Friday, January 29, 2016

The Oswald Innocence Campaign is unique because, as far as I know, we are the only organization in the world which vouches for Oswald by name, as well as his innocence. There are other organizations, like CTKA, COPA, and ROKC which dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, but their names don't mention Oswald and they have nothing to do with Oswald. 

If you believe that the official story of the JFK assassination is a lie and that Oswald was framed and innocent, then nothing trumps that. That would be numero uno in your proclamations: that Oswald was innocent. Innocent, innocent, innocent. 

CTKA says that they are the citizens for the truth about the JFK assassination, but what's the truth? What are they talking about? What are they claiming to be true? You certainly don't know from the name. So, what is the point of having a name like that which doesn't communicate anything? It doesn't tell the person one damn thing about what you believe or what the truth is.  

COPA wants to be a coalition on political assassinations. So, they are lumping them altogether? Bad idea. That's trivializing. Each one deserves its own limelight. 

But really, COPA is even worse than CTKA because at least CTKA implies that the truth is something other than what is being told. But, you could have a coalition on assassinations that doesn't dispute anything.  That name is totally vacuous and empty. 

ROKC stands for Reopen the Kennedy case which doesn't even distinguish between John and Robert. They were both Kennedys. JFK Jr. was a Kennedy too, and shouldn't his case be reopened as well? So, what a horrible title and also what a horrible idea. The fascist state is who killed Kennedy. So, why assume that they could ever investigate his murder honestly? Could Stalin have investigated the crimes of Stalin? 

JFK Lancer is named after JFK's Secret Service code name. Obviously, it doesn't say anything. JFK Lancer is run by one person, Debra Conway. On her website, she says that the position of JFK Lancer is that there was more than one shooter. Oh, really? I get it. So, instead of Government Story #1, she wants you to believe Government Story #2. Debra Conway is the author of an absolutely horrible piece on Oswald in the doorway, in which she misstates and misinterprets every piece of evidence pertaining to it. 

But, I just checked for it, and I have a feeling that she shortened it. It used to be two pages, and now it's just one. And the other thing she did was link to the person who has the 22november1963 site, which is a well-placed sit.

Well, I am going to go out on a limb here: I believe very strongly that the guy who does the 22november1963 site, which again is very well placed and very highly ranked in the search engines, is an Op, even though he disputes some aspects of the official story. He just challenges it around the edges. 

The CIA, and whomever they are working with, decided a long time ago to take over the JFK conspiracy movement, to have their people be the leading spokespersons of it. It was a practical decision. They knew there was always going to be a conspiracy movement. They knew that opposition to the official story of the JFK assassination was never going to go away. The important thing was to control it, to limit it, to steer it away from really threatening things, like Oswald in the doorway.   

There is another reason why I think 22November is an Op site: it's location, the UK.

There is WAY too much interest in the JFK assassination in the UK. It isn't warranted. It isn't justified. It doesn't make sense. He wasn't their President. The UK is a hotbed of JFK assassination disinfo agents. And I can understand why they would work out of the UK. First, they are English speaking, so they can communicate with Americans, the target audience. But second, they are far away, so the organization of it and the managing of it, the running of it, can be conducted with less risk of exposure.

Do you want another reason? That 22November site doesn't even identify its owner.  All that writing, all that work, and the guy doesn't even identify himself? I am reminded of 9/11 disinfo site called run by "Mike Williams". Well, Mike said that the reason why he had so much time and money to do it is because he is a successful author and software developer. Well, I wrote to him and I pointed out that if he's a successful author, I should be able to find his book or books online. I couldn't find any. I also did a search for him in connection with software and found nothing either. Everything is online today. And guess where Mike Williams is from? The UK. But, I found out that his website was hosted by a company in Arizona that does 90% of its business with the US Military. 

Personally, I think it looks awfully bad that the 22November site is nameless. But, they may have felt that they didn't want the same kind of trouble that I gave Mike. Hey, if you stick your neck out, you get what's coming to you. 

But get this, the nameless UK guy on 22November did an attack on ME. That's right. Yours truly. But, he didn't name me either. 

First, he disputed the whole idea of there being any photographic alteration in the JFK assassination. He admitted that Oswald said that the Backyard photos were faked, but he said that the HSCA found otherwise, and that settles it.  

Then he wrote that allegations of Zapruder film alteration are "poorly supported." You'd think that he would have supported that statement, but that's all he said. But then, get this: he said there might be problems regarding the autopsy photos and x-rays, "the possibility of fraud can't be ruled out." Listen to me: What that amounts to is just throwing the reader a bone. And it doesn't even make sense. Do you really think that if they were going to alter autopsy photos and x-rays that they wouldn't seek to alter other photos as well? Once they had any mindset to alter imagery, it would have been across the board.   

Then, he rules out Altgens photo alterations. He says that anomalies in it are due to "the nature of the photographic medium" rather than fraud. But, the thing is: we've all been around photography our whole lives. We are pretty darn familiar with the nature of the photographic medium.

Then, UK guy admitted that the FBI put in writing that Lovelady said he wore the short-sleeved striped shirt, but that he later claimed that he was misquoted. But, that's not true. We never heard that from Lovelady. What happened is that when Tink Thompson was writing his book, he went, not to Lovelady, but to CBS, and CBS spoke for  Lovelady. But, that was 1967, and Lovelady was alive and well at the time. What Tink should have said is: 

"Screw you, CBS. I'm going to talk to Lovelady. I want to hear it from him." 

Why, in the name of Pete, would he rely on such hearsay? The truth is: Lovelady didn't like talking about it. Lovelady dreaded talking about it. You see, Lovelady was not a good liar. If he had been politician instead of a warehouse worker, he would have known how to lie, and he would have probably been good at it. But, he was not a politician. Anybody can lie, but the question is: can you lie convincingly? 

Then, UK guy referred to Doorman's shirt as having a plaid pattern, which is clearly not true.

So, everything UK guy said about this was false. I'm telling you, he is an Op. He's another "Mike Williams." He may be Mike Williams. He's just working the JFK cover-up from the UK, like so many others. 

Then, UK guy brandishes the 30 minute interval from shutter to fax nonsense, that we've heard so many times. It's nonsense. Altgens6 was separated out and delayed. Read Paul Rigby on the OIC website. You'll have to scroll 2/3 down the page.

Then, without identifying Ralph Cinque or the Oswald Innocence Campaign, he mentions some of my/our terminology, such as the names for the doorway figures. Of course, this was to mock us. But, the first figure to be named was the Man in the Doorway. So, if you can give him a name, why can't you give the others names? You have to have a way of referring to them. Then, he faults us for not providing "precise mechanisms" of how they were altered. That's not exactly true. It was OIC member Roy Schaeffer who introduced me to the terms "masking and opaquing", the signs of which he saw in the Altgens photo when he first saw it on the fax early in the morning on November 23, 1963 at the Dayton Daily News. 

Then UK guy wonders why they would have replaced Oswald's face with Lovelady's. First, they only replaced the top part of his face with Lovelady's. They just gave him Lovelady's cap, not the whole face. Much of Doorman's face is still Oswald's. Certainly, no more than half of Doorman's face is Lovelady's, and probably less than half. 

But, UK guy implies that it would have been more reasonable for them to pick somebody who looked nothing like Oswald. 

First, Oswald and Lovelady did not look alike. They were hardly twins. 

Why would anyone say that those two guys looked alike? It's just another big lie. But, UK guy needs to think about the practicality of his suggestion- that they should have picked someone who looked even less like Oswald. He didn't put a pencil to that. 

Then, UK guy mocks our claim that all the images of plaided Lovelady are fake. The truth is that not one of them was really Lovelady. He referenced my claim that the squad room scene with Lovelady is a fake, but he accuses me (without naming me) of saying that Lovelady was a midget. 

I never at any time said that Lovelady was a midget. Lovelady was 5'8". That's not a midget. What I said is that Lovelady's figure is too small in the frame.

Lovelady at the time was at least 170 pounds. Oswald was 131. Lovelady is too small. He's too small in comparison to Oswald who was farther from the camera, and Lovelady is way too small compared to the man in back. Lovelady was plopped into that frame. He wasn't at that desk, and he never claimed to be.

And there could was nothing casting the shadow over that big man's right shoulder. That was put in just to provide an adequate background for Lovelady's image, so that it would stand out properly.  Consider that in 1976, Kenneth Brooten, who is still alive, asked Lovelady when was the last time he laid eyes on Oswald, and Lovelady said it was when they broke for lunch at the Depository. He said nothing about seeing Oswald at the PD. His wife was there, and she was participating, adding her two cents now and then, and she didn't pipe in either. She didn't say, "Honey, what about later when you were sitting in the squad room, and they brought Oswald in, and it was a media circus?" She didn't say it because she didn't know about it. The whole story was made up. It's fake. It didn't even surface until 1977. Not a word. Not a reference. Complete vacuum until the HSCA. Even though the footage was supposedly shown on November 22, 1963 and then put into various compilations, nobody noticed Lovelady at the desk until 1977. 

Then, UK guy tried to vouch for the squad room scene by saying that the Martin film confirmed it. But, do these two look like the same guy?

They're not the same guy. They're not even the same shirt. Isn't it obvious that the one on the left is oddly sprawled open and the one on the right is buttoned up? It also has a big pocket flap, not present on Lovelady's posing shirt.

 UK guy asked where the alterations were performed. OIC Chairman Larry Rivera has argued soundly that it was at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, where Oswald used to work.

I have no doubt whatsoever that UK guy who runs the 22November site is an Op. He is working the cover-up under the guise of being a mild sceptic.

And that Debra Conway linked to him tells me all I need to know about her. 

Look: the JFK community is heavily populated with Ops, and they are working both sides of the debate.  Some vigorously support the official story while others mildly dispute it- and they all get along fine. And that isn't normal. This is Hatfields and McCoy type situation. 

So, the whole JFK world is a corrupt, phony place, filled with liars, fakers, actors, and pretenders, and don't doubt for a second that people are being paid. It's a job. It's a vocation: working the JFK cover-up. I wonder how much money was spent in 2015 to work the JFK cover-up. But, through it all, the Oswald Innocence Campaign is beacon of truth, and we are prevailing.

Hey, UK guy! Say hello to Mike Williams for me. You guys work in the same office? He knows me. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

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