Thursday, March 31, 2016

Anthony Marsh 
6:02 PM (3 hours ago)
On 3/29/2016 8:11 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Marsh, how dare you? Who do you think you are?  You make a blunt statement
I know I am the most informed researcher here. All you have are kook
theories. I have the facts.

> that Oswald said, when asked about Mexico City, "How do you know about
> that?" and you don't feel the slightest compunction to substantiate it.
> That is truly amazing.
Well, we've only discussed it 7,000 times so maybe you weren't aware of it.

> Oswald was asked about Mexico City at the very first interview, and three
> people who were there: Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout, All of them reported
> that he denied going there. Furthermore, Hosty and Bookhout said that
No, and you can't show that.

> Oswald qualified it by saying that the only place he had ever been in
> Mexico was Tijuana when he was in the Marines.
Deflection. I was talking about Oswald's reaction to Hosty informing him
that the FBI knew about his trip to Mexico City. That is the reason why
Hoover pulled him out of the interrogations.

> Fast forward to months after Oswald's death to Postal Inspector Harry
> Holmes testimony in which he testified to the Warren Commission about
> being present at Oswald's final interview, and he, Holmes, said that
> Oswald provided details of his trip to Mexico City. Nobody else who
Ahem, I didn't even mention Holmes.

> attended that last interview confirmed anything of what Holmes said about
> it. It was just him. And considering that Oswald had denied making the
Are you saying that in the final interrogation Holmes was all alone with
Oswald so we can't trust what Holmes said? Ok, maybe that's why I didn't
mention Holmes. I mentioned only what Oswald said to Hosty.

> trip initially, there was no explanation given for his reversal. Usually,
Oh OK, so now you admit that Oswald said he did go to Mexico City.
End of discussion. I accept your apology.

> when people do complete 180s, they expound a little bit on why they first
> lied about it. But, supposedly, according to Holmes, Oswald just started
> talking about the trip, in detail, as if he had never denied it. And, he
> definitely had denied it.
Oh, so now you're changing your story. Like Trump. Now you say that Oswald
initially denied going to Mexico City and later admitted it. Fine, it's
the later admission I am talking about. Now your only way out is to claim
that Oswald was lying when he said he went to Mexico City.

If Oswald ad admitted to the murder, you would claim that he was only
lying. Anything to not admit any facts in this case. Complete denial. I
think you need to start a new chapter called the OJ Innocence Campaign.

> It's obvious as Hell that Holmes was lying.
> And I have posted the impostor photos from the Russian and Cuban embassies.
That has no bearing whatsoever on whether Oswald went to Mexico City.
Only on who the CIA thought went to the embassy. Routine incompetence.

> Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City, Marsh, and YOU are an alterationist. You
> alter the truth.
You can't handle the truth. 

Ralph Cinque:

No, Marsh. I'm not changing my story. Oswald NEVER said he went to Mexico City. He denied it. Hosty said he denied it. Bookhout said he denied it. And Fritz said he denied it.

Here is Hosty's WC testimony:

Mr. McCloy. I didn't hear you repeating your testimony that he denied ever having been in Mexico. 
Mr. Hosty. Oh, yes; he was being questioned about his activities outside or the United States, where he had been outside of the United States. He told Captain Fritz that he had only been to Mexico to visit at Tijuana on the border, and then he did admit having been in Russia. 
Mr. McCloy. He only admitted to having been at Tijuana in Mexico? 
Mr. Hosty. Right. 
Mr. McCloy. Not to Mexico City. 
Mr. Hosty. Not to Mexico City; that is right. 
Representative Ford. There was no recording made of this interrogation? 
Mr. Hosty. No, sir; it was notes I took. Agent Bookhout and I took notes, and we dictated from the notes the next day. 
Mr. Stern. Did you ask him any questions? 
Mr. Hosty. No; like I say, he was acting in such a hostile condition towards us that we did not. This was Captain Fritz' interview anyway. We were just sitting in as observers. 

Oswald denied going to Mexico City. Period. He never changed his mind. How could he? If he did, wouldn't he have to explain why he lied in the first place? What's the explanation? There was none. He never wavered. He never went to Mexico City. The only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. That's what he said. And he never exchanged any words with Hosty about it. 

Marsh, your arbitrary decrees, your wild pronouncements, and your wanton skewing of the evidence as your mind twists, turns, and tumbles makes you nothing but blaring noise. I have to wonder about you. Could you really be as Singularly Tethered Uncontrollably Pitifully Indescribably Dense as you seem? It's hard to imagine, but yes, you are. You are that stupid. 
Do Americans Live In A False Reality Created By Orchestrated Events?
Paul Craig Roberts
Most people who are aware and capable of thought have given up on what is called the “mainstream media.” The presstitutes have destroyed their credibility by helping Washington to lie—“Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” “Iranian nukes,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” and so forth. The “mainstream media” has also destroyed its credibility by its complete acceptance of whatever government authorities say about alleged “terrorist events,” such as 9/11 and Boston Marathon Bombing, or alleged mass shootings such as Sandy Hook and San Bernardino. Despite glaring inconsistencies, contradictions, and security failures that seem too unlikely to be believable, the “mainstream media” never asks questions or investigates. It merely reports as fact whatever authorities say.
The sign of a totalitarian or authoritarian state is a media that feels no responsibility to investigate and to find the truth, accepting the role of propagandist instead. The entire Western media has been in the propaganda mode for a long time. In the US the transformation of journalists into propagandists was completed with the concentration of a diverse and independent media in six mega-corporations that are no longer run by journalists.
As a consequence, thoughtful and aware people increasingly rely on alternative media that does question, marshall facts, and offers analysis in place of an unbelievable official story line.
The prime example is 9/11. Large numbers of experts have destroyed the official story that has no factual evidence in its behalf. However, even without the hard evidence that 9/11 truthers have provided, the official story gives itself away. We are supposed to believe that a few Saudi Arabians with no technology beyond box cutters and no support from any government’s intelligence service were able to outwit the massive surveillance technology created by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and NSA (National Security Agency) and deal the most humiliating blow to a superpower ever delivered in human history. Moreover, they were able to do this without the President of the United States, the US Congress, and the “mainstream media” demanding accountability for such a total failure of the high-tech national security state. Instead of a White House led investigation of such a massive security failure, the White House resisted for more than one year any investigation whatsoever until finally giving in to demands from 9/11 families that could not be bought off and agreeing to a 9/11 Commission.
The Commission did not investigate but merely sat and wrote down the story told to it by the government. Afterwards, the Commission’s chairman, co-chairman, and legal counsel wrote books in which they said that information was withheld from the Commission, that the Commission was lied to by officials of the government, and that the Commission “was set up to fail.” Despite all of this, the presstitutes still repeat the official propaganda, and there remain enough gullible Americans to prevent accountability.
Competent historians know that false flag events are used to bring to fruition agendas that cannot otherwise be achieved. 9/11 gave the neoconservatives, who controlled the George W. Bush administration, the New Pearl Harbor that they said was necessary in order to launch their hegemonic military invasions of Muslim countries. The Boston Marathon Bombing permitted a trial run of the American Police State, complete with shutting down a large American city, putting 10,000 armed troops and SWAT teams on the streets where the troops conducted house to house searches forcing the residents out of their homes at gunpoint. This unprecedented operation was justified as necessary in order to locate one wounded 19 year old man, who clearly was a patsy.
There are so many anomalies in the Sandy Hook story that it has generated a cottage industry of skeptics. I agree that there are anomalies, but I don’t have the time to study the issue and come to my own conclusion. What I have noticed is that we are not given many good explanations of the anomalies. For example, in this video made from the TV news coverage, the video’s creator makes a case that the person who is the grieving father who lost his son is the same person outfitted in SWAT clothes at Sandy Hook following the shooting. The person is identified as a known actor. Now, it seems to me that this is easy to test. The grieving father is known, the actor is known, and the authorities have to know who the SWAT team member is. If these three people, who can pass for one another, can be assembled in one room at the same time, we can dismiss the expose claimed in this one video. However, if three separate people cannot be produced together, then we must ask why this deception, which raises questions about the entire story. You can watch the entire video or just skip to the 9:30 mark and observe what appears to be the same person in two different roles.
The “mainstream media” has the ability to make these simple investigations, but does not. Instead, the “mainstream media” calls skeptics “conspiracy theorists.”
There is a book by Professor Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek that says Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill to promote gun control and that no one died at Sandy Hook. The book was available on Amazon but was suddenly banned. Why ban a book?
Here is a free download of the book: 

I have not read the book and have no opinion. I do know, however, that the police state that America is becoming certainly has a powerful interest in disarming the public. I also heard today a news report that people said to be parents of the dead children are bringing a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, which is consistent with Fetzer’s claim.
Here is a Buzzsaw interview with Jim Fetzer: If the information Fetzer provides is correct, clearly the US government has an authoritarian agenda and is using orchestrated events to create a false reality for Americans in order to achieve the agenda.
It seems to me that Fetzer’s facts can be easily checked. If his facts check out, then a real investigation is required. If his facts do not check out, the official story gains credibility as Fetzer is one of the most energetic skeptics.
Fetzer cannot be dismissed as a kook. He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University, has a Ph.D. from Indiana University and was Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University of Minnesota until his retirement in 2006. He has had a National Science Foundation fellowship, and he has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science and philosophy of cognitive science. He is an expert in artificial intelligence and computer science and founded the international journal Minds and Machines. In the late 1990s, Fetzer was asked to organize a symposium on philosophy of mind.
For an intelligent person, the official stories of President Kennedy’s assassination and 9/11 are simply not believable, because the official stories are not consistent with the evidence and what we know. Fetzer’s frustration with less capable and less observant people increasingly shows, and this works to his disadvantage.
It seems to me that if the authorities behind the official Sandy Hook story are secure with the official story, they would jump on the opportunity to confront and disprove Fetzer’s facts. Moreover, somewhere there must be photographs of the dead children, but, like the alleged large number of recordings by security cameras of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, no one has ever seen them. At least not that I know of.
What disturbs me is that no one in authority or in the mainstream media has any interest in checking the facts. Instead, those who raise awkward matters are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
Why this is damning is puzzling. The government’s story of 9/11 is a story of a conspiracy as is the government’s story of the Boston Marathon Bombing. These things happen because of conspiracies. What is at issue is: whose conspiracy? We know from Operation Gladio and Operation Northwoods that governments do engage in murderous conspiracies against their own citizens. Therefore, it is a mistake to conclude that governments do not engage in conspiracies.
One often hears the objection that if 9/11 was a false flag attack, someone would have talked.
Why would they have talked? Only those who organized the conspiracy would know. Why would they undermine their own conspiracy?
Recall William Binney. He developed the surveillance system used by NSA. When he saw that it was being used against the American people, he talked. But he had taken no documents with which to prove his claims, which saved him from successful prosecution but gave him no evidence for his claims. This is why Edward Snowden took the documents and released them. Nevertheless, many see Snowden as a spy who stole national security secrets, not as a whistleblower warning us that the Constitution that protects us is being overthrown.
High level government officials have contradicted parts of the 9/11 official story and the official story that links the invasion of Iraq to 9/11 and to weapons of mass destruction. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta contradicted Vice President Cheney and the official 9/11 story timeline. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has said that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the subject of the first cabinet meeting in the George W. Bush administration long before 9/11. He wrote it in a book and told it on CBS News’ 60 Minutes. CNN and other news stations reported it. But it had no effect.
Whistleblowers pay a high price. Many of them are in prison. Obama has prosecuted and imprisoned a record number. Once they are thrown in prison, the question becomes: “Who would believe a criminal?”
As for 9/11 all sorts of people have talked. Over 100 police, firemen and first responders have
reported hearing and experiencing a large number of explosions in the Twin Towers. Maintanence personnel report experiencing massive explosions in the sub-basements prior to the building being hit by an airplane. None of this testimony has had any effect on the authorities behind the official story or on the presstitutes.
There are 2,300 architects and engineers who have written to Congress requesting a real investigation. Instead of the request being treated with the respect that 2,300 professionals deserve, the professionals are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”
An international panel of scientists have reported the presence of reacted and unreacted nanothermite in the dust of the World Trade Centers. They have offered their samples to government agencies and to scientists for confirmation. No one will touch it. The reason is clear. Today science funding is heavily dependent on the federal government and on private companies that have federal contracts. Scientists understand that speaking out about 9/11 means the termination of their career.
The government has us where it wants us—powerless and disinformed. Most Americans are too uneducated to be able to tell the difference between a building falling down from asymetrical damage and one blowing up. Mainstream journalists cannot question and investigate and keep their jobs. Scientists cannot speak out and continue to be funded.

Truth telling has been shoved off into the alternative Internet media where I would wager the government runs sites that proclaim wild conspiracies, the purpose of which is to discredit all skeptics.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

I maintain that this letter, supposedly by Oswald, to the Russian Embassy in Washington is fake.

There are many things suspicious about it, but right now, let's hone in on one: The letter states that FBI Agent Hosty visited "us" in Dallas on November 1, 1963. But, Hosty visited only Marina and Ruth Paine in Irving on November 1, and Oswald wasn't there. Oswald and Hosty did not meet, face to face, until November 22, 1963 at Oswald's first interrogation. The letter states that on November 1, "Hosty warned me" that if I engage in FPCC activities in Dallas that the FBI will again become interested in me. 

So, how did Hosty warn Oswald? It wasn't face to face. And it wasn't on the phone either because there is no claim that they ever spoke on the phone. 

If you read the letter, it implies that Oswald was present at the meeting in Irving, but he wasn't. He wrote that he and his wife strongly protested, etc. The clear implication is that he, Oswald, was there.  

Why would Oswald lie about that? Wasn't it just as easy to be truthful, to say that the meeting was between Hosty and his wife, and that he only heard about it later from her? Why would he lie?

And, the misspellings in the letter are over the top. They are beyond credibility. "Of cores" for "Of course" is ridiculous. Oswald supposedly taught himself Russian and could speak, write, and read in Russian. George DeMohrenschildt said that Oswald could read the Russian classics in Russian. And yet, he couldn't spell "of course", one of the most common and frequently used expressions in the English language? 

In a letter to the Soviet embassy, he misspelled Soviet Union, spelling it "Uion"? 

So, he lived there for 3 years and tried to defect there, but he couldn't spell it? 

He spelled "comrade" correctly, even though phonetically it's pronounced "comrad" and yet he typed "Soviet Uion" and "Of cores"? Then, subsequently, he misspelled it "of couse"? We are supposed to believe all that?

Even if Oswald was as bad at spelling as they claim, which I doubt, when typing important letters, don't you think he would be careful? He was asking them for something, so why would he mistype the name of their country? 

This is just part of the whole depiction of Oswald as deranged, eccentric, scatterbrained, and mired in incompetence and confusion- that he was off his rocker. I don't believe for one second that he sent that letter.  
Mar 30 (8 hours ago)
- show quoted text -
Then why did Oswald type and sign a letter saying that he DID go to Mexico

Oswald went to Mexico City. Period. Case CLOSED!

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia 

Ralph Cinque:

Oswald did NOT type and sign that letter. It's not his letter. It's just another forgery. 

Notice that in typing "Of course" he supposedly typed "Of cores". 

Of cores? That isn't even a reasonable mistake that anyone would make. Oswald was smart enough to teach himself Russian, yet that's how he spelled "Of course", a term that is extremely common and repeatedly and frequently used on an every-day basis? 

On, they list the most common misspellings for words. This is what they list for "of course"

Common misspellings:
ofcourse (90%)
ofcorse (4%)
offcourse (2%)

Of cores? Oswald actually typed "Of cores" for "Of course" in a letter to the Russian Embassy?

You are stupid enough to believe it, Brennan. 

Somebody else sent that letter; it was not Oswald. 

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

The Oswald Innocence Campaign is making history. We are studying history, but we are also making it. The formation of the OIC in July 2012 is one of the biggest developments in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. 

There have been books by authors such as Mark Lane, Jim Douglass, Doug Horne, and John Armstrong. And their books are of great historical importance. But, a book is not a network. There is strength in numbers: people who are organized. And that's what we are: a group of people who are organized with a purpose: to exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald. 

And there is not going to be any other organization set up to exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald, and I'll tell you why: it's because we not only declare his innocence, we establish his alibi.  And that's essential. Imagine if Oswald had lived and gone to court. Imagine if his lawyer tried to defend him without establishing where Oswald was at the time of the shots. Imagine if he said: 

"We can't tell you where Oswald was at the time of the shots, but he wasn't on the 6th floor shooting at the President."

What would the jury think? They would think that they can't say where he was because he was on the 6th floor shooting at the President. A legal defense of Oswald at trial would definitely have to include a presentation of his alibi. So, that is what we are doing, and that is what anybody would have to do in order to defend him. 

It is also what a rival organization to the OIC would have to do. So, if they don't like what we claim- that he was in the doorway during the shots- where are they going to put him? Where are they going to say he was?

The lunch room? But, like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45 with the understanding that the President was going to arrive at 12:25. So, why would Oswald put off eating lunch for 40 minutes only to eat it at 12:30 when he had absolutely nothing else to do? He had no book to read. He had no letter to write. He had no game to play. He had no appointment to keep. He had no errand to run. And he hadn't eaten a thing that day and had worked all morning. So, why the hell wouldn't he eat promptly when he got off work at 11:45? It doesn't even make sense as a behavior to think that he would do otherwise. Put off eating for 40 minutes for no reason at all? Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone claim that Oswald did that? And why would anyone who claimed it claim to be an Oswald defender?

Do you have any other idea as to where Oswald was at the time of the shots? And more importantly, do you think it's anything that an organization could be built around? 

I didn't think so, and that is why I say that there is not going to be any other advocacy organization for Oswald's innocence besides the Oswald Innocence Campaign. It is just going to be us, and we are going to keep growing and expanding and enlarging like a snowball. 

And the whole thing is going to end with us taking it across the finish line. When the official story is officially crushed, it will be us who are credited with the crushing. 

But, hold on tight. It may be a wild ride. 

There is another reason why thinking Oswald lied about Mexico City doesn't make sense. It is that people generally anticipate and prepare for their lies. They may even rehearse them. But, when a person is put on the spot, where he isn't the least bit prepared, where he hasn't even decided to lie, then he will very likely tell the truth.

Oswald had no reason to lie about Mexico City. Even according to the phony story, he didn't commit any crimes there. And, it wasn't against the law to visit the Russian and Cuban embassies seeking a visa. And he certainly was not one to keep his accolades for living under Communism a secret. He was proud of it, wasn't he?

Now, when he was arrested on 11/22/63, he certainly wasn't thinking about Mexico City- even if he had gone there. And while he was waiting to be interviewed, he may have wondered what they were going to ask him, but he certainly didn't expect them to ask him about Mexico City. So, that question must have caught him by surprise, again, even if he went there. There is no reason to think he had made a decision to lie about it- or given it any thought to it at all. So, when the question came, he would have had to deliberate. Before he lied, he would have had to think about it, which would have taken time. And the very pause, the very delay would have given away that he was lying. So, the odds are very great that, being unprepared to lie, he would have told the truth. And the truth was that he didn't go to Mexico City. 

And, it's interesting that he added the framing statement that the only place he'd been in Mexico was Tijuana. That's because it was an honest thought; it was just a natural mental progression- one that he had just as anyone could have. It really, truly comes across as HONEST.

Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, and real Oswald defenders should have no trouble accepting it. Those who do have trouble are NOT real Oswald defenders. 
I am very pleased to announce that the cofounder of the group, the Association for John Kennedy Ambush Truth, Rich Shaddock, has become the newest senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. 

Rick has lived an amazing life. He was a Marine, and then he went on to become a computer consultant, and he has done work for all branches of the US Military, plus the NSA. He has taught computer skills to over one thousand Pentagon staffers. He has also done computer consulting for the World Bank and has traveled the world. 

But, Rick has also been very active in the truth movement, for JFK and 9/11, and he is the founder or co-founder of other truther groups besides this one, including Here is the link to Rick's bio page, and you'll see that he has lived a life of amazing productivity and accomplishment.

All I can say is that I'm sure glad that Rick is on our side because I wouldn't want to go up against him; I am not smart enough for that. Thank you, Rick. We are honored to have you. And thank you for all that you do.
Why do so many people who claim to be Oswald defenders call him a liar?

He said he didn't go to Mexico City, that the only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. Why don't they believe he was telling the truth? Why would he lie about an innocuous trip to Mexico City when he was being wrongly accused of killing the President of the United States and a police officer? Do you really think he was that stupid?

He said he didn't know anything about the assassination. His exact words- in front of world cameras to the world at large- were:

"I don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything. I only know that I am being accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I ask that somebody come forward to provide me legal assistance."

That's plain English, and Oswald did not lie to the world. If he knew anything about the assassination, and if he had said anything to police about the assassination, they never would have let him talk to the world. The very fact that he was allowed to speak to the world was because he had nothing to say. He didn't know anything. And, it makes sense that he didn't know anything because he was the patsy, and you don't cut the patsy in on what you're doing.

And, Oswald said that he didn't pose for the Backyard photos. He said that his face was implanted over the body of another man. And he said that he knew how it was done and could demonstrate it. So, Lee Harvey Oswald was a proponent of JFK assassination photo-altering. Shouldn't his defenders believe him that he did not pose for those photos?

And, Oswald said he didn't own the rifle or any rifle. Several of the interviewers admitted that he denied owning any rifle. Now, if you know he didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit, why would he lie about owning the rifle? Even if you think that rifle was used to kill Kennedy, and even if you think Oswald assumed it was used to kill Kennedy, why would he lie about owning it if he did? Would you? If a murder was committed with your rifle, would you deny that it was yours? Wouldn't you say something like:

"Yes, that is my rifle, but I didn't kill anybody with it. Someone must have stolen it from where I had it stored and used it to commit the crime with the intention of framing me. But, I didn't do it. Of course, I didn't do it. I'd have to be insane to do such a thing, and I am not insane. I am not a murderer, and I am not insane. I had no motive whatsoever to kill anybody. I would never do such a thing."

Isn't that about what you'd say? Then, why not give Oswald credit for being smart enough to know that if it was his rifle, then it was futile to lie about it? He had to tell police the truth about that.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, but they are not really Oswald defenders. But we, at the Oswald Innocence Campaign, are real Oswald defenders. We're like his lawyers. And we have two very excellent lawyers in our group, Mark Lane and Vincent Salandria. We defend Oswald against the charges of double murder and attempted murder, and we defend him on the count of every smear made against him, including that he was a liar. Oswald told the truth. Believe Oswald.  

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Unfortunately, there are some very vocal people who claim that the official JFK story is a lie, but the official 9/11 story is the truth. And that is an outrage. The official 9/11 story is every bit as far-fetched and preposterous as the official JFK story, and anyone who believes the former is suspending their rational mind.   

But, let's look at what was really involved with 9/11. Some very powerful people- some of whom were in government and some of whom were not- decided to pull off 9/11 which they knew would kill thousands of people, and they did it in order to win support for the wars and the new government powers that they wanted.

But, let's be crystal: you can't use mass murder to gain any values because mass murder entails the repudiation of all values. And in this case, the "values" that they wanted involved the commission of more murders, as in Shock and Awe, Fallujah, etc. The point is that the people who conceived of 9/11 and executed it were, and are, insane. You have to be insane to do such a thing. 

How many were involved? I don't know, and neither does anyone else except those who were involved. But, I think it's reasonable to assume that the number of people who had advance knowledge of 9/11 was more than a hundred and less than a thousand.   

But, the number of Americans who have defended and supported the official story of 9/11 is in the millions. If it was an insane, criminal act, why do so many support it?

I'll tell you how. It doesn't involve thinking. It involves turning off thinking. It involves flipping a switch in their brains. How do they deal with all the incongruities? It's simple. They don't deal with them. They don't look at them. They just keep repeating the mantra that 19 hijackers did it, and office fires caused the buildings to collapse into their own footprints at free-fall speed.

And it's the exact same way with JFK. They don't deal with the fact that Kennedy reacted to being shot long before Connally did, therefore, they could not have been hit by the same bullet.  They don't deal with figuring out what Oswald did during his lunch break and where he was at 12:30. And, they are the kind of people who never ventures into the realm of altered films and photos- as if such a thing can't happen in this universe.

We live in a fascist society, where government and major corporations are coordinated and synchronized about as much as in Nazi Germany. It means that everyone who works for government has the self-interest not to question the official decrees, and the same is true for everyone who works for a major corporation. You might say that their job, their livelihood, depends on it.  

 That explains the surreal reality of so many people accepting absolutely preposterous things- and going on with their daily lives without thinking about it further.

Well, they are in for a rude awakening- whether they like it or not.  

I am happy to announce the newest senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, David George Caban. 

David has been very supportive of me on Facebook, adding helpful comments and frequently seconding what I post with Likes. He has done this abundantly and for a very long time. That is why I am very pleased that our chairman, Larry Rivera, nominated him, and it is something I should have done myself for all the help David has given me. 

And David is a very impressive man who has lived a very productive life. He has been a college professor, having taught on criminal justice, sociology, and business. And he has been an entrepreneur, a successful entrepreneur, and he is currently one. He is also an investor in other small businesses, and he is a strong advocate of entrepreneurship. 

David has been a JFK researcher for over 20 years, which he has described as a "challenging journey." He has also taught courses on the JFK assassination. And most important, David has been and is a very strong advocate of Oswald innocence and Oswald in the doorway. For his help and support to OIC Chairman Larry Rivera and his help and support to me, Larry and I are both very grateful. Therefore, with great enthusiasm and appreciation, we welcome David Caban to the Oswald Innocence Campaign.  
Anthony Marsh 

Mar 28 (17 hours ago)

On 3/27/2016 1:15 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Oswald did not go to Mexico City. He said he didn't go there, and he had
No, he didn't. He said, "How did you know about that?" 

Ralph Cinque:

Marsh, how dare you? Who do you think you are?  You make a blunt statement that Oswald said, when asked about Mexico City, "How do you know about that?" and you don't feel the slightest compunction to substantiate it. That is truly amazing.

Oswald was asked about Mexico City at the very first interview, and the three people who were there, Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout, all reported that he denied going there. Furthermore, Hosty and Bookhout reported that Oswald qualified it by saying that the only place he had ever been in Mexico was Tijuana when he was in the Marines. 

Fast forward to months after Oswald's death to Postal Inspector Harry Holmes' testimony in which he talked to the Warren Commission about being present at Oswald's final interview, and he, Holmes, said that Oswald provided details of his trip to Mexico City. Nobody else who attended that final interview confirmed anything of what Holmes said about it. It was just him. And considering that Oswald had denied making the trip initially, there was no explanation for his reversal. Usually, when people do a complete 180, they expound a little bit on why they first lied about it. But, supposedly, according to Holmes, Oswald just started talking about his trip, in detail, as if he had never denied it. And, he definitely had denied it.

It's obvious as Hell that Holmes was lying.  

And I have posted the impostor photos from the Russian and Cuban embassies.

Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City, Marsh, and YOU are an alterationist. You alter the truth. 

Monday, March 28, 2016

OIC senior member Dr. Thomas Halle sent a letter into Blase radio concerning the JFK assassination which I found to be very insightful and well written, which I am publishing here:

Dear Blase:
Your referencing James Douglass’ book, “JFK and the Unspeakable” on your program aired today is something I found shocking (and practically breathtakingly encouraging). This, IMO, has been—for some years--one of the absolutely PREMIER books on the subject of the Kennedy assassination, which I have been studying for about forty years. If I may say so, it also has served as a kind of antidote for a terrible phenomenon you may have noted through the decades, an ongoing and very mean-spirited, tabloid style character assassination of John Kennedy. I am refer-ring to simply loathsome books like “Dark Camelot,” and “A Question of Character.” Kennedy may have had some character flaws (Who does not?!!) and, early on in his career, was certainly a “cold warrior” (though, even as a U.S. senator, he at least occasionally voiced human rights concerns, e.g., regarding the country of Laos ). It could also be argued that his election as the 35th American president would have been impossible without his subscribing to the lunatic Cold War mind-set, and associated U.S. international policies.
Yet, late in his administration, he showed some willingness to act with a measure of reflection and temperance when dealing with relations with Cuba, and with regard to a strong move toward nuclear disarmament. He also voiced some concern about the worrisome role financial forces, and secret societies, had played in the history of this country (e.g., during his speech at American University, only a few months before his murder in Dallas). I will add that, while the Kennedy administration was certainly a “mixed bag,” I think this chief executive played an important role in inspiring Americans, e.g., with regard to increased focus on science and the arts, at least a start in the area of civil rights, and in encouraging a youthful, hopeful mind-set (along with a shift toward peace and cooperation, already mentioned—including some amazing attempts to establish “back-channel” communication with Cuba and the Soviet Union--and the establishment of the Peace Corps).
Lamentably, he seems to have been fatally naive in neglecting to properly consider a swirling and horrific wave of  revulsion and violence, which had been hovering about him--and began to descend--stemming from powerful enemies (several groups and individuals), as he approached the end of 1963, and made that terribly fateful visit to Dallas, Texas. As you noted, upon his death, the country effectively suffered from a coup d ‘etat, with the military-intelligence community assuming control of the country, and these forces—along with Federal Reserve System/World Bank/IMF/Capitalist System impact--have dominated policy ever since that time, meaning there must have been many millions of citizens of other countries viewing the USA as the author of immense levels of barbarism, corruption and stupidity….and, yes, chaos, terrorism and devastation (reflective of staunch imperialistic designs, as well as severe hubris and psychopathology).
I will finish by asking you to consider three other keenly important books on this subject. They are:
1. “JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy”–Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (provides key JFK assassination information, as well as critically important insights about the basis of the Vietnam War—primarily a “Langley” led operation, which was meant to go on interminably, with no final resolution).
2. “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”—Peter Dale Scott (differing a bit from Douglass, in which Scott insists that the assassination was not so much a conspiracy by a “cabal,” as “business as usual” by the “Power Elite” or “Military Industrial-Intelligence-Complex”).
3. “The Devil’s Chessboard”—David Talbot (Nicely describes the very dark “intelligence climate” of the sixties, particularly with regard to the CIA, whose top three executives—remember—were cashiered by JFK, rendering them dangerous arch-enemies, along with LBJ, and other figures and groups in those days).

Dr. Thomas Halle

Sunday, March 27, 2016

What an idiot. Backes disputes my claim that Oswald never went to Mexico City. Now, you'd think he'd start by saying something direct, such as "Oswald did go to Mexico City." But, Backes didn't. First, he falsely said that I rest my case entirely on Oswald's denial. Not true. I emphasized, repeatedly, that the lack of an image of Oswald in Mexico City is very strong evidence that he wasn't there. And not only is there no image of Oswald in Mexico City, it's worse than that because there are, instead, images of Oswald impostors in Mexico City.

Having impostor images is worse than having no image at all of Oswald in Mexico City. Why would they have to resort to Oswald impostors if he really went there? This is terribly bad.

The fact is that there is no solid evidence that Oswald went there. The Mexican woman from the Cuban Embassy who claimed to have an affair with Oswald said that he was her height which was 5'3". The Oswald of fame was 5'9". 

And once again, Backes makes it out like I, alone, claim Oswald never went to Mexico City, when he knows full-well that I cited two research giants, Mark Lane and John Armstrong, who say the same thing. 

The case for Oswald having gone to Mexico City is so weak that even Backes refuses to state outright that Oswald went there.

Backes says the CIA had photographic surveillance. Then why no image of Oswald in Mexico City?

Backes refers to an HSCA staffer as one of the best JFK researchers. Backes: you should never, ever, again say that anyone connected with the HSCA was among the best JFK researchers. That is ridiculous, you stupid fool.  The HSCA was just another government white-wash, like the Warren Commission. You haven't figured that out yet? 

Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City. Period. I have no trouble making direct statements. It's my nature to make them. 

Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City. Mark Lane and John Armstrong are right about it. Joseph Backes is wrong. 

Oswald did not go to Mexico City. He said he didn't go there, and he had no reason whatsoever to lie about it because it is impossible to claim that in Mexico City he was doing anything pertaining to the killing of JFK. Supposedly, according to the official story, he didn't get the idea to kill Kennedy until he was working at the TSBD and saw that the motorcade was going to pass in front of the building. Supposedly, that was just two or three days before the murder. Therefore, there is NO CHANCE that 7 weeks before, it was on his mind. It wasn't a crime for Oswald to go to Mexico City, and no one was accusing him of committing any crimes in Mexico City. Therefore, he had no reason to lie about it.

Police and FBI were accusing him of killing the President of the United States and a police officer, which he denied. And he wanted them to believe him. So, why would he lie to them about something as innocuous as going to Mexico City? And why would he expect to get away with such a lie if he went there?  

If you were accused of a double murder, which you didn't commit, and police asked you if you made a trip to Las Vegas two months before, and you knew you did, would you lie about it? It's the same thing. 

Oswald had absolutely no reason to lie about it, and it's worse than that. He would have had to be insane to lie about such a harmless thing. 

If Oswald went to Mexico City, they surely and absolutely, they would have captured a photo of him there. The CIA claimed to be tracking him the whole time, so how could they not get a photo? Furthermore, there were impostor photos captured at the Russian and Cuban embassies. Further-erther-more, if Oswald had gone to those embassies, then his image would have been captured by the cameras in addition to the impostor images. There is simply no excuse for not having an image of him. 

Mark Lane says that Oswald did not go to Mexico City. John Armstrong says that Oswald did not go to Mexico City. And there is no reason for anybody to dispute the fact that Oswald did not go to Mexico City. 

Oswald did not go to Mexico City. 

Thursday, March 24, 2016

It is an outrage for anyone to claim that those two are the same man wearing the same clothes. But, it is more than an outrage. It is thuggery. Pure thuggery. "It's the same guy, wearing the same shirt. You hear me? We're telling you that. Don't make us tell you again."

Thuggery doesn't work on me. Someone gets thuggish with me, and I get thuggish right back at them- in spades. But, weak people cower. Weak people suspend their own judgment. Weak people give in and give up. 

Thugs are working the JFK assassination cover-up harder today than ever before. The reason is because of the Internet. Before, if someone wrote a book, they could harass him, but he was just one guy. At least, it was just one guy at a time. But, now they have to cover forums and newsgroups and Facebook pages, galore. They have to quash inflammatory situations wherever they arise and however often they arise. It's a never-ending job. And ultimately, it comes down to fear and intimidation: thuggery.

But, their efforts are futile, and their cause is hopeless. The fact that Oswald was innocent and standing in the doorway during the shooting is going to become widely known. That's certain. And when it is, how is it going to look for them? - the history of what they did, and what they tried to do? The fools should have walked away a long time ago.