Monday, March 19, 2018

Somebody put this image up on Facebook without comment, and I presume he is a supporter of the despicable, moronic, imbecilic  Prayermanites.

It is a bogus image.  You hear me? Freaks, like the guy top center and the microencephalic guy on the left, do not exist in Nature. They're not human. And who are all those people crowding the doorway? It was less than 10 seconds after the last shot. Officer Marrion Baker hadn't even reached the steps yet, and he said he got there within 10 seconds. How could the doorway here be populated so totally different from the other images of the doorway. Here it is compared to the Wiegman doorway, taken just a few seconds before.
And frankly, this one is pretty freaky too. What is Sigmund Freud with a highly muscular arm wearing a toga doing there?

They have been screwin' with the doorway images since Day 1, and it's our minds that have been getting screwed. Every single one of the doorway images have been tampered with, but none more so than this:

 This is noise.  This is a "baiting the buffs" thing. They say it's from the Darnell film, but pluck that. I don't know where the hell it came from. 

Sunday, March 18, 2018

I am putting this up, which I received in a bulk email, because I think it has a bearing on JFK assassination truth. If there were an economic collapse due to the impossible finances of the U.S. government, then JFK assassination truth might just erupt overnight.  

Unpayable! America's debt is hellish!

At $21 trillion, the U.S. national debt is not even a number anymore. It's becoming abstract.

Most Americans don't even know it exists since the ramifications of running such a bloated-up deficit have never stopped the country from paying its obligations.

The U.S. government doesn't miss a payment, ever, but here's a snapshot of its financial situation:

The Federal deficit, which is the difference between the expenditures made by Congress and the money collected through taxes, stands at over $730B, but that's small compared to the US Federal spending, already approved by the president of over $4 trillion.

To repay it, every citizen will need to come up with $65,000; put differently, each taxpayer will need to send the Federal government a $175,000 check.

Medicare payments already cost $1.2 trillion, with social security coming in second at $1 trillion.

The debt to GDP ratio sits at 106%, which is more than most other nations on the planet.

Given the choice between loaning the Federal government money or holding a piece of burning coal, it might be a less painful notion to get burned.

I have seen some wild interest payments due by populations in my travels around the globe, but a country, which pays $2.6 trillion a year, when combining household, state level, Federal level, and businesses combined, should take a close, hard look at what has gone wrong.

On average, every family in America is $850,000 in debt, when dividing total debt by the number of families, while total savings per family stand at a "whopping" $4,345 – it's a joke.

We're at the end of the road for this experiment. The fuse is shortening.

Thomas Beck
David Caban Well said Ralph

Tony Conner You can create reasonable doubt of both Oswald and Ruby just by watching youtube videos of the eye witnesses most of which were never called by the very flawed Warren Commission!

Good job Ralph!...

Ralph Cinque Thank you, Richard MchughDavid Caban, and Tony Conner. Many who realize that Oswald was innocent have a hard time wrapping their head around Ruby being innocent too, but what they need to realize is that authorities were in trouble. Oswald was prevented from seeing a lawyer, and they couldn't keep that up much longer without making it obvious that his civil rights were being violated. They knew that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and that his lawyer or lawyers would run with it. And, they knew that all the awful things they did, such as faking the Backyard photos and the paper trail of him mail-ordering a rifle from Chicago that he could have bought at any K-Mart in Dallas, was going to materialize in court, that HIS trial would soon become THEIR trial. They knew that his wife Marina, instead of being THEIR witness, would be HIS witness, as long as he was alive, that she too would deny his possessing the rifle, deny his having gone to Mexico City, deny his having posed for the Backyard photos, and denied her having taken them. They also knew that the very meager fingerprint evidence they had would never hold up in court, that the Defense would bring in their own forensic experts to refute it. In a word, NOTHING they had on Oswald, which they had brandished to the press, would hold up in court. Could Wesley Frazier withstand cross examination by a hostile attorney? They knew he couldn't. And they knew that Oswald was an excellent advocate for himself, that he could deny the charges very convincingly and persuasively to a jury. So, they DESPERATELY needed him dead. And then what happened? They just got lucky that Jack Ruby came along and took care of it for them? Uhn uh. They took care of it themselves. And who pushed for it? The guy who was most on the line: Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was Johnson, who had previously hired and paid for off-duty Dallas detectives, like Boyd and Sims, to be his personal bodyguards, who went to them and commissioned them to do something- for the sake of the Kennedy family, for the sake of the American people, and for the sake o preventing a nuclear war, to end the national nightmare and let American life return to normal- for everybody. That is what happened. Luck had nothing to do with it. The people who twist the story to make it that Ruby was involved in the JFK assassination, that he knew Oswald, and that he killed him to silence him, are doing the bidding of the real killers, who love it when they say that. They say it themselves, such as when they publish ridiculous stories about Ruby going to Dealey Plaza to "watch the fireworks" and revealing his foreknowledge to someone he barely knew. The truth is just the opposite: that Ruby knew nothing, and he did nothing. He was just a guy with a weird devotion to and adoration for the Dallas Police, and they knew he would believe anything they told him. The carnival show they enacted in the City Hall basement stands alone in the annals of police history as the most elaborate farce of false and fabricated evidence ever concocted. What it depended on was the respect that everyone had for the Dallas police and the credibility that everyone gave to them. But, that was 1963, and this is 2018. There is no reason for anyone to fall for the con today. The jig, as they say, is up.

Saturday, March 17, 2018

This 1941 jazz standard has the distinction of being the first song that Frank Sinatra ever recorded as a solo artist. It was composed by Matt Dennis with lush lyrics by Tom Adair. I know of no other song that refers to "the song of the spheres." It is the ultimate song of loss, of someone's bleak world following a breakup, and no other song expresses it better. I give you: The Night We Called It A Day

There is a rumor circulating on Facebook that this is Oswald receiving firearm instruction from David Ferrie.

There are only two times, that we know of, that Oswald had any association with David Ferrie. The first was when he was in the Civil Air Patrol, which was before he enlisted in the Marines, and he enlisted at age 17. So that would mean when he was 16 or younger, and that man is obviously older than 16. And the other time was the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. But, look how much hair that guy has compared to Oswald, who below is leafletting at the Trade Mart. 

So, I don't think that guy is Oswald, although I admit he looks like him. Could he be an Oswald double? I suppose so, but I don't believe he is the Oswald of fame. 

Look at the weird part in the mystery man's hair.

Were two heads merged together there? In back, the hair is darker and higher, while in front the lighting of the hair is different, and there is a weird part going across from side to side. I have never seen anyone's hair do that, have you? Is this a composite image? And we know that there are composite images of Oswald. So, what I would suggest to you is that this whole image is fake. 

Friday, March 16, 2018

How stupid does one have to be to put any stock at all in the claims of Tom Tilson? He was an off-duty Dallas policeman who claimed to see Jack Ruby fleeing the Grassy Knoll in a dark sedan after throwing an "object" in the car, presumably a rifle. As one researcher put it: to say that Tilson's story is flimsy is an insult to Mr. Flim. 

So, according to Tilson, Jack Ruby was a JFK shooter; he was the Grassy Knoll shooter- the one who took the fatal shot. So, we are supposed to believe that when Dulles and Johnson and company were out to kill JFK, that besides Oswald they picked Jack Ruby to do the shooting- thinking that he was the best sniper/assassin there was- and one they could really trust.

So, Jack Ruby goes running down the Grassy Knoll with a rifle, but only Tilson saw him. I realize there were others claiming to see Ruby, such as Jean Hill, but with a rifle? Keep in mind that we are talking about the immediate aftermath of the JFK shooting, a time at which Jack Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News tending to his ads, for which there were multiple witnesses, including the advertising editor, the entertainment editor, the secretary, and more. 

After supposedly giving chase to the guy in vain, Tilson claims he went to a pay phone and called the DPD to report it, giving the license plate number, but nothing came of it. Nothing came of it? He said they never got back to him. They never got back to him? If he had the license plate number, why didn't he look up the owner of the vehicle himself? He was a cop, right? So, what did Tilson do next? What he did next was wait until 1978 to report it to the HSCA, claiming to have thrown away the license plate number. You see, his wife died, and he decided to clean out the house, and that scrap of paper was taking up too much room.

Tilson testified at the 1984 mock trial of Oswald in England, but apparently, the jury gave him no credence at all because they voted unanimously to convict. That was 12 people in 1984, but here it is 2018, and there is a self-promoting "researcher" Gary Fannin who is still drooling over Tilson's claims, as if there is any substance to them.  

Do you understand that anyone can claim anything? That when it comes to lip-wagging, there are no limits on what can be said? There are so many holes, so many doubts, and so many incongruities about Tilson's story, including his own inexplicable behavior, that what you are left with is nothing. Absolutely nothing. You have absolutely nothing to take to the bank and deposit. After listening to the whole thing, the intelligent person is just going to cast it aside as useless. 

And keep in mind that Tilson did accept Oswald being on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, and he said so at the mock trial. He just thought that Ruby (or an extreme lookalike of Ruby) was also a shooter. 

Tilson's story is so incredulous that not even Oliver Stone went for it- and he went for a lot of bogus stuff, e.g., Carolyn Arnold's 1978 revised story, the New Orleans telex story, etc. 

A 12 year old could tell you that there is nothing to take home from this, that Tilson was just another opportunist seeking to have his own JFK cottage industry. That anyone in 2018 still gets excited about Tilson is amazing. What is wrong with people like Gary Fannin? I can tell you what's wrong with him: he's an idiot.  


Thursday, March 15, 2018

I would be willing to debate anyone about the JFK assassination, but only on my terms. Usually, such debates center around the number of shots, the wounds, the reactions of the victims, the Single Bullet Theory, and whether there were multiple shooters. But, that's all completely and totally irrelevant to Oswald because he wasn't on the 6th floor, and he didn't have, own, operate, or ever order a rifle.  And Oswald is the only thing that matters to me. Well, Jack Ruby matters to me too, but that's a separate debate. But, the central debate is whether Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent or guilty, and that debate I will accept any time, any place, any how, anywhere, and with anyone.

And if my opponent tried to change the subject by going off on all that JFKing stuff, about shots and wounds and reactions, etc., I would stop him and say, "That's irrelevant because my client was not on the Sixth Floor, and he had nothing to do with what happened on lower Elm Street." And, I would tell him that the only argumentative right he has is to argue something that pertains directly to Oswald. 

At the recent mock trial in Houston, the prosecution put on a witness, a forensic guy, who claimed that all of the shots were taken from the 6th floor window and that they all could be forensically linked to the rifle found on the 6th floor. I don't believe that for a second, but regardless, even if it were true, Oswald didn't own a rifle and he wasn't on the 6th floor. So, it doesn't matter even if the guy is right, which he isn't. 

It's only evidence against Oswald that matters. I'll say it again: it's only evidence against Oswald that matters. 

So, what is the evidence against Oswald? There is Howard Brennan. But, Brennan said that the man he saw at the 6th floor window was in his early 30s, and Oswald was 24. And Brennan said that the man he saw weighed 165 to 170 pounds, and Oswald weighed 131. And note that this kind of "eye-witness" is notorious for being wrong. Most of the men that Barry Scheck and The Innocence Project have gotten off and saved from execution with DNA testing were put on Death Row by such an "eye witness".

There were other eye-witnesses but none of them were beyond reproach and all of them cited features that were in conflict with Oswald. I'm not going to go into them here and now, although I would in a formal debate. But, the idea that any or all of them rise in credibility beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt is preposterous.

You should realize that the very first question that police interrogators would have for a murder suspect, if he denied guilt, is: Where were you then at the time of the crime? And, do you realize that the official record provides no clear answer in Oswald's case? We have "out with Bill Shelley in front" from the Fritz Notes, but Fritz died without revealing the existence of those notes. And not only that, he denied even taking such notes. And what he told the Warren Commission was that Oswald gave for his alibi that he was eating lunch with "other employees" at the time of the shots. And, that is so preposterous, it is laughable. It is crystal-clear that Fritz lied through his teeth. He told them Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees at the time of the shooting, but Oswald never said that, and he never did that. Oswald was anti-social at the TSBD.  In Russia: social. At the TSBD: anti-social. Period. That's how he was. And, if you want to speculate as to why, go ahead; knock yourself out. But, he certainly didn't eat lunch with anybody on 11/22,  nor on any other day that he worked there.   

Plus, if Oswald used "other employees" as his alibi, then police would surely insist that he name them. You've watched Law and Order. But, Fritz didn't name them, and the WC interrogator (Joseph Ball) didn't ask him for them; he just moved on. Ball wasn't interested. Do you understand the significance of that?  

According to Bookhout and Hosty, Oswald's alibi was that he was on the 1st floor at the time of the shots. But, the 1st floor was as big as a city block, and nobody would give an area that big as his alibi. 


The paper trail of Oswald supposedly ordering the rifle from Klein Hardware has been completely destroyed by John Armstrong. 

And that means that you can't link the rifle to Oswald, and that in itself, forces an acquittal.

What about the print evidence against Oswald? There is no evidence. That is, there is nothing that rises to the level of evidence. The Dallas PD twice declared that they could find no prints of Oswald. It was after that the FBI claimed to find a partial fingerprint on the trigger-guard and a palm print on the butt of the rifle. But, do you know what a claim is? It's just a lip-wag; that's all. And those claims were never subjected to challenge by Oswald's attorneys and the forensic experts they would have brought in. And just think about how little we know. How many points of match did they claim to find on the trigger-guard? How come the details of the fingerprint examination and the conclusion drawn from it were never released? In this case, don't you think it was appropriate to give us the details? It's not as though in this case the FBI was beyond reproach.  And why would something as large as a palm print on the flat surface of the rifle butt not have been found while Oswald was still alive?  The fact that it was only "discovered" after he was killed in police custody screams out loud with doubt. 

So, if anyone tried to cite that, the prints evidence, in a debate, I would tell them that it is "unestablished", that Oswald and his attorneys never had a chance to challenge it and refute it, and no evidence other than the mere claim of it has ever been presented. Therefore, it is not bankable, that is, it is NOT like money in the bank, in their account. 

And actually, the claim is even more suspect and actually damaging to their case when paired with John Armstrong's case for why Oswald never ordered a rifle. You have to know what trumps what. If Oswald never ordered and owned a rifle, and then you claim his fingerprint was found on the rifle, that makes you look bad- not Oswald. Now, YOU have to explain why that fingerprint is there if he never owned the rifle. 

So, this is like a game of rock/paper/scissors, and when they proffer the argument that Oswald's fingerprint was found on the rifle, the evidence that he never ordered or owned one is like the rock that smashes the scissors that is their argument. 

The same thing applies to the Backyard photos. If Oswald never ordered or owned the rifle, how could he have posed with it? However, the Backyard photos can be discredited directly just by examining them. And that includes recent finds, such as by Amy Joyce, that in one Backyard Photo his ring is on his left hand, and in another, on the right. And, I hope you realize that it is preposterous to think that Oswald would have fiddled with his ring during the photo shoot. 

"Wait a second, Marina. Let's try it with my ring on the other hand."

His shirt fibers clung to the butt of the rifle? Did you read the testimony, how the FBI expert hemmed and hawed, that you can't be sure, that it's not certain, etc. etc.? And when was that claim ever subjected to scrutiny and contest? What do you think Oswald's lawyers would have done with it? Don't you think they would have brought in their own forensic expert and their own clothing expert?

What else is there? There isn't anything else. And that's why I say that there is nothing at all. There is no case against Oswald. Plus, there are two photos of him standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. Not one; but two. And who knows how many others were destroyed.

It is really part of the sickness of 21st century America that the claim that Oswald shot Kennedy is still on the books and supported by both government and media. It is going to collapse; there is no doubt about that.  It should have collapsed already. All we have in this country today is Pravda. The corporate (read: fascist) media does not challenge government decrees. It does not challenge official versions of history.  And what is really disgusting is that sometimes they give air-time to some moron who says, "The government is hiding something because Oswald met with so-and-so in Mexico City, and they blah, blah, blah." Noise. Distraction. That's all it is.   And it's all going to come crashing down. Let's hope we all live long enough to see it.  

Here is another great collage by the Wizard that really says it all. Boyd and his partners were working for LBJ, and that includes on November 22, 1963.

Another great find by the Wizard, an LBJ campaign stop photo with Detective Richard Sims of the Dallas PD working for Johnson.

So, that is Sims circled in red. How much closer could he have gotten to Johnson? And you know what my conviction is: that the Dallas Police did what they did, which was to kill Oswald and frame Ruby, on order of LBJ. "A long protracted trial will paralyze this nation. We must end the nightmare for the Kennedy family and the American people." That, or some such shit, is what he must have told them. I really believe that. And they, of course, believed that Oswald had killed their friend JD Tippit, whose family did things with Boyd's family on weekends, according to Boyd. So, they were willing to obey the Commander in Chief and do his bidding. That is really what I think happened.  
You should watch this presentation by Stephen Fagan, the Curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, who succeeded Gary Mack. It concerns an LBJ campaign stop on November 4, 1960, just three weeks before the election, in which a hostile crowd badgered him and gave him a hard time. 

And guess who was the head of Johnson's Security Detail. It was Detective Elmer Boyd of the Dallas PD. Fagan didn't mention it, but also there as Boyd's partner Sims. 

And, the Wizard thinks that Detective Hall may have been there too. So, we're talking about these three:

So, there they are with Bookhout, two minutes after the Oswald shooting, and he was then released and resumed being James Bookhout. It's interesting that the trio who were previously assigned to escort Oswald were replaced by Leavelle and Graves. They must have been waiting in the jail office to receive Bookhout, whom they swifted up to the 3rd floor, where the above picture was taken. It's actually a film frame. 

But, the point is that these guys were tight with Johnson even before he became Vice President. They worked for him before he became Vice President. Don't you think it's likely that Boyd knew Johnson? That they conversed, face to face? I do. But, one thing is absolutely certain: that man in the center is NOT Jack Ruby. He is supposed to be Jack Ruby, but he is NOT Jack Ruby. And that image alone, by itself, tells you that Jack Ruby was framed and innocent.  
Here, the Wizard compares the arrangement in 1963 to the arrangement in 1978 in the tv movie, Ruby and Oswald.

So, it was revised even in 1978. And we don't know when it was done. Is it possible that they started revising it right away? We know they revised the doorway of the Book Depository, enlarging the landing, making it deeper.

That distance, if I recall correctly, is over 9 feet, which is much deeper than it was in 1963. So, they removed the glass doors and wall and built new doors farther back. And that brick-lay is also new and different. Of course, the biggest change was removing the median handrail and replacing it with two side handrails. And those side handrails are quite far from the wall. It changes the angle to a photographer in Altgens position quite a lot. For the record, I still maintain that Carl Jones, the black man at the bottom-west of the doorway, was not captured by Altgens' camera.

You realize that in the Altgens photo, Doorman's right shoulder is cut off:

It's cut off not because he was behind the column. He was nowhere near it. It was cut off because of the parallax effect; because of the angle. And the diagonal line shows you the division between what Altgen's camera could see and what it could not see.

And as you can see, Carl Jones is almost entirely within the zone of what Altgens could not see. Therefore, the image of the black man in the Altgens photo is fake. It was taken from a Phil Willis slide and pieced in.
I have been saying this for years, and it has been on the OIC website for years. And my conviction about it is stronger than ever. 
Yes, you can easily see the old wall inside the double doors, and that is where the old double doors were.

Why did they do all this? Was it just to alter the scene of the crime? It's hard to imagine why it would be worth all that expense. What did they get? 
So here, thanks again to the Wizard, is how it looks internally, and you can see that the other double doors, that were there in 1963, are gone.

But, if you look closely, you can see that there is still an archway there. So, that, I presume, is where the old double doors were. 
This image of Hugh Aynesworth standing in the garage was sent to me by the Wizard. And the reason he sent it was to remind me that those glass double doors are not the double doors of fame. They were added. Essentially, the "cubby-hole" (as I like to call it) was done away with. So, where those doors are is about where the shooting took place, and the other double doors (with which we are familiar) are, presumably, no longer there. 

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Someone made this: a layout of the frames from the NBC film of the Oswald shooting, which is the one that was televised, reportedly in real time.  But, it can't include every frame. How could it go from 5 to 6 in 1/18th second? 

But, it does show what happened, and it plainly shows that Jim Leavelle did not "jerk" Oswald anywhere. That was an outrageous lie. And then compare 6 to 11, in which Oswald changes direction from forward to back.

What could have caused that change in direction except Oswald himself? And how could he change direction if his major blood vessels were blown out? Isn't that too much "doing" under the circumstance? Shouldn't he just have gone down? 

And look how the shooter seems to crouch after he shoots.

The shooter did that himself. Nobody pushed him down. Why would he do that? To reduce his visibility. It had nothing to do with escaping, just not being recognized for who he was. And note that Leavelle said that he "caught a hold of Jack Ruby's shoulder, his left shoulder, and shoved back on it, at the same time pulling on Oswald." But, in the frame above, Oswald is already gone, and Leavelle has not yet made contact with the shooter. He certainly hasn't shoved him anywhere. So, that was another lie; a bold-faced lie, told on November 24, the very day of the shooting.  

Look at frame 4. You see LC Graves and you see the shooter, yet, you are expected to believe that Graves does not see him and is not aware of him, even though he is definitely in his visual field. Peripheral vision is almost 90 degrees in each eye, hence, almost 180 degrees total. 

And, it is just as strange that Oswald doesn't see the shooter. And Leavelle claimed to see "Ruby" coming in, but it's obvious that he wasn't even looking in his direction as he came in.

And look how Oswald disappears between frames 15 and 16.

Oswald is completely gone in the #16 frame, and even allowing for it being several frames later, it seems awfully fast. It seems like a vanishing act, doesn't it? And when you watch it in the film, it seems like a vacuum sucking him down. It's woosh, and he's gone. I have no doubt that this effect was achieved by the removal of frames. 

All in all, what this tells us is that this was a staged act, in which they were all involved: Leavelle, Oswald, Graves, and the Shooter. There is nothing real about any of it. 

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

This is a receipt I got at Walmart yesterday. Now, they have an inspector standing at the door who inspects your goods and looks at your receipt and makes sure you paid for everything. Has shoplifting been on the rise? Of course, they do that at Costco as well, but they always have. 
The guy who inspected my products and drew the yellow line happened to be an 85 year old man. That's my honest opinion of his age, and I'm pretty good at estimating ages. Nice guy. Very friendly. So, I asked him if he thought anyone could get by him without being seen, and his response was, "Not a chance."

And I believe him. The span of that exit hallway is probably 3X the width of the Main Street ramp. But, I'm sure he can do it. 

Yet, we are supposed to believe that a 29 year old policeman, Roy Vaughan, who was guarding an 8 foot wide ramp, couldn't keep Jack Ruby out; that he just didn't see him. But wait: it's much worse than that. At the time that Ruby supposedly snuck in, it wasn't just Vaughan there. There was Lt. Sam "Rio" Pierce plus two other officers, Putnam and Maxie, who were riding in his car. So, there were 4 police officers there at the time, and all on high-alert, and yet none of them saw Jack Ruby as he walked on in. 

Now, do you believe that? I am asking YOU if in the year of Our Lord 2018, YOU believe that. Because: if YOU believe that, there is something wrong with you. If you believe that, you have not only drunk the Kool-Aid; you have guzzled it. 

And note that Ruby did say that he got in that way- through the Main Street ramp. And considering that he took responsibility for shooting Oswald, which is to say that he believed that he did it because Dallas Police told him that he did, why would he lie about how he got in? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. 

However, some have tried to resolve this by claiming that Ruby did lie, that he got in a different way, that somebody opened a door for him somewhere else. But, just think about it a minute. If that were true, it would mean that the Dallas Police conspired WITH Ruby to kill Oswald. But, think about the nature of conspiracies. People conspire together because they all expect to win. They all expect to come out winners. How could there be a conspiracy where some conspirators jump on another conspirator, then drag him off, accuse him of murder, strip him down to his underwear, have a doctor do a rectal exam on him (to search for guns in his rectum, which they did not do to Oswald) and then charge him, prosecute him, testify against him, and aid in every way the prosecutor who got for him the death penalty. How could they be conspiring together? The whole idea that Ruby conspired WITH the Dallas Police to kill Oswald is just plain stupid; incredibly stupid.

So, that makes no sense, and 4 cops being in an 8 foot wide ramp and not seeing Ruby enter and go down the ramp also makes no sense.  The only thing left is that Ruby did exactly what he said he did- enter thru the Main Street ramp- but he did it EARLIER. He got there earlier. And when he got there, Pierce was alone in his squad car, and the cop on foot was not Roy Vaughan, whom Ruby knew. Ruby claimed not to recognize the cop on foot, and he surely would have recognized Vaughan. He knew Roy Vaughan. Among other things, Vaughan had forgiven a driving infraction that Ruby had made- he cut him some slack and didn't ticket him because Ruby was a friend of the department. So, how is Ruby not going to remember him? 

Roy Vaughan was as solid as the day is long. He went on to become the Chief of Police in a neighboring city, and then after that, he went on to become a Municipal Judge. And he swore, to his dying day, that Ruby did not get past him at that ramp. He believed that Ruby must have entered another way. But, the truth is that Ruby entered that way- BUT BEFORE VAUGHAN GOT THERE. That's the answer. There is no other way Ruby could have gotten in- WITHOUT HELP. And if he got help, then the Dallas Police were colluding with him, and that is impossible. So, there really is no alternative: Ruby entered thru the Main Street ramp but at an earlier time- before Roy Vaughan got there. 

Roy Vaughan received an official reprimand from the Dallas Police Department for letting Ruby in-  thru his negligence.  Why didn't they reprimand Pierce, Putnam, and Maxie as well? They had eyes, didn't they? They were on high-alert, weren't they? There's no logical explanation. 

It's 2018, people. The days of believing government lies is long over, isn't it? There is no excuse for anyone to believe the official story of the Oswald assassination. It's a crock, people. Just as the official story of the JFK assassination is a crock, so is the official story of the Oswald assassination. If you don't realize it, you need to take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror. 

Monday, March 12, 2018

Billy Lovelady never said that he saw Oswald at the Dallas PD- not even when two federal investigators asked him when was the last time he saw Oswald. Both times, he said it was when they broke for lunch. They never qualified the question by saying when did you last see him at the TSBD. So, if he was trying to be helpful and cooperative, wouldn't he have mentioned the PD sighting?

And apparently, he never mentioned it to his wife Patricia either, since she never mentioned it- and she was a big talker. 

When unusual things happen, people tend to talk about it. And, how about when historic things happen?

I had an uncle who fought in WW2, and he had two interactions with Dwight Eisenhower. Once, they bumped into each other in a London store- and I mean that literally; they bumped into each other. And then, on the day before the D-Day invasion, Eisenhower was visiting the troops to boost morale, and my uncle showed him the modifications that were made to his Willys jeep to waterproof it. They put a waxy putty over the electrical parts, and they installed 10 foot vertical extensions to the carburetor and tailpipe so that the jeep could breathe underwater. Upon seeing it, Eisenhower said to my uncle, "Do you think this is going to work, Son?" And my uncle said: "I don't see why not, Sir." 

And it did work. My uncle drove that jeep down the ramp of the landing craft mechanized he was on into water that was 4 feet over his head. He drove out of the ocean- holding his breath- only to surface into a gale of gunfire and mortars.

But, the point is that he talked about his encounters with Eisenhower. But, Lovelady never talked about his encounter with Oswald at the Dallas PD. It is strong prima-facie evidence that it never happened.

And, the fact is that the film evidence that goes along with the claim is crying out-loud phony. There are two different images of Lovelady at the desk, and they don't agree with each other, nor do  they agree with any other images of Lovelady. But, it's worse than that. None of the images of Lovelady agree with each other, and they all appear to be altered and falsified. There is only one image of Billy Lovelady that we can have complete confidence in, and that is the unauthorized one taken by Mark Lane. And when we compare that image to Doorway Man, we can plainly see that they are different men. The ears alone tell you. Look how Lovelady's ears stuck out. 

The official story of the JFK assassination is truly dead. The only thing holding it up is the power of the government and the media. The situation is very much like that of the Emperor who wore no clothes- where all his subjects were afraid to speak of it. But, the truth isn't going away. The evidence, including powerful photographic evidence, isn't going to disappear. Oswald will be vindicated, and nothing can stop it. Anytime anyone says that Oswald killed Kennedy they are just repeating a Statist lie, a totalitarian lie. And that lie will collapse, just as the lies of the totalitarian USSR collapsed. When totalitarianism is the only thing holding up a lie, its days are numbered. 

Saturday, March 3, 2018

The following was sent to me by OIC senior member Dr. Thomas Halle.

Just thought I'd remind a few friends of how corrupt (and criminal) the entire JFK case (and follow-up whitewash) was (and how the Warren Report was absolutely BOGUS (and politically motivated). Here is a picture of someone cleaning up the presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital (and protected by a Dallas policeman) (thus destroying evidence, known in the trade as "Obstruction of Justice")(or, as the Brits say, "Perversion of Justice"). President Kennedy was clearly a "sitting duck" as his limo turned onto Elm St., and entered Dealey Plaza, at the same time entering the cross-fire of at least three snipers (none of whom was Lee Harvey Oswald).

Below are a witness Bill Newman and the acting Kennedy press secretary Malcolm Kilduff demonstrating the location of the location of the President's fatal head shot, totally debunking the Warren Commission's claim of a "Single Bullet Theory" and their insistence that all the shots came from the rear.

So, how much longer can the Big Lie continue? I don't know, but it definitely won't be forever.