Tuesday, February 28, 2017

There are immature people who don't know how to analyze testimonies and who don't even do it in good faith. When there is a contradiction built-in to a testimony- such as in the case of Mrs. Reid, who went by Mrs. Robert Reid but whose first name I believe was Geraldine- these immature, incompetent, and viciously motivated individuals think they can use it as currency- for themselves, to advance their dis-info agenda. 

It is quite true that Mrs. Reid insisted that she saw Oswald in just a white t-shirt. But, it doesn't bother me at all that she didn't recognize CE 150 because it doesn't look like Oswald's shirt.

They don't look alike, so it doesn't bother me that witnesses, such as Mrs. Reid and Officer Marrion Baker, did not recognize CE 150. The Warren Commission and the entire JFK establishment has been lying about Oswald's shirt from Day 1. And they've been lying about it ever since. This too has been displayed as Oswald's shirt:

And this too:

Look at the stiffness of the shirt on the right below which they tried to pass off as Oswald's shirt in 2013. How could that shirt ever behave like the shirt on the left which Oswald wore? And how dishonest is it to display the shirt in a way in which we NEVER saw on Oswald?  Oswald's shirt NEVER looked like that. 

But, it is troubling that Mrs. Reid insisted upon seeing Oswald in just a t-shirt shortly after the lunch room encounter with Truly and Baker.  

So, this is an irreconcilable disparity. It's an irreconcilable disparity for me and for everyone, and it's unlikely to ever be resolved. So, we have to decide what to do about it. We could just throw her entire testimony out. But, she did correctly state that Oswald had a Coke, which does correlate with other testimonies, including what Oswald, himself, said, that he got a Coke:

Baker and Truly both said that Oswald didn't have a Coke when they saw him. So, if he got it right after they left, and then Mrs. Reid saw him immediately after that with a full Coke, it does make sense. Could she have seen somebody else whom she mistook for Oswald? The Warren Commissioner asked her how many times she saw Oswald prior to this, and she said about 5. And she went on to describe the circumstances that she saw him, what he was doing, what she observed about him, her impression of him, etc. I think she made a compelling case that she knew what Oswald looked like. So, I am not inclined to throw out her testimony. 

I have discussed this at length with John Armstrong, and he is intrigued with the idea that she saw "Lee", that she didn't see the Oswald of fame, but rather the lookalike who was trying to frame him, and that that "Lee" was dressed in just a white t-shirt. It's an interesting speculation, and it does solve the problem. But, it's still just a speculation. And since the Oswald of fame told Fritz that he got a Coke... it says "claims 2nd Floor Coke":

it would mean that "Harvey" and "Lee" both got a Coke within a very short period of time in a very confined space, and frankly, I find that to be daunting and untenable. 

This comes down to probability, where it's likely that we are never going to know for certain. But, as I look at it all, what I think is MOST PROBABLE is that she saw Oswald, the Oswald of fame, and she was simply mistaken in her memory about how he was dressed. She may have been confusing images of him in just a t-shirt from the PD with what she saw in person.  

And notice that the makers of Ruby and Oswald must have concluded the same thing, that Mrs. Reid did see TSBD Oswald, even though he was wearing more than just a t-shirt, and that she was simply mistaken about it.

And, I think that is also what the Warren Commission and most JFK researchers everywhere have concluded over the years- that she was simply mistaken about that one point of fact. I have never heard anyone suggest that her testimony should be discarded. Plus, it is a well established observation in law that it is not uncommon for eye-witnesses to be wrong about specific details of what they saw. Need I remind you about the Innocence Project? 

So, that's how I, and almost everyone else, has sized it up and dealt with the incongruity in Mrs. Reid's testimony concerning Oswald's dress: that she simply remembered it wrong. I think it's the mature and responsible position to take about it. But, bpete is not mature, and what he is responsible for are crimes. He is a criminal. He has committed crimes against me, and believe me, I am seeking justice.  
From the Wizard...

Ralph I have said this before, but I think it's important enough to repeat. Bookhout's 'calmness', as reported by his wife, is what put him center stage in the basement. The Garage Shooter stepped out of the line of reporters with an almost Zen-like calm - no hesitation, no clumsiness, no nervousness - just determination. He was almost dynamic, like Jack Bauer, the absurd hero of '24'. Get in, get out of there, get the job done: on the 'Who Dares Wins' principle.

Bookhout must have developed a real rapport with Oswald. That Oswald went up to talk to him in the hall speaks volumes. Notice above how short the shooter looks. He looms large in the picture because he is close to the camera, but you can still tell that he is short. Jack Ruby was 5' 8 1/2" so just a half inch shorter than Oswald. This man is obviously shorter than that. And here he is again here.

I wish I could find the guy who pointed me to this so that I could thank him. He did good. 
As a postscript to the blog about this:

I'll ask you to look at the way Oswald left the lunch room. He left by going through the office area where he encountered Mrs. Reed. She spoke to him, and he did not respond. And then he kept going. He didn't turn around and head back into the lunch room. He went out the same way he came in, through the office area and using the front stairs. That was his route, coming and going. Even in the Ruby and Oswald movie, they showed him doing that. 

It's one thing they got right. 
W. Tracy Parnell thinks that these two are the same woman.

Why does he believe it? Because Robert Oswald claims it. He also believes that the woman on the left is only 16 years old.  16.

Does that look like a 16 year old to you? 

Meanwhile, there is a girl standing next to her who does look to be 16.

And her image correlates very well with known images of the real Marguerite.

But, we are supposed to ignore all that because Robert Oswald says that the 35 year old was his 16 year old mother. 

But how, in the name of Christ Almighty God, could this tall slinky woman:

be this pipsqueak?

It only shows that JFK-land is a Bizarro World, devoid of all reason. It's like its own Twilight Zone. Nothing has to make sense. Nothing has to add up. You only have to believe.  
This is a very important piece of evidence that rarely gets mentioned.

Baker first saw Oswald, not in the lunch room, but entering the anteroom to the lunch room from the other side, the office side. There was a swinging door there that Oswald went through. Baker saw the movement of that door. The door to the lunch room itself was propped open. It was one of those spring doors which, when opened fully, would lock. So, everything was close at hand, and it was very swift. And of course, Baker responded by going through the door to the anteroom on his side, and then entering the lunch room and calling to Oswald and having his encounter with him. But, the point is that if Oswald had come down from the 6th floor, which would have meant using the same stairs that Baker used, then he would not have used the door on the other side of the anteroom. He would have used the same door that Baker looked through (it had a glass pane)  and entered the lunch room. The fact that Oswald used the door on the other side proves that he came from that direction. He went UP the one flight of stairs that were located in the southeast corner of the building and walked across the office area to get to the lunch room.  

  And those stairs were located right next to the doorway.

So, there were two doors in front. Oswald went from the doorway, through the first door, the glass door, then around the partition to the stairwell, which took him up to the 2nd floor. 

This is very solid, and it proves several things. It proves that Oswald was not in the lunch room during the motorcade because if he was in the lunch room during the motorcade, he would not have been just getting to it. Baker saw Oswald just getting to the lunch room. So, that means he wasn't there a minute before. So, the people who claim that Oswald was in the lunch room all the while, that he skipped the motorcade in order to be in the lunch room alone, are completely and totally full of it.  And it proves that Oswald did not come down from the 6th floor because if he had come down from the 6th floor, the door that was swinging would have been the door that Baker was looking through. And it proves that Oswald did not have a Coke when Baker saw him because if Oswald was just arriving at the lunch room, just reaching it, just going through the door, then obviously, he didn't get a Coke yet. You have to enter the room before you can get a Coke, and he hadn't entered the room. So, Oswald did NOT have a Coke when Baker saw him. Oswald got his Coke AFTER Baker and Truly went on their merry way. 

This also puts the kabosh on Carolyn Arnold's 1978 revised statement in which she claimed, after 5000+ days, that what she really saw was Oswald sitting in the lunch room eating at 12:25. That is impossible because Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room at the start of the lunch break, and he certainly didn't eat two lunches that day. And, if he was sitting in the lunch room eating at 12:25, then why at 12:31.5 would he be re-entering the lunch room from the office side? If you're tempted to say that he left and came back, don't bother because you have no grounds to say it. You can't just pull things from out your ass and plop them down. This is NOT Imagination Day at Kindergarten. You don't have a broad license to speculate. Even speculations have to be tied to evidence. By all indications, Oswald was just arriving at the lunch room when Baker first saw him. That plainly stands, and Occam and his razor are telling you to shut the pluck up about anything else.

So, why didn't anybody hear Oswald come bounding down the stairs from the 6th floor? Because he didn't come bounding down the stairs from the 6th floor. Why wasn't he out of breath when Baker saw him? Because he walked at a slow, relaxed pace from the doorway to the 2nd floor lunch room. And that means that he had to leave the doorway pretty darn early in order to beat the running Baker to the lunch room.  And that means you Prayermanites are shit out of luck too. 

Interesting comment here about James Bookhout from his obit:

"He was a calm person and thought he'd make a good agent because he didn't get rattled," said his wife, Charlotte Bookhout of Dallas.

Bookhout was calm. He didn't get rattled. I bet Oswald appreciated his calmness. I am guessing that he spoke to Oswald and directed questions to him very respectfully. I think it was calculated on his part. I think it was cunning. I would even say Machiavellian. And I think it worked. I think he won Oswald over. I bet you Bookhout deserved the FBI equivalent of an Oscar. The very fact that Oswald went up to him in the hall to speak to him, to continue a conversation with him- name one other law enforcement officer with whom he did that? You can't. There weren't any others. Just Bookhout.

That's Bookhout on the left, the short guy. And, of course, that's Oswald on the right. If you watch the tape you see that Oswald initiated this exchange. He went to talk to Bookhout. IN THE HALL. This was extra-curricular. I think he developed a lot of rapport with Bookhout, which surpassed anything he developed with anyone else. And that may be very connected to the ruse they pulled off on Sunday morning, which was the next morning after the scene above.  

James Bookhout was definitely the shooter in the garage shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Monday, February 27, 2017

This is an article on malicious photoshopping from nodisinfo.com, and it concerns James Holmes, the Denver theater shooter.


I am not going to get into it specifically but I will say that even though Photoshop did not exist in 1963, that through other means, they were doing malicious photoshopping in 1963. The ridiculous images of James Bookhout with the goofy, wavy eyebrows are a good example. Of course, they made those changes online, but those were yearbooks, which means that there are physical copies of them floating around out there that are unaltered. 

The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event of all time, and by a long shot. I have no doubt about that. 
Note to a friend:

Yes, I've known of Christopher Hitchens for a long time, and I respect anyone and everyone who is willing to state the obvious: that God is an invention of Mankind. We don't need the concept of God in order to live. Every baby who was ever born was born an atheist- and stayed one until his elders started indoctrinating him into religion. This is 2017. Religion has gone on long enough. If people could give up the Greek Gods and the Roman Gods and the Norse Gods, etc., as they have, no longer taking any of them seriously, then they can give up the Christian God, the Jewish God, and the Islamic God. Then hopefully, the world will be free of Gods, and we can get on with living our lives, solving our own problems, and taking care of each other.   
Two mishaps this weekend have driven home a point about the JFK assassination-to me. One the whole world knows about: Warren Beatty naming the wrong movie as the winner of Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It really is pity that that happened because up to that point, the show had been fantastic. Jimmy Kimmel was very funny. What happened was that Warren Beatty was handed a duplicate of the envelope for the previous award, Best Actress. And it even said Best Actress on the outside of the envelope, although he presumably didn't see that. But then, when he opened it, it said Emma Stone for La La Land, and that certainly should have given him pause, and it did. He showed it to Faye Dunaway without saying anything, and she's the one who blurted it out. So, if you were going to blame either of them, it would have to be her. Ultimately, it was Price Waterhouse' fault for giving him the wrong envelope. Still, it was the kind of thing that I'm sure nobody ever thought could happen in a million years. 

The second mishap wasn't as momentous, and it only affected me, personally. I had a new commode installed in one of my bathrooms by a plumber, and that evening, long after he left, I noticed that water was puddling around the bottom. So, I figured he didn't install it right; he didn't tighten the bolts enough, or something. So, I turned off the water to it and called him, and he came out the next day- on a Sunday- only to discover that he made no mistake at all; the tank was cracked. I mean the brand-new tank above that holds the water was cracked. So, he suggested that we leave the basin commode as is, since it was happy, and I just bring back the tank and get Home Depot to swap it out. Well, I did that, but they gave me a hard time about it, first saying that I had to return the whole unit. So, I demanded to see the manager of the store who fortunately saw it my way. So, they opened another box and let me take the tank. But, I was going to be out more money to the plumber, and they didn't offer to compensate me for that. If you're wondering if I asked, yes, I did. "Not corporate policy" was what I was told. 

Anyway, the point is that things can go wrong. Even when you least expect it, things can go wrong. Anything can go wrong, anytime, anyplace, anywhere, anyhow.  And if that's true for toilet installations and Academy Award announcements, then how true is it for assassinations?

Assassinations are notorious for going wrong. In the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which triggered World War 1 (although it was in the works for years) the teams of assassins missed the Archduke, hitting an assistant of his instead. The only reason they ended up getting the Archduke is because he insisted on going to the hospital to check on the condition of his wounded assistant, and on the way to the hospital, they got him. 

The assassination of French President Charles DeGaulle failed, and he wasn't shot at all. The book and the movie, The Day of the Jackal dramatized what happened, loosely. To his dying breath, DeGaulle insisted that the CIA was behind the plot to kill him. And when JFK got killed, DeGaulle immediately thought "CIA" and said so.

And what about the CIA's numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro? As you know, Castro recently died peacefully of natural causes at the age of 90.  

So, unlike these other things, assassination attempts are notorious for going wrong. 

The HSCA concluded that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy by the Mafia, that they, the Mafia, got Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot President Kennedy. But, just because the Mafia are criminals doesn't mean they are stupid. Why WHY WHY would they choose Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot JFK? He was NEVER a combat Marine; he was a RADAR Marine.  And, he did only the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines. And according to his friend Nelson Delgado, he resented having to do that, that he was a slacker about cleaning and maintaining his weapon; he just wasn't into guns. Then, after the Marines, he went to Russia for 3 years where the only shooting he did was to go rabbit-hunting with a shotgun. A Russian friend of his told David Lifton that Oswald was so bad at shooting that someone would usually shoot a rabbit for him just so that he would have one. Whether you believe that or not, the facts are clear: minimal shooting experience and none of it in combat; almost failed his last marksman test, with a score of 91 and the minimum was 90. And then he had no experience after that. After returning from Russia, he worked various low-paying jobs in which the closest he got to a gun was a grease-gun at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans. 

What about any of that qualified him to shoot the President of the United States? Do you think the Mafia are stupid? No. They're not stupid. The people who came up with the idea are the stupid ones.
Oswald was not a sniper. He wasn't even a marksman really.  So, where did this idea come from that he was working for the Mafia? It came from the HSCA. The HSCA may have started with good intentions but it quickly evolved into a scheme to protect the government. They were determined to find no wrong-doing or complicity by any government entity. So, who else was there to blame except the Mafia? They didn't want to find for lone-nuttery again because they knew that all the JFK conspiracy theorists would be outraged. So, they threw them a bone. That's what it amounted to. They gave them a conspiracy- one that did not impugn the government. And they got a patsy to be a mouthpiece for it, G. Robert Blakey. Apparently, Richard Sprague and Bob Tannenbaum were unwilling to do it, so they got rid of them and replaced them with Blakey who delivered just fine.  

But, nobody took it seriously. It was January 1979 when their Final Report came out, and Jimmy Carter still had 2 more years in office before Ronald Reagan took over. Reagan surely wasn't going to do anything, but Carter was a Democrat and the first President after JFK who didn't have blood on his hands from the killing. So, why didn't Carter do something? Well, the 1980 election was at hand, and he wanted to be re-elected. He knew that the media would pillory him if he reopened the JFK murder investigation. He knew the powers-that-be didn't want it- no matter what the HSCA said. Who knows, maybe he was afraid they would kill him too. So, he didn't do anything, nor did any law enforcement official anywhere do anything. The conclusion of the HSCA was completely and totally ignored by everybody, including the Kennedy family. 

And it was for good reason because the HSCA conclusion was stupid, really stupid. The Mafia could not have killed Kennedy. The Mafia had no means to change the motorcade route. The Mafia had no control over the U.S. media. They couldn't orchestrate a cover-up. And most of all, they never, in a million years, would have chosen Lee Harvey Oswald to be their shooter- them not being high on LSD. The Mafia had an ancillary role in the assassination, but it wasn't their show. They provided some shooters but not Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was just the pasty. That's all. Not the shooter and the patsy; just the patsy. And he said so himself.

So, the next time someone tries to tell you that Mafia killed Kennedy, that it was their operation,  just realize that you are talking to an idiot, and then stop talking to them.     


Saturday, February 25, 2017

There continues to be controversy about the Mother's Day image of Marguerite, whether she is the impostor or the real Marguerite. I lean towards her being the impostor. 

But, it's OK if there is some disagreement within the John Armstrong community because that's how we toss the ball around as a team. Honest minds can differ. 

But, I think the best thing is to start with an unimpeachable image, the one from Paul's Shoes. I say that it is unimpeachable because of the source. It came from John Armstrong.  It didn't come from Officialdom. It didn't come from Robert Oswald. John uncovered it from the private photos of a man who worked with the real Marguerite at Paul's Shoes. You could say this photo fell through the cracks. 

So, that image from 1957 is unimpeachable. Notice that she has full eyebrows. They are much thicker than in the other image. 

I don't see why anybody would say that those two women are the same. The shape of the head is different. I am just not seeing the same woman. 
These two below are also unimpeachable. The one in the middle is of 30 year old Marguerite next to Robert E. Lee Oswald. Obviously, the impostor was never with him. So, it has to be the real Marguerite. The one on the left is of 16 year old Marguerite.

Notice that on the left, she also has full eyebrows. But, in the center, she has very thin eyebrows. So, did she go through a phase when she tweezed her eyebrows down to a pencil-thin line? And then she got tired of doing it and went back to full eyebrows? It's possible but I doubt it. So, what's the alternative? The alternative is that they altered the photo in the middle to give her those pencil-thin eyebrows. I already showed you how they altered James Bookhout's eyebrows in his yearbook pictures, and I even found an article about eyebrow-altering as a CIA tactic to change a look. 

Let's look at some more images. This one is definitely the Marguerite impostor. And I say that because 3 year old Harvey was in the picture with her, with his back to us. This is definitely not the real Marguerite. Don't we say that the real Marguerite was the pretty one? No one would describe this woman as pretty. However, notice that she does have very narrow wisps of eyebrows. 

So, the Marguerite impostor is the one who had the narrow eyebrows. The real Marguerite had fuller eyebrows. The impostor above also had a mole beneath her right eye which you can see above. And notice that you can see the space in her dental alignment on our left. It's small, but it's there. 

Now, what about this photo? Is it the impostor or the real Marguerite? 

I say that this is the impostor. 1. It came from Robert Oswald, and he would not brandish an image this large of his real mother. 2. The ridiculous signing, in which a mother supposedly  signed a photo of herself "All my love" to her 1 year old son. The photo was from 1935, and RO was born in 1934. Notice again the thin narrow eyebrows, and if you look closely, you can see the misalignment of the teeth. 

The image below of the real Marguerite I consider to be unimpeachable because it matches so well with the one from Paul's Shoes, and it is obviously not the impostor. 
It's hard to see, but to me, that suggests that she does NOT have highly tweezed eyebrows. So, let's look at a collage of unimpeachable images of Marguerite.

So, those are all the real Marguerite.  The one on the upper right has the highly tweezed eyebrows, but that is probably fake. 

This image below of the impostor shows the mole very well.

The image below I suspect was manipulated.

Why is her face so dark compared to her neck? Why are her teeth so white?  And they look perfect alright, but too perfect. I don't trust this image above. I think it is a manipulated image. It is definitely the real Marguerite next to Ekdahl, but it doesn't mean they didn't manipulate her face. 

Remember that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in human history and by a wide margin. Nothing else comes close. So, it would be foolish to think they didn't alter images of Marguerite Oswald. 

Now, what about the Mother's Day picture? On the right is a known picture of the impostor. She was with Mark Lane in the picture, so it MUST be the impostor. But, there is an awful lot of resemblance there. 

I think it's the impostor, but if I'm wrong, then it means that they manipulated the image to make her look like the impostor. NO WAY COULD THE TWO MARGUERITES LOOK THIS MUCH ALIKE. The main difference here is that the nose on the right looks more bulbous, with larger nasal tip cartilage. It's more pointy on the left, but they could have altered that. Please remember: the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in human history. It's nauseating to consider all the photographic alteration they did. 

We have seen oodles of pictures of the book stacks at the TSBD, such as this one.

But, how come we have never seen a picture of the shipping room where Oswald supposedly build his paper bag out of shipping paper and tape? And how come it isn't even indicated on the plat of the 1st floor where it was supposedly located?

That's too small for you to see, but none of those rooms say Shipping. And here's another biggie: How come we never see any stack of packages of completed orders? You know, where they are wrapped and strung and labeled and stamped? And even on November 22, there was work done that morning. Frazier and Oswald and others were filling orders, and Harold Norman was checking orders, and Troy West was wrapping orders. So, where were the results? Where was the morning's output?

Then, we have this bizarre testimony of Troy West:

Mr. Belin. Where did you make coffee? 
Mr. WEST. Well, it is down on the first floor in the same department where I wrap mail at. 
Mr. BELIN. Well, I have a first floor-map here of the School Book Depository. Here is Elm Street and here is the front entrance. Here is Mr. Truly’s office, and here is Mr. Shelley’s office. There is the stairway down to the basement, and there are the elevators and the back stairway. There are the toilets there. About where would you wrap mail there? Here is the domino room and the shower. You are looking here, that is north Elm Street runs this way and Houston Street runs that way. It is shown on that diagram. 
Mr. WEST. Well, my place was in the west side of the other building. 

Huh? The other building? But, Belin just ignored that and went on talking as though it was the TSBD. 

But, think about it. This mailing operation involved the use of a noisy string tying machine, like the Bunn. And here you can hear it:


What a racket. You can't tell me that they had that going out in the open on the 1st floor. There had to be a room for that. But, from the testimony and the plat, you get the impression that there was no room. And that means that Oswald, supposedly, built his bag out of shipping paper and tape right out in the open on the 1st floor. And nobody saw him? 

So, we have no mailing room; we have no stack of completed orders, ready for the post office; we know absolutely nothing about how packages were labeled; and we know absolutely nothing about how packages were stamped. We also don't know how they got to the post office. Did the post office pick them up? Did they have a truck that delivered them there? 

But, this was a company of 75 employees. 75. Plus, they had other expenses besides salaries, such as rent on the building, utilities, supplies, etc. Plus, they had to pay taxes. Plus, they expected to make a profit. So, all that money had to come out of the margin between their costs and the sale prices of the books, which they were apparently selling 2 or 3 at a time. 

So, how many little parcels of books would they have to move each day in order to support all that? We should be seeing a mountain of completed orders to support all that. But, we don't see any. Not one. 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Something stinks in Zanzibar. 

The John McAdams JFK forum is a bizarre world. It is dominated by lonenutters, as you would expect, but, the ones opposing them are some very strange ducks. For instance, there is an Anthony Marsh who believes that Oswald did NOT shoot Kennedy, but he did shoot and kill Tippit. Now, why would Oswald do that, according to Marsh? It's because Oswald assumed that Tippit had stopped him because of the Walker pot shot incident.

But, nobody even got hurt, let alone killed, in that incident. There is absolutely no physical evidence linking Oswald to it. The entire case is built on Marina Oswald claiming Oswald did it. But wait. It was two months after the assassination before she started "remembering" that Oswald shot at Walker. So, on November 22, 1963, Oswald had nothing to worry about concerning her. Besides, in the state of Texas, a wife can't be compelled to testify against her husband. It's called spousal privilege. Besides, the President of the United States had just been shot and killed with the killer or killers on the loose. So, why would the Walker potshot incident from the previous April be on anyone's mind at that point in time? And, even if Oswald was just paranoic about it, why would he escalate a harmless pot shot into the cold-blooded murder of a police officer in broad daylight? Of course, Oswald didn't take that pot shot, but I'm just thinking out-loud within Marsh's deranged mental world. Oswald would have had to be insane to shoot Tippit on that basis, and it makes me wonder about Marsh's mental state. And, he has the nerve to refer to other people as "kooks." It's his favorite word. Kooks, kooks, kooks. But, there is nobody kookier than he is. He is king of the kooks. 

Then, there is a Robert Harris who believes that Oswald was a shooter, but that he may have deliberately missed Kennedy. He believes the Mafia assigned Oswald to do it, among other shooters. First, shouldn't there be a paper trail for the MONEY that Oswald was paid by the Mafia for doing it? Assassins kill people for pay. I mean: if they don't have their own motive for wanting the person dead, if they are doing it on behalf of someone else, then it means they're being paid. There are no volunteer assassins who kill on request for nothing. Why would Oswald kill Kennedy, a man whom he admired, on behalf of the Mafia if he wasn't paid? So, that's bizarre. But, what is even more bizarre is: Why would the Mafia choose Oswald to do it? Does Robert Harris not realize that Oswald had no experience as an assassin, as a sniper, as a killer, etc.? Is he unaware that Oswald's last shooting test in the Marines was poor, that he practically flunked?  And the ONLY shooting he did post-Marines was to go rabbit-hunting in Russia with his friends, using shotguns? And that Oswald stank at that? David Lifton talked to a Russian man who told him that Oswald was such a bad shot that someone else would usually shoot a rabbit for him, just so that he would have one. You hate to see a grown man cry. So, why would the Mafia think that Oswald was qualified to kill Kennedy? And why would they take the risk of him killing someone else instead, such as Jackie? Things go wrong sometimes in shootings. You know? Shooters have been known to miss. They have also been known to hit targets they weren't aiming for. It is insane to think that in the big, wide, vast world of assassins at their disposal that the Mafia would have chosen Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Based on what? He was out of the country for 3 years. So, he didn't exist to the Mafia all that time. Then he gets back and starts working a string of low-paying jobs, grunt labor, which he has trouble holding. Then he goes to New Orleans and gets a job as a machine greaser, and he loses that job too. Then, he gets a job as an "order-filler" at the TSBD for $1.11/ hour. And somehow, that resume impressed the Mafia that he was qualified to pick off the President of the United States?  "We need to get Oswald. Just look at his record." 

And, if the Mafia killed Kennedy, why would the U.S. government want to hide it?  Why would there be a cover-up? Why would the whole US media fall into lock-step to support the official story that a lone-nut did it for essentially no reason at all?  Did the Mafia have an iron grip on U.S. newspapers? I think Robert Harris has watched The Godfather one too many times.

So, why would the U.S. government point the finger at the Mafia, as per the HSCA?  It's because the U.S. government killed Kennedy, and they wanted to offer people an alternative. 

"You don't like our first story that a lone-nut did it for no reason? That even though he was elated with his new daughter and hopeful about getting his family back, that Oswald decided to kill Kennedy on the spur of the moment because: he saw the motorcade route in the newspaper? That doesn't work for you? OK, then try this on for size: Mafia hit-man: Lee "Carvy Harvey" Oswald.   

Then, there is a guy there, who uses an alias; his first name may be Chris, who actually believes that Oswald was innocent but that he did bring a rifle to work- to show somebody, in the hope of selling it- but he lied to police about it.  

Now, think about it yourself. You go to work. The President gets shot. And they haul you in and accuse you of doing it. The Police actually think that YOU shot the President. Are you going to start lying to them? Aren't you going to say, "Yes, I brought my rifle to work to show it to somebody, but I didn't kill the President with it. I couldn't do that. Why the hell would I do that? I have nothing against him. And I'm not a killer. I don't go around killing people. If it looks like my rifle was involved, then somebody is framing me."

Isn't that what you would say? You're in a bad situation, a nightmare situation, but wouldn't it only make it worse if you start lying to police about the rifle? If it's yours, it's yours. If you own it, you own it. Other people's weapons have been used to commit murders, and with the aim of framing the owner. So, if that was the case here, then why wouldn't you say so? If you're innocent, then the truth can't hurt you. Why would you make like a criminal and start lying to the police?

Then, there is a guy, whose name escapes me, who believes that Oswald was sitting eating in the lunch room at 12:30 and close to 12:30, and that as he was sitting there eating, he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman out the window walking by, and he cited them to the police. And somehow that got turned into Oswald saying that he "was eating lunch with other employees" at the time of the shots, which is what Will Fritz told the Warren Commission was Oswald's alibi.  

Oswald got off work at 11:45, just like everyone else. They actually broke early just so that people could eat unrushed before the motorcade. So, why would he still be eating at 12:30? And what did he do for 45 minutes if he wasn't eating then? He knew the Presidential motorcade was coming. He learned it from James Jarman that morning. He hadn't eaten a thing that day. So, why would he put off eating lunch until the time the President arrived? What did he have to do for 45 minutes instead of eating that prevented him from getting his lunch out of the way? And who uses someone outside as an alibi when you are inside? Here is the domino room:

Did it even have a transparent window?

So, between the crazy lone-nutters (and, you really have to be crazy or severely incompetent to believe the official story) and these other wacky people, McAdams' forum is like an insane asylum. This is 2017. How can people be this stupid about the JFK assassination in 2017? 

Friday, February 24, 2017

One of the things that Harold Norman said is that he was a "checker." He wasn't an "order-filler" but a "checker." The checker checked the work of the order-filler, making sure he filled the order correctly.

But, was this really necessary? It was the simplest thing in the world. If every company needed a checker to check the completion of the most simple tasks, then it would effectively double the cost of fulfillment.  

Was it a common thing that instead grabbing Dick and Jane go the
that the order-filler would mistakenly grab Dick and Jane go to the Beach? So, order-fillers like Buell Frazier and Lee Oswald couldn't be counted on to complete the simple task of getting the right title they were looking for? Their work had to be checked? They had to show their work, like a little kid in the 4th grade showing his work to the teacher?

Imagine if it was you. Imagine you were working that dreary, low-paying job, and they wouldn't even trust you to pull titles correctly, that you had to show your work to a checker. 

"As you can see, Mr. Norman, I was supposed to get 3 copies of Dick and Jane visit the Museum, and that is indeed what I have here, 3 copies of Dick and Jane visit the Museum. Count them. 1, 2, 3. So now, if you would be so kind as to check off your approval so that I can take these to our one and only mailer, Mr. Troy West, and then I shall undertake a new order with the same gusto and due diligence that I applied to this one."

Isn't that special?

Also, I have a nice clear image of the stacks.

Obviously, at this distance, we can't tell what's in any of the boxes. So, let's move in closer:

What is that? Some kind of code? But, why would it be necessary to mark it in code? You've got all that space on the box. So, why not put the title in plain English? You know, make it easy? Instead of hard? 

So, Buell Frazier or Lee Oswald show up here:

Most of the boxes are sealed, so doesn't that mean that every order-filler had to be supplied with a "box-cutter" in order to open them? And unless they want to leave opened boxes all over this rat-infested warehouse, shouldn't they also have packing tape to seal them up again? But, we are told that the only thing the order-fillers walked around with was a clipboard. Alright, so they get there with their clipboard, and then what? How do they access the boxes on top of the stacks? There is no ladder. Let's look at some more writing:

3219? What could that possibly stand for? How could that possibly help anybody? What does it say underneath? LETS DRIVE? Who the pluck knows. Do you realize that with all the images we have of the book stacks, we don't have a single one with legible writing?

Frazier, you need to tell us, in minute detail, what you did, how you operated, as an order-filler. I'm not interested in your other shit. Yeah, I know, Oswald was a nice guy; he liked kids; he liked to play with the kids; he liked animals, he liked to pet the animals, blah, blah, blah, blah. Shut the pluck up about that, Frazier. Now tell us about the business. Tell us about your work. Tell us how you were able to find anything in that maze, in that mess. Because: I don't believe there was a real book-distributing business going on there. I think it was all a shell, a sham, and a facade. And before you leave this world, you need to tell us what was really going on there.    

This is a very important statement by the late Harold Norman.


He said that he saw Oswald 30 minutes before the motorcade on the 1st floor. Well, that's exactly what Oswald said, that he went to the 1st floor lunch room, the domino room, to eat lunch, and he saw Junior (Jarmin) and another negro who was short (Norman). It's in the Fritz Notes.
Morning of the 23rd refers to the time of the interview. 11-21-63 is a mistake; Fritz obviously meant 11-22-63. So, Oswald said that two negroes came in; one was Junior Jarmin, and the other was a short guy (definitely a reference to Norman). It's not clear what "ask?" means, but Oswald's lunch consisted of cheese sandwiches + apple. So, when he was at the 1st floor lunch room, Oswald saw Jarman and Norman. He didn't say that he ate with them, but that he saw them while he was eating or when he went to eat. Oswald didn't eat with anybody. He wasn't very friendly. All that friendliness that he showed to people in Russia never surfaced at the TSBD. He was a loner there; a recluse. The only time he talked to people is when he needed something from them. 

But, the point is that Oswald's spotting and citing of Jarman and Norman was definitely a reference to the 12:00 time frame. Some loudmouthed fools on McAdams forum try to make it that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room close to 12:30 and spotted Jarman and Norman as they re-entered the building to go up to the 5th floor. No, that is not what he said and not what he meant. He was talking about early in the lunch break. Basically: they broke for lunch and Oswald went and ate lunch. And why wouldn't he? He had nothing else to do. And he hadn't eaten that day. All he had that morning at Ruth Paine's house was coffee. So, why would he have put off eating lunch? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

And then there are the foolish Prayermanites who claim that Oswald was eating lunch in the doorway at 12:30, that the "other employees" were the doorway gang, that Oswald was eating with them as he watched the motorcade, a reference to Prayer Man. 

I'll tell you again that the whole Prayer Man clip is HIGHLY suspect. Its incongruities are so great, it should be rejected out of hand as an elaborate fraud. It did not even surface until 29 years after the assassination. And it exists only as a clip- not within an intact film. And there is no excuse for that. It is foolish to think that somebody took scissors to these films. 

Oswald's doings during the lunch break are very simple. He went to the lunch on the first floor in the domino room- which is where he always PUT his lunch when he arrived in the morning and where he always ATE his lunch. So, he ate his lunch there, and when he finished he may have read the newspaper, which he often did. And then he went to the entrance and looked out through the glass, and that is when Carolyn Arnold spotted him through the glass. That's the nice thing about glass; you can see through it. The time is in question. The FBI agent who wrote down what she said made it 12:15, but it was probably later than that, like 12:25. That's what Professor Gerald McKnight thinks. The FBI agent was trying to leave enough time for Oswald to get up to the 6th floor, which is why he made it 12:15. But, the truth is that even 12:15 is extremely exonerating for Oswald, which is why the higher-ups at the FBI got rid of it. They didn't want any reports of anyone seeing Oswald close to the time of the assassination. 

But, after peering through the glass, Oswald went out the door and took a position right in the center of the doorway on the landing. So really, he just went through the door and walked 3 feet to the edge of the landing. And that is where he stood during the motorcade. That is where his image was captured by Ike Altgens and by Dave Wiegman.  And it was from there that he went back through the door and turned right at the stairwell, taking the one-flight of stairs up to the 6th floor, and walking through the office area to the lunch room in the northwest corner, where he had his encounter with Truly and Baker. Oswald reached the lunch room a couple of seconds before Baker. Baker spotted Oswald entering the lunch room from the office side. So, Oswald did NOT come down 4 flights of stairs from the 6th floor on that side of the building; he came up 1 flight of stairs from the opposite side of the building which was caddy-corner. 

And those were all of Oswald's doings from 11:50 to 12:31. He may have had a bathroom stop in-between, but that's it. He didn't go anywhere else, and he didn't do anything else. 

Thursday, February 23, 2017

You have to understand something: there are men, and there are clothes. Men differ. Each and every one is distinct and unique, and no two are the same, except for identical twins. 

But, there is no connection whatsoever between men and clothes. Any man can wear any clothes. 

So, even if two men look alike, there is NO likelihood from that, that they will also dress alike. It doesn't spill over. It's like a separate drawing in the lottery. 

But, in this case, we have a very good likeness of the man, and we also have a very good likeness of the clothes.

And it goes way beyond the limits of reason to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald LOOKED that much alike and also DRESSED that much alike. Just from being co-workers at the same company? 

Here is a group of ATI employees. You see any two men or any two women there who look and dress the same?

Point out the Oswald and Lovelady equivalents to me. 

Here's a group of BSU employees:

Again: where are the Oswald/Lovelady equivalents as per the official story?

This is a company called Newell Brands.

The world of clothing is vast. This is reality. This involves stepping out of the dark, twisted, corrupt, evil world of JFK and getting into the light. This is real. And this is the same man. They look the same and are dressed the same because they are the same man. 

Oswald and Lovelady did not look alike, and they certainly did not dress alike. The likeness we see above- in both the man and the clothing- can only come from it being the same man. 

Trump spoke of politics being a swamp. Well, if politics is a swamp, then the JFK realm is a cesspool. 

This collage is best at showing how matching the shirt is between Oswald and Doorman. Oswald's shirt had a fine grain, and you can think of it like the fine grain of a piece of wood. And in the direct light, it would often reflect the light, as you can see on the right. He didn't spill flour on his shirt. That is light reflection. And the net effect was to give the shirt a mottled look. Mottled. That's the word. Both look mottled. And, the very layout, with the open sprawl, and the exposed t-shirt, and the sunken collar on the t-shirt, and this:

The only way Oswald and Lovelady could have been dressed that much alike is if they required the wearing of uniforms at the TSBD. But, they didn't. And the idea that Oswald and Lovelady just woke up that morning and did it spontaneously? Anyone older than 3 should know that that didn't happen.