Thursday, June 30, 2016

It would be very interesting to sit down in front of CE 369 under a bright light and with a large magnifier. Just imagine removing the whole digital element, to go eye to object with nothing in-between.

But, the problem is that I would have no trust in anything they showed me. Look what they did about Oswald's shirt. On the left below is CE 150 from the Warren Commission, and notice that it looks nothing like Oswald's shirt. Since Oswald's shirt was seen always gaping open and with the margin folded over to some extent, sometimes a lot and sometimes a little, what is the point of showing the shirt that way since he never wore it that way? 

Oswald's shirt behaved the way it did because of its materials and how it was made. It was not an American shirt. It was undoubtedly one that he brought back with him from Russia. It had a soft collar and soft placket in the center that folded over easily, and that's why it did what it did.

How could a regular American shirt behave like that? It wouldn't. It couldn't. I've been wearing shirts for 65 years, and no shirt I've ever worn has done that. 

It behaved more like a jacket, and that's why Officer Marrion Baker described it as a "light brown jacket." Others also described it as a jacket. And why, if you were showing Oswald's shirt, would you cinch it up when he never wore it that way? 

Of course, the one on the right isn't cinched up, look how hard and stiff the collar is? Do you think THAT shirt could fold over into a lapel the way Oswald's shirt did? Of course not. No way. If you tried to fold it over, it would just pop right back. I guarantee it.  

The point is that they have been lying to us about Oswald's shirt. Why? I suspect it's because they don't want us to recognize it as the shirt that Doorman is wearing. 

In fact, I can't think of any other reason why they wouldn't show us Oswald's actual shirt. Otherwise, what difference did it make? It's not as though he used it to strangle Kennedy. 

But, if they won't show us Oswald's real shirt, which is CE 150, why think they would show us the real CE 369? I wouldn't put it past them to either alter it inconspicuously using high-tech methods that are undetectable or creating a whole new photograph and making it look as authentic as hell. And, I have no doubt that they could do a smashing job.  

So again, I couldn't trust anything they showed me today. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that I couldn't debunk something they showed me today. In fact, I have a very clever way that I think I could debunk it- that is, detect a fraud- and I'm not even going to tell you what it is. 

But, all of this is wishful thinking on my part because I don't think they would ever open up the vault to me- the one containing the Warren Commission exhibits. I suspect they would tell me that I can find digital images of the exhibits online, and that will have to suffice. Look at what happened to 9/11 researchers who tried to get a look at physical evidence in that case. Doors slam easily.

They'd be walking into a trap if they let me see CE 369, and they damn well know it.  Do you think they could get away with showing me a forgery ? My radar would be up before I even got into the room. It would be much easier and safer and better for them if they just told me that I couldn't see it, and that's what they would do, say if I asked. Maybe I'll put it to the test.  

David Von Pein 

For clarification, I've added some further explanation about the "two
arrows" in the "footnote" on my "Doorway Man Part 1" webpage.

Thank you, Ralph, for pointing out that such clarification was, indeed,
required on that page. 

Ralph Cinque:

David, I read what you wrote, and it was good of you to back off the claim the way you did. It's definitely a step in the right direction. However, you offered no explanation as to why Lovelady's arrow in CE 369 isn't visible. What do you think we would find if we looked at it directly? Surely, there would have to be a hint of it somewhere, don't you think?  

But, what you wrote about the Fritz Notes and "out with Bill Shelley in front" is woefully lacking in rationality. You say it must have referred to AFTER the assassination, as when Oswald was leaving for home. And you base that on the order of the statements, assuming that they must be chronological. But, it was based on a conversation, and since when are conversations always chronological? 

But, there is a worse problem than that. We know for absolute certain that Shelley wasn't out in front when Oswald left for home. Shelley left the entrance soon after the shots with Lovelady to join the throng that descended on the railway area. Then, they re-entered the TSBD building through the back door. Neither reported going out front again until it was time to leave for City Hall. 

So, Oswald definitely didn't see Shelley out front when he left for home. Shelley wasn't there at that time. So, why would Oswald claim it? He would have known that they were going to ask Shelley about it, and that Shelley would deny it (as he did). So, what would be the point of lying about it? People tell lies which they think they can get away with. They don't tell lies for which they are certain to be exposed. 

And why would Oswald have to provide a witness for where he was AFTER the assassination? He wasn't accused of committing any crime when he left for home. And there's no doubt that he did it, so there was no need to provide a witness to it. "Out with Bill Shelley in front" was definitely a reference to DURING the motorcade, and Oswald correctly identified someone who was, in fact, in the doorway. And, he was, in effect, saying "go ask Shelley." 

And I realize that they did go ask Shelley, and Shelley denied that Oswald was there, but the question: who was lying? You think it's a foregone conclusion that Oswald lied, but I say Shelley lied. Again: how could Oswald know that Shelley was there during the motorcade unless he saw him there? And that means he, Oswald, must have been there himself. 

And, look at it from Fritz' point of view. What mattered to him? What did he need to know? Not who Oswald saw when he left for home, but who he saw during the time of the motorcade. Oswald didn't need an alibi for his departure. He needed an alibi for the assassination. That's what Fritz wanted to know and what he wrote down.

And look what Fritz told the WC about what Oswald told him, that he was eating lunch with other employees during the shooting. That was ridiculous, and Oswald never said it. He was too smart to say it. Why would he say it knowing that the employees would deny it? So, why would Fritz claim that Oswald claimed it? BECAUSE OSWALD WAS DEAD! And look what happened. Joseph Ball didn't even ask Fritz to name the two employees. You would think Ball would have said, "Who were those guys? I need to talk to them." But no; Fritz didn't say, and Ball didn't ask.

David, you are like the little Dutch boy holding his finger in the hole in the dike. That is just a legend, and it wouldn't work in real life. Neither is what you're doing. Oswald was innocent. The truth of that is going to flow everywhere, and there is no way for you to stop it. 

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

A Texan looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power

by J. Evetts Haley

book review by Ralph Cinque

Historically, this is an important book.  It sold 7.5 million copies, making it one of the most successful political books of all time. They had a saying in Texas that the only book that ever sold better in this state was the Holy Bible. 

Haley was one-of-a-kind. He considered himself a bonafide historian, and he had a Masters degree in History from UT Austin. He wrote over a dozen books, most of them about the history of the Old West, including biographies of colorful Western characters. He was also a member of the John Birch Society and a rabid anti-Communist. He didn't mention Senator Joseph McCarthy in the book, but I bet he approved of him wholeheartedly.    

But, Haley made his money at cattle ranching. He came to own three large spreads in Texas and New Mexico. He called himself a "cowman." I guess that was in distinction to cowboys. And he was very active politically, running for Congress in 1948 and for Governor of Texas in 1956.  He was always a fringe candidate and never came close to winning. But, how he found enough hours in the day to do all that he did in his life, I just don't know. He lived long too from 1901 to 1995. He endowed the Haley Library and History Center in Midland, Texas, which continues to this day and charges no admission- all on his dime.  

A Texan Looks at Lyndon was self-published by him in 1964. The book lists the publisher as Palo Duro Press, but it was really just him. In case you don't know, Palo Duro refers to Palo Duro Canyon, the second-largest canyon in the U.S. after the Grand Canyon. It's a little south of Amarillo, close to the town of Canyon, which is where Haley lived. 

Now to the book: First, I'll address what Haley addressed last: LBJ's role in the JFK assassination. It was a total, utter failure! Haley got it all wrong. His theory of the crime was that Oswald did it. and did it alone, that is, the shooting. Haley mostly supported the official story. But, according to him, Oswald had people egging him on, and they were Communists! Because, after all, Oswald was a lousy rotten Communist. So, it wasn't the Ultra-right who killed Kennedy; it was the Ultra-left! That's how Haley saw it. 

But, Haley didn't provide one speck of evidence against LBJ. He did not tie him to Oswald. He didn't show that Johnson had foreknowledge. He just said that LBJ was covering up the Communist conspiracy in the assassination because, like JFK, he was a spineless coward who catered to Communists. 

This book did no damage to LBJ about the assassination. None whatsoever. I say, as I've said before, that when people propose alternate theories that are wrong, it only helps to strengthen the official story, which is what this book does.  

So, you can just forget about that aspect of the book and call it an absolute dud. However, Haley reported other nefarious acts and crimes of LBJ, including murders he was involved in, for which Haley did get concrete.  There is plenty of damaging stuff in here- enough that it should have destroyed LBJ. Why didn't it? I'll tell you at the end, but it's the same reason Hillary's crimes aren't going to destroy her either.

Haley went into LBJ's political corruption including his stealing the 1948 Senate election from former Governor Coke Stevenson. Keep in mind it was just the Democratic primary not the general election. But, Haley explained that in those days, Texas was part of the "Solid South" that always voted Democratic. They hated Republicans.  It went back to the Civil War because Lincoln, who waged war on the South, was a Republican, and it was Republicans who imposed "Reconstruction" on the South, which should have been called "Retribution." So, the general election was just a formality- the Democrat always won. The Democratic primary was the real and only contest.      

You probably heard that it was very close, and what put Johnson over the top were late results from a Hispanic county in South Texas that went something like 800 to 18 in favor of LBJ.

Stevenson cried fraud and took it to court. His lawyer's provided solid evidence that dead people from the local cemetery voted- in large numbers. Also, people who were not home, out of the county, and out of the country voted. A woman who was in Mexico at the time was recorded as having voted- for Johnson, and they brought her in to testify in court that she was down in the Yucatan on Election Day. 

Johnson's lawyers did not contest any of Stevenson's concrete evidence; they just said that it was a Democratic party matter, and the Democratic party had certified the results, and it was not the role of the state to interfere. The Texas court ruled in favor of Johnson, but Stevenon appealed it to federal court, which reversed the decision. Then, Johnson took it to the U.S. Supreme Court which gave it back to him. And that's how Johnson got to be a U.S. Senator. 

I don't think anyone today doubts that Johnson stole the election through outright fraud. 

There is a lot in the book about Johnson's business dealings and how he acquired such vast wealth. And, I found out why "Lady Bird" had to become known as Lady Bird. It was because she had to have those initials- for business. They formed a company, the LBJ Company. Supposedly, it stood for her initials- not his. He wasn't even listed on the Board. However, when people dealt with the LBJ Company, they knew very well whom they were dealing with.

Haley covered their acquisition of the radio station in Austin, how they got the FCC to hassle the current owner with all kinds of rules, regulations, and restrictions, all of which made the business unprofitable, and all of which got lifted as soon as Lady Bird took over.  Profits soared for her, almost immediately. The station is still going today. It's called KLBJ, although I don't know what role the Johnson family has in it any more, if any. 

And it was just like that with other businesses as well; they built a vast financial empire. Haley made the very astute point that as soon as he became President, LBJ had his wife's company and all its assets placed in a blind trust and managed by someone else. But why, Haley asked, wasn't it fitting for him to do that when he was Vice President? Or Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate? Or even just Senator? 

Isn't it troubling when a guy spends his whole entire life in "public service" as LBJ did and becomes fabulously, unimaginably rich in the process?      

Now, let's talk about murders. Haley covered several that were connected to LBJ. First, there was the murder of John Kinser, the owner of a miniature golf range in Austin, who was shot to death by Malcolm Wallace, LBJ's henchman. There was no doubt that Wallace did it; he admitted it. He didn't testify at trial, but his lawyer, who was LBJ's lawyer, said that Kinser had slept with Wallace's wife. That was never established, but what was established was that Kinser had been sleeping with Josefa Johnson, LBJ's sister. About the carnal part, LBJ couldn't care less. What worried him is that the alcoholic Josefa had a loose mouth- she was chatty when she drank. So, he was afraid that in the pillow talk she may have told Kinser things about him that would come back to haunt him (LBJ). 

The jury found Wallace guilty of first degree murder, and 11 out of 12 voted for the death penalty; the remaining asked for life imprisonment. The judge in the case, a friend and political consort of LBJ's, cast all that aside and made the sentence 5 years and then reduced it to time served. Wallace walked out a free man. The epilogue was that Josefa Johnson also wound up dead, officially of a cerebral hemorrhage, but many believe that Wallace killed her too on LBJ's order. It's what Billie Sol Estes believed. No autopsy was performed, and the death certificate was signed by a doctor who never viewed her body.  

So, did LBJ kill his own sister? Many people think so, and I'm one of them. 

Haley covered the Kinser case in all its sordid details, and he also covered the Henry Marshall case. Marshall was the Department of Agriculture official in Texas who uncovered a lot of the Estes fraud in connection with the cotton allotments. Marshall supposedly committed suicide by shooting himself with his own rifle - 5 times. So, he shot himself 4 times with intent to kill, wounding himself each time, but was still able-bodied enough to pull the trigger a fifth time. That's the story. Did I mention that it was a rifle?        

A Texas inquest eventually admitted that Marshall was murdered, and they implicated LBJ. However, it was long after LBJ had died, and in Texas, like most places, we don't prosecute dead people. But, they seemed to indicate that if Johnson had been living, he would have been charged.

Haley also covered how Johnson forced himself on the Kennedy ticket, how Kennedy had already decided upon Senator Stuart Symington as his running mate. He'd asked Symington; Symington had accepted; it was a done deal. But Johnson, (with Hoover in the background backing him up) threatened to expose JFK's myriad medical problems including Addison's disease, and his sexual affairs, and Johnson made other threats as well, such as opposing JFK's legislative proposals in the Senate- if Kennedy left him there. 

Then, Haley also covered the Bobby Baker scandal and LBJ's campaign finance scandals, including the one involving Brown and Root, where they funneled money to LBJ and took huge tax write-offs in the process. Today, that company is known as Halliburton.

Here's something cute from the Estes case. Did you know that there were suspicious deaths in that case too? One was an Ag Department official in Washington who disappeared, and his young secretary made a fuss about it. The way they dealt with her was by having a judge declare her mentally insane; and then committing her permanently to an insane asylum. Cute.  

As I said, there is a lot of damaging stuff in this book The worst things, of course, were the murders. That's because murder is murder- whether it's the President of the United States or anyone else. Haley provided no evidence that LBJ was involved in JFK's murder, but he provided compelling evidence that he was involved in other murders. 

So, why didn't people care? Why didn't this book do more damage to Johnson than it did?

It's because nobody in high places cared. If Johnson had killed someone with his bare hands, they wouldn't have cared. After the assassination, Johnson had an important role to play, and that was to cover up the truth and protect the real killers. And, they knew that he would. Look at all they had on him. He was their partner in crime. 

And it's the same way with Hillary today. If she had gone to Benghazi and shot the US ambassador with her own gun, they wouldn't care. They need her now to stop Trump from gaining the White House. Period. All that came before is forgiven.

When A Texan Looks at Lyndon came out, it wasn't completely ignored by the mainstream media. They said it was a vicious attack by a rabid Bircher, etc., but today, a book like this. say about Hillary, would just be ignored. Times have changed. 

As I said, they didn't care then about Johnson's crimes. But, what bothers me most is that it's no different today; they still don't care. Mainstream historians and the mainstream media still do all they can to preserve Johnson's reputation. They try harder to preserve Johnson's reputation than they do Kennedy's. Much harder. 

So yes, this book is of historical importance: it's the first hit piece against LBJ, and it came out right during the 1964 campaign. It's just a darn shame that Haley was completely blind to the realities of the JFK assassination. He was a smart man, and he should have seen that Oswald was just a patsy and nothing more, that he didn't shoot or shoot at anybody.

Oh, one last thing: Something else Haley does in the book is praise to the high heavens Major General Edwin Walker, the guy that Oswald supposedly shot at before Kennedy. He described Walker as a great American, perhaps the greatest, who was standing up bravely against all the Communist sympathizers in this country, which, according to Haley included both Johnson and Kennedy. Walker and Kennedy were at opposite political poles.  There isn't a stitch of evidence that Oswald shot at Walker, and the whole case is based on nothing but Marina reciting a fanciful tale about it.  But, why would Oswald want to kill both Walker and Kennedy if they were so polar-opposite politically? It makes no sense, but then again, nothing about the case against Oswald does.   

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

I wrote recently about Madeleine Brown, which was prompted by an attack on her by James Corbett on McAdams' JFK forum. And I decided to contact my friend Pat Shannan, who is a real investigative reporter and also a member of the OIC, because I know that Pat knew Madeleine Brown. So, I asked Pat about the basis for her credibility. This is what he said:

 Ralph, I had first heard of the Thurs. night party at the Murchison house from CIA lifelong operative Col. Russell Bowen in 1994. At that time he was a former and remorseful drug-running pilot who also flew one of the "Triangular Assassination Teams" (as he called it) into Dallas that afternoon. (Everything They Ever Told Me was a Lie, Pat Shannan - 2011)
Russ still would crack up laughing whenever he would tell about George Bush and Richard Nixon saying that they couldn't remember where they were at the time. "I know where both the lyin' bastards were," he would say, "they were with me at Clint Murchison's house!"
Well, a year or so later I read somebody else's brief account of the alleged party meeting that was kinda' vague and possibly speculation, and I put the whole story on the shelf.
Then in '98, I met Madeleine at a Dallas expo, we exchanged books and two days later when I came to her Murchison story therein, I had her on the phone in ten minutes, and she began to confirm everything that Russ had told me about people present. (Russ said that even Henry Kissinger was there, but his face was too unfamiliar to the public at the time for Madeleine to confirm. Same with Bush, but she certainly recognized Nixon and Bulldog Hoover. She did not pretend to remember something that she didn't, which gave her whole story more credibility in my mind.)
A year or two after that, I met May, the Irish housekeeper for the Murchison family when Ted Gunderson was house-sitting at a different home for the younger generation. May remembered 11/21/63 very well and told me all about it. 
All of this gave more credence to both Madeleine and Russ.

David Von Pein 

From 2013 or 2014.....


[Ralph] Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out that
Lovelady's arrow in Commission Exhibit No. 369 has to be pointing to the
same person in the Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing
to. We know this to be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball --
"And one in the white pointing toward you."

Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a
kindergartner. But since the arrow drawn by Frazier (the one "in the
white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously means
that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan Lovelady.
The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to ignore.

So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his Warren
Commission session that he was in TWO different places at the same time in
the CE369 photo? I guess you must think that Lovelady was saying that very
thing, because you seem to think that Billy drew an arrow to someone OTHER
than Doorway Man, even though Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing toward
you" when referring to the arrow that is "in the white".

Hint for Ralph -- there can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady] in CE369.
And it couldn't be more obvious who the "you" is in the Altgens

Ralph Cinque:

No, David. You are NOT thinking correctly about this, and you are apparently incapable of distinguishing cold hard facts from speculations and wishful thinking. 

The testimonies tell us that there were definitely two arrows drawn on the photo, but, as you admit yourself, only one can be seen. So, whose is it?

It is Frazier's. It is definitely Frazier's. That's because it is drawn mostly in the white, as Frazier's was. Furthermore, there is no way that an arrow drawn in the white with a black instrument would not be visible. Therefore, the arrow drawn in the dark- black on black- must be the one that isn't seen, and that was Lovelady's arrow. 

So, the visible arrow is definitely Frazier's, yet you refer to it as Lovelady's on your webpage. You wrote: "When Lovelady drew that arrow to himself...."  That arrow. It's referring to the visible arrow. That is wrong, and it is not OK, notwithstanding your footnote. You are not entitled to state something that is factually wrong and then make excuses for it on another page. What if the reader doesn't click through to the other page? Then they are going to be mislead for sure. But, you don't care.  

So, that arrow can't be Lovelady's. If you want to assume that Lovelady's arrow has to be there, somewhere, in the dark, pointing to Doorman, you can, but you can't state it as a fact. The claim is based on nothing more than a subjective interpretation of one short statement of Joseph Ball:

"You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing towards you."

You think it necessarily means that the two arrows were drawn to the same figure, but this was a crafty lawyer we're talking about. It could just as easily and more likely mean that you've got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing towards you, as per the opinion of two individuals.

The arrows are like votes, and the picture displays two votes. The votes didn't have to be for the same person.

Ball's statement was VAGUE and deliberately vague. And then he quickly changed the subject. So, what does that tell you? Lovelady drawing his arrow to Doorman would have been such a gold mine, such a boon, such a mighty victory for Ball, that he would never have responded vaguely about it. He would sung about it to the high heavens. But, the reaction he gave evinces an attitude that he didn't get what he wanted.      

And what is also very apparent is that Ball FEARED that he was not going to get what he wanted. With Frazier, Ball first pointed to Doorman and asked him directly and out loud, who is this guy? That was before any arrow was drawn. So, why didn't he do the same with Lovelady? 

I suspect that Ball was warned ahead of time that Lovelady was resisting, not being a team player. So, the arrow-drawing was Ball's way of playing it safe. It was non-verbal. He wanted to see it before anything was said. And then when he saw it, he responded vaguely- deliberately arcane and mysterious- and then quickly changed the subject. 

And yet, you want to treat it like money in the bank? You think you have the right to take his deliberately arcane statement and interpret it the way you want and think that others are obliged to accept your interpretation? 

Ball's statement only said that the two arrows were pointing to YOU, not that they were pointing to Doorman. Neither Ball nor Lovelady made any reference to Doorman. How weird is that? Ball did refer to Doorman with Frazier and Arce but not with Lovelady.  

So, the bottom line is that Lovelady's arrow is missing. Not that it isn't there but that we can't see it. And the arrow we can see is Frazier's, definitely Frazier's. 

That's the bottom line, and it's what an honest broker will admit to. And after admitting it, if you want to say that you think Lovelady's arrow is there somewhere in the dark, pointing to Doorman, but we just can't see it in these digital renderings because he didn't press hard enough or some other reason, that's your prerogative. But, as it stands right now, on your webpage you are calling Frazier's arrow Lovelady's arrow, and that isn't right. 

And remember: Frazier is still alive. So, how come this question hasn't been put to him? If I had access to him, don't you think I'd ask him? You know I would. Would you?     
This newspaper clipping is from the Evening Times, a Cumberland, Maryland newspaper.  

First, it is very anachronistic because you would never see anything like this today. If there is controversy about the facts of a tragic national event, regular newspapers do not cover it- the controversy. For instance, they don't cover the controversies surrounding Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing, do they? 

The funny thing is that even though the article  starts with Pictured Man Is Not Killer, the fact is that the effect of the article is to raise doubt about it. They admit that there has been interest both here and abroad. In other words, people from all over the world thought that Doorman was Oswald. How powerful is that? "Comment on the resemblance (between Oswald and Doorman) came from many parts of this country and abroad." They are acknowledging a lot in that statement- more than they ever would today. 

And after acknowledging a lot, they get to the counter, which is to say that R.S. Truly, the building superintendent, identified the man as Lovelady. I wish I had the whole article. I probably could get it from one of those services like 

But, I'll point out that it's really not much of a counter to cite one guy, the building superintendent. 

But, let's talk about Roy Truly since they used him as the relief pitcher to get the save. I've said all along that I have a lot of respect for William Weston, the author of The Spider's Web: The TSBD and the Dallas Plot, who alleges that the TSBD was a CIA front company, that they were really doing secret, clandestine activities of an espionage nature under the guise of selling school books.

It doesn't mean that every TSBD employee knew what was really going on, but I am sure Roy Truly did. First, consider that he was officially the building superintendent. He was the "super". Having lived in apartment buildings in New York when I was a kid, that's the term we used. The super took care of maintenance of the building. If you had a problem with the heat or the plumbing, you'd call the super. 

So, why was the super involved with hiring "order-fillers" for the book business? It was Roy Truly who hired Oswald. Obviously, Roy Truly was a lot more involved in that business than just being the super of the building. 

Roy Truly claimed that he never knew Oswald's Dallas address, that the only address he had for Oswald was his Irving address. As I read what he said, he seemed to imply that he thought Oswald was commuting from Irving.  I find that hard to believe because Oswald never lived in Irving. He never resided at Ruth Paine's house. He stayed there occasionally, visiting his wife and kids; that's all. 

So, when Oswald talked to Truly about working there, surely he must have told him that he was local, that he lived in Dallas. I find it hard to believe that Truly could be confused about that. 

There are conflicting reports about how the job came to Oswald. It always starts with Ruth and Marina attending an afternoon soiree' with the kindly neighborhood ladies in Irving to enjoy tea and crumpets- or whatever. And one of them- none other than Linney May Randle, Frazier's sister, told them about the job that Wesley had recently gotten at the Book Depository in Dallas and that they may still be hiring. But, there are conflicting reports about whether Linney May Randle ever confirmed that story. Then, I have heard it that Ruth Paine made the call and talked to Roy Truly about Oswald. And I have also heard it that she only told Oswald about it and that he made the call. It's the first version that sticks in my craw. Oswald was a grown man, and Ruth Paine wasn't his mother. It would have been awfully intrusive of her to call about a job for him without his knowledge and consent. So, what I am wondering is: did they back off the original story about her making the call for that reason? 

Between you and me, it's obvious that Oswald was set up at the TSBD, that he was guided there precisely so that he could be framed for killing Kennedy. 

But, let's get back to Roy Truly. He was the building super, but he also hired the order-fillers for the book distributing business. Truly was directly responsible for the Dallas Police turning their attention to Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got back to the first floor, or what did you see?
Mr. TRULY. When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse.
Mr. BELIN. Had they sealed off the building yet, do you know?
Mr. TRULY. I am sure they had.
Mr. BELIN. Then what?
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." 

This does not make sense. Truly had just seen Oswald a few minutes before, in the lunch room with Baker. And Truly had no suspicions then about Oswald. His assurance to Baker that Oswald worked there must have carried an air of certainty that Oswald could not possibly have had anything to do with it- considering how quickly they dropped it and went on. So why, a few minutes later, would Truly, upon not seeing Oswald downstairs, immediately get the thought that he should report it to police? Are we really supposed to believe that Truly did a 180 in his mind, that after having brushed off Oswald as a suspect to Baker, that now he was driven to think that Oswald could be involved? Just because he didn't sight him?  

I found a source for the article.  It was published on December 3, 1963. So, just two weeks after the murder.

Wow. It shows you how hot the Doorman story was that just two weeks after the murder, it had boiled over enough to warrant the article. It shows you that people were talking about it- all over the world.  

But, one guy, the building super, giving assurances that it wasn't Oswald in the doorway doesn't amount to much- especially when you realize that he was the same guy who fingered Oswald to the police in the first place, and on very flimsy grounds.

Looking at this article today, in light of everything we know, I consider it damaging- to the official story and the claim that Doorman was NOT Oswald.   

This is from the Lone Gunman people. They admit that it's Lovelady in the Couch film. 

It's nice to see that, but that's a very distorted image. We have better ones. The most important thing about the image is that Lovelady is wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

That was just seconds after the assassination- less than a minute. So, if that's Lovelady- and it was- then he could not possibly be Doorman, since Doorman is wearing a long-sleeved shirt. 

That wraps it up, don't you think? 

Monday, June 27, 2016

There really is no way for the other side to put a sunny spin on the issue of Lovelady's arrow.

Even if we put aside the issue of finding the location of his arrow and just say that it is elusive, controversial, and debatable, there are certain things that the other side cannot deny which are devastating to their cause.

1.the fact that neither Ball nor Lovelady claimed that he was Doorman. Neither expressed it in words. It is inconceivable that Ball would have refrained from saying so- for the record- if Lovelady had drawn his arrow to Doorman

2. the fact that no mention was made of Lovelady having drawn his arrow to the same figure as Frazier. Again: if he had, Ball would have publicized it. Obviously, Lovelady identifying himself as Doorman would have been 10X bigger than Frazier doing it. Bigger as in more valuable, more persuasive, more worth saying. But, Ball did not say it, and as soon as Lovelady drew his arrow, Ball quickly changed the subject

3. getting the photo to sing the result too would have been very valuable. Imagine if all this time there was a photo with an arrow to Doorman and Lovelady's signature or initials. To be honest, even then, I would just say that Lovelady lied. It would not change anything because the images show that Oswald was Doorman- same man; same clothes.  But still, it would have been valuable for the other side if they had such a thing. Ball wasn't a stupid man. If he had it, he'd have played it for all it was worth. Instead, he changed the subject as soon as Lovelady drew his arrow. 

4. in law, they speak of a defendant having a "consciousness of guilt" in other words, where he has acted guilty without admitting guilt. Well, Ball was so evasive after Lovelady drew his arrow- saying that "there's an arrow in the white and one in the black pointing to you" - which can easily be interpreted as having been drawn to the same figure but does not directly say it- and then when you add the fact that immediately after that he changed the subject and never came back to it, it sounds to me like a consciousness of cover-up and hiding. I would also call it very slick lawyering. 

5. The fact that just a month later, in May 1964, Lovelady did his first interview with a journalist, Jones Harris, in which he did claim to be Doorman, and that suggests that somebody talked to him and made him realize that it was imperative for him and his family that he get with the program.

 6. But, after that, Lovelady pretty much went into hiding: quitting his job, moving to Colorado, and getting into a different line of work, suddenly with the means to start his own freight company. This is a guy who was making $1.11/hr at the TSBD. Ultimately, a lot of Colorado real estate wealth were to come to him and his wife. 

7. But word must have spread quickly that talking to Lovelady was NOT a good idea. Tink Thompson addressed the issue in his book, Six Seconds In Dallas, but he did not try to talk to Lovelady. Instead, he reported what Lovelady told CBS- according to CBS. And remember that CBS, after producing a detailed and complex segment about the Doorman controversy for their 1967 JFK Special, wound up ditching the whole thing. 

8. As far as we know, Lovelady didn't talk to anybody until Ken Brooten and Robert Groden got to him in 1976 for the picture-taking for the HSCA. Ken Brooten at the time was the Chief Counsel of the HSCA, so he was like an 800 pound gorilla, and Lovelady could hardly say no to him.  And then when Brooten quit his job in order to represent Lovelady, it tells us something: that he realized that Lovelady needed help, that he did not want to testify, and that it would have been perilous if he did. Brooten quit his job, but it's not as though he changed his mind. It's not as though he switched sides. It's not as though he became an advocate for Oswald's innocence. So, he was on the same side, the government's side. Who was the alternate suspect if Oswald didn't do it? The government was. So, Brooten was still working for the government; it's just that he was working for them in a different way. I'm sure he thought that it was more important that he control and manage Lovelady than he do anything else for the HSCA. When Lovelady died suddenly of a heart attack at age 41 in January 1979, the same month the HSCA Final Report came out, Brooten blamed conspiracy theorists.  Brooten did an informal deposition of Lovelady which became available recently. Here's the link. Lovelady is very terse, and he sounds timid and nervous. Brooten leads him to a great extent.

Now, you would think that Brooten would have started the thing off by asking:

"Now, Billy, you know there has been a great deal of controversy, world-wide, as to whether you or Lee Harvey Oswald was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. Will you now state, for the record, and once and for all: were you the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo?"

But, Brooten didn't do that, and I'm not surprised.  

The point is that even without definitively proving my thesis that Lovelady drew his arrow to Black Hole Man, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that he did NOT draw it to Doorman. And that is really what matters most. CE 369 is NOT a good piece of evidence for defenders of the official story of the JFK assassination.  

Alan Murphy What you are doing Ralph makes me wonder just how huge this conspiracy was/is. I am glad there are people like you analyzing all this. Years from now decent peeps-historians will be able to look at all the real evidence without the filter of our crap-ass of govt...etc. chicken shit etc.....
LikeReply2 mins
Ralph Cinque Well, today it's practically universal because all institutions of government, education, and the corporate media support it. But, how many had advance knowledge of the JFK assassination before it happened? I don't know. All I can tell you is more than 100 and less than 1000.

So, why do I say more than 100? It had to be when you consider all the people who were actively involved in framing Oswald, plus those in the anti-Castro community, those in the CIA, those in the FBI, although I suspect they were fewer, those from the Pentagon and high-up in the military who knew, LBJ and the people in his Texas Mafia who knew, those in the Dallas PD who knew, and those in the corporate world like the Hunt Brothers, Clint Murchison, David Byrd, etc. Then there were also the Mafia people who knew. There may have been media people who were given advance notice too, those who could be trusted. 100 is very conservative. It was a big and wide conspiracy. There may have been members of JFK's own Cabinet who knew, such as McGeorge Bundy. It was a big and wide conspiracy.   
In addition to everything else, it's dangerous to try to carve your initials into a bullet with a pocket knife. That's because you have to hold the bullet in one hand, and carve with the other hand, and you have to press hard because it's a bullet, not something soft. It's not as though knives go into bullets like butter. And therefore, the knife could easily slip with your hand below it, and you could easily cut yourself. 

But, Jim Leavelle got a nurse to do that???? We're not talking about Jim Bowie. We're talking about a nurse. It's preposterous. 

So, what else is preposterous in Jim Leavelle's claims? How about the claim that he saw Ruby coming, knew what was going to happen, and tried to prevent it by jerking Oswald behind him? He did no such thing. We know very well from the videos that Leavelle did not react to Ruby in any way until after Oswald was shot.

This is the instant that Oswald was shot. Ruby is shooting into Oswald's side. Leavelle has not jerked Oswald behind him or turned him or done anything else. His story about trying to protect Oswald is a complete fabrication, a total lie. 

And we have other views of it too.

 "Ruby" is firing right there and then. So, how can Leavelle claim that he jerked Oswald or turned him or did anything else to him? He's not even aware of Ruby yet. 

This next frame is post-shot, and the reason I can say that it is post-shot is because you see Oswald grimacing. We don't assume he grimaced before being shot, do we?

Leavelle has yet to take action, and Oswald has already been shot. Now, before you start thinking that Leavelle is saying these things because he is senile, confused old codger, here he is on November 24, 1963 making the same claim, that he saw Ruby in advance and tried to jerk Oswald out of the way. In fact, Leavelle said more than that on 11/24/63. He said that as he was jerking Oswald back that he shoved on Ruby's left shoulder. You can listen to it here starting at 2:28.

Leavelle: I tried to jerk Oswald behind me, and I reached up and caught a hold of Jack Ruby's shoulder, his left shoulder. I shoved back on it, at the same time pulling on Oswald. But, Ruby had this 38 snub-nose pistol, and all he had to do was pull the trigger.

He did not such thing. It was a complete, total lie, and he told it on 11/24/63.

Then, he told another lie: that Ruby tried to fire again, that he brought his left hand to the gun, so that he was handling it with two hands, and that he tried to fire again. Leavelle even demonstrated it. 

Unfortunately, the red line obscures it, but he is demonstrating a two-handed grip there. He said Ruby did that after shooting Oswald. He did not. 

This is Ruby after the shot. Detective Graves has got his shooting hand. Ruby's other hand is nowhere near the gun.

After that, Ruby dives into the center of the men, with a little help from them. He never tried to shoot again, and he never brought two hands to the gun. 

So, Jim Leavelle lied, but not just as a folksy, colorful old man embellishing a fish story. He lied that very afternoon. He lied from the start. What does that tell you?  

What you should realize is that this is just inside the door from the garage. That's the garage where we saw all that pandemonium and chaos. Remember how they mobbed Ruby and herded him into the building in a wild frenzy? This is just on the other side of the door. 

So, how could it turn into this, where he's all docile and pacified and hardly even noticed as he's led by Oswald? It doesn't follow from what we saw. That was showcasing, but so is this.  This is the first sighting of Ruby after he disappeared into the pile of men in the garage, but it does not make sense.

This is from Staffan Westerberg, a JFK researcher and OIC senior member, in response to a mailing about Jim Leavelle's tall tale:

that is very good work of you,
not that we believed Leavelle in the first place, but this is just another cut in the official narrative about Oswald.
As for me, I see this: Oswald could not wear his doorway shirt after being arrested. Before he was killed they made him wear a black sweater, instead of just the white t-shirt. Jim Leavelle wore a light beige suit. Then just before Lee was killed they honked a car horn, then honked it again just prior to the killing. It doesn't seem impossible that the shooter got word beforehand to go for the man dressed in black to the left of the man in white. It all looks staged.
All the best,

David Lawlor Ralph are you one of those who believe that "Zionist Jews" killed JFK?
LikeReply1 min
Ralph Cinque No, I believe the "national security state" killed JFK, as per Vincent Salandria. Vince is Italian, but he is married to a Jewish woman.
LikeReply1Just now
Ralph Cinque How do I know that? He told me. We are friends.