Thursday, December 31, 2015

BIG, HUGE FIND!

Patrick Jackson sent me this video of Billy Lovelady's 1976 HSCA interview by Ken Brooten. So, you could say that Brooten did informally depose Lovelady.

And in it, Lovelady said nothing about seeing Oswald at the PD. Brooten asked him specifically: when was the last time you saw Oswald? And Lovelady said at 11:50 when they broke for lunch.

Lovelady also said that he left for the railroad tracks with Shelley after the shooting and then re-entered through the back door, and he said nothing about being out in front 20 minutes after the shooting.

He was also asked about his hair at the time, and he said it was cut in a crewcut. Does Doorman look like he has a crewcut?

The quality of this recording is very poor, and I am going to have to pour over it very slowly and carefully to pick up every word, which I have not yet done, but I want to put it up because it is a big, huge find. Thank you, Patrick for sending it to me, and thank you Denis Morissette for posting it on Youtube. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP8V6RZEZCM&feature=youtu.be

This image of Lovelady is obviously fake. Notice how Lovelady is lite up in a sea of black. What is casting the shadow over the shoulder of the big cop in back? Nothing. They just needed a black background in order to display Lovelady, who they infused into the frame. So, they created it.




How could Lovelady be exempt from all that shadow? He's in a well of shadow, yet he's all lite up? 

I dare anyone to try to recreate this frame. His whole presence there is glaringly artificial. They plopped him in.

It never happened. On April 7, 1964, Joseph Ball asked Lovelady if he EVER saw Oswald again THAT DAY after they broke for lunch, and Lovelady said "No." How could he forget about it if he was in the center of a media circus with Oswald? NEVER did Lovelady ever claim to be there. NEVER did his wife Patricia ever claim that he was there, and she was chatty. The whole thing was faked. Do you know when it was first found? 1977 during the HSCA. So, for 14 years nobody noticed him? Nobody ever mentioned it prior to that. Fat chance.
OIC member Michael Capasse has done a great thing; he refined and improved my image of Oswald in the doorway BEFORE they messed with it. Now, it really looks like it must have originally looked (although, there is still the fact that they thrust Black Tie Man into the picture, cutting off Oswald's left shoulder and gouging out his face). 


But, at least this restores his hairline and the top of his head. And look what they turned him into:


Can you see now where their confidence and arrogance came from to claim that he was Lovelady? They weren't going to just claim it without doing anything. They weren't that arrogant. They weren't that confident. What gave them a shot in the arm was that alteration, and it was huge. And it wasn't even the first time they did it. They had practice. The moved Oswald's face over to the Backyard photo.


They moved a larger piece of the pie over with the Backyard photos, but it was the same basic process, and in all probability, the same team. 
I have long wondered whether the figure on the left below is Lovelady.



I think there is a good chance that that is him. I wouldn't bet my life on it because it is a very poor image with practically no facial details. Still, I am intrigued by the possibility that it's Lovelady.

We know it was Shelley and Lovelady who took police up to the 6th floor, and it's definitely not Shelley.

Actually, his image is more substantial from this distance. It's superior. That's the 6th floor. You recognize Will Fritz in the foreground. So, the guy in the t-shirt is definitely not a cop, and he's definitely not Shelley. So, if it was just Shelley and Lovelady who escorted police up there, it has to be Lovelady. Nothing jumps out at me as a dealbreaker. His stockiness looks right. His height, weight, the shape of his head, his hair, it's all plausible to be him. 

It's been suggested that he's Larry Craford, but Larry had longer hair and less recession.


So, for now, I am going with the open assumption that this guy was Lovelady.

Well, in comparison, Doorman looks slender and Lovelady looks husky. Their t-shirts are obviously different: stretched and sunken on Doorman and high and round on Lovelady. But, it's a moot question because we know that Doorman was Oswald.


Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Here's an afterthought concerning Oswald and his reported insistence on getting John Abt to represent him. 

As far as we know, no one tried to reach John Abt on behalf of Oswald. Abt said that he was never contacted by anyone.

So, even if Robert Oswald was not going to do the right thing for his brother, as laid out in my last post:

http://www.oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/12/its-easy-to-tell-that-robert-oswald-was.html

it appears that he didn't even lift a finger for his brother to try to reach Abt. 

Ruth Paine claimed that Oswald called her twice asking her to contact Abt, and she just ignored it. You'd think she would have had the decency to tell him, "No. I won't do that for you." But, she didn't. 

But, all of that are just claims. Was Oswald really hell-bent on Abt? If so, then why didn't he call for Abt when he had world micophones at his lips? If Oswald had mentioned wanting John Abt on national and international media, it was a sure thing that word would have gotten to Abt. But, all Oswald asked for was "legal assistance". In other words, what we have that we can actually confirm does NOT support that Oswald would only accept Abt. 

So, why should we believe it? Remember who is claiming it. Maybe we should believe Oswald instead.

Duke Lane claims that H. Lewis Nichols, the head of the Dallas Bar Association, did NOT talk to Oswald directly but allowed police to act as a go-between. That is appalling if it's true; appalling that he did it and appalling that he didn't reveal that to reporters when he discussed his meeting with Oswald. 

Also, according to Duke, there were two bar associations in Dallas: one for criminal law and one for non-criminal law. Nichols was the head of the one for non-criminal law. So, what about the other one? Why didn't someone from the criminal bar association visit Oswald?

I think it's possible, even likely, that the entire claim that Oswald insisted on Abt alone is a complete lie. It may be that he mentioned Abt but was never adamant that it had to be him. It was, after all, an insane position to take for someone in his position. He needed a lawyer immediately.    
  


Tuesday, December 29, 2015

It's easy to tell that Robert Oswald was NOT a good-faith, loyal brother of the arrested LHO. 

What did LHO need more than anything else? A lawyer. And even if it were true that Oswald refused any and all lawyers except John Abt, whom he didn't even know, and who didn't even practice law in Texas, and for whom there is no reason to assume that he would have been willing to represent Oswald even if he could represent him- I don't believe that it's true because repeatedly Oswald asked the general public to come to his aid and help him get a lawyer: "I ask for someone to come forward to provide me with legal assistance" which was not a plea for someone to contact John Abt- but even if it was true, it was a very self-destructive decision, and a real brother would have said so.

RO: Lee, what is going on? Why do they think you killed two men?

LHO: I don't know, Robert. Of course, I didn't do it. This is a nightmare. 

RO: Where were you when Kennedy got shot?

LHO: I was standing outside in the doorway, watching, just like everybody else.

RO: Where were you when Tippit got shot?

LHO: I was in the theater. Look: I never went to 10th and Patton. What for? It wasn't on the way. What would I be doing there?

RO: Look: what you need is a lawyer...

LHO: I know, and there's this guy named Abt in New York....

RO: Shut the pluck up about Abt, Lee. You don't know him, and he's not here. He's in New York. You don't even know if he practices law in Texas. You need a Texas lawyer, and I am going to get you one. Now, you listen to me and listen good: you are being framed here. You're being set up. I don't know who is doing it, but somebody is. I don't want you to say another word to police until you have spoken to a lawyer. And you should have your lawyer present at any interrogations that follow. You tell them that you are not saying another frickin' word until your lawyer gets here. You hear me?

LHO: Yeah, I hear you, and I'll do as you say.

RO: OK, good. I'm going now. I am going to get you a lawyer, and I will be back with him as soon as I possibly can. Now, you stay strong, and you stay quiet. We are going to get you out of this. 

LHO: OK, thank you, Robert. I will.

Monday, December 28, 2015

I think most people consider human lives precious. And in an emergency, say, if someone were choking or drowning or having a heart attack, most people would do whatever they could to save the person- even if they didn't know him from Adam. It's because most people consider human lives precious.

And that's why to get to the point of shooting at someone to kill for the sake of killing represents such a tremendous pendulum swing from the normal instincts of a human being. You really have to be completely and totally deranged. You have to be at the extreme of monstrosity. It's really like you are not even human any more.

It happened here in Austin in 1966. From the top of the UT Tower on the UT campus, which for a very long time was the tallest building in the city (they even had an ordinance which said that you couldn't build higher than the UT Tower)  25 year old former Marine Charles Whitman, who was an engineering student, went up there and started shooting at people. He killed 14 people and wounded 32 others before an Austin policeman shot and killed him. However, before the Tower killing spree began, he stabbed both his mother and his wife to death as they lie sleeping in their beds.  



  


Besides police officers shooting back at him, including one who was in a small plane which circled the Tower, there were also civilians shooting back. I must admit: that is heartening to hear. However, it was Officer Houston McCoy who with two others, one also a police officer and one not, who bravely went up to the top of the Tower at great risk of their own lives, and it was McCoy who shot him twice, right in the face, with a 12 gauge shotgun from a distance of 50 feet. 

The official story of the JFK assassination has it that Lee Harvey Oswald was essentially like Charles Whitman.  A big difference is that nobody ever tried to assign a motive to Whitman. He was just completely out of his mind. But, in Oswald's case, there's been plenty of attempt to give him a motive. Nobody ever claimed that he had any personal animosity towards Kennedy. Nobody ever said that there was something that Kennedy did as President that Oswald didn't like. The most common motive we've heard for Oswald is that he was a loser, and he wanted to do something that he would be remembered for, that he wanted to go down in history for having done something that changed the world. This is the "place in history" motive. 

But, if that were true, wouldn't he have taken credit for it? Why would he deny it so adamantly if his purpose was to get credit for killing Kennedy?

I was rereading the testimony of SS Agent James Hosty. In his initial report, he had written that Oswald had "frantically" denied doing it. Frantically. So, Attorney Belin asked him what he meant by frantically. And Hosty's response was that "frantically" was probably not the right word, that "emphatically" was better. Oswald denied doing it: emphatically.

But, I have to wonder because there is a big difference between frantic and emphatic. You can state something emphatically and still be calm, cool, and collected. But, if you state something frantically, it means you're acting out, getting emotional, getting animated and distraught. You're at your wit's end. You're fraught with despair and frustration. I imagine that anyone who was falsely accused of killing two men would deny it not just emphatically but frantically. 

So, how does that fit in with Oswald wanting the fame of having killed Kennedy? If Oswald killed Kennedy and tried to escape, doesn't that look like he didn't want to be found out? According to David Belin, Oswald was going to escape to Mexico. He didn't have much money, but, according to Belin, he had his pistol, so he could just hold people up. But, how did he expect to live? Was he going to work or just rob for the rest of his life? And, did he or did he not want the world to know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy? Was he going to assume a new name? Was he going to undergo plastic surgery to change his looks like Humphrey Bogart's escaped convict character in Dark Passage?  

The more you analyze this, the more you realize that the whole idea that Oswald killed Kennedy to get a "place in history" is absolutely crazy. It is ridiculous. There isn't one piece of evidence that supports it. There isn't one piece of evidence that even hints at it.

And that's why that claim is declining. You don't hear it as much today as you used to.  

I heard Vincent Bugliosi addressing the issue of Oswald's motive once, and what it came down to for him was not "place in history" but Oswald's hatred for America. He absolutely ruled out that it was anything personal against Kennedy. It was what Kennedy stood for: America. 

But, Oswald never said he hated America. He said there were things he didn't like about America. But, there were also things he didn't like about the Soviet Union. He never said he hated America, and nobody ever reported seeing or hearing him raging against America. When I say raging I mean in a way that could lead to extreme, violent, and monstrous acts.

Here's what the Warren Commission said:

1) that he had a deep-rooted resentment of all authority
(RC: tell me about it. who doesn't?)

2) his inability to enter into meaningful relationships
(RC: not according to his friends Palmer McBride, Nelson Delgado, and Anthony Botelho. He got married, and his wife was willing to leave all that she knew just for him.)

3) his wanting a "place in history" and his frustration with his failures
(RC: "place in history" has already been debunked; it does not follow from the evidence. And why such a failure? He apparently was good at the radar work he did. He held his job at the radio factory for 3 years and apparently could have stayed on for as long as he wanted. And everyone said he was a good worker at the Depository. He spoke the Russian language fluently which is a rare talent for an American. And he had his ties to the US intelligence community, whatever they amounted to, and that's a rare thing as well. He had a very unusual life- even before the last three days of it. Was he mired in failure consciousness? I doubt it.)

4) his capacity for violence for having shot at Walker? No. That was made up. Everything about the story is preposterous, including that he owned a rifle. 

5) his love for the Soviet Union, Cuba, Castro, etc. yeah, yeah, yeah. Shut the pluck up. Killing Kennedy meant installing LBJ in office who was no friend to any of that, and Oswald would have known it. That is a totally baseless and empty claim.  

You see what this amounts to? It amounts to taking all these weak, pathetic claims and piling them up, thinking that a pile of weak claims comprises something strong. It doesn't. It only shows weakness and desperation. 

Oswald had NO motive to kill Kennedy. None. And all that's left is to just depict him like Charles Whitman. But, everybody and his good-for-nothing brother knows that Oswald was NOT like Charles Whitman. 





   




I recently watched the 1976 movie, God Told Me To. It's about a New York City police detective who is investigating a series of random murders in which a shooter just started randomly killing people for no reason. The first was a young man who perched himself on top of a water tower and just started picking people off on the crowded street below with a high-powered rifle.

I like it when movies start with something that grabs you right away, that pulls you in, and this one certainly did.


It was rattling to see people dropping like flies on the street below as he shot them dead. And what really came across vividly was the psychopathology of it all, just how totally insane the assassin was.

And I began thinking about Oswald and realizing that he would have had to be as insane as that. Even though he knew of Kennedy, what he purportedly did was just as insane as what this guy did. Really, there is no difference.

Could Oswald have been that insane? He spent 3 years in Russia where he got very involved with people. He was social. He was engaging. So unlike how he was in Dallas at the Depository. And nobody in Russia described him as being violent or unstable or the least bit crazy. And several said afterwards that they could not believe that he did it, that he was capable of it. 

So, what about during the year and a half after he returned from Russia and before the assassination? Did he turn insane then? Did anyone report him acting insane? 

The answer is no. I don't mean Marina Oswald saying after the assassination that he shot at Walker and sought to shoot at Nixon. The fact is that she never said anything about those things at the time or afterwards. And if you look at her written correspondences from the period there isn't a hint of her being aware of any such things.

The whole case against Oswald hinges on him being psycho- as psycho as the man in the movie, perched on the water tower and picking people off. And the plotters knew that it was going to be a hard-sell to say that he suddenly went psycho without any antecedents, without a progressive descent into madness. And that's why they got Marina to say those things about him shooting at Walker and beating her. But again: she never said anything about those things at the time. To anybody. So, why should we believe her?



  
I don't know how old Brian Albert Doyle is, but I have to wonder if he has some dementia setting in.

He claims that Oswald was afraid to go outside in fear that the Secret Service would take some action against him.

What does Doyle think Oswald was afraid of? That the Secret Service was going to draw weapons and shoot him dead on the sidewalk or in the doorway?  

But, the Secret Service didn't draw weapons even after Kennedy was under attack. One agent, George Hickey, finally picked up a weapon, but it wasn't until the shooting was over and Kennedy was dead. (Yes, JFK was already dead. He was just like a chicken running around with its head cut off.) And, Hickey was never poised to shoot anyone; it was just a photo-op.  

And, why would Doyle think that? It's because Oswald defected to the Soviet Union.

But, most Oswald defenders don't believe he really defected. They believe that he was working for US Intelligence all along and that it was really a "false defector program". Wasn't Oswald really a US intelligence agent? Wasn't he a spy? Didn't the CIA let the Secret Service in on what was going on? 

But, let's just say- for the sake of argument- that Oswald really defected and that the Secret Service really believed that he did. Why would they assume from that that he was a threat to the President? Did Oswald ever advocate violence? Did he ever threaten violence against Kennedy? 

He went to school through the 8th grade, which was long enough to learn that if you kill the President, the Vice President becomes President. So, if Oswald was a fan of Castro and communism and the Soviet Union, why would he want to kill Kennedy only to make Johnson President? Wouldn't he have thought about that? Wasn't LBJ more of a Cold Warrior against communism than JFK? And knowing that, wouldn't Oswald have wanted to protect every hair on JFK's head?

And why would Oswald, who didn't even own a rifle, think that anyone would consider him a danger to JFK? I know about the stupid stories of him shooting at Walker and wanting to shoot at Nixon, but that's what they are: stupid stories. Oswald didn't do them, and he had no consciousness of anyone thinking that he did. 

There are no reports that Oswald had any contact with the Secret Service prior to the assassination. There is no basis to conclude that he ever gave the Secret Service a moment's thought. To claim that he thought that the Secret Service was going to target him, look for him in the crowd, and shoot him on sight for being outside during the motorcade is ridiculous.  

And then, the Idjot Doyle, twists it from Oswald being afraid to go outside to Oswald being instructed not to go outside.

 You're stupidly ignoring what was already said to you Cinque. Oswald was a defector to Russia who needed to lay low and not be seen by the Secret Service. His eating lunch in the lunch-room or Domino Room would give him the excuse he needed to not be out front watching the parade. That's how this works. It was probably his orders from Intel in order to keep him out of the way and frame-able. 


Orders from Intel? Intel? Is that like Control in Get Smart?


The Idjot Doyle claims that Oswald ate lunch in the domino room or the 2nd floor lunch room or both during the motorcade as an "excuse." An excuse to whom, Doyle? And how good an excuse was it?

Oswald: I was eating lunch in the domino room during the motorcade. Or maybe it was the 2nd floor lunch room. One or the other. Or both. But, that's my excuse for not being out front.

Fritz: But, you got off work at 11:45, just like everyone else. So, why didn't you eat your lunch earlier? You had 45 minutes.

Oswald: Missed it by that much.

  
So, make up your mind, Doyle. Was it that Oswald thought that the Secret Service were going to shoot him dead if they spotted him outside OR was it that he was ordered by Intel to stay inside? You can't claim both. And if they ordered him to stay inside, what excuse did they give him?

"You mustn't go out, Lee, because, you see, we're going to be killing Kennedy today, and we need to frame you for it. That's how this is going to work. Understand?"

You're an idiot, Doyle. You're like a clone of Joseph Backes. Would you believe a mole of Tony Fratini? How about a copy of Cakehead? 
Let's be crystal about something: This date that Robert Oswald published is DEFINITELY wrong. There is NO CHANCE that Oswald was on leave from the Marines in February 1958. He was in the Far East then, and he did not return until November 1958. 


So, the only question is: What is the real date of the picture?

One wise guy from the JFK forum, Alex Foyle, claimed it was from February 1957. He just claimed it outright. He called it a "spelling error." 

But, that doesn't work because Oswald entered the Marines on October 24, 1956, and this picture was taken after that:


You see how young Oswald looks? That was taken early in his Marine career, and we don't know exactly when. How much after the day he enlisted was it taken? It's anyone guess. What if we said 3 months after? That's a reasonable guess. So, let's count: November, December, January. That would make it early February 1957. So, that would mean that these two images were taken about the same time:


What do you think? Can we agree that he looks a lot older on the right? Years older? So, that rules out February 1957, does it not? 
So, it wasn't February 1957 or February 1958, and it couldn't be February 1959 either because Oswald was at El Toro or Santa Ana. He wasn't back in Texas. And after that, the Oswald of fame was in Russia for Feb 60, Feb 61, and Feb 62. And nobody in his right mind would say that it was Feb 63. So, what does it mean that we can't find a date for this?

It means that there were two Oswalds: one was in Texas shooting squirrels with brother Robert while the other was in Russia. Based on how old he looks there, I would put the date of that as most likely February 1962.  

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Hi Ralph, I see that thanks to Duncan's most benevolent amnesty you are free again to clog this forum with your baseless claims.


Robert Oswald was in on the plot. He was a conspirator. He was involved in framing Oswald. And he was NOT LHO's biological brother. Now, I can't give you all the evidence for that, but I can refer you to John Armstrong.

http://harveyandlee.net

John Armstrong provides zero evidence that Robert Oswald "was in on the plot", that "He was a conspirator" or that "He 

was involved in framing Oswald." Please provide some specific citation for your claims. I guess you still haven't read Robert Oswald's book on his brother or Jean Stafford's book on their mother, because those books are bogus, right? Remember this earlier brain fahrt of yours?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/uUuVkKFU9Z4/discussion



You didn't provide any credible evidence there and then as to why Robert Oswald and his book are bogus either and you kindly deleted this further head implosion of yours from your own blog:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.de/2015/08/alex-foyle-749-am-5-hours-ago-on-sunday.html

So could you now please supply your exact John Armstrong sources that prove your latest claims about Robert Oswald?


Ralph Cinque:

What???????????? Are you completely in the dark about what John Armstrong claims?

John Armstrong claims that Robert Oswald was not even really the brother of the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame. And he claims that neither of them were the sons of the Marguerite Oswald of fame. 

I recall John citing a specific reference to Robert Oswald's WC testimony, which was lead by Allen Dulles himself, in which they deliberately misconstrued the facts pertaining to Lee's education in order to hide the fact that there were two LHOs.

And it so happens that my recent blogpost concerns Robert Oswald and his lies about the photo he took of LHO, who was not the LHO of fame. It was his real brother- not the LHO of fame- and it was taken when the LHO of fame was in Russia. The LHO of fame was NEVER this stocky at any time in his short life. 



I'm telling you that that is not the LHO of fame, and so is John Armstrong. Here's my recent post:

http://www.oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/12/so-while-one-is-in-far-east-other-one.html

And regarding the issue of Marguerite, I still stand behind what I said- in spades. It is macabre to think that a real mother would hang pictures on the wall of her son battered and bruised.  It is unthinkable that she would hang a piece of art which made him look twisted and demented. But, furthermore, she had no access to those images. One was a magazine cover. So how could she get the original art? All she could do is hang the cover, right? But, that isn't the cover; it's the art, apart from the cover. So, where did she get it? Inquiring minds want to know, but that obviously does not include you. And, the other battered and bruised photo was just a press photo published in the newspapers, but where did she get an actual photo of it to hang on the wall? All she could do was cut the clipping out of the newspaper, right? But, that isn't a newspaper clipping; it's a photo. So, where did she get it?

You better take a look at this again. Somebody is farting here, but it isn't me.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/07/what-mother-puts-pictures-of-her.html


Could you really be stupid enough to think that I'm the one who has anything to answer for here? Amazingly, the answer is yes.

Brian, why would anyone believe that (that Oswald brought a long object other than a rifle)? If Oswald had brought a long package other than a rifle, wouldn't he have said so? Why would he have lied about that? It wasn't against the law to bring curtain rods or other long object to work, was it? 

A good thing is to put yourself in Oswald's situation and ask what you would do. 

If you brought a long object to work, would you lie about it to police? Would you instead tell them that you brought a small lunch? 

You wouldn't? Then why would you or anyone think that Oswald would? 

Now, I realize that some will say that it's because he brought a rifle. 

But, if he didn't bring a rifle, then he wouldn't lie. 

Therefore, there are really only two choices:

Either he brought a rifle and lied, or he didn't bring a rifle and he told the truth. 

That's it. That is all the options there are to the rationally minded.
"So, while one is in the Far East, the other one is the guy in Russia." Joseph Backes

That's Backes' take on what John Armstrong says, but he's got it wrong. John Armstrong does not say that one Oswald was in the Far East while the other was in Russia. 

The facts are that one Oswald finished his Marine service at El Toro Air Base while the other completed his Marine service at Santa Ana Radar Station- two distinct and different facilities. John found the records for both. He talked to people at both. Their distance apart was 12 miles. 

After the Oswald of fame finished at Santa Ana, he went back to Texas briefly and then on to Russia. After the other Oswald left El Toro, he fell off the radar, although John has suspicions about where he went and what he did. But, the only image we have of him after that is this one that Robert Oswald published. 

Robert Oswald dated that picture as February 1958, but there is NO CHANCE that that is correct. Oswald was still in the Far East then. He did not return to Texas on leave even once during his Far East tour. He was specifically in the Philippines at that time and may have been in the brig. It is absolutely impossible that he was in Texas at that time because his military record is well-documented. 

That's it, and it's enough. It's sufficient. But, there is also the fact that you can see that he's older. 



Obviously, there is a lot of change there, and he is several years older on the right. But supposedly, he was older on the left. Supposedly, the image on the right was from February 1958 and the image on the left was from a latter month in 1959.That is obviously not true.

So, Robert Oswald lied about the date because the Oswald of fame was in Russia when the image on the right was taken. It was probably from the winter of 1962.  

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Oswald told interrogators that the only thing he brought to work was his lunch in a paper bag, consisting of a cheese sandwich and an apple, which he got from Mrs. Paine's house. He had to get it from there because he and Frazier didn't stop anywhere on their way to work.

Police had a legal and forensic obligation to investigate that claim by looking for the remnants of that lunch in the place that he ate it, the domino room. Presumably, they had a trash can in there.

And, Oswald was still alive at the time, so they could have asked him where he disposed of the remnants of his lunch and gone to retrieve it. 

Those remnants would have included the following:

1) the brown paper bag
2) the sandwich bag (which may have been two because in the Fritz Notes it says cheese sandwiches, plural)
3) possibly bits of crust or any other non-eaten parts of the sandwich or sandwiches
4) the apple core

Police had a duty to retrieve those bits of debris because it meant certain confirmation or refutation of Oswald's lunch claim. If those remnants were found, it meant that he was telling the truth. If they were absent, then it meant that he was lying. And it was pretty much as simple as that. 

So, why was there nothing said about this? Did they or did they not look for the remnants of Oswald's lunch?

I have to think that they did. After all, you didn't have to be Lieutenant Columbo to realize the evidentiary value of it. So, if I were going to bet, I would bet that they did look for it. And, I would also bet that they found it. Why? Because if they didn't find it, it would have been incredibly damning to Oswald. It would have meant that he lied about bringing his lunch in a paper bag. Why would he lie about that? Only because he brought his rifle instead. Isn't that how it would look?  

So, if they looked for those remnants and failed to find them, they would surely have announced it. But, if they did find them, then it meant that he was telling the truth, and they weren't going to announce ANYTHING that supported Oswald's innocence.

So, without knowing for sure, I assert that they looked for and found the remnants of Oswald's lunch.  

Let's look at John McAdams' interactive timeline of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, and note that it includes the times that Oswald went on leave from the Marines. 

August 22, 1957: LHO departs for Japan.

November 2, 1958: LHO departs Japan.

November 15, 1958: He arrives in San Francisco.

November 19, 1958: LHO takes 30 days leave.

There is nothing about Oswald going on leave during his Far East tour of duty. And, it says specifically that he was in the Philippines in February 1958. 

November 20, 1957: LHO’s unit sails for the Philippine Islands.

March 7, 1958: LHO's unit departs on its voyage back to Atsugi.

It says nothing about Oswald traveling back to Texas in February. He may even have been in the brig at that time because it's known that he was charged with illegally firing his weapon into the jungle and was sent to the brig for 18 days. There is no chance that he was in Texas squirrel-shooting with his brother in February 1958, as claimed by Robert Oswald. 


So, that was not February 1958. And it wasn't February 1959 because Oswald was at El Toro Air Base in Southern California in February 1959. After that, the Oswald of fame was in Japan, but remember: there were two Oswalds, and the "other Oswald" was the one who was brother to Robert- not the Oswald of fame. 

So, that picture, theoretically, could have been February 1960, 1961, or 1962, but most likely it was 1962 because of his apparent aging.

The image on the left was taken in 1959. Doesn't it look like 3 years aging to you on the right? Can't you see how much his hairline receded on the sides? Can't you see how much weight he gained? Can't you that he looks older? February 1962, which was 5 months before Harvey returned from Russia, is the most likely date of that picture, and to Hell with what Robert Oswald said. 





So, the squirrel hunting picture is the only intact image we have of Lee grown up. The date of it was February, either 1961 or 1962, and probably 1962. 

What jumps out as a striking good match are the ears and the tubular neck. Otherwise, it's obvious that his hairline receded quite a bit and he put on weight. The Lee Harvey Oswald was never that stocky at any time in his short life. 
The fact is that we don't have any intact images of the grown-up Lee except this one from Robert Oswald's book.



That's all we've got. There's nothing else. I'm going to have more to say about this, but first I want to repost something that I wrote in April concerning the date of this picture. Robert Oswald lied. He said it was from February 1958, but Oswald was still in the Far East then. In fact, he was in the Philippines or in route to the Philippines. Remember, that Oswald NEVER came home on leave while he was in the Far East. He went and he stayed until it was time to come back. He never took leave back in the States. Therefore, there is NO CHANCE that Robert Oswald was right about that date. Here's the post from April. Read it again. It won't kill you.

Bingo! That's it! I've got it! Now I know what happened. The February is right. His clothes look right; he's got three layers on; a shirt, a sweater, and a jacket. It looks like wintertime in Texas. What's wrong is the year. It wasn't 1958. Look:



We know when the passport photo was taken: September 1959. We know that from this:


September 4, 1959: LHO applies for a passport.

September 10, 1959: The passport is issued.

When you apply for a passport, they don't ask you to bring a picture; they take your picture. There are exact specifications for the picture. I have applied for a passport, and I have had it renewed. So, that must be an image of Lee from September 1959. 

But, compare the faces. He looks boyish on the left compared to the right. He definitely looks younger on the left. And doesn't his hairline seem to be receded on the right compared to the left? He definitely looks older on the right. 

It couldn't be February 1960 because that would only have been a few months later, and it's clear that more time passed than that. He looks older than that. People don't age that much in just a few months. 

So, that squirrel-hunting picture must have been taken either in February 1961 or February 1962 at which times Harvey was in Russia. 

So, now it's just a matter of deciding: how much older does he look on the right compared to the left?


Judging by the aging that I'm seeing, I would say more likely February 1962 because that would be about 2 1/2 years difference, which looks about right.  But, it's either one or the other: February 1961 or February 1962.  If it was February 1962, that would make him 22 1/2 on the right and a month shy of 20 on the left. That works.  

Robert Oswald had to lie because he couldn't admit that the picture was taken while his "brother" was in Russia. 

So, the passport photo is a composite photo of Harvey and Lee, but which side is Harvey and which side is Lee?

Harvey is on the right- in the collage above and in the passport image above which is on the left. It's the right side of his face (from our perspective) that is the Oswald of fame, which you can readily determine below:


This is a composite image. The left and right sides of the face are different. It's very easy to see. Start with the eyes; they're different. Can't you see that his right eye (on our left) is larger while the other eye is smaller and deeper? The two halves of his nose are different; just compare the nostrils.The two sides of his lips are very different with a much narrower lower lip on our right. And even with his hairline, it's easy to see where two different ones were snugged together. That's his passport photo from when he went to Russia, and do you know what it listed as his height? 5'11". The Oswald of fame was 5'9". It is a composite image. 
There is a new authorized biography of George HW Bush, Destiny and Power, and Roger Stone, who tore into LBJ for his role in killing JFK and with good media impact, is now taking on Bush.

DESTINY AND POWER:
The American Whitewash of George Herbert Walker Bush
By Roger Stone

John Meachams biography of our 41st President George H.W. Bush, "DESTINY AND POWER" comes in at a whopping 864 pages and a wrist snapping 3.4 pounds and its pure whitewash. It ignores inconvenient historical facts because it is an authorized biography. Meacham seems oblivious that the goofy, patrician manner and weird syntaxes that makes him look like a bumbler hide a man of steely ambition, ruthlessness, entitlement and duplicity.

On January 26th, I release Jeb and the Bush Crime Family and the true story of privilege, old-boy establishment connections, Bushs CIA service as early as 1961, oil, Saudi influence money, assassinations, financial fraud, serial adultery, murder, call-boys, war, profiteering and jockeying for power and money. Bush toady Meachams air brush job is a PR warm up for Jeb. But even that cannot help the entitled Bush brother.

Friday, December 25, 2015

This is very touching. It's very emotional. If you have any tendency to cry at poignant movies, you'll cry at this. It's a British advertisement which depicts the famous Christmas truce which occurred in 1914 between the British and German troops, facing off against each other in the trenches of Belgium in World War 1.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/84366564/ 



Why WHY WHY was that insane war ever fought? And I know why it was fought because I have read Hidden History by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, but it doesn't lessen the frustration and exasperation of knowing what a waste it was- the wasting of millions of human lives just so that a few men could rule the world.

It's good to look at this, as heartbreaking as it is. But, what is more important is to understand what put these men- these ordinary men on both sides- in the horrific circumstance they were in. The engineering of that war was a crime- one of the worst, most dastardly, most wicked crimes in all of human history. And as with the JFK assassination, we need to bring the culprits to justice; we need rectify the history; we need a true accounting of the causes of that monstrous war. We need to do it for the victims of that war, and for ourselves- to make sure that our sons and grandsons don't wind up in trenches facing off against other men's sons and grandsons for no reason; no reason at all.       

Bill Chapman:

Only one arrow needs to be visible in order to confirm which figure Lovelady was pointing to. Exhibit 369 shows the black arrow—applied by Lovelady—pointing to Doorman.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm

Ralph Cinque:

Oh, no, no, no. You're way off. Even David Von Pein admits that that is Frazier's arrow. Do you or do you not understand that both Frazier and Lovelady were given the same specimen to draw arrows on, that Frazier drew his first, a month before Lovelady, and then they pulled it out again and gave it to Lovelady.

So, Ball gave Lovelady a photo to draw an arrow on which already had an arrow on it pointing to the figure that he wanted him to draw his arrow to. But, Lovelady didn't do it.

There is only one arrow on CE 369 pointing to Doorman. That's Frazier's arrow. Now, if you can find another one, be my guest. But, while you're looking, notice the tiny mark on the forearm of Black Hole Man.





I just came across Herbert Blenner, and I am impressed. This guy is quite the dynamo- a one-man threat to the JFK establishment. 

This collage is based on Herb's work. How could the Dallas Oswald, who did not have sloping shoulders, as you can see above, be the same guy as the two Oswalds below who had sloping shoulders? Either your shoulders slope or they don't.

+





These three men all presented themselves as Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City at the time that 
Oswald was supposedly there.

So, what are the implications of that? Who could have done it? Who could have ordered it?

It wasn't the Russians. It wasn't the Cubans. It wasn't the Mexicans. And it wasn't the Mafia.

The CIA is the only one who could have done it. Can you think of anyone else?

So, Oswald was definitely being framed for being in Mexico City. Even if you think Oswald was
there in Mexico City, he was also being framed for being there. It's the same as him being in 
Dallas and also framed for killing JFK in Dallas.

So, if Oswald was framed for being in Mexico City and doing things there, then how could he NOT
have been framed for the events in Dallas? Are we supposed to believe that they were framing 
him in Mexico City, and unrelated to that, he just happened to decide to kill Kennedy?

If Oswald was being framed, being set up, being impersonated, in Mexico City, and he was, then
it is absolutely ludicrous to think that he was not being set up in Dallas. You can't have one 
without the other. 



    ReplyReply   
Ralph Cinque and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.