Sunday, June 24, 2018

Why all these kids hanging around Parkland Hospital on November 24, 1963? I could understand reporters being there because Oswald got shot. But, who would bring kids to that?


Here's another frame. That one kid is smiling.  Say cheese. 

Look how short Hardin's hair is. It's practically a crew cut. But, not Fat Face. His hair is obviously NOT a crew cut. They're supposed to be the same guy/same day. 
We've got kids galore. Here's a kid in a t-shirt.


It must have been warm, huh? Let's find out. Turning to the Weather Underground:

It only hit a high that day of 55 degrees. And by the way, I checked for November 22, and it said 69 degrees, which sounds about right. It is comparable to other reports. 


So, the other must be right too. And, it cooled off considerably. So, how is that kid standing out there in just a t-shirt when it was 55 degrees or cooler? Typically, the hottest part of the day isn't 11:30 in the morning; it's about 3:00 in the afternoon. So, the temperature was undoubtedly less than 55 degrees. Yet, there's the kid looking fine and dandy in just his t-shirt. And at the hospital, of all places. 

So, this was a reenactment. You see Harding changing the sheets on the stretcher, which he wouldn't do at the hospital since he didn't work for the hospital. He worked for the O'Neill Funeral Home, and it was their stretcher. They provisioned it, not the hospital. And you notice that you don't see his assistant Harold Wolfe? What happened to him? Well apparently, they couldn't get him for the reenactment. He was unwilling. And then he went on to commit suicide. You buying that? 

Saturday, June 23, 2018

There is this other image of Oswald's stretcher being taken into Parkland, but is it real?

That's supposed to be Michael Hardin in back. But, what's he doing there. And who's this other guy in the sunglasses? And compare the two Hardins.

You think that's the same guy? I don't. The guy on the right looks older. He looks puffier. And he has a ridiculous swerve in his eyebrow. He looks very puffy. He's a freak. It's just more JFK photographic bull shit. 
Amy Joyce made this collage concerning two versions of Oswald's suppposed "iconic" last photo, noting the differences, some of which are impossible, and others that are unlikely considering that they were moving.



What I notice, in addition to Amy's finds is that Michael Hardin, the ambulance driver, is more bald on the right than the left. The man at the bottom of the photo pulling the stretcher is wearing thick glasses on the right but none on the left. Oh, there is faint line there, and it looks precisely like one drawn in. And that's only behind his left ear. I see nothing behind his right ear. Look at his thick glass-arm on the right. 

So, what is the explanation of this? Well when they made these phony images, they often did do-overs. They weren't satisfied, so they did it again, and both survived. Look at the two versions of Lovelady in the squad room, which look nothing alike. The two Loveladys are vastly different, and neither one is Lovelady. 


This is by a conspiracy writer named Joan d'Arc. Or perhaps she just goes by that name. In any case, she wrote the following about Oswald in the doorway. It's not as ironclad as it should be, as I write about it. Still, something is better than nothing. And she points out that Jim Garrison was very much aware of Oswald in the doorway.


Lee Oswald in the Doorway?

Witnesses who worked in the TSBD have stated that Oswald was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor eating his lunch just prior to the shooting, and was in the same lunch room just minutes after the shooting, when police entered and saw him drinking a Coke. In fact, it seems that Oswald was photographed in the doorway of the TSBD as the procession was going by (see picture at www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm). 

The person in the doorway not only resembles Oswald’s facial and hairline characteristics, but is wearing the same denim style shirt over a white t-shirt that he was arrested in a few hours later. He consequently “lost” the shirt during his lineup session, where he was allowed to wear only his t-shirt. After complaining bitterly, he was finally given a black sweater. One wonders why this shirt was taken away.

District Attorney Jim Garrison believed it was likely Oswald standing in the doorway watching the parade. In an October 1967 Playboy interview, Garrison stated: “As the first shot rang out, Associated Press photographer James Altgens snapped a picture of the motorcade that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald, same hairline, same face shape, standing in the doorway of the Book Depository Building. Somehow or other, the Warren Commission concluded that this man was actually Billy Nolan Lovelady, an employee of the Depository, who looked very little like Oswald. […] The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been crouching in the sixth-floor window of the Depository shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the Presidential motorcade.” (www.jfklancer.com/Garrison3.html) (Incidentally, Billy Lovelady was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt that day.)

Oswald was also noted to be somewhere near the doorway by NBC news correspondent Robert MacNeil, who was riding in the motorcade when shots rang out. MacNeil jumped out of the limo and ran to the TSBD. One must realize that Dealey Plaza is a very small area, and it probably took seconds for him to run to the front entrance of the building. There he encountered a man at the door, whom he asked where he could find a telephone, and the man pointed inside. MacNeil later identified the man as Oswald. In fact, Oswald also recalled the conversation; according to Dallas Police, a man asked Oswald for a telephone as he was leaving the building. (Who’s Who 271) However, no notes of Dallas Police interrogations of Lee Oswald exist or have surfaced.
How could Oswald's hair contradict itself? In Johnston, his hair is coiffed and GQ'd, and he's got a lot more of it.  But, in other images, including this film image, his hair looks nothing like that. 

How can that be the same hair when he has much deeper recession on the right, when his hair is longer and wavier on the left. Obviously, he has much more complete coverage on the left. At first glance, the image on the right shows a guy with a receding hairline, while the image on the left does not. How can it be the same nose when the shape of the nostrils are so different? 
Here's the Johnston/Beers comparison. Obviously, his hair is flatter in Beers, and he's got that huge cowlick in back, which you don't see anywhere else. He's also got an extremely wide part in Beers which you don't see elsewhere. Again, the noses don't match, with much more flare in the shape of the nostril in Johnston and larger tip cartilage. 

Here's the comparison going from Johnston to Jackson. What happened to the stiff right collar he had in Johnston?

Again, we have the higher, longer, wavier, coiffed hair in Johnston and the flatter, lower hair in Jackson. His eyebrows are much longer in Johnston. His eyebrow is half gone in Jackson. 

So, how did Oswald really look? We don't know because there is no image of him that we can be certain is untouched. There was so much photographic manipulation, the question is: was ANY image of him not manipulated, and if so, which one? At this point in time, I can't tell you. There is no image of him that I can be sure wasn't manipulated. And of course, in some cases, the question is whether the image is really him at all. 

  I don't think two two images can be reconciled. I don't doubt that the guy on the left is Oswald, but is the guy on the right? 



Ralph Cinque There is not the slightest bit of evidence that Oswald tipped the FBI off about anything. He left a note for Hosty a couple weeks before, but there is no basis to conclude that that was assassination-related. What do you think it said? "They're killing Kennedy on the 22nd. Call me." That's ridiculous. He wouldn't put that in a note and hand it to a secretary. And regardless, if Oswald knew that Kennedy was about to be shot, he should have ran out into the street and pointed to the tops of buildings and yelled "Ambush! Ambush! Shooters!" Wouldn't you? I mean if it was JFK, the guy who saved us from nuclear war with the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile Crisis? How could you just stand there knowing that JFK is about to be slaughtered? Wouldn't you risk your life for him? I'd risk mine. And it wouldn't even be out of self-sacrifice. It would be out of, well, hatred- my hatred for the ones who were doing it and the strong desire to fuck them up. And I don't mean physically; I mean to fuck up their plans; to foil them; to beat them. That's right; I mean beating them at their own game. The satisfaction from doing that would make it more than worth it to risk my life. So yes, if was me in that doorway, and I knew what was about to happen, I would run into the street and physically obstruct the forward progression of that limo. It's not as though they could go around me. It would have brought the motorcade to a halt. So, if Oswald knew everything, and he did that- ran into the street- then he would be a hero. But, he certainly would not be a hero for letting Kennedy die. But, in reality, Oswald did not know anything, which is what he said. He wasn't lying. He didn't know a damn thing. "I don't know what this whole situation is about." That's what he said, and that was the truth. 


· 

Thursday, June 21, 2018

This is the photo with the bogus hat and the bogus point to Boyd's shoulder, all to hide the face of James Bookhout. But, what I want you to notice is that Boyd is grabbing Oswald's arm, and what we see are his four fingers. We don't see his thumb at all, and that's not unusual. 


But, in the Johnston photo, we have this weird appearance of Grave's thumb.

What the hell is that?


I said: What the hell is that? What the hell is he doing with his thumb? What is he supposed to be doing with it? It's like he's got the distal digit flexed over the proximal digit, which most people couldn't do if they tried. They could do it if they immobilized the proximal digit with their other hand. But otherwise, they couldn't do that. Try it yourself. Try to duplicate what he appears to be doing there. His thumb looks like a Pez dispenser. There isn't another image like that. It's like his thumb is making a 90 degree angle at the interphalangeal joint. 


Look: that can't be done because there is one flexor tendon that flexes both bones together. So, when the flexor muscle contracts, it pulls them both over. Again, try it yourself. Hold your thumb up and see if you can flex just the top joint. You can't do it. The whole thumb wants to flex as a unit. You can only do it if you lock your hand around the lower digit so that it can't move, and then you 
can bend the other one alone. But otherwise, you can't do it. 

Even if you were going to get your hand all the way around so that your thumb came to, unlike Boyd, it would look like this:

So, we have that, which is real. And we have this which is JFK assassination:

real:

JFK assassination:
real:
JFK assassination:
Photo-evil. That's what it is.  Here is how it looks in The Mirror.

Now, that is just plain weird, and it is also impossible. People see weird stuff like this in JFK assassination photos, and they don't ask about it. Why? Because they are good little minions of the Fascist State. And some guys get paid good money to stomp around the internet in their jack boots. They'd like to cram this shit down our throats. Here's how it looks with the hand all the way through.

You see. There's no Pez dispenser. 

This is Marilyn Monroe with her lawyer when she divorced Joe DiMaggio. 


That's doable. This isn't:


This one is practical:

I don't have any problem with that.

Even Fred and Ginger, and I could watch them dance every day for the rest of my life and get a thrill every time, showed us how it's done. 

It's not like this:

This kind of shit only happens in the JFK world, and I tell you that the evil that lurked on November 22 and November 24, 1963 still lurks in our world today, that the heirs of these killers are still covering for them today, gunning down Kennedy and Oswald with every breath they take.  Oh, but for the evil then, and the evil now. 
From Denis Morrissette's own website, JFKinvestigators.wordpress.com, there is a copy of the Johnston photo without the tie pin.


But, that dastard bastard Brian Pete had the nerve to accuse me of altering the photo. Here's the link to Denis' site:

https://jfkinvestigators.wordpress.com/

Alright, so now the Punk knows that I didn't alter the photo, even though he accused me of it. So, does he say he was wrong? Does he remove it from his page? No. He's still got it there that I altered the photo. It shows you what kind of person he is and that he has no regard for the truth. He spits on Kennedy every time he opens his mouth. 

However I did have to correct something myself:

"Keep in mind that putting the pin in or taking it out would have been easy as pie- then or now. So, which was it? They had to do one or the other because there is only one Johnston photo. I suspect they put it in to match the one at the hospital."

Alright, so that takes care of that. But, how about that shiny metal buckle? What makes it gleam so? Brownian motion, you think? 

Robert Jordan I agree Ralph Cinque they didnt keep him from an attorney because he knew about the assassination but because he could clear himself 100% and blow there fiction wide open.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply45m
Ralph Cinque Robert, we have to remember that 95% of the damage done to Oswald was done by his wife, Marina Oswald. But, if Oswald was alive, they couldn't use her. Even by technicality, they couldn't use her: it's called spousal privilege. How can the State prosecute a man for murder while detaining his wife? They couldn't. So, Marina would have been on Oswald's side in his defense, had he lived, and she never would have said the awful things she told the Warren Commission. Marina is another one who was essentially MK-ULTRAed.
Brian Pete is really stupid. Immature and stupid. Forever a punk kid. Now, he's accusing me of altering the Johnston photo, taking out Grave's tie pin.


Why would I do that? And how could I expect to get away with it? 

I'm 67 years old. I'm not here playing games. 

The rendering of the Johnston photo without the tie clip is widely available. I didn't invent it. Here it is from The Mirror which is a UK paper.


And here's the link to it:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/james-leavelle-arrested-jfk-assassin-2711431

You're stupid, Pete. You're just Joseph Backes with a little more pit bull in you.

So, now we know there are two versions of the Johnston photo, one with the tie pin and the other without. But, Johnston only took one photo, right?

Keep in mind that putting the pin in or taking it out would have been easy as pie- then or now. So, which was it? They had to do one or the other because there is only one Johnston photo. I suspect they put it in to match the one at the hospital. 

And regardless, we still have that glaring and conspicuous military-style belt with the solid metal buckle in Johnston.


That is not the same belt, Punk, and you can't bully your way to making it the same belt. The ambiguity over the tie pin only makes the situation worse- for you and yours. Thanks for pointing it out.  
It's just amazing how this guy was manning the phones that day.

Those are two different phones on two different desks. Does anybody know who he was? 
We need to make a close- a very close- comparison between the Beers photo and the Johnston photo since Graves' belt looks so different between them. 


I would include the Jackson photo too, except that you can't see Graves' belt at all in it. So, we'll stick with Beers and Johnston.


You notice that in Beers, Graves has on a tie pin, but not in Johnston. Let's see what else we got. In Beers, Oswald's hair is flatter. It's more wavy and bodied in Johnson below. It looks coiffed. I mentioned that Graves' tie is longer in Beers. I don't understand in either picture how Leavelle's jacket could be buttoned so high when men's jackets don't have buttons that high. As I look at Leavelle's jacket, I can't make out any buttons at all.

How could a man's jacket look like that?

Why does Oswald's shirt collar look white in Beers but off-color in Johnston, as if it was yellow or tan? Of course, Leavelle's left arm is fake in both pictures. In Beers, it's just a squiggly line.

Do you think you could duplicate that photographically by having a guy stick his hand in another guy's pants? I don't think you could, not if he was human. That looks more like a snake getting into Oswald's pants. Again: do NOT lipflap this. Get out a fucking camera and duplicate it. 

How come Oswald is so much taller in Johnston? He looks almost as tall as Leavelle. 

But, in Beers, Leavelle towers over Oswald.


Look at their shoulder levels.


Look how much higher Leavelle's shoulder is in Beers.


In this image, from a film, Oswald looks to be every bit as tall as Leavelle.


In Jackson, we see that Leavelle's jacket had just two buttons, as most men's jackets do.


So, just two buttons, and just one of them buttoned. So, how could there be this effect in Johnston?


And this isn't everything. It just keeps going and going. It's all just a big morass of incongruity, contradiction, and extreme manipulation. I am starting to wonder if the image of Oswald in Johnston isn't a cut-out that was added. 

Look at the junction of Oswald's arm and Leavelle's. It looks more like art than photography. And how could Leavelle's arm from shoulder to wrist be doing what it appears to be doing? It couldn't. Not without breaking.