Friday, December 4, 2015

JFK Assassination Forum is about as Op-ridden as McAdams forum, I'm finding out. This was my response to a guy I call Ike. He's disputing that Oswald changed his pants at his boarding room. 

No, Ike. There is also the cab driver William Whaley who said that Oswald was wearing "light grey pants". It's not even in dispute. You're a freakin' army of one on this. 

In denying that he killed Tippit, Oswald would have provided an alibi out of knowing that not doing so would make him look guilty. Innocent persons are expected to provide alibis. And accused persons are always asked for their alibi when they deny guilt. You don't have to watch too many episodes of Law and Order to know that. 

Fritz: We know you used your pistol to kill Officer Tippit.

Oswald: What?? I didn't do it.  I don't know anything about it.  I don't even know where he was killed. Where was it?

Fritz: 10th and Patton

Oswald: I was never there. Look: I got to my room; I changed my pants; and then I went directly to the theater. And I didn't go by way of 10th and Patton. I went there directly. Understand? 

The alibi comes out in the process of denial. He certainly didn't say: "I didn't kill that officer, but I can't tell you where I was at the time."

And let's be crystal about something: if Oswald refused to give an alibi; if he refused to say where he was at the time, well that was noteworthy. That should have gone into the notes and into the reports. There is nothing anywhere about Oswald being interrogated about the Tippit murder. We were told that he denied it, and we can hear him with our ears saying adamantly, "I didn't kill anybody!" But, there is no police report about any aspect of it. Yet, Oswald said at the Midnight press conference, "I know I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that." So, if he knew that, then it must be because they accused him. So, why isn't there something  somewhere that says "when Oswald was accused of murdering Tippit, his response was..."

But, that omission doesn't bother you, does it, Ike? Well, it bothers me.

And yes, they moved the "cap" of Young Billy Lovelady over to Oswald in the Altgens photo in order to "Loveladyify" him. And it wasn't the first time they did that kind of thing. They moved Oswald's face, except for his chin, over to the body of another man in the Backyard photos. It was essentially the same process, but they moved over a smaller piece in the Altgens photo. I wouldn't be surprised if both were done by the same photo alterers. Now, to the people who are too close-minded to look at the evidence for that, I have news for you: awareness of it is growing, and you can't stop it from growing. And when I say it, I am NOT speculating. I am stating it as a fact: they altered Oswald's image in the Altgens photo by replacing his hairline and the top of his head with that of Young Billy Lovelady. Not 1963 Billy Lovelady who was already mostly bald at the time. And we have that in writing from Roy Lewis. 

It is also a fact that we don't know what Oswald said about how he got to the theater. And just think about it: when a person is accused of a crime- in this case: killing a policeman- they get to tell their side of the story. They are entitled to it by way of the US Constitution. So, how come Oswald's rebuttal to the charge that he killed Tippit is unknown? We know that he denied it, but that's all we know. There isn't one tiny bit of what he elaborated about it in the process of denying it that was ever made public. It is an outrage. Lee Harvey Oswald is the most violated man in human history. He was violated in life, then brutally killed, and then violated in death. It doesn't get any more violated than that. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.