Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Evidence against Oswald? What evidence? There is none. It is plainly and manifestly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, that he did not kill President Kennedy. The claim that he did exists ONLY as a rote, spewed, state lie, and it is based on nothing but phony evidence. There is NO legitimate evidence against Oswald- only false, planted, fabricated evidence. 

Didn't he order the murder weapon? NO. He didn't. It's false documentation. Do you realize that his alleged money order reached Klein's in Chicago the day after he mailed it from Dallas? That's impossible. It's impossible today, even when computerization and automation have quickened mail delivery tremendously. But, in 1963? They didn't even offer overnight delivery as an option.  

Didn't he pose with the murder weapon? NO. He didn't. It's a fake photograph which can be proven fake. In his new book, The JFK Horsemen, Larry Rivera lays out the reasons why the Backyard photos are most certainly fake. Did you know that among them, Oswald's ring changes hands? What are the odds that Oswald would fiddle with his ring between shots? Of course, the big things are that the man is too short to be Oswald, and there is no continuity between the face and the body. It's exactly what Oswald said: that his face was put over the body of another man. The Backyard photos aren't just fakes; they are bad fakes. 

Weren't Oswald's prints found on the murder weapon? NO.  There are multiple reasons to reject the FBI claims that they were.  The evidence against Oswald is really evidence against the FBI for framing him, for fabricating false evidence, and every bit of it would have been exposed as such in court. That's why there couldn't be a trial. Why do you think they killed Oswald before he could speak to an attorney? If they waited until after he spoke to an attorney, then they would have had to kill the attorney. 

There are multiple dealbreakers which exonerate Oswald in one full swoop. One of them is the fact that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and we have a photograph of him there with conclusive identification of his person and his clothing.  

As if Oswald and Lovelady looked and dressed that much alike... Come on; it's absurd. 

But, even if we didn't have this, there are other things that absolutely rule out his guilt. There is the total lack of motive. If you stop thinking of it as the act of removing JFK from power, and start thinking of it as the act of installing LBJ in power, why would Oswald want to do that? For Oswald to have sought to kill Kennedy, he would have had to be completely and totally insane. But, was he? You know very well that he wasn't. Watch and listen to him at the Midnight Press Conference and ask yourself whether he sounds insane. He came across as the most sane and rational person in the room. It's why they had to add all that noisy racket- to diminish him.  

There is the complete absence of any evidence that Oswald knew that JFK would be passing the building that day. It has been speculated that he could have seen the motorcade route in the newspaper, but there is no evidence that he did. And there is evidence that he didn't because he asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. And he wasn't setting up an "ignorance alibi" for himself because if that was the case, he would have used it, and he didn't. We learned about it not from Oswald but from Jarman. Do you realize how damaging Jarman's testimony was to the official story? It torpedoed it.    

Oswald did not subscribe to a Dallas newspaper, and he was never known to buy one. He was known to read one on his lunch break- if one was available.  But, people don't read the newspaper, word for word. People browse newspapers; they flip through them, glancing at this and that; noting headlines; reading a paragraph or two and and then moving on.  So, even if there were solid proof that Oswald picked up a newspaper which featured the motorcade route- and there is no such evidence, let alone proof- it would still be highly presumptuous to conclude that he must, therefore, have seen and noted the motorcade route. 

What about the rifle? The rifle is highly suspect. Oswald denied owning it, ordering it, or ever seeing it. It made no sense for him to order such a rifle from Chicago when he could have gone into any K-Mart in Dallas and bought one- and with no more hassle than buying a blender.  A. Heidel wasn't even listed as an owner of the alleged P.O. Box.  So, why would they have turned the rifle over to Oswald at the counter? And did Oswald even have a P. O. Box? They said he used it to subscribe to Socialist and Russian newspapers, but consider how expensive it was (and is) to have newspapers mailed from Russia. You really think Oswald did that? Why would he do it? He wasn't living in Russia any more. And how could he spend money on that when he barely had enough money to feed his family? And there is no evidence that he read Russian newspapers even when he was in Russia. The idea that he would have done it from here is ridiculous. How would he even have the means of paying for it? Did he pay for that by money order too? Then let's see it. He also supposedly paid for Socialist newspapers, so let's see his money orders for them. And why would he bother getting a P.O. Box for that? Why not have the newspapers mailed to his home? Oswald supposedly started with the P.O. Box in his list of emergency instructions to Marina, in the event that he was killed or incarcerated, but since nothing of any interest or value to Marina was sent to that P.O. Box, why would he do that? Are you seeing the light? That the whole P.O.Box story is just another elaborate fraud? 

And let's think about the situation at the Paine house. Supposedly, Oswald dismantled the rifle in the garage. The rifle had to be stored intact, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. So, he would have had to disappear that evening and go out into the garage, find the rifle, dismantle it, and then pack and secure all the loose parts in the makeshift bag he supposedly made at the TSBD unobserved, and do all that without being missed or noticed by his wife or by Ruth Paine.  So, they didn't see him do all that; they didn't hear him do it; and they didn't miss him or notice his absence while he was doing all that, even though he was a visitor in that house and didn't live there. That is ridiculous. We are talking about two adults in a small house being oblivious to a third person. How is it for you when you have a guest or visitor in your home? Aren't you aware of where the person is all the time? How often does a guest disappear in your house? 

And then, the next morning, there was Frazier, who claimed to see a bag that was no longer than 2 feet, which was 11 inches too short to be the disassembled rifle. But, inherent in the official story is the idea that Frazier was wrong, that the bag was a foot longer. So, we are supposed to believe Frazier, as a State witness, but also not believe him. And, it's a bottleneck for the story. And, think about all that's missing from the story. Length isn't the only characteristic of a bag. Obviously, the objects in a paper bag will affect the shape and contour of the bag. So, did the 2 foot long bag that Frazier saw look like a rifle? Did he see something long and hard and wedge-shaped in the paper bag that looked like the butt of a rifle? He has never claimed that. He has never addressed it. And if Frazier saw the stuffed bag on Friday, how could he not see the empty bag on Thursday? The bottom line is: there are so many holes in Frazier's story, there is no reason to give it any credibility at all. 

And what about at the TSBD? Frazier is the only one who claimed to see the bag. It was a building full of people. Oswald and Frazier were late. Plenty of people were already there. Nobody in the building reported seeing Oswald carrying a long bag. Jack Dougherty saw Oswald right as he walked through the door, and he denied seeing it. And not even a hammering from Statist lawyer Joseph Ball could get Jack to budge. Jack was nice about it, but he was unyielding. Me, I wouldn't have been nice or yielding. 

There were already numerous men up on the 6th floor working, so how could Oswald have hidden the rifle up there unseen? And if you are going to claim that he took it to another floor to hide it, I will tell you that you can't do it; you can't say it; you can't go there. Even speculations have to be tied to known facts. This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarten. 

There wasn't even a screwdriver found with which Oswald could have assembled the rifle. So, the story became that he must have used a dime to do it. But, when could he do it when Bonnie Ray Williams was eating fried chicken and drinking a Dr. Pepper on the 6th floor until shortly before the motorcade arrived? Is there any reason to doubt Bonnie Ray? 

Officer Marrion Baker's testimony completely exonerates Oswald because Baker saw Oswald enter the lunch room FROM THE OFFICE SIDE OF THE SECOND FLOOR. The anteroom, through which Baker saw Oswald, was a passageway containing three doors: a door to the office side, a door to the stairwell side where Baker was, and a door in-between to the lunch room. 

Baker was only able to see Oswald in the anteroom because Oswald entered it from the office side. And from that side, there was no access to the 6th floor. There was only one flight of stairs, which was from the first to the second floor. So, it was physically impossible for Oswald to have come down from the 6th floor, and not just because there was no time for him to do it but because there were no stairs. A bird couldn't have flown it never mind Oswald walked it. 

What about the shooting feat? Oswald nearly flunked his last shooting test as a Marine in 1959, assuming that was him, which I doubt, and the only shooting he did after that was to go rabbit-hunting with his friends in Russia- using a shotgun- and very ineptly at that, according to them. And that was definitely the Oswald of fame. He had NO experience as a sniper. The whole 6th floor setup was completely foreign to him. Only with added shims could the rifle be rendered functional for testing.  No marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat- and keep in mind that even if one did, the fact that the vast majority could not, renders the likelihood of Oswald doing it extremely remote. We are talking about expert marksmen, which Oswald was not.  Remember: Oswald was never a combat Marine. He was just a guy who did the minimal amount of shooting required by the Marines.  

What evidence is there against Oswald? A partial fingerprint and a palm print? The latter wasn't found until after Oswald was dead, and the former wasn't found until after the Dallas PD announced that there were no usable prints. So, you can be certain that Oswald's lawyers would have challenged and disputed that evidence, vigorously.

What else is there? Witnesses claiming to see Oswald in the 6th floor window? That's worth nothing. The Innocence Project has 351 post-conviction exonerations of men who were convicted on the basis of false eye witness testimonies. 

The fact is that there is no evidence against Oswald that is not highly contestable. The Backyard Photos? Oswald denied that was him, and if he was tried, his wife would have been on his side, and she never would have vouched for them either. 

And when first asked (on 11/22) Marina denied knowing anything about a rifle, referring only to the shotgun rifle that Oswald used to have in Russia. It was only afterwards that she changed her story and "remembered" the rifle, like the good little Stepford Wife of U.S. Intelligence that she became- the result of intense brainwashing and a heavy dosing of green money, and probably a pile of drugs too.  

And what about the phony trip to Mexico City? At trial, Oswald would surely have established what he actually did when he  supposedly went there. How hard would it have been for him to do that? Note that when first asked, Marina denied knowing anything about any trip to Mexico City. 

And I could keep going with more dealbreakers on why Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly be guilty. And remember that it only takes one.  

But, I won't keep going because it's not really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is a country in which an impossible theory exists as the tale of the realm, in which a phenomenon of national denial is going on, in which all organs of officialdom support the lie, in which all organs of the corporate world support the lie, in which all organs of the educational system support the lie, and all organs of the media (except maverick ones) support the lie that Oswald killed Kennedy. And even though it is absolutely certain that Oswald didn't do it, all these societal factions cling tenaciously to the official JFK doctrine- as if for dear life- and the result is a national state of denial, delusion,  and blank-out.  This is the state of the nation concerning the JFK assassination:

There is no JFK debate except on the internet because none is allowed. On television, they just repeat the same refrain, that many Americans continue to doubt that Oswald acted alone- the implication being that no one doubts that he acted. Did he do it alone or within a conspiracy? That is how the debate is framed- cutting off at the knees the idea that Oswald was innocent, an idea that is unspeakable on television. 

Unless, of course, you are Vladimir Putin, who in his world-renowned interview with Megyn Kelly, said that "There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by U.S. intelligence services. So, if this theory is correct, and it can't be ruled out..."   

Putin didn't say it with an aggressive tone, but the statement was very aggressive. It was one of the most aggressive things he could have said. And let's face it: if he was capable of saying that, he is capable of saying a great many things that are equally aggressive.  I don't think the U.S. corporate media is going to do any more live, unedited, un-time-delayed interviews of Vladimir Putin again after he dropped that bomb. 

It is plain as day that Oswald was innocent, but the U.S. corporate media fluctuates between a hard-line Warren Commission stance (by the networks)  and a more flexible stance in which Oswald did it, but he was up to something fishy in Mexico City, which is really ridiculous considering that Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, and at the time he supposedly went there, he had no prospects or expectations of getting within a hundred miles of Kennedy. So, the idea that he conspired with someone in Mexico City to kill Kennedy is really just plain stupid, but it is a favorite theme of Fox News. Again and again, they have someone on with eye-popping revelations about Oswald's doings in Mexico City. "Who did he see there? Who did he talk to? What is the government hiding from us? We demand the truth!" It's enough to make you vomit. They don't want the truth.  They just want to tickle people's conspiracy bones. The truth is that Oswald was completely and totally innocent, and he did not go to Mexico City. The only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. That's what he told investigators, and he had no reason to lie.  

So, what exists today is a fraud and a charade. JFK assassination discussion is on lock-down in the U.S. There is just the fiat that Oswald did it, but with the pressure relief valve of tolerating vague suspicions that others may have been involved, so long as you cloak it in mystery and wonderment and unanswered questions. So basically, you can go with Government Story #1 (WC) or with Government Story #2 (HSCA), and by offering both, the government tries to control both sides of the debate.

But, the evidence is clear and abundant that it is impossible for Oswald to have done it, and that evidence is not going to disappear. It's out there, and it can't be destroyed.  The country is on a collision course with the truth, and it is inevitable that Oswald's innocence will prevail. 

So, it is going to blow up, and when it does, the big question will be, not who killed Kennedy, but how a systematic, government/media cover-up was orchestrated lasting over a half a century. 

There won't be a soft landing for the JFK assassination. It seems they are prepared to throw LBJ to the wolves since the media has covered, to some extent, claims of his involvement. So, if they have to abandon ship, that's probably what they'll do: blame LBJ, and perhaps Nixon too.  

But, it's not going to work. The truth, that US intelligence services, particularly the CIA, were behind the assassination, with the FBI  managing the framing of Oswald, is going to emerge. And it's not going to be pretty.  



No comments:

Post a Comment

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