Monday, July 17, 2017
I made it crystal clear to you that testifying that you saw Oswald when you shouldn't have seen him was NOT ALLOWED. If you said it, you were quickly corrected and told that you were wrong and not to say it again. The closest thing we have to it is Carolyn Arnold's original statement, made on November 26, which fell through the cracks.
This is someone else's synopsis of the statement:
"The Bureau’s report of their first interview of her, four days after the assassination, stated that as Arnold waited outside the TSBD to see the president, she noticed Oswald just inside the building, close to the front door, at about 12:15."
Professor Gerald McKnight has written extensively about this, and he believes that it was the FBI agent who designated the time as 12:15, thinking that it would allow enough time for Oswald to get up to the 6th floor. But, smarter people above him in the Bureau realized that it was still a death blow to the official story. Then, through fierce intimidation and indoctrination, they got Arnold to change her story and say that she didn't see Oswald at all. And, with that, she could admit that she didn't get outside until 12:25. So, Dr. McKnight reasons that 12:25 is when she saw Oswald at the doorway, and of course, after that, he stepped out onto the landing.
Now, I told you many times, and I am telling you again for the last freaking time, so you better listen up, that the machinations of this Stalinist investigation do not oblige me in any way. They weren't going to allow anyone to claim to see Oswald at or in the doorway. Again, what happened with Carolyn Arnold just fell through the cracks. We just got lucky with it, the way we did when Lovelady drew his arrow on CE 369 and overlapped the forearm of Black Hole Man to indicate himself. Sometimes the Gods shine upon us.
And there is no evidence that Oswald claimed to have spoken to Shelley and gotten his permission to leave. That was entirely a made-up story. Oswald wasn't stupid. He wasn't going to tell a lie knowing that they would just ask the person and expose the lie. Why would he put words in Shelley's mouth knowing that Shelley would deny them? But, it wasn't a case of him putting words in Shelley's mouth; it was a case of lying FBI agents putting words in his mouth.
And why would he even conceive of such a lie when he knew that Shelley wasn't out there when he left for home?
"Out with Bill Shelley in front" was a reference to the time of the motorcade, Sparta or Haydon or whoever you are. You can behave like a child and try to deny it all you want, but you can't rationalize it; you can't mitigate it.
This is from the testimony of Marina Oswald:
r. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
The pertinent point is that she confirmed that Oswald took his lunch. With his lunch, with his lunch, with his lunch, with his lunch, with his lunch.
To learn about Bill Shelley's involvement in the assassination plot read The Spider's Web by William Weston. Shelley was CIA.
Regarding Ruby, I don't deny that he saw Pierce. But, it was earlier. Pierce made two trips. You think that's a hard sell? How about two grown man at a narrow ramp, who were both hellbent on keeping people out, who missed seeing a third man stroll on in? Believe me, that's a much harder sell.
And you can take your "probablies" and shove them where the sun don't shine. You saw what I did with your "probably: concerning Oswald seeing Shelley from the 6th floor window. Like bpete, you're really just a child; a perennial child.