Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Watch this short video of Officer Roy Vaughn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WePowzq1nmE 


I believe Roy Vaughn, and I honor the man. He is absolutely right that Jack Ruby did not come down that ramp ON HIS WATCH. It was before his watch that Jack Ruby came down the ramp. And I can prove it: Jack Ruby knew Sam Pierce and recognized him at the ramp. But, he did not recognize the officer on foot who was talking to Pierce. But, Jack Ruby KNEW Roy Vaughn. ROY VAUGHN HAD FORGIVEN A TRAFFIC VIOLATION FOR RUBY. He stopped him; he pointed out the infraction to him; but, he didn't ticket him, as a courtesy, since he was a friend of the Department. SO, HOW WAS JACK RUBY GOING TO FORGET OR NOT RECOGNIZE ROY VAUGHN? He couldn't. He wouldn't. He didn't. So, it MUST have been another time that Ruby was there, at which they had another officer there. It was before Roy Vaughn began his shift. This is more evidence that I am right that Jack Ruby was arrested ahead of time, that he was already up on the 5th floor, stripped to his shorts, at the time the Garage Shooting took place.

There was no collaboration between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police. There couldn't be. There couldn't possibly be. The Dallas Police were prosecuting Ruby. They were testifying against him. From the witness stand, they were trashing him up and down, and he had to listen to it. Why would he take that? Why would he tolerate it if he knew that they were his partners in crime? Why wouldn't he sing like a canary? Why would he protect them if he knew that they smuggled him in? They didn't. But, I'm sure they guided him in. I'm sure that they had people at the ramp, so-called "spectators" at an incoming ramp, who were there to coax Jack Ruby down the ramp when he got there. And under the influence of the drug they got into him, his suggestibility quotient was sky-high. Jack Ruby was steered to the ramp and down the ramp, but not in a way that he knew that he was steered. It was done in a way that was beyond most everyone's imagination. And that's what they were counting on. That is how they expected to get away with it. 
Amy Joyce makes an interesting point, that there is TOO MUCH evidence against Oswald, too much convenient evidence: shells left in the Sniper's Nest, shells left at 10th and Patton (which required emptying the cylinder), a wallet left at the crime scene, a paper trail for ordering the rifle, (when, he easily could have bought a rifle anonymously anywhere in Dallas or Ft. Worth, and a better one than the Carcano). And why, if he was planning to go on a crime spree, would he have posed for the Backyard photos? It's just too much, and not a sign of his guilt, but rather, a sign of his being framed.

Amy Joyce:

Yes, absolutely, there were both curtains and blinds in his room.  It seems his room was quite long, but not very wide.  If you put the two photos up side by side, you can see that they go together and it's all Oswald's room, which indeed had curtains and blinds.

You know Oswald well so I think you will agree with me that Oswald was above-average intelligence and certainly not psychotic (as one would have to be to do what they claim he did).  He was certainly not dumb, yet, only a dumb person (or one wanting to get caught) would leave behind so much evidence; so much of a trail that would otherwise have been easy to avoid or dispose of (or at least made much more difficult to find).   An intelligent person would have snuck the rifle into the building a day or more before the event, and they wouldn't have transported it in an obvious wrap.  He'd have anticipated an intense investigation; of TSBD employees, including himself.  There would be no "bag", no photos of himself with the weapon, no letter(s), no paper trail of the purchase, and no prints (obviously there really wasn't anyway but the presence of any made it look like a set-up).  And he wouldn't allow himself to be seen with the rifle anytime before the shooting (by the window).  That's all elementary stuff, Crime 101, and since Oswald was into spy stories and was a former Marine, he'd have been more aware than the average person regarding what to do and not do.  The evidence and the "story" behind it should make sense, but it doesn't.  There comes a time when an unbiased person, without preconceived notions and ingrained conclusions,  says, "Enough!".  I did after realizing that the chain of evidence was repeatedly broken.  You have done an excellent job of picking apart different aspects of the "story" and pointing out how abnormal and unlikely various scenarios are.  It needs the critical analysis that you and others have given it because that's exactly what would have happened at a trial, had Oswald lived. And, that is what is needed today to determine Oswald's guilt or innocence. It is the right approach.  The Warren Commission Report should hold strong after getting critically examined, but it just falls apart!  



Amy Joyce sent me this image, which shows that Oswald's boarding room had both curtains and blinds.


Of course, the idea is that Oswald told an outrageous lie to coddle Frazier, but you and I know that he didn't because he had nothing to lie about; he was not returning to work with a rifle. So, who came up with the outrageous lie? Was it Frazier, or was it a suggestion from one of his interrogators? 

Amy pointed how defensive Frazier has become of Oswald, to assuage his own guilt, probably. But, one can only guess about the mental gymnastics he goes through to justify his actions and the role he played in railroading Oswald. He was the State's second most important witness after Marina Oswald. 

So, Mr. Frazier, if this is what you you claimed to see, and it's obvious just from looking at it that it couldn't possibly be a disassembled rifle:


And, we know it wasn't curtain rods either, so what do you think it was? It certainly wasn't his lunch, and according to you, he didn't bring any lunch. So again: what do you think it was, and why do you think Oswald wasn't truthful about it? 

Oswald said he had no rifle and brought no rifle. He said he never said anything to you about curtain rods. And he said he brought his lunch. So, you are still, to this day, calling him a liar. So, you can quit yacking about how much he liked children and start explaining the disparities between what you claim and what he claimed. There is a gap there. Do you understand that? And the evidence sides with him because we know his room had curtains, and he gave a detailed description of his lunch. And even though the Dallas Police didn't do it, that we know of, the fact is that they could have gone to that domino room and looked for the remnants of his lunch. And he, in effect, was inviting them to do that. So, he was very forthcoming, whereas you just spout your story about a 2-foot-long bag and then shrug your shoulders as to what it was. There is no credibility to your story, Buell. There is credibility to his, but not to yours. The time has come for you to stop spouting and starting looking within as to why you said the things you did. What did they do to you, Buell?   

Monday, January 15, 2018

Amy Joyce responds to my Frazier analysis

Hi Ralph,

I agree with your post about Frazier.  The "story" isn't logical and it's also surely something lawyers would have brought up in Oswald's defense.  Frazier's picture of his re-enactment of Oswald with the rifle/bag (with the "rifle" under his arm, parallel to his body) compared to the picture being paraded by the officer as he walked out of the TSBD doesn't match up.  As you pointed out, the latter looks rather neat and barely used.  It isn't torn and it's also not full of folds and creases.  At least not near as much as it would have been had it been used as Frazier described.  



LHO would have had to bring the rifle around with him on several occasions if we are to believe the WC.  To and from General Walker's house and also the shooting range, Oswald supposedly went with that rifle.  Did he make a bag and dispose of it each time?  Surely he'd of gotten a case or something like a gym back by the time of the biggest day of his life.  What about shells - where were they kept?  In his pants pocket along with his change?

This might be coming up in your part 3 but discovering that the Frazier's lived on the same street as the Paine's is too coincidental, especially since Buell was also very recently hired at the TSBD.  

How many coincidences and excuses are people expected to accept...and without question?  

The SS illegally took the body out of state (it ended up in considerably different condition than what witnesses recalled seeing).  
The SS took the limo out of state (it ended up getting rebuilt within days and also different from what witnesses recalled seeing).  
The limo was said to have stopped on Elm Street for a short time (oh, people were suffering from trauma and just thought the limo had stopped.  what about people half a block away that wasn't aware what had happened? A couple of them saw it stop).  
Smoke by fence?  That must have been witness imagination or occurred from car exhaust.  
The different reports regarding the number of shots people heard must have been due to echos.  The number heard just has to coincide with the amount of spent shells found....because.....? 
The dozens of witnesses that either saw multiple gunman or saw SS personnel where they shouldn't have been must have been lying. 
LHO thoughtlessly left a bread crumb trail of evidence for the police to follow (rifle at the scene, spent shells at the scene, condemning photos of himself with the murder weapons, an old letter to his wife admitting his guilt regarding Walker).  Yet he adamantly denied it all.  That doesn't sound like a man whom figured he'd get caught.
The lack of transcripts or tape recording of Oswald's interviews was due to you know....finance troubles.  We should take the word of proven liars, like Fritz and Leavelle. 

I'm sure there is much more, Ralph.  Add to it!
This is the end; the last song for a while, because Paul Popa is leaving in the morning, and I am going to give it a rest for a while. But, this is a very lovely one by Albert Hammond who is a native of Gibraltar, the tiny British territory at the southern tip of Spain. And the lyrics, which are beautiful and very visual, were written by Hal David, who is most famous for writing lyrics for Burt Bacharach. 

This song tells the story of a guy who is driving down Pacific Coast Highway towards L.A., and everything he does, everything he sees, and everything he hears, reminds him of the woman in his life, whom is heading to see. But, as you listen, you realize that he's really not sure she is going to be there. 

Having grown up in Southern California, and gone to the beach there many times, and having a close cousin who lives right on Pacific Coast Highway, the song seems very real and personal. The imagery of it is very easy for me to relate to. I can easily picture it. 

And I'll add that Paul Popa sought to give this song a Spanish flamenco flare, and I tried to follow his lead on that. So once again, this is a very unique version of a very nice song.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMTXhc8i5go&feature=youtu.be









  
This is Part III and the finale of my analysis of how they got Buell Frazier to say the things he did: that Oswald brought a large package to work, carried beneath his armpit, which he said was curtain rods.  

There are some strange things about Frazier's actions on 11/22. I already mentioned his claim of remaining in the car to run the engine to recharge the battery. I have driven from Irving to Dallas; quite a few times, because Irving is where I stay when I go to Dealey Plaza. And, I can tell you that it's a 30 minute freeway drive. So, that would have been plenty enough high rpm driving to recharge the battery. Plus, how did this issue of a low battery arise? Because: he didn't mention it as an issue the day before. So, did something happen overnight? Such as, did he leave his lights on all night? Well, if so, he would have said so, right? Then, he parked in the distant employee parking lot on Houston Street, rather than the close one next to the TSBD.  Another issue concerns the distance behind Oswald that Frazier walked as they traversed the 4 blocks to the building. At various times Frazier reported it as 10 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet, and by implication, much longer than that.  And then, he claimed that after the motorcade and the shooting he went to eat lunch in the basement. But, why did he wait to eat lunch? He, like everyone else, got off at 11:45, which was 15 minutes early, precisely to allow enough time to eat before the President arrived. So, that allowed 45 minutes, so what was he doing that he didn't eat during that time? Everyone else that we know of ate BEFORE the motorcade, so why didn't Frazier? And what really puts it in a bad light is that, supposedly, the President was going to pass the building, and then, they were all going to go back to work. The assassination wasn't expected, right? You see him, you wave, and that's it; it's back to work.  Therefore, why would Frazier think he was going to have time to eat lunch after the motorcade? 

And, I will go off on a slight tangent to say that the same applies to Oswald. Will Fritz claimed that Oswald said that he was eating lunch (with other employees) at the time of the motorcade. That's bull, but even theoretically, why would he put off eating when he expected they would all have to return to work right after the motorcade? So, that was a lie on Fritz' part. Fritz knew very well that Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the motorcade. He just didn't want to admit it. Oswald ate lunch early in lunch break, not at the time of the motorcade. 

But, getting back to Frazier, he said that after eating lunch, he left work sometime between 1 and 2 o'clock. OIC Chairman Larry Rivera pointed out that that is a very big window of time. Doesn't it seem like he could have narrowed it down more than that? 

And then Buell Frazier seemed to disappear. The Dallas Police were looking for him. They had several men searching for him. Once they realized that Frazier drove Oswald to work, suspicions about him (Frazier) being Oswald's accomplice went through the roof. They finally caught up with him at a nursing home where his step-father was convalescing. Frazier was taken into custody (arrested) at 6:45. Look how late that is. 

So, Frazier was brought to the police station, charged, fingerprinted, and interrogated like a suspect. This is what he said about it.

“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”

Interrogators would rotate? What does that mean? The only DPD guy who interrogated anyone was Fritz. So, if there were multiple interrogators, it means that FBI agents and possibly SS agents must have interrogated Frazier. And, the "rotate" part sounds like they did it one-on-one, that they took turns interrogating him: alone. They certainly didn't do that with Oswald. 

And it must have gone badly for Frazier because a confession was produced which they asked him to sign. He refused to sign it. According to Frazier, Fritz threatened to hit him, and Frazier made like a tough-guy, saying, "If you do that, even though there are cops outside, I'll get a few licks in." Frazier likes telling that story.  

But, Frazier ended up writing a multi-page affidavit, which contains the famous references to Oswald saying that he was bringing back curtain rods and then showing up with a large bag, which he carried beneath his armpit. 

But, before I say any more about Frazier, let's consider his sister Linnie Mae. This is an FBI photo of the scene at her house:


First, I don't believe that Frazier, or anybody, would go to the trouble of backing the car into that spot. Why? What for? If the other car was there in the carport, I should think he would have just left the car in the driveway. But, if he couldn't do that, then I think most people would park on the street along the curb. Why go up on the dirt or grass? But, even if he did, turning the car around and backing it up? What was the advantage to doing that? How hard was it going to be to back up in the morning? I don't buy it. 

But, this is the view that Linnie Mae had of Oswald supposedly putting his long package in the back seat of Frazier's car.



So, through those slats, she, supposedly, saw what Oswald was doing on the far side of the car that was parked on the other side, outside the slats. Yeah, right. I think that Linnie Mae, like Frazier, was hammered that Oswald definitely had a long package, so she must have seen it. And I don't know if they had anything on her except the threat of railroading her brother, but that would have been enough to get her to say what they wanted her to say. In a word: she lied.

But, let's get back to Frazier. I want to point out that he was slow mentally. I'm not saying that to be cruel, but rather, because it is a very important element in the case. He's dim-witted. Supposedly, Oswald told him that his purpose in going to Irving that Thursday was to obtain curtain rods. So, the next morning, Frazier sees a long package, and asks what is it? Why didn't he ask, "Are those the curtain rods?" Did he forget that Lee had told him about curtain rods? Did it slip his mind? He was 19, not 91. 

In some of his tellings, Frazier makes it sound like Oswald was perplexed and annoyed. "They're the curtain rods, just like I told you." But, most of the time, including the first time, Frazier made it that he just matter-of-factly asked, "What's in the package, Lee?" like he had no idea what it was, and Oswald just matter-of-factly answered that it was curtain rods, like he never mentioned it before, making them both sound like idiots. 

As I've said, the whole curtain rod story is ridiculous. If Oswald was really going to equip his boarding room with curtains, he would need the curtains, the curtain rods, the hardware that goes with them, and the necessary tools. Oswald didn't have anything, so why make a special trip just for the rods? In some tellings, Frazier made it that Oswald said that Marina was making curtains for his room. Well, if she was making curtains for him, but they weren't ready yet, and he wasn't coming back with them on this trip, then why go just get the rods? He was making a special trip just to get the rods? If he had to go another time to get the curtains, then why not just wait until then and get the curtains and the rods at the same time in one trip? So, if Oswald had said that to him (of course, he didn't) why wouldn't Frazier point that out to him? "You're getting the curtain rods now, but then  you are going to go back another time to get the curtains?" 

But, it was a boarding room, not a house that Oswald owned. They weren't going to rent the room without curtains or blinds. It's not something the tenant has to deal with. "So, Lee, are you saying that you are currently living in the room without curtains? That there is nothing currently covering your windows?" In actuality, the room had blinds, which are even better than curtains. 



The Oswalds were always renters, and there is no reason to think they would have owned curtain rods. They didn't bring any back from Russia, did they? The whole curtain rod story was untenable through and through. Why didn't Frazier realize it? Because he was dim-witted. 

So, here's what I think happened at the PD: Frazier was being hounded to admit that he was Oswald's accomplice, which he refused to do. He was pressured to sign a confession, which he refused to do. But, imagine what the police could have said to him after that: 

"Wesley, we don't need your confession. We can charge you as an accessory to murder without one. Most of the time, that's what we do. And that is what we are going to do now, unless you start helping us; unless you start cooperating. Now, Oswald came to work with a long package. That we know beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, you must have seen it. It must have been in your car. It would have been a long, brown paper bag. And we know that because we found the bag; we have the bag. So, those are facts, and unless you start telling us that you saw the bag, we are going to assume that you were involved with him."

In other words: Either give us Oswald, or go down with him. 

We know that Oswald brought his lunch to work that day, lunch that was in a brown paper bag. So, Frazier started growing that bag, and he grew it, in his mind, as big as two feet. He went on to say that Oswald brought no lunch, that he told him he was going to buy his lunch from a vendor. But, we know that isn't true because Oswald said he brought a lunch from Mrs. Paine's house: a cheese sandwich and an apple. Even if Frazier didn't see it, it certainly rules out Oswald telling him he was going to buy lunch from a vendor. 

What I am suggesting and stating outright is that Buell Frazier was and is a confabulator. Here is how confabulation is defined on Wikipedia: 

"In Psychiatry, confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a disturbance of memory, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. People who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from 'subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications', and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence."

I am saying that Buell Frazier has a mental condition, a mental impairment, in which he cannot distinguish reality from the concoctions of his mind. Confabulation amounts to the uncanny ability to lie- even to oneself. 

It's that he is lying but without being burdened with the awareness that he's lying. 

I maintain that Buell Frazier was placed there at the TSBD because the plotters knew that he could be browbeaten into saying whatever they wanted and needed him to say.  I think they knew about his mental condition. Look how they paired Frazier and Oswald from the beginning. Frazier said that Bill Shelley instructed him to take the new guy, Oswald, under his wing, show him the ropes, guide him in becoming an "order filler." And from the beginning, Frazier offered to drive Oswald to Irving. I wonder if he received any coaxing in that too. 

Frazier has been coddled and protected his whole adult life. They got him into the military. He spent most of his adulthood in the military. And, it is only in the latter years that he has spoken out publicly about the assassination. For years, for decades, he remained inaccessible. Today he's got a cottage industry going as the "living witness," but it's so far separated in time from the event, that he can "remember" it any way he wants. 

As far as I know, it was during the making of Four Days In November, the slick David Wolper Stalin-ist propaganda film, that Frazier first made public statements about what he saw. That movie was made in 1964, but I don't know when (what month) Frazier did his stint. But, I think we should assume that after the assassination, Frazier received a lot of counseling, coaching, and guidance about his experience. In other words, under different circumstances, they did the same thing to him that they did to Marina, who got the full MK-ULTRA treatment during her confinement. Essentially, Buell did too, and he got to where he could spout the story about the package and the curtain rods as though they were real. They had plenty of time to reinforce the things they got him to say on 11/22.     

And, he likes to come across today as a friend of Oswald's. He speaks well of him as a person. He keeps saying over and over how much Oswald really liked children. Don't you think that, in truth, Oswald really liked his own kids, and not just kids in general? And Frazier doesn't think that Oswald brought a rifle to work. He harps on his 2 foot limit to the bag, realizing that it rules out a rifle, which had to be nearly a foot longer. But, why doesn't Frazier realize that even a 2 foot package poses an inexplicable problem for Oswald? And that's because it's just as certain that he didn't bring curtain rods to work as it is that he didn't bring a rifle to work. Therefore, what was in the 2 foot package, Buell? And if you don't know, how come you haven't wondered and expressed your wonderment? Why don't you realize that it is still a problem for Oswald? And why aren't you smart enough to realize that you can't claim that he brought a 2 foot package to work and also claim that you're his friend because the two are incompatible? You are still putting him in the hot seat.   

So, the bottom line for me is: Buell Frazier is, and always has been, mentally abnormal; mentally impaired; mentally compromised. His cognitive ability is impaired. His memories aren't real, but his mental impairment prevents him from realizing it. 

He was a slow-witted young man whom they placed at the Depository precisely because they knew he could be manipulated (frightened) into saying whatever they wanted and needed him to say. Did he come up with "curtain rods" himself? He may have, but he also may have gotten help. 

"Think, Wesley, think. He must have told you what was in the bag, but he surely didn't say it was a rifle. So, what did he say it was? Camping equipment? Curtain rods?" 

Sunday, January 14, 2018

You've heard of comfort food? Well, I consider this song comfort music, because it's very soothing and gentle, and it sways back and forth in a way that is very sweet, charming, and comforting. 

The song is Blue Velvet, which most people associate with Bobby Vinton from 1963. But actually, the first one to have a hit with it was Tony Bennett in 1951. And, he is still singing it today. He recently did a duet of it with KD Lang, and it is magnificent. 

But, this rendition is mine and Paul Popa's, and believe me, we did a heck of a lot of work to get the kinks out of the arrangement we found and style it our way. So, please give it a listen. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDIfXn1w8ec&feature=youtu.be



Richard MiodownickGroup Admin Truly hired L.H.O .....but under odd circumstances ? Edward Shields, an ex employee of the TSBD, told HSCA investigators that 8 black employees had been laid off from working at the TSBD just one day prior to L.H.O being hired to work there ? another thing that makes Roy Truly suspicious was the fact that he was seen by Lee with 2 guns in his office 2 days before the assassination. Truly had an explanation for the rifles (brought by W.Caster ) but it's a weird coincidence that one of the guns was a Mauser as ...the rifle initially identified on the 6 th floor ? " Boxes too large for books " as quoted by William Weston ( Spider's web ) or Henry Hurt  (Reasonable doubt ) , I would suggest that those boxes above mentioned were probably stuffed with weapons, guns or .....narcotics ?
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1h
Ralph Cinque You may be right, Richard, about the contents of those boxes, that rather than crumpled paper it was contraband. But, one thing is for sure: nobody WOULD run a book distributing business like that, and nobody COULD run a book distributing business like that. They wouldn't stay in business. Staying in business requires efficiency, and this is the height of inefficiency.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1m

Saturday, January 13, 2018

This is Part II of my analysis of Buell Frazier's claims, that Oswald carried something in a big bag beneath his armpit, and that he told him it was curtain rods. 

Those are preposterous lies, and I pointed out that Marina Oswald also told preposterous lies- but not on November 22. They had her in confinement and seclusion for 2 1/2 months, and that's when and how they turned her in to a Stepford wife. But, Frazier made his outrageous claims on 11/22/63. So, how did happen?

I am going to lay out a scenario, but first I must tell you that it is just speculation. This is a mystery, and there is no guarantee that we are ever going to solve it, especially if Frazier dies before leveling.  But regardless, it has no bearing on the case for Oswald's innocence, which is rock-solid. Oswald did NOT order a rifle; he did NOT own a rifle; and he did NOT even have a P.O. Box. Therefore, he could not possibly have come to work with a rifle that morning. So, Frazier's stories are false, and we know that- even if they remain shrouded in mystery forever. 

So, with that in mind, here goes:

I think Frazier was placed at the TSBD to set up Oswald. They knew it was a bottleneck in the plot for Oswald to get the gun inside. How could they make it that he kept the rifle in his room? Wouldn't his landlady have seen it? They had a cleaning lady. Wouldn't she have seen it? I presume that Oswald rode the bus to work from his boarding room. So, if they were going to make it that he brought it on the bus, how was nobody going to notice? 

So, they decided on the rifle being stored at Ruth Paine's house. Hence, they had to get him there on Thursday night. How did they do that? I figure it was with money. Oswald left $170 with Marina and he kept $16 for himself. That's $176 in 1963 money, equivalent to $1398 in today's money. And he had it on him in cash. You know very well that it is extremely unusual for anyone, of any income bracket, to walk around with that much cash on them. 

And how did Oswald get all that cash? He lost his job at Riley on July 19. He applied for unemployment benefits, and I presume he got them, but you know it's not that much. He had to live, and so did his family. So, I don't think he could have saved and accumulated that money out of his unemployment checks, if he got them. He didn't start working at the TSBD until October 16. That's a long time to be unemployed. And he made $1.11 an hour at the TSBD, so you do the Math. So, how did he accumulate such a large wad of cash? I figure somebody gave it to him. And it probably came with the advice that he needed to get it out to his wife in Irving ASAP because it wasn't safe in his room at the boarding house. 

So, that got Oswald hitching a ride with Frazier to Irving on Thursday evening. No, he did not have a self-made bag with him. That whole story is ridiculous. If he were going to do something like that-steal paper and tape from the TSBD- he'd have just done that; taken it. He wouldn't have made a bag. How could he? He was working. How could he make a bag in broad daylight and not be seen doing it. Nobody saw him do it, so he didn't do it. And why would he need a bag, when he could just take the paper and put the rifle parts on it, and then fold the paper around it, and then fold the ends over and tape it up? And then when he went to access it, he wouldn't be concerned about preserving the "bag," would he? He would  just tear it open, right? Wrong. According to the story, he built an elaborate, detailed bag, and he made sure to leave it intact when he accessed it. There wasn't not the slightest tear in the bag, after carrying hard jagged metal rifle parts. 



Most people who have played rock-paper-scissors know that rock beats paper, but not in this case. In this case, paper beat rock. Really, it is just a ridiculous story, conceived and written by very stupid people. 

On Thursday night, Oswald didn't do anything. He hit the sack. Marina said he was in bed by 9:00. Then, the next morning, he got up before she arose, and left most of the money on the nightstand, plus his wedding ring, reportedly. And then he went into the kitchen. He didn't eat anything, but he had some coffee. That's according to Ruth Paine. But, he also wound up with a lunch to take to work.

Now, I presume that Ruth Paine offered that. I don't presume he just helped himself to her food to fix himself a lunch. Would you do that if you were a guest in someone's home? Make yourself a lunch  to take with you as you were leaving? I can't imagine that anyone would do it, and I can't imagine that anyone would even ask to do it. At least, not any adult. So, I think she offered. And she may even have made the lunch for him. And she may have picked the bag to put it in. And maybe it was larger than it needed to be, if you catch my drift.  

But next, we are going to look at Frazier and his actions on 11/22. That will be Part III.  
I want you to consider the contradiction in the behavior of Roy Truly, who officially was the superintendent of the building. So, he was in charge of the building, the maintenance of the building. Yet, he was also the one who hired workers for the operation of the book business? He hired Oswald, didn't he? So, the super hired Oswald.  

But, here's the contradiction: when Baker asked him in the 2nd floor lunch room if he knew Oswald, Truly must have been very reassuring because Baker, who had pulled out his gun- which shows how untrusting of Oswald he was- and yet Truly, in whatever he said, caused Baker to put his gun away and drop any concerns about Oswald, and move on in his search of the building. Officially, the story goes that Truly said that Oswald worked for him. But, he must have said it in such a way to really quiet Baker's mind and assure him that Oswald couldn't possibly be involved. But then, just a short while later, when Oswald was not present at the workers roll-call, Truly immediately took it as suspicious and informed police with alarm, now conveying a polar opposite attitude towards Oswald. 

Well, if he could be driven to suspect the worst about Oswald just for him being unaccounted for at the workers roll-call, then why didn't he think the worst when Oswald was encountered unexpectedly in the lunch room so soon after the shooting? Why did Truly go from being super-reassuring to Baker about Oswald, obviously either verbally or non-verbally giving him the impression that there was no way on Earth Oswald could be involved, to reading great malfeasance into Oswald not being there to say, "Here" at the workers roll-call? And by the way, it is not true that Oswald was the only one missing. Charles Givens also wasn't there, and there may be others who weren't there. The whole idea that Oswald's non-presence at the roll call should have triggered the thought that he may have shot Kennedy in Truly's mind is preposterous.

So, what explains the contradiction of Truly brushing off Oswald as harmless to Baker and then thinking the worst about him after the roll-call? All of that was just show; just smoke and mirrors. The truth is that Truly was in on it; and I mean the assassination plot. The truth is that the TSBD was a CIA front company, and they moved into that building that summer precisely for the purpose of assassinating JFK. The reason Truly brushed off Oswald being in the lunch room is because he didn't want him arrested there. He didn't want him arrested at that time. Truly truly knew what lay ahead, which was for Oswald to get armed with a weapon, and Oswald being framed for the murder of Tippit, and the hope was that he would be shot to death by outraged Dallas Police at the Texas Theater. That didn't happen, but it nearly did. But, it would have ruined everything if Baker had arrested Oswald on the spot in the lunch room and taken him away. 

I'll leave you with this. It is an image of the basement of the TSBD. They had boxes down there too. But, look how they are arranged. How could you even get to the boxes that were deep on each side? 


On the left, I supposed you could get to that one, but presumably, there were boxes internal to it going down the length of the room. How could you get to those boxes? How could you get to the boxes on the far right? Who would organize a distribution operation that way? And look how tall the stacks are on the far right? Books are heavy. You don't stack them that high. I would suggest to you that those boxes were stuffed with crumpled paper or other light filler. It was all for show. No one would operate a book distributing business this way. What are you supposed to do if the book you need is on the bottom of the tall stack on the right?  

Why would Bill Shelley, who worked in military intelligence during WW2 before there was a CIA, and then joined the CIA, be content to devote his life to distributing Dick and Jane readers for little kids? He had already worked there for 13 years. It was just a cover. A company cover. You've heard of individuals having a cover. Well, this was a cover for a whole company. The TSBD was a CIA front company, involved in espionage and other clandestine activities, and it was all being done under the guise of book distributing. 

Friday, January 12, 2018

Harry Warren is the forgotten man. He had more hit songs than Irving Berlin, yet everyone knows Irving, while hardly anyone knows Harry. His real name was Salvatore Guaragna (Italian). He was born and raised in a Brooklyn ghetto, not far from where Irving Berlin was raised- at the same time, turn of the century. And like Berlin, without any musical education, he decided at an early age that he was going to be a songwriter. So, he got an old rickety piano and taught himself to play; ditto Berlin. And then, he started writing songs, and, he wrote some great ones. When people listen to Etta James or Celine Dion sing At Last, they are exalted, but no credit goes to Harry Warren for writing it.

And, he wrote this gem, I Only Have Eyes For You. It didn't hurt that he had Al Dubin write the very stirring lyrics because that man was a poet. The result of their collaboration is a masterpiece. I hope Paul and I did it justice.     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGYOCJY3CY4&feature=youtu.be




Let's talk about Buell Frazier, whom I regard as the 2nd most damaging witness against Oswald after his own wife, Marina Oswald. This is him demonstrating what he saw Oswald do on 11/22/63.



Now, there is no chance that he saw Oswald do that, since the only thing Oswald carried was his sack lunch, and nobody would carry his lunch in his armpit. There is NO CHANCE that Oswald carried a rifle in, since he didn't order one, and he didn't even have a P.O. box to receive one. But, even if Oswald had ordered and received and carried in a rifle, he could not have done it like that since, even broken down, the rifle would have been too long.   

Let me first say that I consider these things "bottlenecks" in the story. It was a bottleneck for them to come up with a way for Oswald to acquire the rifle that could be documented. In real life, if Oswald had wanted to buy a rifle, he would have just gone into any gun shop, pawn shot, or even K-Mart in Dallas and bought one anonymously- without paperwork. But then, how could they track it? So, they came up with this elaborate mail-order story. 

And likewise, having Oswald bring the rifle to work was a bottleneck, meaning, a difficult spot to get through in the story. And of course, it relies 100% on Frazier and his sister.  So, how did they get Frazier to say that?

There's a difference between Frazier and Marina. On 11/22/63, Marina did NOT support the rifle story. When asked if Oswald owned a rifle, she referred to a rifle he owned in Russia, and she would not have done that if she knew he currently owned one. And in talking about the rifle in the blanket in the garage, she referred to it as "a" rifle, that she knew there was "a" rifle in the garage. It wasn't until after 2 1/2 months later, after intense FBI indoctrination, that she started claiming that it was Oswald's rifle. 

But, Frazier made his claims against Oswald on the very day. It's in his affidavit. It starts with his the assertion that, when they first met, HE approached Oswald about riding to Irving with him, that it was his idea. Hmm. That's weird. Why would he make any assumptions about that? For all he knew, Oswald and Marina were separated hard and headed for divorce. What business of it was his? Why would he assume that Oswald was welcome to sleep at Ruth Paine's house? 

But, Oswald accepted his generous offer and did it every Friday, except for that Thursday which was the first and only exception.  He also said Oswald said he would NOT be going again on Friday. I'll point out that we don't have any confirmation from Oswald on any of this.   

Then, he gave Oswald's stated reason for going on Thursday, which was to get curtain rods, but it makes no sense because there were already curtains hanging in his boarding room. Furthermore, the curtain rods in the Paine garage weren't his. They belonged to Ruth Paine. So, was Oswald just going to steal them? And he still would have had to go to the hardware store to buy the hardware for them. And to buy the curtains. So, why not just buy everything? Look: the whole story makes no sense. When he went to look at the room, if he saw it had no curtains, he'd have asked about it. It's not something the tenant does. It's something the landlord provides. I get it that it was supposed to be a lie, but Oswald had nothing to lie about. He denied telling Frazier anything about curtain rods, and we have no reason to doubt him. Oswald did not own a rifle and did not bring one back and therefore was not in need of an excuse for carrying a long package. So, why did Frazier say it?

And since, supposedly, Oswald told him the day before about the curtain rods, why did Frazier have to ask him about the contents of the package? You'd think he would have said, "Are those the curtain rods?" You don't get Alzheimer's at 19, do you? And what about his story about continuing to run the car engine after they arrived in order to recharge the battery? It makes no sense at all because it's high rpm highway driving that recharges the battery, not idling. 

And even the exchange about Oswald's lunch makes no sense. Why would that come up in conversation? Why would Oswald say anything about his lunch plan? And why would Frazier be concerned about it? 

"I see you are not carrying a lunch, Lee. So, what are you going to do? I'm concerned about your nutrition. Do you want half of mine?" 

It's ridiculous. Why would two men discuss what one is going to do for lunch? Was Frazier a Forrest Gump? 

Realize also that besides Jack Dougherty not seeing Oswald with a long package, neither did anyone else in the building. Oswald supposedly took the rifle up to the 6th floor to hide it, but there were already men up there working on the floor. So, why didn't they see it? Why couldn't Dallas Police come up with any other witness to testify about the long package? 

So, how did authorities get Frazier to say those things, and not just say them, but say them on 11/22/63? Stay tuned for Part II.  





   

Thursday, January 11, 2018

I'm sorry, but I must go off-topic again. On the left is a recent photo of Ronan Farrow, the son of Mia Farrow, and he's standing next to his mother. Officially, he is the the biological son of his estranged father, Woody Allen. But, how dumb would you have to be to believe that? 

When asked about it in 2013, Ronan joked. He said, "Listen, we are all possibly Frank Sinatra's son." That's pretty funny. Frank did get around. But seriously, what I'm wondering is whether Ronan has inborn talent as a singer. He's got the genes. Being a talk-show host, journalist, and "social observer" is all well and good, but who cares about that if he has a voice? We are talking about song here. Get your priorities straight, young man.  
Now, to something completely off-topic but current in the news: the near-epidemic flu season that is going on. This has reportedly been a very bad winter for the flu, and I've noticed in my own circle many people getting sick with it. And, they are saying that there have been many deaths. They showed a photo of a very fit young man, an aspiring personal trainer, who they said died of the flu, but they provided no details. I imagine that everyone reading this has contracted the flu in his or her life, and more than once, but always recovered. So, are we supposed to believe that this very fit young man, who was ripped like a young Arnold Schwartzenegger, just happened to die of the flu, simple as that? Nothing else involved? Because the disease is so deadly? 

But then, they announced that this year's flu vaccine is only 30% effective, and when you read the article, you find out that the one and only study that has been done found it to be only 10% effective. 

What does that mean when they say the flu shot is only 10% effective? I presume it means that 9 out of 10 people who get the flu shot will contract the flu anyway if exposed, regardless of having gotten the shot. And what it means is that of the millions who are contracting the flu this year, a great many of them were vaccinated.

And think about it: this is mid-January; they started pushing the flu shot in October. Don't you think that most everybody who was going to get a flu shot has already gotten it?

They ended the show with an urgent appeal to get vaccinated, but what for, when their own figures show such pitiful results?

Me, I haven't gotten the flu, but I'd rather get the flu than get the flu shot. I am more afraid of the flu shot than I am of the flu. 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/cdc-official-why-flu-near-epidemic-peaking-early-164607874--abc-news-wellness.html

  

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

It is a well known fact that the Dallas Police were immediately besieged with pressure from Johnson's people to close the investigation because they "had their man." That includes Cliff Carter and everyone's favorite public television mystic guru, Bill Moyers. But, if you think about it, you realize that shutting down the investigation because of Oswald wasn't nearly enough. What was to follow? Oswald's trial? How do you suppose that could happen, with phony rifle- ordering and even a phony P.O. Box? Wouldn't that have come out at trial? And don't you think Johnson knew that? So, shutting down the investigation was only the first step. The second was that Oswald had to die; there could be no trial. And the only way there could be no trial was for Oswald to die. 

There are reports that LBJ, himself, personally, called Oswald's surgeons during surgery. Well, if he would take the time to talk to doctors, don't you think he would take the time to talk to police? Is it possible that Johnson, himself, at some point, called Curry or Fritz, and we just never heard about it because it was kept hush-hush? I certainly wouldn't put it past Johnson to do that. 

But, one way or another, the message had to be communicated to the Dallas Police that Oswald had to die. And, there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the Dallas Police took on that grisly task. But, I am also baffled that they were able to do it, and here's why. Because: they spent a lot of time with Oswald: Fritz, Boyd, Sims, Hall, Leavelle, Graves, and they had to get a sense about him. And by that I mean that they had to get the sense that he wasn't insane; and he wasn't a mad-dog killer.  

Watch the Midnight Press Conference again. See if you recognize that Oswald does not come across as an insane maniac, nor does he come across as a psychopathic killer.   

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/oswald-midnight-press-conference.html

In little more than a minute, Oswald exuded an air of non-lethalness. So, what did he exude in 13 hours of interrogation? More of the same, I expect, and they had to pick up on it. And remember that there was more time of interaction between Oswald and the Dallas Police than that. He got some meals, didn't he? Although, I have never heard specifically what he was fed. Did he converse with his captors, say, when he was waiting to do a line-up? Even Jim Leavelle admits he addressed Oswald as "Lee." Was Charles Manson addressed as "Charlie"? Was Jeffrey Dahmer addressed as "Jeff" by his police handlers? I rather doubt it.

In the Ruby and Oswald television movie, the Oswald character was depicted as very belligerent. But, the real Oswald that we saw never came across as belligerent. He came across as defiant that he wasn't guilty, but that's a good thing. That's what you'd expect from an innocent person who is falsely accused of a crime. So, he showed determination to defend himself but no belligerence. He never seemed like a punk with an attitude. The guy in the movie seemed like a punk with an attitude. And, the real Oswald was very impassioned in proclaiming his innocence. 

So, how could the Dallas Police go through with shooting him? I am reminded of how sometimes a person who cares for a livestock animal regularly, and I mean a particular one, freaks out when it's time to send it to slaughter. Why? Because they got to know it. Well, those Dallas Police got to know Oswald, and I can't imagine why their impression of him would be any different from ours. Why should it be? 

So, how could they go through with it? And I mean, of course, that Jack Ruby was a witless patsy who was bamboozled into thinking that he shot Oswald. He really didn't. But, somebody did. 

And that's the first point in answering my own question as to how the Dallas Police could go through with killing him: only one of them had to do it. Only one person had to pull the trigger. Now, I don't know who that was, but I suspect it wasn't any of the familiar names. I suspect it was someone who didn't get to know him.  And, I suspect it was someone who had close ties to Tippit. 

But, nevertheless, all of them, including the familiar names, were accessories to Oswald's murder. So, what was the means by which they could participate in such a gruesome task, overruling their own first-hand impression of Oswald? The means was mathematics. The numbers. You see, each one who participated was a source of confidence and reassurance for the others. It was "group-think" that enabled them to do it. And there was the realization that the most exalted authority in the land (LBJ) wanted them to do it. The group-think trumped everything else. The group-think reshaped their impression of Oswald. They saw Oswald through the eyes of group-think, rather than their own eyes and their own experience. 

You could say that they had a cult going, and they all believed the dogma of the cult, that Oswald was BAD, that he murdered their friend and the President.  

And think about what Johnson told Earl Warren to overcome his resistance to heading the Presidential Commission to investigate the murder of JFK. He told him that if he didn't do it, it could result in war that could kill 100 million people. Well, if Johnson told that to Earl Warren, why couldn't he have told it to the Dallas Police, that if they didn't kill Oswald, it could very likely result in war? When you cast in that light, one life doesn't seem like that much. And look how many lives you are saving?

Then, after it was over, there was a natural tendency for all parties involved to justify it, to make excuses for it, to keep selling it to themselves and others. It's like Truman with his decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Afterwards, he said that it saved 50,000 lives, but over time, the number kept getting bigger and bigger. Eventually, it was 1,000,000.  

The irony is that those who set Oswald up as monster were the real monsters. Lyndon Baines Johnson and Allen Dulles, for instance, were monsters; real monsters. Do you get that? I mean, do you get it deep inside that they were deranged monsters? 



  



The first words out of Oswald's mouth at the Midnight Press Conference were, "I positively know nothing about this situation." Hmm. I wonder why that doesn't give people like Richard Hooke pause in claiming that Oswald was deep up to his neck in the assassination plot? But then, Oswald went immediately to his being denied legal representation, He stated it twice, and then he asked for someone to come forward to give him legal assistance. So, that's 3x in little more than a minute of speaking.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that there was a Constitutional right to legal counsel before Oswald's arrest, so it was in effect at the time of Oswald's arrest. However, it was just a little before. The exact date was March 18, 1963. That's not much before, but imagine how fresh that decision from the case of Gideon vs. Wainright was on the mind's of participants in the legal system. So why, when Oswald was brought before a judge, in which he protested his lack of legal representation, did the judge say, "You can call any lawyer you want."?
The claim that Oswald had a P..O. box is something that nobody sought to question until I did recently. And, what I am wondering now is: why did it take me so long to question it?
In this case, we are dealing with the claim that Oswald was holding out for Attorney John Abt, and it vaguely includes the idea that he turned down other legal representation. But, how can that be true when Oswald adamantly and earnestly requested legal representation and complained about Dallas Police denying it to him?
So, what I am suggesting now is that, just like the P.O.Box story is bogus, so is the Abt story.
My first action to determine that was to check the Fritz Notes. But first, I will point out that it is commonly claimed that Fritz' handwritten notes were made days later, but that is most certainly a lie. And that's because there are too many details in them for Fritz to have remembered them all. For example, Oswald's address in New Orleans: 4706 Magazine Street, Apt. 4. You think Will Fritz remembered that? There is Wm B. Reilly Coffee Company. You think Fritz remembered that? The middle initial? B? Days later?
How smart a guy do you think Fritz was? He wrote "wrighting" for "writing." I don't think he was smart at all.
Here's an interesting little ditty which I doubt anyone noticed before. It says: From Apt 4 wked Wm B Riley Co."
I presume "wked" was shorthand for "walked."
So, he walked to work. No big deal. But, there is a commonly repeated story that he and Judyth Baker rode the bus to work every morning, sitting on the bus holding hands. Here is Danaker retelling it:
- She lived and worked in New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963. Both she and Oswald arrived in New Orleans by bus in April and left New Orleans in September. Both she and Oswald moved into apartments the same week, within walking distance of each other. Both she and Oswald rode the same bus to and from the same workplace daily for eleven weeks, with only one bus stop between them.- 
So, we have Oswald contradicting that, saying that he didn't ride the bus; he walked to work.
But, on page 4, he wrote, "Desires to talk to Mr. Abt. I asked who (he was). Says (he was) Smith Act attorney."
But, notice that it doesn't say, "Desires Mr. Abt to be his attorney." Did Oswald say something like "I want to talk to Mr. Abt about being my attorney."???? If he did, then the important thing was the desire to be represented by Mr. Abt, not the talking to him.
The crucial thing would have been Oswald's hope and intention to get Abt to be his attorney. And again, this was post-Gideon, in which the right to an attorney, to the point of states having to provide lawyers to indigent defendants, was already established by the Supreme Court. March comes before November on the calendar, right?
Dallas County did not establish a public defender office until the 1980s. But, prior to that, judges had a list of criminal defense lawyers in the area, and they would assign one to represent an indigent defendant. Local lawyers had to do their fair share. I'm sure they got compensated by the state, but it was much less than they usually made.
My point is that the only objective evidence we have of Oswald saying anything about Abt is that statement, and I don't think anyone has the right to interpret "Desires to talk to Mr. Abt" as adamance on his part that he wants Abt and only Abt to be his attorney and won't accept anyone else.
And where Oswald showed adamance was in complaining about his being denied an attorney. Plus, he asked "for someone to come forward to give him legal assistance." That is NOT consistent with him holding out for Abt.
So, I have to think that Oswald mentioned Abt, and then they spun it into his unwillingness to talk to or consider anyone else.
I have to think that Will Fritz, and really the whole Dallas Police Department, became puppets of the FBI, and right from the start. Remember that two FBI agents were in attendance at the first interrogation, Bookhout and Hosty. And Bookhout went on to attend all the others. So, was the need to keep Oswald away from a lawyer something that Bookhout planted in Fritz? Was it justified because of "national security"? I wouldn't be surprised.
. .