Friday, March 24, 2017

It is amazing to me that people who dispute Oswald being in the doorway- and I am not referring to those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy but to those who admit he wasn't there- do so without stipulating where he was instead. They never say he wasn't in the doorway at 12:30 because he was at x instead. They just deny he was in the doorway.

Well, Oswald was a material being, not an idea. He had mass. He had to be somewhere. And we're not talking about the whole Earth. We're talking about a very finite place: that building. So, if he wasn't in the doorway, then where was he at 12:30? 

They don't say, and some even say that the question is unimportant, that it doesn't matter where he was.

But, that's not true. It does matter.  I guarantee you that in a court of law it would matter. The core of any defendant's defense is his alibi. And the core of any prosecution is to destroy the defendant's alibi.

The problem is that these people don't view Oswald as a person on trial. He's more of an ethereal idea to them, and hence, like the proverbial ether which pervades everywhere and nowhere. 

The difference between the OIC and others who dispute the official story is that we do it with a spirited, vigorous defense of Oswald. There are others who want to challenge the Warren Commission and establish conspiracy, but they don't give a damn about Oswald. They don't care about him. That is, they don't care the least bit about defending him. And, they irritate me far more than the lonenutters do. That's because denying Oswald in the doorway is an obligatory move for the LNs, like an obligatory move in Chess. If your King is in check, and there is only one move that will get him out of check, then you have to make that move. It's either that or concede. And it's the same for the lonenutters. That's all they are doing. So, they are just automations. It's like listening to a robot.

Then, there are the spurious arguments that they make, and again, I am more irritated by the people who are supposed to be defending Oswald. And they think they are so clever. For instance, if Oswald was in the doorway, then others there would surely have seen him and said so. So obviously, he wasn't there. 

That is a spurious argument. The fact is that the FBI came down on the TSBD employees like the Gestapo. They asked them what they saw, and it's not like they were indifferent. Look what happened to Carolyn Arnold. On November 26, just 4 days after the assassination, she tried to tell an FBI agent that she saw Oswald at the doorway (just inside the door, and remember: it was all glass) shortly before the motorcade arrived. But, Hell rained down on her after that. By March, when they officially took a statement from her again, she said that she didn't see Lee Harvey Oswald at all. And the Warren Commission never wanted to talk to her. Also, I want to point out that the Warren Commission also didn't talk to Mary Moorman. And I can understand why from listening to her 2013 interview, where she talked about all the times that law enforcement kept taking her photo back- over and over and over again. And finally, the last time, it came back with that big white thumbprint. Now, why would they want to put that into the record? 

Keep in mind that I don't presume that everyone in the doorway and near the doorway became aware of Oswald standing there, and for several reasons. First, he may have been the last to come out, and once people were outside, they were looking forward, not backward. Second, he was the first to leave. He had to leave early because how else could he have beaten Baker to the lunch room, and he did get there a second or two before Baker even though Baker was running. And, at that time, people were still looking forward. However, I don't think for one second that nobody saw Oswald. Shelley definitely saw Oswald, and I believe that Shelley interacted with Oswald in the doorway. It was Shelley, I suspect, who sent Oswald to the lunch room. I also think it's likely that Lovelady was directly aware of Oswald being there. That's because Lovelady was standing on the same level, and when Oswald came out, Lovelady would have caught a glimpse of him as a moving object in his peripheral vision, and he would have turned to look at him, to see who he was. People do that spontaneously. It's almost an instinct. Of course, Lovelady didn't admit it. In fact, he said that he didn't see Oswald again after they broke for lunch. He said that in 1964 and in 1976. Both times, he had the opportunity to bring up his supposedly seeing Oswald in the Squad room of the DPD, which was a very momentous thing, don't you think? That is, if it happened. But, the point is that in both 1964 and 1976 and all times in-between, he knew that nobody wanted to hear anything about Oswald being in the doorway during the motorcade. It was a matter of self-preservation to deny it. And, I would say the same thing about Frazier; it was a matter of self-preservation for him to deny that the man is Oswald.  

If you realize that the Warren Commission was more of a Stalinist show trial, with a predetermined conclusion (of Oswald being guilty) and that they worked backward from, then there was no room in the inquiry for Oswald being seen in the doorway. So, you can be sure that they made sure that that didn't get into the report. All, as in every single one, of the WC witnesses first testified to the FBI. you might say that the FBI was the screening device for the WC. If someone said that they recalled seeing Oswald in the doorway OR that the figure in the Altgens photo looked like Oswald, you can be sure the FBI corrected that person and warned them not to say it again. Of the 75 TSBD employees, just a handful were allowed to testify directly to the Doorman question. They were all pre-screened, and it's likely that more were pres-screened than we know about. They picked the best among them. Although, in Lovelady's case, apparently, Joseph Ball didn't have confidence in him to give the right answer, so he played that arrow-drawing game just as a precaution. But, with Frazier and Arce, he did have confidence in them, again from the pre-screening. And so, he was bold enough with them to point to Doorman directly and ask, "Who is this?" But, if during the interviews the FBI did, if anyone tried to say it was Oswald in the doorway, that person was not only corrected and chastised, and warned with extreme prejudice not to say it again, but they were crossed off the list of WC witnesses.  There was NO CHANCE that they were going to let someone avow to Oswald being in the doorway and for that to be entered into the official record. So, it means absolutely nothing that no such witness exists. It wasn't an honest investigation. 

You can't, on the one hand, admit that the Warren Commission was crooked to the core, and then put stock in their handling of the Doorman question. They were never going to allow any contradictory testimony to surface on this. Not about this. Sure, they let people testify that they thought that the shots came from the Grass Knoll. Even Billy Lovelady said that. That was a tolerable contradiction.  But, seeing Oswald in the doorway during the shooting? No way. They were never going to allow that to be voiced. So, it means absolutely nothing that it isn't there.

Just imagine if the Warren Report were exactly as it is except that in addition there was a witness who testified that he saw Oswald in the doorway. It would have eviscerated the whole thing. Recall what the mandate of the Warren Commission was: to establish Oswald's guilt- his sole guilt- beyond a shadow of a doubt. LBJ put it that way directly to Earl Warren, that he needed to come up with that or else it was going to be World War III, and at least 100,000 people would die. 

So, that objection to Oswald in the doorway is totally spurious, vacuous, and dimwitted. Again: I expect it from lonenutters, but I expect Oswald defenders to know better.

What else? Sometimes they point to Oswald's statement in the hall to the reporter. 

"Were you in the building at the time?"  
"Naturally, if I work in that building,"

It's important to remember that Oswald was not aware that his picture was taken in the doorway during the shooting. Naturally, if he knew, then making the distinction between being in the building and being on the landing outside the door but still within the confines of the building- would have been an important distinction. But, he didn't know, and the phrasing came from the reporter, not Oswald. Why would the reporter put it that way, anyway? Why didn't he ask, "Were you outside with the others at the time? The street was packed with people, including employees of your company, so were you outside with them?" How would Oswald have responded to that? I think he would have said that he was in the doorway. And we know of course that he did tell Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front."

That is another spurious argument, especially when the photographic evidence is so strong that it's Oswald in the doorway. And that evidence includes confirmation of the man being Oswald, and confirmation of the man's clothing being Oswald's clothing.

 When it comes to being conclusive, this is conclusive in spades. And in light of this powerful photographic evidence, it is childish to harp on things like the parsing of Oswald's words or the fact that the Warren Commission didn't bring out anyone vouching for Oswald in the doorway. That's nothing compared to this. This is what puts the lie to that.

We are at the point now that there is just no denying that Oswald was in the doorway during the shots. And anyone who doesn't admit it is either working for the other side or they may as well be. I have no respect for any CT who does not recognize Oswald in the doorway. To me, such CTs are really just LN pigs with a bit of lipstick on. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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