation. There was a silence after that, and we changed the subject and left very soon afterwards.
Mr. JENNER. Did you have a feeling that he was uncomfortable?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Very, very uncomfortable, but I still did not believe that he did it, you see. It was frankly a stupid joke on my part. As the time goes by it shows that sometimes it is not so stupid. But you know my wife will tell you probably that I have a very stupid, bad sense of humor, she says, you know.
Mr. JENNER. Some people say you have a sadistic sense of humor.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Possibly. She says so also, my wife usually says that I like to tease people. 

I'd call that a nifty little save at the end to avoid liability. 

Poor George. He clearly wanted to support the idea that Oswald shot at Walker- because he knew that's what the WC wanted to hear, and he was trying to deliver. 

But, you can't have it both ways, George. You can't have it that Oswald's response suggested to you that he did it, that he shot at Walker, without placing a legal burden on YOU to thwart any future attempts.    

I'm not surprised that Marina and George would give different accounts of this, and neither one is very credible.    

Thursday, October 29, 2015

This is Part 3 of my analysis of the testimony of Marina Oswald.

I'll begin by saying that if Marina knew that Oswald shot at General Walker with intent to kill him then she committed a crime; she was an accessory to it. 

The moment she knew that her deranged husband went out and tried to murder a man, she had a legal and moral obligation to inform the police, because he could have very easily tried again, or he could have very easily gotten the crazed idea to shoot at someone else- which he reportedly did. 

So, how could no one have broached her about the illegality of her actions, that is, her lack of action, and why was no consideration given to charging her? Just think: if Oswald had been arrested for the Walker shooting attempt and convicted and sentenced, he would have been off the street in November. Right? JFK would have lived. Doesn't that follow from what the official story claims?

But nobody, not even those Warren Commission lawyers, ever chastised her for not taking action to neutralize her deranged husband when she knew that he had already tried to commit murder. 

Secondly, I wish to point out that she kept referring to him as "Lee" but we know that for the 3 years she knew him in Russia as Alek. So, did she start calling him "Lee" as soon as they got here? 

I doubt it. Lee and Marina always spoke to each other in Russian. So, why would she change it? And to what? The Russian equivalent of Lee? That's ridiculous. Think about it for yourself. Imagine knowing someone by a certain name for 3 years. And not just anybody; not just somebody you saw once in a while; but your spouse with whom you lived, whose name you repeated all day long. 

Do you think it would be easy to change to a different name? 

When Marina wrote to her aunt and uncle, she continued to refer to him as Alek. And she never said that she had come to address Alek as Lee. She just matter-of-factly and casually referred to him as Alek. 

Since Marina always spoke to Oswald in Russian, why would she change what she called him? 99.99% of Americans don't speak Russian, so what the hell difference was it going to make to them? Why should she change? Why should she use the Russian equivalent of Lee? Maybe there isn't one. It's ridiculous. I am very inclined to think that she continued calling him Alek- in Russian.  

But, notice in the testimony how easily and freely she referred to him as "Lee".  Why? And how? I'll tell you how. It was because of the 2+ months that she spent in captivity in which everyone around here referred to him as Lee. Alek was dead. All that was left was this "Lee" character that they were describing to her. I suspect it helped her to say the things she did about him to the Warren Commission by referring to him as "Lee."

We're still dealing with her testimony concerning the rifle. She said she saw him clean it 4 or 5 times, and that was presumably between late March and late April when he left for New Orleans. She was asked if he went to practice shooting with it, and she thought that he went to a field that was near Love Field, the airport, and did some shooting there- out in the open. 

Hmmm. I know there are people who shoot out on open land, but they do so either on their land or the land of someone they know who invites them to do it. And naturally, it takes a big piece of land. Oswald didn't own any land, and we can't presume a landowner near Love Field invited him to shoot on his land. So, this claim does not pass the smell test. You can't go on public land and start shooting it up, and you can't go on private land that doesn't belong to you and start shooting it up. 

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

So, Oswald cleaned his rifle. Therefore, he must have had the necessary tools, degreaser, gun oil, rags, etc. Where were they? Why weren't they reported as part of his belongings? He was supposedly shooting regularly at the Sport Drome Rifle Range in October and November. So, he had to be cleaning his rifle then as well, right? So, why didn't they find his gun cleaning kit?

By the way: the official story definitely has it that Oswald brought the rifle to New Orleans:

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. I hadn't paid any attention initially.
I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention.

Hmm. So, how did he get it down there? He presumably traveled to New Orleans by bus. So, he took the rifle on the bus? And he went to his aunt's house totin' a rifle? How come she never said so, that he showed up at her door with a rifle?

Alright, now we get to Backyard photos:

Mr. RANKIN. Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business.
If I had known these were such dangerous toys of course you understand that I thought that Lee had changed in that direction, and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him, just playing around.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.

She took the pictures toward the end of February, possibly the beginning of March? OSWALD DID NOT PICK THE RIFLE UP FROM THE POST OFFICE UNTIL MARCH 25 according to the official story.

The end of February and the beginning of March are still winter in Dallas. It's not Miami. They do get some winter there. It snows in Dallas. But, there is nothing remotely wintery about the Backyard photos. You'd think that that would have jogged her memory. 

She said she took 2 pictures of him in the Backyard. There are 3. She said it was done 2 or 3 weeks after the Walker shooting attempt. But that was supposedly on April 10, so she contradicted what she had just said a moment before. Did anyone call her on it? No. 

She said the note said "if I am arrested". It doesn't. Here it is, translated:

She said that upon returning home, Oswald looked pale and told her not to ask him any questions. And then he told her that he shot at General Walker. Hmmm. Doesn't it seem like if he didn't want her to ask him any questions, that he wouldn't tell her that? Why tell her? 

Then he told her something weird. He told her that he buried the rifle somewhere. 

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?"
He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know---I am not a criminologist.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?

Notice how Rankin wasn't interested. He immediately changed the subject. Moved on. I don't think Oswald burying the rifle in the dirt is supposed to be part of the official story.

She said that she thought the Walker shooting occurred on a Friday, and Rankin corrected her, telling her it was on a Wednesday.

She said that after the shooting, he ran several kilometers. Several kilometers? Well that had to be at least 3 kilometers if it was several. You don't use several for 1 or 2. 3 kilometers is close to 2 miles. So, Oswald ran nearly 2 miles (at least) with a rifle in his hand? Did he really think that was a good idea after a shooting attempt when police and perhaps others were looking for a guy with a rifle to be running down the street with a rifle? That was his escape plan? 

And then, he took the bus? So, a guy who was running with a rifle finally gets on the bus with the rifle, where he's sweating and pale and looking like he did something awful, and the bus driver didn't notice? None of the passengers noticed? Nobody came forward afterwards? Nobody reported it to the police?

Then, she said that several days later, the DeMohreschildts came to visit, and George asked Oswald, "Lee, how did you miss?"

Marina said that she looked at Lee wondering if he had told DeMo. But, Lee also looked at her wondering if she had told him. 

So, this doesn't make sense. Did DeMo divine that Oswald did it? But, what makes even less sense is for George DeMohrenschildt to say that to Oswald other than privately. And again, I'll point out that Mr. and Mrs. DeMohrenschildt should have been arrested if Marina's story is true.  If they knew that Oswald had attempted to kill someone, they had a sublime duty, a civic and moral obligation to inform the police.

And why did DeMo said "Lee, how did you miss?" Did he think that shooters never miss? Or did he think that Oswald was such a fabulous shot that he never missed? Based on what? And why was Lee's marksmanship the issue rather than his murderous intent? Was DeMo as deranged as Oswald?

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do with the note that he had left for you after you talked about it and said you were going to keep it?
Mrs. OSWALD. I had it among my things in a cookbook. But I have two--I don't remember in which.

Ruth Paine found the note, so I guess she went through the cookbook. She discovered a slip of paper of Oswald's in her garage but not his rifle.

Mrs. OSWALD. Soon after that, Lee lost his job---I don't know for what reason. He was upset by it. And he looked for work for several days. And then I insisted that it would be better for him to go to New Orleans where he had relatives. I insisted on that because I wanted to get him further removed from Dallas and from Walker, because even though he gave me his word, I wanted to have him further away, because a rifle for him was not a very good toy---a toy that was too enticing.

Yeah, but he took it with him to New Orleans, right? He had to, didn't he? Or did Marina bring it down for him when she moved down in May? And if she did: why? Why would she want to live in a house with Oswald and his rifle? How could she live in a house with Oswald and his rifle after what happened?

She said it was her idea for him to move to New Orleans. I rather doubt that's true, don't you? 

Then, she got to Mrs. Ruth Paine.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first get acquainted with Mrs. Paine?Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was a couple of months earlier---probably in January.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you happen to go to Mrs. Paine's house to stay? Did she invite you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; she invited me. I had become acquainted with her through some Russian friends of ours. We had visited with some people, and she was there. Inasmuch as she was studying Russian, she invited me to stay with her.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you pay her anything for staying with her?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I only repaid her in the sense that I helped her in the household and that I gave her Russian language lessons. This, in her words, was the very best pay that I could give her. And she wanted that I remain with her longer. But, of course, it was better for me to be with my husband.

She was referring to a brief period that she lived with Mrs. Paine before she, Marina, moved to New Orleans. And we have the account from Ruth Paine about when Marina received the call from Lee saying that he had a job and an apartment, and she could come down with June. And according to Ruth Paine, Marine was elated and excited, and she said to June in Russian, "Papa loves us."

Papa loves us? This is the same guy who shot at General Walker? And the same guy whom she had to lock in the bathroom to keep him from shooting Richard Nixon? And now, a few weeks later, he's Papa and he loves them? How could she possibly make that shift, psychologically?

Mr. RANKIN. Did you then leave at once for New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And how did you get to New Orleans from Dallas?
Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine took me there in her car. She took her children and my things and we went there.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have much in the way of household goods to move?
Mrs. OSWALD. Everything---we could put everything into one car. But, in fact, most of the things Lee had taken with him. Because he went by bus.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he take the gun with him to New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember exactly, but it seems to me that it was not among my things.

How could Lee have taken most of the household things with him if he traveled by bus? And she seemed to imply that Lee took the rifle with him when he went down by bus. How could he possibly carry more than the rifle and one suitcase? How many arms did he have? Are you even allowed to carry a rifle on a bus? I guess you are because according to Marina, Oswald did it twice: the night he shot at Walker and then all the way to New Orleans.

I just checked: it is prohibited to carry a rifle or any firearm on a Greyhound bus. You can't check it in as luggage and you can't carry it on your person. Was it different in 1963? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: I rode buses in 1963, and I never saw anybody brandishing a rifle on a bus. 

I'll break here for tonight. There is a long way to go on this, Marina's testimony.  But, I'll close with this thought: 

Vince Salandria keeps telling me that the official story of the JFK assassination is not supposed to be believable. It's not supposed to be credible. It is just supposed to be official.