Tuesday, January 31, 2017

I'll finish now my review of the tv movie from 1978, Ruby and Oswald. Here again is the link:

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

First, I'll point out that they made no attempt to establish a motive for Oswald to shoot Kennedy. They made him seem unhappy about his wife's unwillingness to move back in with him, but that's nothing to shoot the President over. They really didn't go down the road of establishing motive, and I think that was wise because nothing they did would have been convincing. 

Alright, so after his encounter with Truly and Baker, they show him, Coke in hand, going by Mrs. Reid, the secretary (who actually testified to the Warren Commission as Mrs. Robert Reid). The next thing, he's getting on the bus, and for some reason, they only showed one other passenger, the woman who got off when he did and also got a bus transfer. So, they left out Mary Bledsoe completely, even though she was an important witness. Perhaps they were taking orders from Backes.

Then, this is amazing: They actually included the part about Oswald offering his cab to a woman who urgently needed one. Would a murderer on the run do that? 



That really has the trappings of innocence, and I would think that they would have left it out.

So then, he gets to his room and ignores Earlene Roberts when she speaks to him. He puts a jacket on and gets his pistol. In reality, he changed his pants, but they left that out. 

Then, there is the Tippit shooting depicted just as the story goes. In that situation, if Tippit really thought that this man could be the assassin, why would he approach him the way he did, just pulling over and asking the guy to come to the window? Why wouldn't he think to himself: "If I'm right, then this guy is dangerous as in deadly." I'm not going to speculate about what he should have done instead, but he certainly should have acted differently. Of course, the man who did it was not the Oswald of fame.

Meanwhile, they are tracking Ruby. He's driving when it's announced over the radio that the President is dead. And he starts crying- profusely. Excuse me for being cynical, but I don't think that is a likely reaction. He didn't know Kennedy personally. They had him crying, balling, weeping, wailing. And it went on and on. Nope, not buying it.

Then, they had Oswald sneaking into the theater, and that's after they showed us him keeping a big wad of cash and leaving his wallet at the Paine house. So, why would he sneak in if he was loaded with cash? And, the official story has it that he snuck in a side door. In this case, they had him walk right by Julia Postal and walk in the main entrance of the theater. 

Then, Brewer gets Postal to call the cops and when it gets to Oswald's arrest, the cops enter the theater and they first pat down all the viewers forward of Oswald. Now, they didn't do that, and they would not have done that. They would have and did go straight to Oswald. But eventually, MacDonald gets to Oswald and orders him to stand up. He goes to pat Oswald down as he did the others, then Oswald slugs him hard. He really bashes him, and the sound-effects made it sound like a really wicked blow. Then, there's a struggle and Oswald starts screaming, "I am not resisting arrest, I am not resisting arrest." After throwing a punch like that, he had the nerve to say that? Then, lo and behold, they immediately went to handcuff him.



Now, why the hell didn't they do that with "Ruby" in the garage? You know why. Because that was Bookhout, not Ruby.

 Now, what's weird is that they made it that he had a wallet on him with two IDs, one for Oswald and the other for Hidell. But, they showed us him leaving his wallet behind at Ruth's house earlier. And we know that the official story has it that his wallet was found at the Tippit crime scene by Westbrook. I'm no Math major, but doesn't that come to 3 wallets?

Now, this is important: during the first interrogation, they had Fritz asking Oswald which floor he was on when the President was shot. But, why would he put it that way? Those floors were big. Wouldn't he just say, where were you when the President was shot? Oswald's response was that he was on the 1st floor eating his lunch. And that is ridiculous, the idea that Oswald said that, when it is well-established that he ate his lunch as soon as they broke for lunch and not at 12:30. What Oswald said was that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." Of course, they didn't include that. One thing they did depict accurately was:

Fritz: Do you own a rifle?
Oswald: No.

And another:

Hosty: Ever been in Mexico, Mr. Oswald?
Oswald: Only Tijuana.

They have an actor playing Bookhout, but he's sitting, and we don't see how tall he is.



 You recall the scene in the hall where Oswald asked about getting a shower. They included that, but they made him belligerent and hostile about it, totally unlike what really happened.

They had Ruby interacting with Ike Pappas at the Midnight Press Conference. I wonder if that's true.

They had Oswald telling Fritz that nothing irritated him about the President.

On Saturday afternoon, they had Kelly ask Oswald directly if he watched the Presidential motorcade. And Oswald said no. That is ridiculous. It is totally made-up. And why would they wait 24 hours before asking Oswald if he watched the Presidential motorcade?

Oh God! Then they have Oswald talking to brother Robert, and they have Robert offering to get him a Texas attorney to which Oswald responds with anger, "You stay out of this!" They had Oswald browbeating his older brother. That is so ridiculous. Why didn't they have Robert say, "You shut the fuck up, little brother. A Texas lawyer is what you need, and a Texas lawyer is what you are going to get." 

When are people going to wake up and realize that Robert Oswald is a bad guy and a liar???? 

Meanwhile, they have this "descent into madness" story going for Ruby. Among other things, he's worried that the Jews are going to blamed for Kennedy's death.

Then, they dealt with the Backyard photos except that they added a fictitious spin. They made it that Oswald said that the Dallas Police took an image of him that was just taken in the last 24 hours and used it to superimpose his face into the photo. But, Oswald never said that. He never said that it was just done with a fresh new image of him just taken. That's ridiculous even conceptually. If it was a fresh image, then it would show his facial trauma; it would show his hair the way it currently was. And that is obviously not true of the Backyard photo. This was very poor screenwriting. But, it wasn't really about screenwriting, was it.

On the Sunday morning, they did have Ruby bring Sheba the dog along. And he talks to the dog before getting out at the WU office.

They showed a big crowd at the Main Street ramp. Meanwhile, Oswald is about to be led out. They showed Leavelle handcuffing himself to Oswald, and then Graves putting cuffs on Oswald the regular way. Now, that is definitely false- unless you want to say all the images of Oswald walking his last mile are false, and I suppose that is worth considering. But in any case, if we go by the Jackson photo, Oswald's two hands were definitely not cuffed together. 



They show a cop on foot guarding the ramp when Ruby gets there.



Then they show a police car pulling out, who is presumably Rio "Sam" Pierce, except in this case, there were 2 officers in it.



And then there are no officers left, and Ruby, alone, just walks down the ramp. Nobody else gets the idea.



Why would they leave the ramp unguarded when there were strict orders to secure the place?

Then, they included Leavelle's famous exchange with Oswald; Leavelle, of course, being the only source of it. 

Regarding the hand in the pants, they were very subtle about it.





So, is that supposed to be Leavelle's hand on Oswald's pants right below the rim of Fritz' hat? If so, then they did everything they could to make sure viewers wouldn't see it. I saw it because I am conscious of it, and I looked for it. But, how many regular viewers do you think picked up on it? I'm sure it's a nice round number. 

Then when it came to muzzle blast, they went big-time.



But, that picture is all wrong. "Ruby" was much closer to Oswald. It was a contact shot. And he shot him from the side and in the side. 

Then, guess what? Unlike the real cameras which gave us nothing but noise, these cameras showed us Oswald being carried off. 




Now, was that so hard?

Then, the Penguins got Ruby flat on his back on the garage floor. Of course, that never happened.



Then, they showed us Oswald on the floor in the jail office, which we also didn't see in real life.





Then, they show Ruby, upon being taken inside, being put immediately into the elevator and taken upstairs. 



So, that's the elevator, and on the elevator, he asks the cops what happened. And they tell him that he shot Oswald. And he says, "I did?" Something like that may actually have happened because Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. He said that he remembered getting to the bottom of the ramp and then police were pouncing on him, and he didn't know why. And that's why he said, "It's me, Jack Ruby. You know me. Why are you doing this?"

Then, Oswald is wheeled out, and there is no dressing over his sweater.



There is none of this bull shit:



Can you, or can you not, see how fake that is?????

Then, they have Fritz interrogating Ruby, and the first thing Ruby says is, "I don't remember doing it." Bravo.

But then, it went to this ridiculous exchange.

Fritz: If you don't remember doing it, do you at least remember why you did it?
Ruby: I did it for Mrs. Kennedy.

It's a known fact that one of Ruby's lawyers came up with the idea for him to say that he did it for Mrs. Kennedy. And he hadn't seen his lawyer yet. But regardless, how is it remotely possible to remember the reason you did something that you don't remember doing?

Ruby goes on to say that he did it to show that Jews have guts.

When it's time to put Ruby in a cell, the cop shoves him into it. Nice touch. Next time, do it with feeling.

And there it ends with Ruby alone in a dark cell crying in his hands. 

I should mention that throughout, they gave Oswald a Texas/Louisiana redneck drawl, which he didn't have. 

My overall impression is that it was pablum for the masses, pure statist propaganda, but they inadvertently included a few pearls of truth. 










  



   
This was a quirky interview with Jim Leavelle.

http://cjonline.com/news-state/2013-04-20/retired-dallas-detective-recalls-ruby-killing-oswald?page=2

He said he never gave a moment's thought to whether he could get hurt if someone shot at Oswald. But, how can that be when for 53 years he has been recalling how he kidded Oswald that if someone shoots at him, he hopes tgat he's as good a shot as he is, meaning that the shooter should hit Oswald and not himself. So apparently, he did think about it, at the time and many times afterwards. 

Leavelle questioned Oswald in an interrogation room.
" 'I didn't shoot anybody,' " Leavelle quoted Oswald as saying. Oswald's use of the "anybody" rather than referring to Tippit, the police officer, "was very odd. He was getting his denial in early."
Leavelle interrogated Oswald quite awhile, and Oswald denied everything, Leavelle said.
Leavelle told Oswald that the pistol recovered from him by police and .38-caliber shell casings shucked from the revolver at the Tippit shooting scene could be compared to prove Oswald's link to the officer's killing.
Oswald said police would just have to do the ballistics tests, Leavelle said.
"He was calm, he didn't seem concerned," Leavelle said.
To me, these are the trappings of innocence. 

Meanwhile, Oswald's supervisor at the Book Depository, where he worked, said Oswald was missing from work after Kennedy's shooting, making "him a prime suspect" in the president's assassination, Leavelle said.

I never bought that. First, Oswald was not the only one who left, and second, why would that provoke a person to think that he was probably the killer? I mean, did he ever express anger at Kennedy? Did he ever speak of committing violent acts? Was he ever hot-tempered and aggressive and acting wild and dangerous? If not, if he was always mild-mannered and civil and not the least bit violent in word or deed, why would you think that it was him? What reason did Truly have to think that Oswald even owned a rifle? 

To keep Oswald from being snatched from custody, Leavelle handcuffed his left wrist to Oswald's right wrist. A second set of cuffs was snapped on Oswald's wrists.

Why do people keep saying that? Oswald's hands were not cuffed to each other. Remember the Jackson photo, with his left arm slapped to his chest? Do you see any handcuff?


Of course, I have told you a thousand times that that arm slap is fake. It's as phony as a $3 bill.

As Leavelle walked into the basement of the Dallas police building, he held onto Oswald's belt to control him.

His belt? Huh. That's the first time I've seen it put that way. He had his hand in his pants, at least in the pictures.  His belt? That's revisionism for sure. 

Leavelle was briefly blinded by TV news lights but then spotted Ruby holding a pistol by his thigh.
"I saw that pistol in his hand and knew what was going to happen," he said.

He wasn't blinded by the tv newslights. We'd have seen it in the film if he was. And he did NOT see the pistol in advance. He wasn't even looking in that direction.


This Leavelle was such a liar, and still is, and the world lets him get away with it. 

Now, here's some interesting. Remember when I said that when Leavelle spoke to Oswald about a potential attacker being as good a shot as he is, that Oswald should have responded with outrage, not having shot anyone. Well, Leavelle agrees: 

 'Lee, if anybody shoots at you, I hope they're as good a shot as you,' " Leavelle said he told Oswald, meaning the shooter would hit Oswald and not Leavelle. Oswald laughed and smiled for the only time during the interview.
" 'Nobody is going to be shooting at me,' " Leavelle quoted Oswald as answering. If Leavelle was Oswald, he would have answered he didn't shoot anyone as he did earlier during questioning, Leavelle said.
Yeah, I get that, Jimbo, but the thing is, we don't have any confirmation about this. We don't even know if the conversation ever took place. It's only you claiming it, and you've been known to spin a few. 

For many months after Kennedy's assassination, Leavelle investigated the killing as though it might be a conspiracy.
"We never found anybody else connected with it," Leavelle said.
Leavelle retired after 26 years on the Dallas Police Department.
JIM LEAVELLE TALK: 



Leavelle, 92, will speak at 11 a.m. Tuesday in the Kansas Room of the Memorial Union at Washburn University. The talk is sponsored by the criminal justice and legal studies department at WU. 
Jim Leavelle has turned the Oswald assassination into a cottage industry. I wonder how much he gets paid per speech. 



Here's an interesting supposition by the Wizard. He points out that Boyd and Hall were Oswald's usual escorts at the PD, taking him from place to place. But, on the Sunday morning, Leavelle and Graves took over that task- for whatever reason. But, that freed up Boyd and Hall for another assignment- to take care of Bookhout after the shooting. 


And of course, Bookhout wound up back in circulation as himself. 


Ralph

One detail about Elmer Boyd and his colleague with the glasses ("M.T. Hall"?, according to Zambanini), they accompanied Oswald most times on the weekend when he was on the move. 

However, during the transfer on the Sunday, they were noticeably absent, with Leavelle and Graves taking their places, which is all the more interesting given that Boyd and Glasses Cop were clearly on the third floor waiting to assist Bookhout, who was still in his shirt sleeves when he made it to the third foor. Again, Glasses cop was hatless with the real Ruby and also in the elevator cupboard with Bookhout, so that suggests, again, that the timescale for the period between the shooting and Bookhout's elevator appearance was short.

WWW






Ralph

Just to be clear: To me, it looks like a still of Ruby placed into the film. The camera shooting the 'footage' films the overall still image of the room to make sure that you get the idea that it's Jack Ruby in the corner. It carries on filming as the original film starts to move, but the whole thing pans rapidly away from Ruby immediately. The camera films the still image in a jerky motion, to give the illusion of movement: then you get an actual camera pan.

Of course, there's a small possibility that there were more moving Ruby frames, but the fact that he is effectively in only frame one is suspicious.

Perhaps we can find this from other sources.

WWW




The 1978 movie Ruby and Oswald is actually worth watching, and I'll give you the link:

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

It's worth watching because it tells the official story, but there's a difference between reading it and watching it. Watching it really puts the plausibility to the test. 

The title is misleading because it actually covers everything- the whole official story. And it makes the characterizations vivid. For instance, Ruby is this explosive hothead who gets into fights easily and adores his dogs like they're his children, and Oswald has a chip on his shoulder as big as a Cadillac. (That's a line from The Fabulous Baker Boys, one of my favorite movies.) 

When Lee asks Frazier for a ride home that Thursday, Frazier asks him why, and Lee flat-out says, "to get curtain rods for my place in Dallas." There is no explanation as to why he would go THERE for THAT. Don't all men store curtain rods in other people's garages? And in this case, they were Ruth Paine's curtain rods, so he was essentially going there to steal curtain rods. I get it that he was supposedly lying about the curtain rods. But, if he was telling this lie to pave the way for the large package he was going to have the next morning, why bother? Who would conflate a disassembled rifle with curtain rods? Why not just say, "I miss my kids" ? It's not as though Frazier was going to give him a hard time. 

And then when he gets to Irving, it's immediately hostile between him and Marina. She shows no warmth for him at all. And when she asks him why he came there, he gives an entirely different reason: he went there to convince her that it was time for her and the kids to start living with him in Dallas. So, they start arguing about it. But, why would he argue with her about that if he knew he was going to be shooting Kennedy the next day? Nobody has ever suggested that Oswald expected to shoot Kennedy and then go on with his life. David Belin, the Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, claimed to know that Oswald was going to flee to Mexico. Well, if he was going to flee to Mexico, then Marina and the kids would not be living with him in Dallas. So, why would he argue with her about it? Again: why bother?

They made Ruth Paine an older woman, older than 32. And they did away with her tallness. I wonder why. How hard would it have been to cast a Ruth Paine lookalike?  

Then, they did something weird: On the Friday morning, he's leaving for work, and Marina is still in bed sleeping. He opens his wallet and takes out all the cash and puts it in his pocket. He leaves behind his wedding ring and the empty wallet. But, that's not the official story. The official story has it that he left behind most of the cash. So, why did they change it?

Here he is the next morning with the rifle in the bag.


Personally, I think they made a big mistake writing the official story that way, that he made a bag. I think it would have been more plausible if they said he just grabbed a wad of paper. Why take the time to make a bag at the TSBD when someone could have seen him do it? Of course, no one did. This supposedly took place in the shipping room on the first floor, but when you look at a plat of the 1st floor, you don't even see a shipping room there.


 And when first asked about it, Troy West, the one and only shipper, who described himself as a "mailer" said he worked in another building. But, if you imagine that there was a shipping room there, why would Oswald expect to be able to construct a bag unnoticed? And notice that this does not even look like a bag:

They should have just said that he snatched some paper when no one was looking and then wrapped the rifle in it. That would have been more plausible. But then again, not everybody is a good screenwriter. 

Then, they did something that is not part of the official script: they had Oswald and Frazier undergo another discussion about the curtain rods. And by the way, they did NOT stick to Frazier's 2 foot limit.


And for some reason, Oswald put it more on Frazier's side of the car. But, in real life, Frazier never said they exchanged more words about the curtain rods. He never said that he made a comment about it or that Oswald offered one. 

Now, why would Oswald expect to get away with a lie like this? He was going to shoot Kennedy and just leave the paper bag there, right? So, he knew that they were going to find the paper bag, right? And he had to know that they were going to question all the employees about it, and that Frazier would talk. Right? So, how did he ever expect to get away with this? 

And then, they had Frazier ask Oswald what's in the package again, as if he forgot all about their conversation the day before. And Lee responded with "curtain rods" as if he never said it before either. So, I guess it was a case of double amnesia. 

When they arrive at the TSBD, they don't have Oswald tuck the rifle into his armpit, as Frazier claimed. He just carries it the way he did before and as you would expect. But keep in mind that Frazier has demonstrated what he claimed to see, with the hand cupped below and his arm straight. But, who would carry a rifle that way? Then, Oswald says he's going to buy his lunch that day.

Then, they enact the bogus Charles Givens claim about going back up to the 6th floor after the lunch break began, to get his cigarettes, and seeing Oswald up there alone. He tells Oswald that it's almost lunch time. Now, when everyone had already broken for lunch, why would he say "almost"? And Oswald asks him to send the elevator back up, which actually happened earlier, when I believe Oswald was on the 5th floor. They do not show any signs of floor-building on the 6th floor. 

They show real footage of the motorcade, including the Nix film, and then they settle on the Moorman photo to depict the shooting.

They never show Oswald in the Sniper's Nest or in the window or shooting the rifle. Now, why would they leave that out? That was the most dramatic thing, wasn't it? 

Then, it's the Truly/Baker encounter with Oswald, and they show Oswald getting a Coke at the time Baker barges into the lunch room. But, Baker denied that Oswald was doing that, and so did Truly. One thing they did do was show Oswald totally unruffled, not sweaty, not breathless, not rattled in any way, even though he supposedly ran down 5 flights of stairs after shooting a man. It's an impossible degree of poise. 

  
I want you to notice his shirt sprawl, and in reality, it was much larger than that. All of his shirt buttons were missing except the bottom two. So, the shirt sprawl looked like it did in the doorway.


So, why weren't they honest about that? I think it was because Lovelady never depicted his shirt sprawl that big.



Quite a difference, eh?


The truth is that the Doorway Man has always been the most powerful piece of evidence in the JFK assassination. 

I shall continue. 





   

Monday, January 30, 2017

I tell you, that Robert Oswald is some piece of work. In the year of Our Lord 2017, he is actually claiming that this woman from 1922 was his mother:


and that this was the same woman in 1942:

Are you buying that?


So, was this Robertson and Barnes in Spook Alley there on Houston? Methinks so. Good work, Staffan.



This is Ruby being taken to his first appearance before a judge, I believe. It's well after the Charge in the Garage, and notice that there is no sense of turmoil or struggle. That's Detective Elmer Boyd who has his arm, and he obviously doesn't look the least bit worried that Ruby is going to get violent or resist. It looks completely civil. But, I want you notice that Ruby is still wearing his own shirt. That's not the cabana outfit they eventually gave him. I know that because you can see the arch in his collar, and his cabana shirt lied flat. 


Do you, or do you not, see that that collar lied perfectly flat, almost like it had been pressed down? So, they ironed clothes for the prisoners there, did they? Wow. Service. So, when did the clothes swap take place? And why are there accounts of Ruby being taken upstairs immediately after the shooting and made to change his clothes? 
W. Tracy Parnell 
Cinque writes on his blog that the heights of the principals make no 
difference for the John Armstrong theory. But an inch here and there makes 
a big difference and gives Armstrong the leeway to play with the facts. 
Why do you think Armstrong was intent on making Ekdahl at least six feet? 
The taller he is the more likely readers are to believe that the woman 
standing beside him is the “tall” Marguerite. 

Cinque writes that “all documents and photos are suspect.” 
But it is amazing how many official documents John Armstrong relies on to 
build his theory. How does he know which to believe and which not to 
believe? That’s easy, he believes the ones that support his theory 
and disbelieves those that don’t. 

Despite the evidence, Cinque still argues that Myrtle Evans didn’t 
recognize the “fake” Marguerite. The Warren Commission 
told her that was Marguerite so she believed it. I present a list of 
people in my article and all of these people would have to be similarly 
convinced that, despite what their eyes were telling them, this woman who 
they didn’t recognize was Marguerite. But all it would take is one 
person to come forward and contact the news media to say this woman was 
not Marguerite Oswald as they knew her to sink the plot. I guess the power 
of the plotters was unlimited. 

Cinque presents a cropped photo of “Marguerite” and says 
she has the wrong body type to be the historic Marguerite (the impostor). 
Unfortunately, this is not Marguerite but one of her sisters as the 
caption written by Robert Oswald clearly says on the website where Cinque 
got the photo (and as anyone can tell). I guess he figures he knows more 
than Robert-oh I forgot, Robert was CIA. 

Bottom line-more nutty stuff from Ralph Cinque, but he is entitled to his 
opinion. 

Ralph Cinque:

It's your lucky day, Parnell: I'm going to make you famous. Now, let's see what about you said.

I said the heights make no difference because the case that John Armstrong makes for Two Marguerites is extremely broad, diversified, and complex. He produced tandem living addresses, tandem places of employment, and more than a few witnesses. And his case is even stronger than he thought it was because he didn't do the images comparisons as thoroughly as I did. I'm talking about things you did't mention in your rebuttal. And some of what you said was flat-out wrong. For instance, the photo I posted of 16 year old Marguerite Claverie was said to be of her and her aunt. Here is the entire photo. The other was a crop from it.


That's the photo, Parnell. The aunt is on the right, and Marguerite is on the left. And there is absolutely no doubt that it was designated as the young 16 year old Marguerite on the left.

However, I see that Robert Oswald has since changed it. Now, he's claiming that the tall, statuesque and elegant woman on the right was his mother.



Is Robert Oswald for real? Marguerite Oswald was born in 1907, so in 1922, she was 16. Which of those two looks like a 16 year old? Does that woman on the right look like a minor to you? A child? Is that what you think, Parnell?

How come the young one conforms to the older Marguerite so well in her features?



Do you see any dealbreakers there, Parnell, because I don't. Robert Oswald is a LIAR. He is NOT the biological brother of the LHO of fame, and he is not the biological son of the short dumpy Marguerite, and he knows it. 

So no, it's not that I know more than Robert Oswald; it's that I am a truthseeker and he is a liar. 

And yes, I get it that every inch counts, but with undisputed recognition that Ekdahl was close to 6 feet, the woman standing next to him is too tall to be the Marguerite of fame, notwithstanding your pathetic attempt to parse the inches.



And by the way, you counted her heels, but what about his? There's a heel on a man's shoe. A man's height is taken barefoot. So, if he was 5'11" barefoot, then he was 5'11 1/2" in shoes. Do you want to split hairs about a half inch? There is NO WAY the Marguerite of fame ever stood so tall next to a 6 foot man. Stop being ridiculous, Parnell.


Notice that the young man on the right wasn't even tall. Look how the detective in front of him towers over him. And yet, Marguerite appears to reach only his chest. The idea that she would have stood that tall next to a nearly six foot man is preposterous.

And my point, which you missed, Parnell, is the need to know what trumps what. Being smart, intelligent, and independent thinkers, we're not going to determine Marguerite's height based on what's written on a passport. If we had no images of her; if we had nothing else to go by, we'd be stuck. But, we have plenty of images and films of her next to a lot of people, like you see above. And she was NOT 5'4" or even 5' 2 1/2". We look for ourselves, Parnell. You hear me? I said: We look for ourselves, and we decide ourselves. We do it ourselves, Parnell, with our own eyes and our own mind. Stop being a mole. 

And then you say, despite the evidence, by which you mean one phrase in Myrtle's long statement. 

A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

Her saying "of course it was" was NOT based on any observation she made, and it was not made on any point of fact except the fact that the woman was said, by authorities, to be Marguerite Oswald. But, the fact is that we don't need Myrtle Evans to know what authorities said. The only value she has to us is to give us her reaction based on her memory and experience. And on that basis, she was entirely negative about the woman being Marguerite. So, you're trying to deposit this in the bank, but it's worthless. It's worth zero dollars and zero cents. You have nothing.

And next, you try to play the "somebody would have said something" card. It's been played before, Parnell. How could there have been a JFK conspiracy, how could there have been a 9/11 conspiracy, when someone would have talked? First, people have talked. E. Howard Hunt finally talked. And in this case, you say that somebody could have contacted the "news media" but who are you talking about? CBS? ABC? The Dallas Times Herald? And what do you think they would have done? Published a front page story that someone claims that Marguerite Oswald is a fake? The news media would have done nothing except tell the person that he or she is mistaken. 

And you said not one word about the other physical discrepancies I found, such as the disparate teeth and the mole beneath the right eye of the Marguerite impostor. It doesn't interest you, does it, Parnell? You know what that's a sign of? A lack of intellectual honesty.

I'll leave with you this, Parnell: Why wasn't Marguerite at the Oswald family Thanksgiving in 1962?

It's a movie, Parnell. It runs for a while. You NEVER ever see Marguerite. So, why wasn't she there? I'll tell you why. It's because John Pic wasn't in on this scheme. He damn sure knew his own mother. As it was, he was baffled upon seeing Harvey and went on and on about how much he had changed, that he didn't recognize him. But, if they had tried to pass off the short dumpy Marguerite as his mother, he'd have drawn the line. "No efffffin' way. Now, where is my mother? What have you done with her?" So, this dug-in ruse that Robert Oswald and the LHO of fame had going would have been blown to bits if the short, dumpy Marguerite had gone there, pretending to be their mother. And John Armstrong did track down John Pic, who wouldn't talk to him, and really acted scared. 

You're batting zero against Armstrong, Parnell. And you're batting zero against me.  


"Dorothy Kilgallen approached one of Jack Ruby's lawyers, Joe Tonahill, seeking an interview.  It was granted. Tonahill, as an observer, later stated that Ruby 'cooperated with her in every way that he could, and told her the truth as he understood it. It was just a very agreeable conversation between them...'  Dorothy Kilgallen never published the Ruby interview, instead saving it for a book she hoped to publish on the Kennedy assassination called, Murder One.  It went into her JFK file, which upon her death would disappear along with her Ruby interview notes."  George Bailey

RC: Considering the timing of it, why would anyone doubt that Dorothy Kilgallen's murder had something to do with her interview of Jack Ruby and what she learned from him? And, it was right after that interview that she said, "In five more days, I am going to bust this case wide open." And then she winds up dead?





Sunday, January 29, 2017

Ralph

I have been following the treatment of Doorman on the New JFK Show, etc. for some time and agree that the first image in the Wiegman is Oswald and that the second (as the camera sweeps back for a second time) is a fake. 

WWW


So, the Doorman who is turned and looking down Elm Street towards Kennedy is the real Doorman, and he was Oswald. The other one, who appears to be shorter and is not turned, and is looking straight ahead like he's in a trance, and stiff as a Cigar Store Indian, he's the fake one. He wasn't Oswald. He wasn't Lovelady. He was anyone we know, and he wasn't there. He is a still image, a photographic image, put into the movie. So, obviously, they had to make sure the film didn't linger on him for too long, lest someone dwell on the fact that he's not paying attention to the action, and he is not moving. He is truly like a Cigar Store Indian placed into the moving film. 

And there is no doubt about it. Wiegman did his second pan of the doorway precisely because he heard something or saw something in the doorway, or both. Was it Bill Shelley ordering Oswald to go to the lunch room? Did Oswald put up resistance about it? Is that what the commotion was about? If Weigman was reacting to it from the press car, then others who were in the doorway had to know about it. So, that would mean that Frazier knew, and Lovelady knew, etc.  That guy is definitely not Oswald or Lovelady, and nor is he the same man as the Altgens Doorman.

How could those two possibly be the same man? Look at the shape of the heads. Look at the lay of the shirts. Look at the length of the necks. Look at the gaunt face on the right and the plethoric face on the left. How could they possibly be the same man?

William Weston interviewed journalist Elsie Glaze, who is a man. It took years for Weston to track him down. And the reason he wanted to track him down is because Elsie Glaze did multiple interviews of Bill Shelley in the 1970s.  And according to Elsie Glaze, Shelley admitted that he was briefly arrested after the assassination. Of course, there is no record of it at the Dallas Police Department, but that's hardly a surprise. This was a mishap, a misstep. Remember, not everybody in the Dallas Police Department was in on it. There were a hell of a lot in on the murder of Oswald but not on the murder of Kennedy.  But word must have come down quickly, "Let him go, and do it now. This never happened."  But, were there reports of Shelley squabbling with Oswald in the doorway? Is that what led to his arrest? I'm just speculating, but something had to happen to lead to it. 

But regardless, the 2nd Wiegman Doorman is definitely fake. They put a still photographic image into a motion picture. I kid you not.


I have more persuasive evidence as to why the real shooting of Oswald was in the PD and not in the ambulance. 

First, note that it was important that they get Oswald shot as soon as possible, in the hope that he would either die before reaching the hospital, which was their preference, OR that he be in hopeless, unsavable condition by the time he got there, which was the case. If he had survived, it would have been an absolute nightmare for them. So obviously, on that basis, it was in their interest to shoot him at the PD and not the ambulance.

And here is something concrete along that line:


We know that they made an unnecessary circle that wasted several minutes of time getting to the hospital. All they had to do was turn right as they exited the Commerce Street ramp and gone the wrong way on a one-way street for like 200 feet to the corner and then turned right on Harwood. That was all the "against traffic" driving they had to do, and by then, the area was crawling with police who could easily control traffic and clear the way. It would have been easy as pie. So, why did they go the way they did? To kill time. To give Oswald more time to die. And it worked. Even though he didn't die in the car, by the time he reached the hospital, he was beyond saving and beyond hope. 

Now, why would they do that if Oswald wasn't shot yet? The death- clock only starts ticking AFTER you are shot, not before. So, it would have been pointless to do it if Osawld hadn't yet been shot. Were that true, his death-clock wasn't even ticking yet. Ipso facto, they must have shot him in the PD.

And note that the ambulance driver said that it was the cops who told him to go that way.  Of course, his WC examiner had no follow-up and no problem with it.

Shooting Oswald on the way to the hospital would have been way too risky because Oswald could have survived, and if he had, it would have been all over for them. Imagine what his lawyer would have done when he suffered such an attack when in the custody of police. As it was, Marina Oswald should have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Dallas Police based on negligence.  But, she, of course, is a whole other story. But, if Oswald had survived, you can be sure his lawyer would have done it- and more. 

Furthermore, how could they attack him again? They could hardly set up another "there was nothing we could do" scenario. Who would believe it? That he was attacked twice in police custody? 

So, they had to make absolutely sure that he died from this attack, and the sooner they got that bullet into him the better. 

I'm sure the risk of dying increases logarithmically with the passage of time. So, every minute, in fact, every second that they could delay his getting medical and surgical attention was invaluable. But, it only counted if he was already shot. So, Oswald was shot in the PD. Not in the garage, but in the building after the spectacle.  

   


W. Tracy Parnell is a lone-nutter who attacks John Armstrong, and in one article, he attacked John's claim of there being two Marguerites. I have gone through Parnell's article, and I will demonstrate that every argument he makes is either wrong or irrelevant. He didn't score a single point. He didn't begin to challenge the Two Marguerites thesis, which is iron-clad.

First, I'll give you the link to his article:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

Some of this may seem like minutia, but it's his minutia. He disputes that Marguerite's second husband Edward Ekdahl was 6 feet tall (as per John Pic) which he did by producing passport applications which have him listed as 5'11" and another that shows him as 5' 10 1/2". My response to that is: Big deal; it is of no consequence. 

Then, based on a passport, he claimed that Marina Oswald was 5'3" not 5'1" as erroneously reported. Again: big deal; it is not a problem to John Armstrong's thesis. His thesis works just as well with her being 5'3". But, how do we really know? They don't put you on a height ledger for your passport. They put down whatever height you tell them. And men and women alike are inclined to exaggerate their height. So, if Marina was really closer to 5'2", it wouldn't surprise me to see 5'3" on her passport. That kind of thing happens all the time. 

I just measured my height, and I am 5' 6 1/4".  I am 66 years old, and what I used to be, and the tallest I ever was in my life, was 5' 6 1/2".  So, I'm glad to say that I have not shrunk very much at all. But, I'll admit that I have rounded my height up to 5' 7" at times. Not lately, but in the past. It makes more sense to round up than to round down, doesn't it? 

So again, that kind of thing happens all the time, and you can't take what appears on a passport as gospel. 

Then, he found a passport for Marguerite (the short, dumpy Marguerite of fame) which lists her height as 5' 2 1/2". That's no dealbreaker for John Armstrong either. But, I'll add that, intuitively, I challenge it. I do NOT think she was that tall. She was a VERY short woman. 5'3" is the average height of American women, and you can't tell me that the Marguerite of fame was only one-half inch shorter than average. That is ridiculous. So, Mr. Parnell needs to be reminded that this is the JFK assassination we are talking about, and ALL documents (and photos) are suspect, including this one. You hear me, Parnell? 

Then, Parnell just helps himself to the very convenient assumption that she lost an inch and half by age 58, so that she was really 5' 4" before that, making the Marguerite of fame one inch taller than the average woman. Are you buying that? 

Then, we get to the Wedding photo. Parnell estimates that if Ekdahl was 5'11" then the Marguerite next to him was 5'6". 



And then, Parnell figures that the heels and high hair could make her actual height 5' 4", so wahlah, he has arrived at IDing her as the short, dumpy Marguerite. 

What is ridiculous about this is that height is not the only feature showing. What about her face? Her build? Her shape? But again, this takes rounding up to a whole new level. 

And apparently, Tom Hanks doesn't agree with Parnell. He cast a woman named Jacki Weaver to play Marguerite in his 2013 movie Parkland




And Jacki Weaver is 4'11".




And I guess she really let her teeth go, eh? Ekdahl's wife looks like she could have done Colgate commercials. 


And notice the mole below the right eye on the right. The short dumpy Marguerite had that all her life. Here she is with it in 1942.



Do you, or do you not, see the mole under her right eye? Therefore, Ekdahl's wife can't possibly be the famous Marguerite since she doesn't have the mole. 

And, Parnell leaves a lot out. Look at this comparison of the teeth:



Can you, or can you not see that the woman on the right had an overbite on the right side, where her upper incisor was elevated? She needed braces, but she didn't get them. The pretty Marguerite on the left had perfect teeth. You want to say those two are the same woman????????!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Well, if you do, Parnell, then I hope and pray to Almighty God that you are never the judge of a beauty contest because I dread to think who you would crown the winner. 

Then, in Part II, Parnell gets to the testimonies.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html


He starts with Myrtle Evans who did not recognize the Marguerite of fame as her friend Marguerite Oswald. Myrtle said this: 

A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

Parnell thinks he can go to the bank with the emboldened clause, "but of course it was" but it doesn't count for shit. It just shows blind faith in officialdom; that's all. Her personal reaction, her visceral reaction, her gut feeling was that this woman was NOT her friend Marguerite. She was always so lovely herself? Would anybody, in his or her right mind say that, about the Marguerite of fame? 

Let's look at some more pictures. This is Marguerite Claverie in 1922, age 16. Do you think the Marguerite of fame was EVER built like this?



This below is an image of Marguerite and her three sons. Of course, the Marguerite of fame didn't have three sons. So, they pasted her face over the real one. 



Can you, or can you not see, that it's like she is wearing a mask? Look how different the coloring is between her face and neck.  You can see the exact interface. This is worse than the Backyard photo of Oswald, and that's pretty bad, as fakeries go.  

Now, compare the teeth on these three. On the left, perfect. Middle: perfect. But on the right (who was the short, dumpy Marguerite) she not only has the overbite, but it looks like her tooth was chipped.






Below is the real Marguerite in 1957 at her place of employment, Paul's Shoes in Ft. Worth. Note that the Marguerite of fame was a private duty nurse and never worked retail sales like the real Marguerite. 


Gee, if she's that short, stumpy, dumpy Marguerite of fame, then how short was the woman to her right, our left? 4'8"?

Here are the teeth compared up-close. Do you, or do you not, see the difference?



Parnell: there were two Marguerites, just as there were two Oswalds. You haven't begun to damage John Armstrong's case. You haven't knocked a single shingle off his roof. You're just another pathetic lone-nutter who is fighting a lost cause. Oswald was innocent, and he wasn't really Lee Harvey Oswald. The Marguerite of fame was NOT his mother, and she was not Marguerite Claverie Oswald either.