Saturday, October 13, 2018

Why didn't Roy Vaughn fight back?  He was adamant that Jack Ruby did not get past him on his watch, but he obviously didn't think that both he and Ruby were telling the truth and hence were there at different times. So, Vaughn must have thought that Ruby was lying. But, why would Ruby lie about how he got in? He had absolutely no reason to lie for himself.  If he lied, it could only have been to protect someone else. 

But, that would mean Ruby was in conspiracy with someone from the DPD, which is ridiculous. Do you realize how many DPD testified against Ruby at his trial? So, how could they be conspiring with him? 

You can't be conspiring with someone and against someone at the same time.   

Ruby didn't know anything. He didn't conspire with anyone. He wasn't sitting on deep, dark secrets for 3 years. He wasn't protecting anyone because he didn't know anything. Ruby was a nitwit, a scatterbrain, and he was a talkaholic.  He couldn't keep a secret if he tried. And no one would have trusted him with any secrets.  

Why didn't Vaughn do his own investigation, including talk to Ruby?  They wouldn't have let him, but I should think he would have wanted to and tried.    

We are supposed to believe that Roy Vaughn was guarding this ramp and couldn't keep Jack Ruby out. An 80 year old Walmart greeter could have done it, but not a 29 year old cop? 

Vaughn was adamant that Ruby didn't get past him, but he didn't pursue it. Why?  Because: that would have been too adversarial. Too conspiratorial. Too defiant.  It could have cost him his job - or more.

He did hire a lawyer, but I bet you that lawyer advised him to cease and desist, to hold his tongue. Vaughn continued to insist that Ruby did not enter the garage on his watch, but he did nothing more. He didn't follow it to its logical conclusions. He stopped at that, and I bet it was on strict, dire legal advice.        

Friday, October 12, 2018

Mark Landsbaum Fascinating, Ralph. I presume your theory is that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, that a look-alike dressed like him did. Correct?
Ralph Cinque Yes, that is correct, Mark. Although there are no images of the shooter's face in the garage, there is one of his face that was taken a little while afterwards, and you can plainly see that he is NOT Jack Ruby. He is, in fact, FBI Agent James W. Bookhout, for whom we have no images (no accident) except for this SMU school yearbook photo of him from 1937. 

An interesting thing has surfaced; at least: interesting to me. John Hankey, longtime member of the OIC, has released a new video in which he refers to Deputy Roger Craig reporting that he saw Dallas cop Roy Vaughn arrest a man who came running out of the Dal-Tex building shortly after the assassination. And, it's something that Roger Craig told to Jim Garrison and which Garrison repeated. 

Speculation has arisen, from Hankey and others, that that man was George H.W. Bush. Nothing came of his arrest. He was reportedly turned over to Dallas detectives who took him in, but no charges were ever filed, and no police record was ever made.  

So, this is yet another thing for which Roger Craig is the only source, and I admit that that is troubling, and especially so because Officer Roy Vaughn was a young man at the time, age 29, and he lived a long time, and as far as I know, he NEVER spoke of it. He testified to the Warren Commission, but not about that; only about what happened on November 24. 

But, why do people think that the guy was Bush? It's because he identified himself as "an independent oil operator from Houston" and it was typical for Bush to describe himself that way. On the very same day, November 22, Bush made a phone call to the FBI from Tyler, Texas in which he identified himself with the Zapata Off-shore Drilling Company. There is a written record of it. 

I realize that that is not the exact same wording, but it is the exact same meaning as "independent oil operator from Houston." 

Russ Baker, in his Bush family expose,  Family of Secrets, claimed that Bush made that call (about some Houston college student who supposedly spoke of wanting to kill Kennedy) just to create an alibi for himself.  It's a little over an hour and a half drive from Dallas to Tyler. So, did Bush hop in a car and race to Tyler just to make that call? But, since it was only a call, isn't it also possible that someone else made the call for him?  

But, there is something else to consider: Bush was a lot more than an independent oil operator from Houston; he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and running against a guy who was riding in the JFK motorcade with LBJ, Senator Ralph Yarborough! It was late November 1963, and I read on the United States Senate website, that Bush announced his candidacy for Senate in 1963. 

"In 1963, Bush announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the Senate to oust the incumbent liberal Democrat Ralph Yarborough."

Now, I realize that he could have announced it after November 22 and still been in 1963. There was still 5 weeks of 1963 left to announce it. But, we don't know when he announced it. At least, I don't know. What if he announced it before November 22? That would mean that he was already a Senatorial candidate on November 22. And one thing is for sure: whether he announced it that early or not, you know he must have had a lot of things in the works for it, and a lot of people had to know that he was about to announce, if he hadn't done so already.  

And he did quite well. He won the Republican primary and the run-off, and he only lost to Yarborough in a very close race.  So surely, he had a lot in the works before November, 22, 1963. 

But, Bush isn't the guy I want to talk about. The guy I want to talk about is Officer Roy Vaughn. You know that he is very important, historically. He is famous for being the police officer who, not deliberately, but negligently, let Jack Ruby enter the police garage through the Main Street ramp. But, Vaughn adamantly denied it his whole life, until his last breath. He said there was no way Jack Ruby got past him. And I believe him. I don't doubt him for a second. Why doubt him? There is no reason to doubt him. Here he is talking about it:

Listen to Roy Vaughn say: "Jack Ruby did not come down that ramp."  Listen to how he says it. Listen to the conviction in the man's voice. 

Roy Vaughn was right, except there was a qualification he needed to add: Jack Ruby did not come down that ramp- on his watch, on Roy Vaughn's watch. There was a time gap. Jack Ruby came down that ramp before Roy Vaughn got there. Roy Vaughn was a patsy. Roy Vaughn was set up; used; exploited. He was picked, targeted, and railroaded to be the guy who was going to take the blame for the security breech that got Oswald killed. He is the only person in the entire Dallas PD to receive a reprimand for what happened to Oswald. 

I'm telling you that it was all planned in advance. Roy Vaughn was the sacrificial lamb. 

Jack Ruby got there earlier, and it makes sense that he would have. He said he got up early that morning. And the only thing he did before leaving for Western Union was get dressed and eat breakfast. So, why should it have taken him until after 11 to get there? He got there earlier, about an hour earlier. He was drugged. He was dopey. He was in a highly susceptible mental state- susceptible to suggestion. And remember: he was a guy who had a pathological devotion to the Dallas Police. I say that because it was so extreme. Was it part of some MK-ULTRA indoctrination he was subjected to? 

If you read Ruby's description of the scene at the top of the ramp, it differs from Vaughn's. Furthermore, RUBY KNEW VAUGHN. They had met several times. Once, Vaughn had forgiven a traffic violation as a courtesy to Ruby. Ruby spoke of seeing an officer on foot at the top of the ramp, but he never ID'd him as Vaughn. He said he didn't know him. That officer must have been someone else.

So, Ruby got to the ramp, and they were waiting for him. He was allowed to walk down the ramp. He was probably coaxed to walk down the ramp.  And, they were waiting for him at the bottom of the ramp too. He was jumped and hustled upstairs, and that is where they told him that he shot Oswald. He had no memory of doing it. He had no intention of doing it. He had no expectation of even seeing Oswald. He didn't have the slightest impulse to kill Oswald. But, he accepted that he did it for one reason, and one reason only: because they told him that he did. 

It was reported by Dr. Fred Bieberdorf that the garage was cleared that morning, at 9:45, that he himself was ordered out. And, it was quite a while before they started letting reporters and cameramen back in. Roy Vaughn had been called back to the station by Lt. Rio "Sam" Pierce, and he was told to wait at some dispatch area, where there was coffee. So, he waited there and enjoyed some coffee. And there were other officers there whom he chatted with. And eventually, Pierce showed up and told him to go to the garage and report to Sergeant Dean who ordered him to guard the Main Street ramp. I maintain that was after Ruby was tucked away on the 5th floor. 

So, my contention is that Roy Vaughn was deliberately set up to take the fall for the failure to protect Oswald. But, my question is: why him? Why Roy Vaughn? 

Well, if Roy Vaughn was involved in arresting George HW Bush, which was something they didn't want him talking or inquiring about, maybe they thought he was someone who was going to need to be controlled. Maybe they thought by making him the fall guy for the Oswald shooting, it would give him a more pressing problem than worrying about that independent oil operator from Houston. 

The point is that, until today, I never asked myself: Why Vaughn? It had to be someone. Someone had to be accused of slipping up. So why Vaughn? Why'd they choose him to be the fall guy? 

He was young, and he was low-ranking, which was good, but there had to be plenty of others in that category. It seems like getting someone a little on the slow side would have been desirable, but that can't apply to Vaughn because he went on to become the Chief of Police of Midlothian, Texas for 10 years, and then a Municipal Court Judge in Midlothian for 13 years, (and he wasn't even a lawyer). He lived until 2010. 

So, they definitely did not pick the weakest link. What was needed was someone like Jack Ruby, who upon being told that he did something, even something horrendous, accepted it just because he was told. That certainly didn't apply to Vaughn. There had to be someone more submissive and supplicative than he was that they could have used. So, did they decide on Vaughn just to burden him with something after what happened with Bush?   

Vaughn was given a polygraph exam, which he passed with flying colors, that he didn't see Jack Ruby or let him enter the garage.  

Look: the whole case that Roy Vaughn slipped up is ridiculous; it is totally without merit. Three other police officers: Lt. Pierce, Sergeant Maxie, and Sergeant Putnam were supposedly also there when Ruby entered. They didn't see Jack Ruby either, so how likely is it that Ruby gave them all the slip? And what sense does it make to heap all the blame on just one? And there was also a former officer there, N. J. Daniels, and he didn't see Ruby either, so that's 5. And there was a 6th guy across the street, Sergeant Dan Flusche, and he also said that he never saw Ruby. 

It has been speculated, even by some who support the official story, that Ruby must have entered a different way, such as through an alley, but it's ridiculous. Why would Ruby lie about how he got in when he was willing to accept responsibility for shooting Oswald? And how could he know that Lt. Pierce was there in a squad car and another officer on foot unless he saw them? Ruby said he did not know the other officer's name, but he did know Roy Vaughn.   

So, Jack Ruby was telling the truth, and so was Roy Vaughn.  And the truth was that Ruby reached the top of the ramp much earlier than 11:17.  Pierce must have been there at the time, alone in the car, with another officer (not Vaughn) on foot, and they are the ones Ruby saw.  Ruby was already skirted away up on the 5th floor when the shooting spectacle took place in the garage on national television, with FBI Agent James Bookhout playing the role of Jack Ruby, wearing a low-riding hat, and NEVER captured facing the camera, even though there were cameras galore, shooting from every angle.     

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

On November 15, CAPA (Citizens Against Political Assassinations) is holding a one-day conference, and among the speakers is a man, John T. Orr, who is going to be present the most advanced and sophisticated 3-D model of Dealey Plaza, including the shooting trajectories, that has ever been done, and it will completely demolish the Single Bullet Theory. Here is a write-up about it:

"CAPA is pleased to announce that John T. Orr, Jr., former chief of the Atlanta office of the Department of Justice Anti-trust Division and the author of a 72-page report on JFK assassination that has been submitted to the FBI, will be revealing for the first time the results of the 3D-animation project. This project, which was privately funded by individuals on both sides of the debate. engaged a world-renown Forensic Engineering & Animation firm to collect precise laser measurements of Dealey Plaza, scan extent photos of the assassination and the Zapruder film. The reconstruction is the only model of Dealey Plaza as it existed on November 22, 1963 down to several millimeters."
"Unlike prior reconstructions used for several TV programs, this is the only model that accurately aligns the bodies of both JFK and John Connolly in the limousine and also incorporates the differences in the relative sizes of the two men. Indeed, the model even took into account that Elm street had been paved several times in the past 50 years and is several inches higher than it was on that fateful day. The prior computer recreations appear to have been manipulated to achieve a pre-determined outcome. The 3D-project was a truly independent project whose only goal was to pursue the truth."
"The model is essentially a 3D-version of the Zapruder film that allows any shooting trajectory to be tested. Mr. Orr will show how the model refutes the single bullet theory beyond any reasonable doubt . Seating is limited. Early Bird Special ends Oct. 15th."

RC: What this sounds like to me, in the wake of Larry Rivera's excellent work, is that once again, science is catching up with the perpetrators of the JFK assassination. They can run, but they can't hide- not from the light of science. And note that the announcement said that this presentation has already been sent to the FBI. What's the FBI going to do with it? Well, we all know what they are going to do with it: nothing. But, the same thing goes for them; they can run, but they can't hide. And the same thing goes for the Kennedy family; they can run, but they can't hide, not after abandoning and betraying their loved one for 55 years. And why did they do it? To remain respectable, and probably because J. Edgar Hoover threatened Robert Kennedy with exposing John Kennedy's sex addiction and numerous health problems- even though it eventually all got exposed anyway. I would urge Mr. Orr to send a copy of his presentation to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It's time for a prominent Kennedy to join the JFK truth movement- for real.  

Here is the link to the CAPA conference:

You should watch this video of Noam Chomsky in which he lays bare the murderous war crimes of U.S. Presidents, starting with Eisenhower and going forward. Alas, he even accuses Kennedy of "indictable offenses" in South Vietnam and Cuba. He details a lot about Carter, who is usually regarded as a gentle President. When he got to Bush, all he could say was, "we don't need to talk about him." It was recorded in 2003 after the genocidal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The question is: What happens to U.S. Presidents that once they take office, they quickly morph into monsters? He pointed to Clinton's bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan during the height of his sex scandals. Between the bombing itself and the subsequent deprivation of anti-malaria drugs which the factory made, thousands died. And even the New York Times reported that there was no evidence that nerve gas was being produced there. But, Clinton wasn't impeached for that; he was impeached for lying about sex, consensual sex. 

So, how do they transform into mass killers? 

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

This is a new collage of Dan Rather and the mystery man from the Dallas Police garage, and I am strongly convinced that it is the same man. There is the excellent match of the large ears, the bushy eyebrows, the nose, the baggy cheeks, and the hair. For another man to look this much like Rather would be startling anywhere, but for him to be in the very same place that Rather was focused, is mathematically, like winning the lottery. 

So, I conclude that's Rather, but what I wonder is: why would he lie about it? He claimed to be at KRLD, the CBS affiliate in Dallas. You can hear him say it at the link below, at 2:08, that he was at KRLD "subanchoring."  You'll hear him say that the famed CBS reporter Nelson Benton called him on the phone, saying "you better get (the coverage) here now because this thing is moving pretty quickly." What thing? Oswald was, supposedly, going to be walked 30 feet to a car and driven away. So, what expectation did Nelson Benton have? It sounds like he and everyone else knew that something momentous was going to happen. "Hell! This is happening!" What did he think was happening?

But, if Rather was in the garage, and either he was, or there was a startling lookalike of him there, why wouldn't he admit it?

I could only speculate about that. 

Monday, October 8, 2018

OIC and Dealey Plaza UK member Bernard Wilds has done an amazing compilation of JFK assassination literature, which you can find at the link below. It includes some very well known books and also some that are very hard to find. And there are some titles that I have never heard of before, but which look very intriguing to me. So, take a look at this:

Sunday, October 7, 2018

This beautiful melody by Michel Legrand is matched by the absolutely brilliant lyrics written by the husband and wife writing team, Alan and Marilyn Bergman. If lyrics are supposed to evoke visual imagery, these do it in spades. From the 1969 movie The Happy Ending, and earning an Oscar nomination for Best Song, it is What Are You Doing The Rest Of Your Life.

Friday, October 5, 2018

I've said before, and I'll tell you again, that I don't believe Oswald had a P.O. Box. He had no need for one. He certainly didn't need the extra expense. And it wasn't even convenient. The alleged P.O. Box was downtown, and he didn't live there. So, why would a guy without a car get a P.O. Box so far from where he lived? All he supposedly got in it was Socialist and Russian newspapers. Do you really think Oswald was paying to have Russian newspapers mailed to Texas? From Russia? To anyone who thinks that, I got two words for you, and the second one is "you." 

But, there's another reason why his alleged P.O. Box is crying-out-loud fake. And that reason is: Oswald's so-called "cryptic note" to Marina, which was found by Ruth Paine in December. 

It, supposedly, pertained to Oswald's shooting attempt on General Walker, but let me begin by stating emphatically that Oswald did not shoot at General Walker, and he did not even own a rifle. So, it was physically impossible for him to have shot at Walker, and there isn't a stitch of evidence that he did. 

But supposedly, before attempting it, he wrote a handwritten note to Marina, in Russian, which was her "to-do" list in the event that he was shot to death by police. And that is the scenario he was referring to- his death- because he instructed her to throw away or give away all his clothes.  And at the very top of his list of instructions is an instruction pertaining to the P.O. Box.

1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main
post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street
where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You
will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4
blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box
last month so don’t worry about it.

So, we are expected to believe that that P.O. Box was the first thing that came to his mind to give guidance to Marina about in the event of his death. You see, I find that hard to believe. I think it was written that way, by the perpetrators, just to establish the P.O.Box as his, to link him to it in his own handwriting. And there is more:

5. The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will
be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the

Why would his money from work be sent to the P.O. box? There is no evidence that the TSBD knew anything about a of his.  And they didn't mail pay checks there- they handed them out. There is no reason to think that they were aware of a P.O. box of Oswald's. And why would they send it there anyway? Presumably, it would make the news if their employee was killed in a gun battle with police. They'd have heard about it the next day, right? So, why mail money to the P.O. box of a dead guy?  I presume they would have sought to contact Marina about any money that was owed him.  Or, they may have gone to the police with it. But, the idea that his paycheck from work was going to wind up in his P.O. box is preposterous. And how was Marina supposed to cash it? It would have been made out to Lee Harvey Oswald, right? So, how could she walk up to the teller and cash it? Of course, eventually, she would have gotten legal access to his banking and finances, but not immediately. 

What this is is very bad script writing. And the fact that it starts with the P.O. Box and then goes back to it tells me that there was no P.O. Box. It's just something they created as part of the mail-ordering the rifle story. And note that they never asked Oswald whether he had a P.O. Box. And it's because they already knew his answer: NO. 

Thursday, October 4, 2018

There is a movie coming out in December called Vice which is about Dick Cheney, starring Christian Bale. and it is getting a ton of free publicity in the media, including online. It was written and directed by Adam McKay, a very well established guy who is the business partner of Will Ferrell from Saturday Night Live. They have made a bunch of movies together. 

It is apparently not based on a book. It is just based on what McKay wrote. And the story involves how ruthless Cheney was, how driven to power, how much smarter he was than Bush, who is shown to be quite hickish and stupid, and almost to a cartoonish degree. 

For instance, Bush, while he's eating a chicken wing, invites Cheney to be his veep, and he is extremely flippant about it. You'd think he was inviting him to play golf. And Cheney's response to Bush is that VP is mostly a "symbolic" job. Symbolic? Didn't he mean to say: ceremonial? But, he'd consider it if Bush would put him in charge of the more mundane things, like bureaucracy, energy, foreign policy, and the military. OH! I GET IT! THOSE THINGS AREN'T REALLY MUNDANE! HE JUST SAID THAT KNOWING THAT BUSH WAS A STUPID IDIOT.  

I find it strange that anyone would want to make a movie about Dick Cheney, why his story would be considered entertainment. Most movies today are made to appeal to young people because they are the biggest movie-goers. So, do you think young people are going to be interested in this? 

So, it's plain as day that the idea is that Bush was an idiot whom Cheney cunningly manipulated, like a puppet, to do whatever he wanted. So, Cheney was really in charge. Cheney ran the country.  Cheney made all the decisions. And Cheney was a backstabbing, Machiavellian son of a bitch who could always trounce his enemies and ruthlessly do whatever he wanted because he was always a step ahead of them. 

This isn't an expose'. It's a puff piece. And the proof of it is that the media is already praising it and helping it along. Think about this: 

The movie has got to cover 9/11, right? And you know from all the positive media coverage that it must go along with the official story of 9/11, right?  Because: the media would never give positive coverage to any film that did otherwise, right? So, one thing this movie must do is support and bolster the official U.S. government story of 9/11. Are you starting to understand now why this movie is getting so much free publicity? I assure you it's not because it's so good. It's because it uses an entertainment medium to bolster U.S. government lies.  

But, then there are the architects and engineers, and you know what they say: that the towers could not have fallen due to fires, that there had to be a controlled and pre-arranged demolition. 

But, I must admit that selling the official 9/11 story to people while they are shoveling popcorn down their gullets at a movie theater is a brilliant move. They are only there to be entertained, and having the official 9/11 story fed to them at that time is like hypnosis. 

And what about the wars we started in Afghanistan and Iraq? Both were under Cheney's watch. Is the movie going to lay bare the monstrousness and the atrocity of those wars? Over a million people have been killed in those wars. And that's being conservative.  A million people have probably been killed in the Iraq War alone. 

If you haven't noticed, Hollywood has become pro-war. How many anti-war movies have there been in the 21st century? It's a nice round number: zero. Yet, pro-war movies, movies exalting and glorifying our wars, have done well. The Hurt Locker won the Oscar for Best Picture. American Sniper did very well too. 

And it's worse than that because it's not just Hollywood: there is no public debate about these wars anywhere. We have been in Afghanistan now for 17 years, so you'd think there might be a segment on Crossfire in which someone who favors the continued fighting of that war is opposed by someone who thinks we should get the hell out.  But, such a debate is completely absent from the airways. There is no debate any more about U.S. wars. 

On the other hand, I must admit that it was just the other day that someone brought up the Iraq War. It happened to be the President of the United States, Donald Trump. He said that starting and waging the war in Iraq was the biggest mistake this country has ever made. A mistake, was it? A mistake? 

Let me tell you something, Donald:  If I go to Home Depot and I buy a 1/2 inch couplet, and it turns out I needed a 3/8, that's a mistake.  But, when you cross an ocean, and you kill a million people, that is not a mistake. Mistake is not the right word. Mistake is putting it so mildly that it's an insult to all the people who died. 

And Trump got trounced for saying it. Not the way I just trounced him, but mockingly. For instance, Conan O'Brien, after saying that Trump said that the Iraq War was the biggest mistake we ever made, corrected him by saying that it was the second biggest mistake we ever made. The audience laughed, but something is terribly wrong if we don't take the killing of a million people seriously. 

Debate is dead in America. You can debate Kavanaugh. You can debate Kavanaugh 24/7.  But, you can't debate the military actions of the United States. 

Recently, the International Criminal Court began an investigation of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. There was some coverage of it in the media, but only concerning National Security Adviser John Bolton's denunciation of the ICC, saying that it had no authority, no legitimacy, and the U.S. was going to apply sanctions against it and not cooperate with it the least bit.  But, there was no coverage of the exact charges.  What are they claiming U.S. soldiers did? Why, in a free country, would you cover such a story without delving into it? The point is: if it's OK to look into Kavanaugh and his alleged war crimes against women, why isn't it OK to look into the alleged war crimes of the United States? 

I strongly urge you not to go see the movie Vice.  If there was a way for you to see it without spending money, fine. But, do not support it with your dollars. Because: you can be darn sure that it does not get anywhere near the truth about Dick Cheney. It doesn't begin to scratch the surface of what he did and what happened on his watch. 

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

The post office postmark goes on the envelope

So, why would there be a postmark on this money order?

And what is the stamp on the back? And what does it say?

Here is the envelope, and you can see the postmark on it. Notice that it even has the time, 10:30 AM. 

So, why would there be a postmark on the money order? And this money order supposedly got deposited on March 13. So, you would have to believe that Oswald mailed the letter on March 12; it got delivered to Klein's in Chicago on March 13, and on that very same day, they also deposited it, as part of a $13,000 deposit. That's the story. But, that stamp on the back is not by First National.   They didn't have a stamp for every customer.  That's the customer's endorsement stamp. You know that checks have to be endorsed. If it's only one or two, you just sign them. But, if it's a whole stack, it would take a lot of time; hence, the convenience and usefulness of an endorsement stamp. Here's a model that's similar. Usually, they include "For Deposit Only" as this one does: 

But regardless, that is definitely what this is, an endorsement stamp of Klein's. 

So, Klein's stamped it, but there is no sign that their bank or any bank ever handled it. There is no sign that it ever went into any bank; that it ever entered the banking system.

So, this money order didn't go anywhere. But, eleven days later, on March 23, it got initialed by three people, and then a fourth person on the following day? Who are those people? And why would they be initialing and dating the money order? And it looks like the same handwriting. At least, the first three look like the same handwriting, but with slightly different formations done on purpose by the same person. Handwritings tend to vary a lot. 

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

The lie that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy is so outrageous, it is despicable. The photograph of Oswald standing in the doorway during the shooting should be enough for most people to recognize that he didn't do it, considering that you can identify not just him, but his clothing. But, there are other dealbreakers. There is the fact that he could not have ordered the rifle. Mail did not travel from Dallas to Chicago in one day. I don't know which bonehead made up that one, but they had Oswald's envelope mailed one day, March 12, and reaching Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago the very next day, March 13, and being processed by them, where they got it ready for deposit all in one day.

The official story goes that, on March 12,  without permission, Oswald left his post at work at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall Printing and Graphic Arts. This company did mostly high-security work for the federal government and the U.S. Military, and no company trying to appeal to the general public would go by the name Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall. It ain't catchy. But, the story goes that he left his job at work and walked 11 blocks to the downtown post office and bought a postal money order. And then, for some strange, inexplicable reason, instead of mailing it right there at, you know, the post office? he walked several miles over the Trinity River and mailed it from "zone 12". Then, he walked back to work, where he was never missed, and where, somehow, he completed 9 printing projects that morning, a hefty output, even though he was gone for much of the time. 

Then, his letter somehow reached Klein's the very next day (there was no overnight delivery at 1963, not even as expedited mail) where it was stamped for deposit by them. But, the check was never deposited, and we know that because it never got a bank stamp on it. And that's never as in not at all. It is absolutely impossible for that money order to have gone through the banking system without being stamped. And it would have been stamped by multiple banks handling it. But, Klein's stamp is the only stamp on it.

This money order was supposedly found in postal processing center in Arlington, Virginia, but if it had been deposited in Chicago, it would have wound up in a postal processing center in Kansas City. But, there is absolutely no question that it did not go through the banking system at all, it having not the stamp of a single bank on it.  It is painfully and woefully obvious that the paper trail of Oswald having ordered a mail-order rifle from Klien's Hardware in Chicago is fake, fake, fake. 

And remember that Oswald was asked if he owned a rifle, and he said that he did not. It's obvious that he was telling the truth. 

And look at the name A. Hidell. That had to be the person to which the rifle was sent, but that name was not on Oswald's alleged P.O. Box. And I say alleged because Oswald never acknowledged having a P.O. Box. Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald received at the P.O. Box, not personal mail, but Socialist and Russian newspapers, to which he subscribed, the latter coming all the way from Russia, but they have never showed us a single such newspaper in Oswald's possession at his room. I guess he wasn't a hoarder. 

I don't buy Oswald having a P.O. Box at all. What did he need it for? Why get a downtown P.O. Box when he didn't live downtown, and he had no car? And why would he start his emergency instructions to Marina (written in Russian) with an admonition to go to the P.O. Box when there was nothing in it that she could possibly need or want? They were just trying to associate Oswald with the P.O.Box in his own handwriting. 

The framing of Oswald was, and is. an outrageous, outlandish fraud that a middle-schooler could see through. It's all based on lies as preposterous as the lie that burning desks, chairs, and computers felled a 47 story steel building. 

How did the once great United States of America become a nation that is sustained by lies, lies, despicable lies?