Sunday, April 1, 2018

So, summing up the right talking points about Carolyn Arnold: the 1978 revision needs to be thrown out categorically. The ONLY statement of hers with any credibility is her first statement to the FBI, made on November 25, 1963, in which she said she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. 

So, Carolyn Arnold is, effectively, a witness to Oswald in the doorway, as was Oswald himself. As for the others, the dark veil of the Gestapo fell upon them. Word spread very quickly that you didn't see Oswald in the doorway because he wasn't in the doorway- he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.

And let's observe something else, that the most any of these people would have done is seen, as in glanced at Oswald there. They were never looking at him. They were there to look at the President, at the motorcade. There is no reason to think that Oswald was ever the focus of their attention or their vision. If any of them had had a conversation with Oswald in the doorway, it would have been harder to swallow what was being forced down their throats. 

I don't doubt for a second that Billy Lovelady was consciously aware that Oswald was in the doorway. Look at his WC testimony. It's tortured and tortuous. He and Joseph Ball, both of them talking around the figure of Doorman, where it was painfully obvious that that's what Ball wanted to know: Who was Doorman? And Lovelady could easily have said it: "That's me! In the long-sleeved shirt next to the white column." But no: he NEVER did. He never identified himself as Doorman. He said he was "on your top level" but obviously, Doorman wasn't the only one on the top level. Standing next to him was Black Hole Man, and that is who Lovelady was. 

And, it was the same in 1976 in his questioning by Ken Brooten for the HSCA, after which Brooten resigned from the HSCA to represent Lovelady. Oh yeah, that happens all the time: a government lawyer quitting to represent a person of interest in the case. All of Lovelady's responses were weak and tepid- his wife spoke more assertively than he did, and she wasn't even there. He seemed scared to death. And I'm sure he told that he was scared to death- about testifying. And that's what Brooten did for him; he got him out of testifying. And Brooten did it not out of compassion but because he knew that Lovelady would make a terrible witness. 

You have to realize that the purpose of the HSCA was to get the government off the hook for Kennedy's murder. Their goal was to protect the government. And, it's the goal of every government committee. Here, the whole case revolved around which of two men was captured in a photograph standing in the doorway during the shooting, where one was dead and the other was alive, and the committee never had the living one come in and testify. Instead, they played games with Robert Groden and anthropologists.   

For someone who is paid a cyber-op, I expect him to brandish the no witnesses to Oswald in the doorway mantra. But, for someone who knows the official story is a lie and that Oswald was innocent, it is extremely obtuse of them to cite the same mantra. They could not allow such witnesses. All the WC witnesses were pre-screened by the FBI, and anyone who was claiming to see Oswald in the doorway was immediately excluded from testifying and then warned to stop saying it and never say it again.  How naive is it to think that if someone had wanted to say that he or she saw Oswald in the doorway that they would have put it in the Warren Report- if only someone had said it? That isn't just naive; it's downright stupid. It was a Stalinist show trial in the USSA: the United Soviet States of America. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.