Saturday, September 30, 2017

Robin Unger's gif consists mostly of the moving film. But, at the end, it settles on a still frame that is definitely not connected to what came before. How could it when it is qualitatively so different? The film wouldn't suddenly sharpen on that frame. And then since it's a still frame, it can't and doesn't go back to the movie. It's not unlike what we saw in the Newsreel with the newsreel settling on the Jackson lookalike frame which is not really part of it. 

Wiegman made a second pan of the doorway, in which he rotated himself and his camera all the way around again to return to the doorway. Why? It must be because he either saw something through the corner of his eye OR he heard something, some commotion. What could it have been? How about Shelley ordering Oswald to the lunch room? Perhaps Oswald resisted, and Shelley got insistent. And then, when the camera finally gets back to the doorway, we see the very clear, sharp frame which supposedly shows Lovelady standing there like a cigar store Indian on the far right. 

 It isn't real. It isn't even an honest frame; it's cropped. There was more stuff to the right of him and all very distorted. That got cut out. It's cut out of the gift too. That figure was not there. It was put in there. Oswald had already left, and they put that figure in to replace him. And of course, they claim he's Lovelady.

Here below is the uncropped frame. So, how could a cropped frame be part of the film?


You see all that to the right of him? So, how did a cropped frame get into Robin Unger's gif? 

Robin Unger made this gif of the Wiegman film, but the last frame in the gif is really a still image. The very last frame is qualitatively different from the rest of the gif. Suddenly, with that last frame, it comes into sharp focus. But, why should that last frame be any better (i.e. sharper, more focused) than the rest? It's the frame with the guy wearing a white cowboy hat in the center. You can see him earlier but you don't notice him so much because he's blurry. Suddenly, he comes into sharp focus. When the gif was made, that frame must have been repeated several times. 




Look: The Garage Shooting was a ruse, and it wasn't even a very good ruse. Let me count the ways that it stunk. 

Leavelle and Graves march Oswald out, looking straight ahead, like zombies. They are determined not to turn their heads. They are determined not to look around, not to scan the area, and especially and most of all: not to turn to their left. In fact, Leavelle guards against doing that by turning his head slightly right.



The shooter is already moving in, and Leavelle is making sure he doesn't see him. Then afterwards, Leavelle had the nerve to claim that he saw Ruby in advance, recognized him as Jack Ruby, saw the gun, perceived exactly what was happening, and took evasive action trying to protect Oswald, and all of it was lies, lies, lies. 


The only one who turned his head left was Oswald. And as I've said, he's looking at the shooter like he knows him, as if he's telling him something, such as: "I'm ready." Why would he make eye contact with a stranger like that? 



But then, when the shooter does make his move, Oswald has gone back to looking straight ahead again, like a zombie or you could say like a racehorse with blinders on. 



I figure that was a split-second before the shot, and I mean a tiny split-second. Oswald isn't reacting. He's not showing any sign of having been shot. But, how could Graves be unaware of the shooter? How could anybody be unaware of someone moving rapidly into his field of vision from the side? Peripheral vision is very sensitive to movement. And what about the sound? Didn't the shooter make some audible sound rushing in?  And what about wind? Doesn't a moving object create wind? Air movement? All that should have impacted Graves' senses. But, he didn't turn his head. He didn't glance in the direction from which it was all coming? And the same applies to Oswald.  It must have impacted his senses too because he was close enough. So, how could he keep looking straight ahead without turning his head? How can any of this be real? 

Then, the shot goes off and Oswald shows a reaction. It started with a grimace. 



You see the pained look on Oswald's face, right? So, he must have been shot already. So that means that, supposedly, his aorta has been severed and so has his vena cava, plus all the other internal damage, the state of emergency inside his body. So, here's what should have happened: his knees should have given out; he should have started going down; and at the same time he can't support the weight of his head, so his head flexes on his chest, and he just topples over. Remember: he is devastated inside. Inside: he is like Puerto Rico. 

Here's how it looked in the NBC film:


So, he's going forward and down, but that's not right either because he's just bending from the torso there. His knees should have given out. So really, the movement should have been more straight down than that. But, look what happens after that:



Now, Oswald has veered back, and he's got this global extension going on. His head is going back, and all the long extensor muscles in his back are contracting. How could he be doing that after receiving the internal damage that the Parkland doctors described? The damage was instantaneous. How fast does a bullet travel? Eventually, Oswald does fall, but not before going up on his toes:



So, I have Oswald's head circled, and I have his feet circled. How could he be up on his toes like that? And I don't want to hear any references to Reagan's bodyguard Tim McCarthy. That was a totally different situation. Remember the rule: bullets do NOT impart momentum to a human body; they cut through a human body. So McCarthy was in motion before he got shot, and it was his own momentum that resulted in him going airborne. But, in this case, Oswald was moving THE OTHER WAY. His momentum was going forward. And then after he got shot, he started falling forward. So, there was no momentum whatsoever driving him backward. And remember that he was supposed to be hurt a lot worse than McCarthy. McCarthy was not in a state of total circulatory collapse; but Oswald supposedly was. This is totally preposterous what we see Oswald doing in the state that he was in.  

It was a ruse. It was DEFINITELY a ruse. And Oswald had to be in on it. HOW CAN YOU HAVE A RUSE UNLESS EVERYONE IS PLAYING ALONG? If Oswald thought it was real, then he would have acted to save his life and done whatever he had to do. He would not have done what he did,  which was nothing. 

I am telling you; it was a ruse. They must have told Oswald that they were going to get him out of this, but they had to fake his death first, fool the world, so that no one would go gunning for him.  And he believed them.

And since he really wasn't shot, they couldn't let his transfer inside be filmed. So instead, all we got to see was pandemonium and chaos. Of course, when they made the television movie with James Leavelle, then, the transfer was filmed plain as day:


 We got to see it in the movie but not in real life, and that's because it wasn't real life. All those movie cameras: KRLD, WFAA, NBC, etc., and not one of them captured the slightest hint, the slightest glimmer of Oswald being moved inside. 

It was a ruse. It was definitely a ruse. It is beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that it was a ruse. 
This is to those who accept my conclusion that Jack Ruby was not the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald, and that FBI Agent James Bookhout was. The rest of you: talk amongst yourselves. 

So, if I'm right about that, that it was Bookhout in the garage spectacle not Ruby, and I am, then there is absolutely NO CHANCE that the shooting was real. It is simply impossible. And that's because there is no way the Dallas Police and FBI would have risked having Bookhout shoot Oswald for real in the garage. Just think about all the things that could have gone wrong: 

1) Bookhout could have missed. How could he miss, you ask? Well, what if Oswald resisted? What if he saw Bookhout coming and took evasive action? We know he wasn't wearing handcuffs, and I seriously doubt he was handcuffed to Leavelle either. But, even if he was, his feet weren't tied. He could have kicked Bookhout in the balls. He could have jerked his left hand free from Graves and slugged Bookhout. He slugged the cop in the theater, didn't he? He could have charged Bookhout, using his head as a battering ram. There was plenty he could have done, which means there was plenty that could go wrong with that scenario. 

2). Look at the danger to Leavelle. The bullet was headed towards him too. It was a straight shot from the shooter to Oswald to Leavelle. 


Oswald was lean. He was skinny. What if the bullet traversed him? Leavelle could have been hit. They were never going to take a chance like that. Who would be willing to submit to it? Who would want to be on the other side of that bullet? 

3) What if Oswald was hit but the shot wasn't lethal? That would have been an absolute, unmitigated disaster for them. If Oswald survived that meant his trial would proceed. It means that he would have told his lawyer everything. It means his lawyer would have told him about the Altgens photo and showed it to him. How many times can you have a prisoner shot in police custody before even the dumbest person in the world realizes that you are doing it? So, one try was all they were going to get.  But, under the conditions involved, how could Bookhout possibly pinpoint the shot? And again, Oswald, if he wasn't in on it, would have taken evasive action. You know, the instinct for self-preservation? So, how could Bookhout accurately place the shot? 

4) And what about James Bookhout, himself? Bookhout was a lawyer; an FBI lawyer. He graduated from SMU law school and became a lawyer for the FBI. He was never in the military. He was never in combat. He was never a policeman.  He never shot at anyone. What shooting could he have done in his life? Even if he was, say, a hunter, and I have no idea if he was, that involves a rifle, right? It certainly didn't involve a Colt Special.  If this thing was real, why would they trust James Bookhout to do the shooting? They wouldn't. They couldn't They didn't.  

5) If this thing was planned, and the plan involved having it televised live, then it couldn't be real. Once a thing is televised, there's no taking it back. It's like the genie escaping from the bottle. I'm not even sure the thing was live. Maybe it was done a few minutes before and then they ran it as though it was live. At one point, you hear Tom Petit say it happened at 11:15. But officially, it happened at 11:21. Even the ruse could have gone wrong. So, they may have added that precaution. But, the idea that they would have televised the actual planned shooting, with all that could have gone wrong, is preposterous. 

So, if you believe, as I do, that this was a spectacle designed for television, and that the Garage Shooter was James Bookhout, then you have to believe that it was a ruse. There is no logical way to make it that Bookhout actually shot Oswald. No way; no chance; no how.  

  
  

Friday, September 29, 2017

This is rather off-topic but I am compelled to write about it. In Tennessee, a man attacked a 33 year old woman, the mother of his child, and he ripped out both of her eyes. You can read about it here: 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-rips-woman-apos-eyeballs-142214847.html

A witness said that he sat on top of her, and with his hands, he just ripped her eyes out. Both of her eyes. So, she is now forever blind. 

How could anybody do such a thing? How is that degree of monstrousness possible in any human being? How could anybody even conceive of doing such a thing? 

You realize that this is worse than anything that occurs in Nature. It's difficult to watch video of predator and prey, and it makes me wonder why anyone bothers to believe in God, since if there was a God, why would he design the world like that? Why would that be part of his grand plan? 

But, this is far worse than that. In that case, the predator is just trying to get fed. It's not as though a lion can eat grass. But, in this case, it was gratuitous torture, horror, agony, and excruciation- and beyond anyone's worst nightmare.

So, it would be a big mistake to call this guy an animal. It would be a tremendous verbal abuse of animals to do that. No, he isn't an animal; he is a monster, a demon, a vicious miscreant of unfathomable magnitude and cruelty.  

How did he come to exist? He was born of a woman, but he didn't come out of her that way. So, how did he become what he is? And how many like him are walking the Earth among us? And have there always been monsters as bad as him in the human race? Or is this a new modern development? 

And I can only imagine how a story like this affects women. It gives me the jitters, and I'm a man. I'm not a big man, but I am big enough, and I am strong enough, that nobody is going to tear my eyes out. But, with the exception of highly trained, highly athletic women, men are generally a lot stronger than women. It's a fact of life. But, if there is even one man who is capable of doing this to one woman, and now we know that there is, then how vulnerable and threatened by men are women in general? 

I am truly disgusted and revolted about this. 
I have some images that were sent to me by the Wizard that I want to go over. First, notice the girth on the shooter. Jack Ruby did not have that much girth. 

That's a lot of girth. Here is an image of Ruby taken on the 25th when they were moving him to the County Jail.

Can't you see that Ruby, on the right, didn't have as much girth as the shooter?

Moving on, the Wizard sent me this comparison of Beers and Jackson. And remember, that unnamed experts said there was just .6 second between them. 

I think the Wizard is wondering about the position of the circled man in the white hat whom Denis Morissette says is Detective Leslie Montgomery. Note that Montgomery is the one who paraded the paper bag around outside. Tell me: what other time in the entire history of law enforcement have police paraded evidence around on the street?

Why did he do that? And who told him to do it? And who was he trying to impress? Reporters? The general public? But getting back to the other:


He seems closer to Oswald in Jackson (bottom) than in Beers (top). And it's very weird because in Jackson, it's mostly Montgomery's shoulder that we see and only a sliver of Graves'. 

We are dealing with greyscale here, and that is where the greyscale changes to Graves' darker suit. And I don't understand how so little of Graves' right shoulder was captured. And I challenge anyone, I defy anyone, to re-enact it and capture the same thing. I don't think it can be done. But getting back to this:
 Why would the perspective change that much between Beers and Jackson when they weren't that far apart?

So, you can see that Beers was in the corner there, but so was Jackson. Jackson claimed to have a foot up on the bumper of the car. It's not possible because the car was moving. You can see it in the KRLD footage. Start watching at 13 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5khMFFKslw

So, there is no chance that Jackson had his foot up on the bumper of the car. But, if he was in that area, then he was close to Beers, and it makes the tremendous difference in perspective between their photos very perplexing. 


bigdog

1:10 PM (1 hour ago)


On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:47:46 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote: 
- show quoted text -
Ralph, you have unwittingly made an excellent argument why it was Oswald.
You have pointed out all the different entities that would have had to
conspire against Oswald and are correct that the no one outside the
government could have marshalled all those forces. Your fallacy is in
failing to realize that nobody inside the government could have done it
either. The government is not monolithic. It doesn't act as one. We have
federal, state, and local governments. Within each of those government
entities are departments and the departments all have their own agendas.
The federal government has three branches. Within the executive branch we
have numerous departments. It would have required collusion among the
Treasury, Defense, and Justice departments, the latter of which was headed
by JFK's brother. On the local level, both the DPD and the Dallas
sheriff's department took part in investigating the crime and gathering
the evidence. During the WC investigation, the New York City fingerprint
department and the Illinois state crime lab were called in to render
second opinions regarding key pieces of forensic evidence. There was
nobody in the country, not then and not now who was in a position to have
brought all those various entities into a conspiracy and cover up in order
to frame Oswald. Bugliosi said it best. Either Oswald killed JFK or
hundreds of people conspired to make it look like he did. I find the
latter to be a ludicrous proposition. 

Ralph Cinque: 

You are being very naive, James Corbett. The fact is that once it went down, that all the dominoes fell into place for all the minions in government, at all levels, and media to support the official story. It was like a title wave. Like a tsunami. There was no resisting it. There was no opposing it. And no one in government did. Just think: not even Robert Kennedy did. If anyone could be expected to oppose it, it was him. But, he didn't. And, it's not because he believed the story. It's not because he accepted it. It's because he recognized the stakes involved in fighting it, which meant going total pariah, total expatriot, total and complete outcast. And, he just wasn't willing to do it, regrettably. And, he set the example. If he had stood up to them, then maybe others in JFK's inner circle would have, especially his so-called "Irish Mafia". But, they took their cue from RFK, and RFK cowered; he conceded; he relented. He just didn't have the courage to do it. 

We have been in a fascist system for a long time, including back then, and a fascist system is run very much top-down. And especially in a national emergency, which this was, it is run extremely top-down. And it means that the "pacemaker" to make an analogy to the human heart is the "national security state." And all the wiring was in place to make the acceptance of the official story absolute at all levels of government, in the corporate world, and especially in the media. So, the current spread  through the organism of Society in a way that was smooth, synchronous, coordinated, and uninterrupted- much like current passes through the heart. And, it's scary when you think about it. It's scary to think that such a beast exists.  
I had an interesting discussion tonight with someone concerning the Oswald shooting. My position, of course, is that the garage shooting was a made-for-television ruse, that Oswald was not shot there. He was definitely shot afterwards but not in the garage.

But, I made a point that I want to share here, and that is that the burden is really on the other side, meaning those who claim that the televised spectacle was a real event. And that's because none of the features of a real shooting can be cited. For instance: 

1. There was a sound, but it's too soft, and nobody reacts to it. Not a single person in that garage reacted startled to the blast. Nobody jumped. Nobody made an involuntary startle sound. Nobody showed the shocked look that one would expect from such an unexpected happening.

2. The existence of a muzzle flash is in serious doubt, despite the French guy saying over and over and over: "I saw the flash against his sweater." Amy Joyce did an excellent job in showing that the muzzle flash which they finally showed us is fake. 

2. There was no blood. Not a drop. Nobody reported seeing any blood. Oswald left no blood on the ground even though he was lying there sprawled after he was shot. Eventually, we were shown what is claimed to be blood stains in the jail office, but even if those are genuine, and I doubt it, it's irrelevant because we are talking about what happened in the garage, and in the garage, there was no blood.

3. There is no sign of any violence to Oswald or his clothing. We never got to see any bullet hole in his sweater and clothing. And remember that from that close a range (practically a contact shot) the damage to the clothing should have been extensive.  In the Jackson photo, they have Oswald's left arm slapped over the area, and SUPPOSEDLY that is why we can't see any damage to him or his clothes. But, I have already demonstrated very well that that left arm is fake. And it makes no sense anyway. Who would respond to being shot in the abdomen by slapping his arm to his chest? Why would anyone do that? And when has anyone done it except for Lee Harvey Oswald? And, that's in the whole history of gunshot wounds since the invention of the first gun. 

4. Considering the damage that was instantaneously done to Oswald (again, supposedly) including the rupturing of all his major blood vessels, Oswald's response to that should have been to just go down; to just collapse. The fact that he started collapsing forward but then veered back and then went up on his toes like a ballerina, before going straight down like a freight elevator at the TSBD, tells you that he was not so injured. That's a lot of physical exertion for a guy whose circulatory system collapsed. 

5. If he was shot at 11:20, then he lived without blood for an awfully long time. We don't know exactly what time he arrived at the hospital and was put in medical hands. The first thing they presumably did in an attempt to help him was to administer massive blood transfusion. I understand they gave him 6 liters of blood, and the body only contains 5. So, they more than replaced all his blood. I don't presume that they knew his blood type, so I presume they gave him Type O blood, which is referred to as universal donor. Even with Typo O blood, doctors prefer to do a cross-match test before proceeding, but I'm thinking that in his case it was so dire, that they just gave it to him. But, the point is to ask: what time did blood start flowing in his vein? Remember, it's not as though Parkland had a team of professionals waiting for Oswald outside. So, at what time did blood start flowing into Oswald? I'm going to guess and say 11:40. So that would have been 20 minutes, and it doesn't seem possible that he could have been shot at 11:20 WITH THOSE INJURIES and survived for 20 minutes. It's just too damn long.

Now, that is a lot of basis for doubt that Oswald was shot in the garage. So, when people get brash and uppity at the very idea that anyone is doubting that Oswald was really shot in the garage, they need to, as Archie Bunker put it: stiffle it. Let them address all those issues, every single one of them, plausibly. But, I'll tell you: even if they do, when they're finished, there will still exist the alternative explanation: that the whole thing was a ruse. 



   

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Standing in a doorway on a pedestal??? How short was Bookhout? A doorway has got an arch above it. How short do you have to be to be able to stand on a pedestal in a doorway and not hit the arch?










You think this tall man stood on a pedestal in a doorway looking for Hosty?
You don't know how to play chess. That's not the move you want to make, saying that guy stood on a pedestal in a doorway. The move you want to make is to say that Hosty was mistaken, that there was no pedestal, that he was seeing things. That is, if you insist on sticking with the ridiculous contention that that tall guy was Bookhout. But personally, I think it's time for you to concede that he is NOT Bookhout. 
The disputed article from the newspaper concerning James Bookhout stated that the FBI was putting on about 20 bank robbery exhibitions throughout the state of Texas. So, I would like to know why we're not finding similar articles in other Texas newspapers. So far, that's the only one that I can find. You can't tell me that the little paper from small town of Marshall in East Texas is the only one that reported on it- that the FBI came to town to put on an exhibition for bankers.  

This reminds me of the very elaborate and amazingly impressive 10 page spread on JFK that was published by a small town paper in Michigan on the evening of November 22, 1963: the Benton Harbor News-Palladium. How could a paper supported by a small town of 10,000 have the staff and the resources to do it? And if they could do it, why didn't every big paper in the country do something comparable? But, I have never found anything comparable to it.

This was a morning paper that didn't usually put out an evening edition. But, this time they did. But just think: Kennedy wasn't shot until 1:30 PM Michigan time. So, they could not have conceived of the idea until then. All that writing. All that image gathering. All that laying out. All that printing. And that was in addition to all their regular work, production and output.


Many of the articles were from the AP, and that included one by Robert Jackson, in which he described what he saw in Dealey Plaza. But, since he worked for the Dallas Times Herald, which was an evening paper, I figured that I would also find his article there. But, I didn't. 

And note that in the image of the front page, it features the famous Altgens6 photo. Aha! So, you see, this is one of the papers that managed to publish the Altgens6 on 11/22. But, that's another thing the Dallas Times Herald didn't do. 

It so happens that the Benton Harbor News-Palladium went out of business in 1975. 

So, what do I make of it? Let's just say that I have a bad feeling about it. 
Stephen Erdman, a longtime member of the OIC, has written a very cogent and detailed review and synopsis of David Talbot's brilliant book, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government. Stephen aptly titles his review:

Talbot's Tales of American Terror- America's Security State Monster


Certainly if you haven't read Talbot's book and you want to get the essential revelations it contains, you should read this article. The article contains many riveting images too. Good job, Stephen.  

https://wordpresscom507.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/talbots-tales-of-american-terror/

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Pink OBLAZNEY

10:26 AM (2 hours ago)


- show quoted text -
I can't wait to see Ralphie's mug shot.  Maybe he'll have a swollen eye like that Oswald creep.

Ralph Cinque: 

It's funny how a guy who couldn't win a fight against a scarecrow takes pleasure in a man being bashed in the eye.



As a post-script to my blog from last night, I will state again: why would anyone who defends Oswald cite the claims of a government investigation in regard to the man in the doorway? 

Case in point: Professor James Norwood. He claims to be an Oswald defender. Yet, he cites the Warren Commission's investigation of the Doorman issue as if it was honest and thorough and conclusive and objective. 

In reality, out of 75 TSBD employees, several who were pre-screened were selected to testify, vouching for Lovelady, of course. During this pre-screening, if anyone claimed it was Oswald, you can be sure they weren't selected. But, the FBI did the pre-screening, and you can be sure they pounced on that person, sounding like Trump talking to Kim Jong-un, "there will be fire; there will be fury; like you have never seen, etc." 

Look what happened to Carolyn Arnold. In her first statement, made on November 26, 1963, she said she saw Oswald at the doorway minutes before the shooting. But then in March 1964, her statement became that she didn't see Oswald at all. Were there others like her? We don't know, but what we do know is that the FBI descended on the TSBD like the Gestapo, making it clear to every employee that they didn't see Oswald when they weren't supposed to see him. 

And what is extremely telling about the WC's handling of the matter is Joseph Ball's interview of Billy Lovelady in which Lovelady NEVER stated that he was the Doorway Man. Don't you think that if Ball could have gotten Lovelady to state, explicitly, that he was the Doorway Man that he would have? And don't you think that if Lovelady had drawn his arrow to Doorway Man that Ball would have made a big deal out of it, stating out loud, for the record, that Lovelady drew his arrow to the same figure that Frazier did, to the disputed image of the white man standing next to the white column, above the "colored women" in the photo, as he put it? Instead, Ball and Lovelady talked around it, neither one specifying who they were talking about. It was like an Abbott and Costello Who's on first, What's on second routine. And then suddenly, Balls says, "So, you've got an arrow in the white and one in the dark pointing to you. Where were you standing?" I am citing that from memory. Without even trying to memorize it, I remember it, and that's because it riveted me. How could he say that without stipulating to what figure those arrows were pointed? The important thing wasn't that arrows were drawn or how many arrows there were, but where they were pointed, and Ball didn't say. And then he quickly changed the subject, never returning to it.

And just think: Lovelady, at any time, could have blurted out: "I am the Doorway Man." But, he never did. He had to know what Joseph Ball wanted to hear. Didn't he? He wasn't stupid, was he? He would have had to be stupid not to know. And yet, he couldn't do it. And that's because he wasn't the Doorway Man. 

But, he became the Doorway Man afterwards because afterwards, big, tall men in dark suits, sunglasses, and with gruff voices, must have visited him and explained why, for the sake of his health, he had better become the Doorway Man and fast. And Lovelady got that message.

The Warren Commission never compared images of Oswald and Lovelady to the Doorway Man. They could have. They should have. But, they didn't. But, the HSCA did. However, they didn't; not really. Robert Groden, in his photo analysis for the HSCA, never put an image of Oswald and Doorman side by side, such as this:



How do you not do that? And how do you not see the likeness of both the man and the clothing? 

Then, the HSCA anthropologists did a detailed comparison of the faces of Oswald and Lovelady, but it didn't include Doorman because his image was too blurry. So, all that detailed comparing served no purpose.  And, for some reason, the image of Lovelady that they were given to work with was one from the 1950s, which the HSCA falsely claimed was from the time of the assassination. And both that image and the image of Oswald which they were given, the HSCA published flipped. Did they give flipped images to the anthropologists? Apparently, they did. Here is the image they published:


Notice that the tuft of hair projecting forward is on the right side: 


  1. Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs. 
The widow's peak is on the right side in the flipped photo, but in reality, it was on the other side. Here is the correctly oriented image:



Now, here is the crux, the nitty-gritty, of the matter:

  1. The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed:
  2. (a) A relatively broad, high forehead;
  3. (b) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head;
  4. (e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead;
  5. (d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and
  6. (e) A rather bulbous nasal tip.
Yes, Doorman has a high forehead, but remember my contention: that the top of Lovelady's head was moved over to Doorman to turn Oswald into Lovelady. The issue of photographic alteration was never addressed by the committee, and not just never addressed, but never considered, never approached; it was never on their radar as something to look out for. But, I have to wonder if they were given a flipped image of Doorman too because the forward tuft of hair is on the left side of Doorman's head, not the right. 

 Here again is the flipped version of the image of Young Lovelady which was published by the HSCA:
Their forward tufts are on opposite sides. Can you see that?
Can you, or can you not see that those tufts are on opposite sides? 

It's always confusing talking about right and left because it depends on whose perspective. On Lovelady, for instance, the tuft is on our right, as we look at it, but it was actually the left side of his head. Unfortunately, the HSCA made no clarification of what they were referring to. But usually, and especially if it isn't specified, the speaker is referring to his own perspective when he says right and and left. 

However, the likeness of that forward tuft, which was the main likeness that the anthropologists found between Lovelady and Doorman, was fake. They were looking at a photographic alteration, the one thing that was done to turn Oswald into Lovelady.

The rest of what the anthropologists said was complete bull shit. They vaguely referred to Doorman's narrow jaws being more narrow like Loveladys, but it's ridiculous because of all the distortion on the right side of Doorman's face (our right). Likewise, they vaguely likened Doorman's nose and chin to Lovelady's, but it's ridiculous because his nose and chin are spot-on matches to Oswald's. Oswald was the one with the "deep chin" not Lovelady. 

So really, it turns out that every bit of the anthropologists' claims were complete, total, utter bull shit. 

And we are supposed to respect this government investigation? 

Don't you get it? The government killed Kennedy, and they have been trying, relentlessly, to cover it up. It's as simple as that.  

Govt is a 4-letter word. 


Do you realize that if Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then the U.S. government did. There are no other possibilities. The Mafia? That's a joke. How could the Mafia get the entire press and media, including newspapers, magazines, and television, to vigorously support the lone nut story if they were behind it? How could the Mafia have such power over all of them? How could the Mafia control the motorcade route? How could the Mafia control police and Secret Service actions such as not checking for open windows along the parade route, etc.? They couldn't. They wouldn't. They didn't.

Besides, the "Mafia did it" story usually includes the claim that the Mafia got Oswald to do it. Isn't that what the ridiculous HSCA concluded? But, why would the Mafia assign Oswald to do it? (And, by the way, no one ever claimed that Oswald was paid by the Mafia; rather, he worked for free. He wasn't into money.) 

Oswald was a non-combat Marine. He did the minimum amount of shooting required by the Marines, and according to Nelson Delgado, he had little interest in guns. He was lackadaisical about maintaining his weapon. And the only shooting he did after the Marines was to go rabbit hunting in Russia using a shot gun, and according to his Russian friends, he stunk at it, being unable to hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a rabbit. So, pay or no pay, why would the Mafia assign Oswald to shoot Kennedy when the kind of snipering that was involved from the 6th floor was completely and totally foreign to Oswald and outside his training, experience, and aptitude?

No. If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then the government killed him. Of course, I don't mean that the Congress killed him or that the Supreme Court did.  I mean a consortium consisting of individuals from the intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, and also the Vice President, and other persons within Kennedy's own administration, such as McGeorge Bundy. 

Attorney Vincent Salandria sums up this consortium by referring to it as the "national security state." 

But, what I wish to emphasize is the paradox of the government investigating the JFK assassination when the government is the one who killed him, and the government is the one who framed Oswald. This is the reason why every government investigation of the JFK assassination has been corrupt, and every government investigation of it yet to come will be corrupt.

And that's why I always laugh whenever I hear the retort to Oswald in the doorway which goes, "It can't be Oswald in the doorway because two government investigations determined that the disputed figure is Billy Lovelady."  But, the operative word in that sentence is GOVERNMENT. They were government investigations. 

And think about the relevance it has to the upcoming mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in Houston in November. The government is the one prosecuting Oswald. And if it was back in the day, and Oswald was still living, it would be the government trying to put him to death. So, why would the Defense, in that case, accept what the government said? And why would the prosecution expect the Defense to accept it? And actually, it's not that they expect the Defense to accept it, but they do expect the jury to accept it, as if government investigation is the highest form of investigation. The government- with its unlimited resources, its monopoly on power, and its ability to force people to talk, investigated. So, how can anyone dispute or even doubt the results they came up with? 

The short answer is: because the government killed Kennedy. And once you realize that- and even if you don't realize it because you defend the government- if you at least recognize that it goes from Oswald to the government, meaning that if Oswald is acquitted, then the government is guilty, then that should enable you to understand why Oswald defenders look biliously at every aspect of the government's investigation of the case. 

So, the next time someone says to you, "But, two government investigations found that it was Lovelady in the doorway," the proper response should be, "That's right; they were government investigations. Government. With all that that implies,"  

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

This is a new collage of Jack Ruby and the Garage Shooter by the elevator taken several minutes after the shooting. I realize that not everyone is trained in Anatomy. Not everyone is educated to recognize, let alone describe, anatomical distinctions. But, in this case, there are very telling distinctions. Notice first the relative gauntness of Ruby's face. Notice the deep creases on each side of his nose, not present on the other man. Notice that the other man's face is distinctly rounder than Ruby's. Notice the longer forehead on Ruby, and the longer face. Notice the bruise on Ruby's forehead, missing on the other man. Notice the longer neck on Ruby and the shorter neck on the other man. There is also the narrower nose on the other man, where we can't see the nostrils at all, as we can on Ruby. These are definitely two different men. There is simply no chance that the other man was Jack Ruby. And it is the only image of the shooter's face that we have. His face was never captured in the garage. Only here. And it's telling us that he was not Jack Ruby. 



It is very obvious that the second man is nowhere near as tall as the first man, being close in height to Will Fritz, that to call them both the same man is an outrage and a disgrace.Yet, you, Denis Morissette, without reservation or exception, put them up on your website as images of James Bookhout. Shame on you. It means that you are just as corrupt as the others fighting me.
I did a Mapquest to get from 1026 N. Beckley to 231 W. Jefferson in Dallas. 
So, the distance is 1 mile and the driving time 3 minutes. Since Oswald left his boarding room shortly after 1 PM and was at the theater by 1:07, according to Butch Burroughs, it means he must have been driven to the theater. Walking was out of the question because even though he could walk a mile briskly in 15 minutes, (assuming Butch Burroughs was wrong about the time) he couldn't do it that fast having to cross city streets and wait for red lights. And, it doesn't seem possible that Butch could have been that wrong. Butch was adamant about the time when he talked to Jim Douglass. Besides, when you consider all the people who witnessed the Tippit shooting at 10th and Patton, don't you think someone would have recalled seeing Oswald walking down Beckley and presumably Zang? When you add to that the fact that interrogators never told us what Oswald said about how he got to the theater, it makes it highly probable that he was driven there. 

Of course, there is no certainty that Tippit drove him, but it is plausible. The timeline works for it. John Armstrong suggests that Tippit dropped Oswald off on the alley behind Jefferson and that he walked through the space between the buildings- a space that no longer exists.  At his request, I made this graphic for John which is featured on the Harvey and Lee website:


So, at the time, there was a little alley there at the far right. So, Oswald was presumably left off behind the building; he walked through the alley; and then 50 to 60 feet down Jefferson to the entrance where Julia Postal was. As I look at it today, it looks more like 75 feet.  

An argument against it being Tippit is that Oswald's landlady said she saw two officers in the police car that honked, and reportedly, Tippit was alone. Another thing that has struck me is that Oswald told the world at the Midnight Press Conference, "I am accused of killing a police officer. I know nothing more than that." It seems like the natural tendency would be to say the officer's name if you knew him. So, to me, that is an argument that Oswald did NOT know Tippit. 

Officially, Tippit was shot at 1:14, and if so, then Oswald was definitely in the theater by then. But, the whole idea that it was Oswald is absurd. What would he have been doing walking east on 10th Street? Going where? They interrogated him. They also investigated. So, they should know. The only destination for Oswald that I have ever heard is Jack Ruby's apartment, which was only a short distance from 10th and Patton, but of course, that is officially rejected since they are not supposed to have known each other. And frankly, I know of no evidence that they knew each other.   

Besides, that plays into the whole thing about Ruby and Oswald being co-conspirators in the plot to kill Kennedy, where Ruby had to shoot Oswald to silence him. But, Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and Oswald knew nothing about the plot to kill Kennedy. 

The man who shot Tippit was definitely an Oswald look-alike, an Oswald double. John Armstrong is convinced that it was "Lee" that is, the other Oswald who was actually born Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1939. And it's plausible. But, even if John is wrong about that, the fact remains that they had somebody there who looked enough like Oswald to be mistaken for him, and that of course, was the whole idea. The fact that there were witnesses who ID'd the guy as Oswald really means nothing. Just talk to the people at the Innocence Project.