There is an Op who goes by ProtectAus- another coward who has to hide behind an alias to discuss the JFK assassination. I don't know who he is, although he may be one of the Ops I am fighting all the time. He has a new hit-piece against Oswald on Youtube, and I must admit that it's pretty slick. It's completely wrong, totally bogus, full of lies, but nevertheless, slick. And now I'll explain why, point by point. And speaking of points: he didn't score any. But first, here is the link if you want to watch it. It's only 4 minutes.
He starts with Oswald's shooting ability, which he claims was spectacular. He flips through a shooting record book, presumably Oswald's, and he talks about the high scores.
Not everybody knows how to think clearly. He doesn't, and only those like him, in that regard, are going to buy his crap.
The first reaction one should have in seeing a thing like this- a physical record of Oswald's shooting results- is to remind him that this is the JFK assassination we are talking about. You can't submit something like that without it being vetted. And I mean vetted by us. Until it's vetted, it doesn't count. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that in regard to Oswald's shooting ability, you have to ask: which Oswald are you talking about? Harvey or Lee? He put up a picture of the Oswald to whom he referred, and it's not the Oswald of fame.
Now, what tells you that the guy shooting on the left is not the Oswald of fame? It's the ear. It's very different from that of the Oswald of fame. It's more block-ish. It's more flared, meaning that it stuck out more. And you only have to compare those two ears to see that they are not the same. So, that is definitely NOT the Oswald of fame.
ProtectAus needs to learn something. He needs to learn that he can only play cards that he's holding in his hand. He is not holding that one. I don't accept it. And if those shooting results pertain to that guy, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Oswald who worked at the TSBD.
But, there's more that he is overlooking. He is overlooking the simple fact that shooting ability is by no means a static thing. If you're good at it, you only stay good at it, if you keep at it. If you stop shooting, then your ability starts to wane. Isn't that true of most things?
Therefore, it doesn't matter how good a marksman Oswald was years earlier in the Marines. It only matters how good a marksman he was on November 22, 1963. And therefore, if we are going to look at his Marine shooting record at all, we need to look at his ability at the time closest to the assassination. And that would mean his very last shooting test. Why? Because that was closest in time to the assassination, although still 4 years away. And what does the record show for that final test? It shows that Oswald scored a 92 on a test where the lowest possible passing score for the lowest grade of marksman- not sharpshooter but marksman- was 91. So, he only scored one point above the absolute lowest passing score for the lowest grade. In other words, he got close to flunking. Now, that's how good he was at the time he left the Marines. What shooting did he do after that? We know he hunted rabbits in Russia with a shotgun. Like maybe twice. And, I trust you will agree that that doesn't count. And, the crap they spew about him going to Sport Drome in Dallas and shooting diagonally at other people's targets, I trust you will just flush that down the toilet. That is NOT established, and there are plenty of people besides me who reject it, including some from the other side. That's right: there are even some lonenutters who reject it. So, for all practical purposes, Oswald stunk on his last shooting test in the Marines, and then did no shooting afterwards. How does that equip him to be a sniper on 11/22/63?
Then, ProtectAus, who uses an alias, accuses Oswald of using an alias and thinks it's incriminating that he did. I guess that makes ProtectAus the pot and Oswald the kettle. But, to the more rationally minded, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether Oswald killed JFK or Tippit.
But, does it have a bearing on whether Oswald ordered a rifle? After all, he showed this:
Again, to the rationally minded, that is NOT evidence against Oswald. If Oswald was going to be set up, it would be easiest thing in the world to produce something like that. It doesn't score any point at all. It is NOT a link to Oswald. Oswald denied it. He rejected it. You can't use that to prove that Oswald ordered a rifle when its authenticity and connection to Oswald are so very much in doubt- as much so as anything else you can name.
Look, the best and quickest way for me to crush this guy's argument that Oswald ordered the rifle is to provide the link to John Armstrong's case against Oswald having ordered a rifle.
Read it because John demolishes the case for Oswald having ordered a rifle from Kleins.
Then ProtectAus gets to the rifle itself, starting with this.
First, there is no such thing as a Mannlicher-Carcano. The gun we're talking about is a Carcano. And that general statement he made can certainly be disputed, but what matters most, of course, is the condition of the specific rifle in question at the time, the one attributed to Oswald.
Then, this next thing is incredible. ProtectAus claims that a guy got off 6 shots in 5.1 seconds.
That is impossible! I am calling ProtectAus a liar and a fraud. I will bet him $1000 that neither he nor anyone else can do it. I am calling this exhibition of his a fraud, but note that he claimed no results from it, just getting the shots off. But, I attended an exhibition of Jim Marrs, in which he brought a Carcano rifle and invited men to come up and see if they could get off 3 shots in less than 6 seconds. Some seasoned military guys went up there and gave it a try as well as some hunters. Nobody succeeded. And we're talking about just 3 shots. ProtectAus is claiming 6 shots in 5.1 seconds. It is bollocks.
Then, he gets to the Backyard photos and posts this.
The authenticity of the Backyard photos are not established by him by posting that. He claims "the original negative in high definition shows no tampering." Oh really? That is worthless. They could have made their fraudulent photo a thousand times over and then, when they were happy with it, made a new negative which would show no tampering. Again: it's worthless. It's bollocks.
Then he points out that Marina Oswald has never denied taking those photos. I know that, and that's what the whole case rests on. How they got her to say that I do not know. But, you know who did deny it? Lee Harvey Oswald. He said it wasn't him. He said they moved his face over to the body of another man. And, he said that from working at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, the CIA-connected photo lab in Dallas, he could do it himself, and he could show them.
OIC Chairman Larry Rivera has made an image overlay proving that the head of the man in the Backyard photos is too big to be that of Oswald.
It doesn't fit. It's not him. The Backyard Photos are NOT real. Like so much else in the JFK photographic record, they are fake.
Then, ProtectAus says that fibers from the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage were found on the rifle. Again: if there is anything easier that could potentially be done to frame someone, I don't know what it is. Since Oswald's connection to the blanket is just as dubious as his connection to the rifle, it doesn't help to bring the blanket into it.
Then, he brings Frazier into it, claiming that Frazier saw Oswald with the paper bag that exactly matches the rifle in length. But, that's not even true verbally. Frazier claimed and still claims that longest the bag he saw could have been was 24 inches, while the bag had to be big enough to contain 35 inches of rifle length. And since one generally folds the top over to secure the top of a bag, that would necessitate a bag longer than 35 inches.
Then he posted this:
Oh really? Oswald lied, did he? Then why didn't Police prove it by examining the trash in the Domino room and finding no such small lunch bag and no scraps from cheese sandwiches and an apple. Oswald didn't eat the core, did he? And as long as we're looking at bags, what about this one?
How did Oswald make that out of shipping paper and tape? Isn't it a bit too good? Maybe you should take out some paper and tape and try making a bag. You'll find out that it's not easy. I defy anyone without training to make a bag as good as the one we see above. And how come nobody saw Oswald make it? It had to take a bit of time, didn't it? It was a busy, hopping place, wasn't it? And how come that image swiftly got sidelined for the one that ProtectAus showed? And don't tell me they are the same bag. The above bag is obviously way too sophisticated for Oswald to have made from paper and tape, and that is the reason they got rid of it. Don't you realize that the above image got stricken from the record? It became inoperative. It's not one of the Warren Commission exhibits. It became as inoperative as Todd Burgun's report on the local news that JFK Jr. contacted the tower at 9:39. It just vanished. But, don't worry: John Hankey has got the actual clip in his video:
And likewise, we still have this image of Detective Montgomery parading around with the incredible bag on a stick.
They decided not to go with that bag, but they are stuck with it. If they're not happy, there is a place they can go.
Then, ProtectAus said the "rifle carry bag" had Oswald's prints. Not when the Dallas Police checked it. And they checked it twice. Later, the FBI came back with a partial print. Here, the guy supposedly had his hands all over the bag to make it out of paper and to carry it, and that's all they could come up with. In a case like this, with everything else we know, we don't accept it. It is not granted. And likewise for Oswald's palm print on the rifle, found only after he was dead. Why wasn't it found on the first inspection? ProtectAus actually put this up as evidence that they found it on 11/22:
For decades, it has been recognized and widely accepted that the palm print wasn't found until after Oswald's death on 11/24, and he thinks he can upturn it by putting up that? THIS IS THE JFK ASSASSINATION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! Does he not get it? Does he have no idea of the level of suspicion, the level of doubt, and the level of resistance to falling for sleight-of-hand tricks we have?
He said the only bullet fragments found came from Oswald's rifle. Well, what about the fragment that hit the curb? There wasn't even any copper in it. So, I suspect this idiot buys the bit about the jacket coming off in mid-air and a little birdie flying the core down the length of Dealey Plaza.
He said Oswald's rifle was found at his work. Well, "a" rifle was found at his work, but it wasn't Oswald's. In fact, it appears that two rifles were found at his work, first a Mauser and then a Carcano, but neither was Oswald's.
Then, he gets to the shirt fibers, and you only have to read the strained testimony of the FBI fabric expert to feel his pain. He only said it was consistent with Oswald's where it could be his- or someone elses. Strained, pained, forced testimony.
After zipping through the list of his scoreless non-points again, he gives thanks to David Von Pein. I don't know who the other guy is.
Again: if this was a basketball game, this guy didn't score a single basket. He got zero points. I don't know if that has ever happened in basketball, but it happened to this guy.
And the very simple and indisputable fact is that Oswald could not have done it because he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots.
Here it is 2016, and they are still at it, putting up smokescreens, spewing lies, and even altering images in order to keep the lie going. But think back to 1963 and beforehand. Do you think Allen Dulles and George HW Bush and them thought that 53 years later, it was going to be necessary to do this? I seriously doubt it. These arrogant bastards really thought they could fool the world. And now, their progeny are stuck in a war- and a fierce one at that- for the hearts and minds, and it is a war they are going to lose. Well, bring it on. That's what the son of one of JFK's killers said, and I couldn't agree more. You want to do battle, ProtectAus? Good. Battle it is.