Sunday, November 18, 2018

When Bernard Wilds asked me to let him publish some of my writings from the OIC blog in order to raise money to help homeless people in Manchester, England, where he lives, I instantly said yes. I am very grateful to Bernard for the help he has given me, artistically and otherwise, and I am honored that he thinks enough of my work to think that it will sell and generate funds for this noble cause, for which I very much hope that he is right. 

Lee Harvey Oswald was and is innocent. He is completely and totally innocent of all crimes of which he is accused: including murdering President Kennedy, murdering Officer Tippit, and shooting at General Walker with intent to kill. If Oswald isn't the most wronged man in history, he is certainly one of the most wronged, and close to the top.

As I type this, we are just days away from the 55th anniversary of the JFK assassination, so where do things stand? First, the mainstream media continues to brandish the official story of the assassination, and they do not even acknowledge the existence of Oswald defenders. Instead, they spread the wrong impression that those who dispute the official story do so only on the basis of whether Oswald had accomplices. They falsely state or imply that the only challenge is whether Oswald acted alone. They carry on as if nobody doubts that he acted (to kill Kennedy). The corporate media will simply not allow Oswald innocence to be voiced. But, I don't see it as a sign of strength, but rather, of weakness. They fear debating it because they know they cannot withstand such a debate. 

What is the evidence that Oswald as innocent? First, he had a rock-solid alibi: that he was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository at the time of the shots and was photographed there. Oswald did not live long enough to find out that he was photographed there. On the evening of November 23, FBI agents went to the home of Billy Lovelady to show him the Altgens photo and ask him to identify the figure in the doorway. So, why didn't they, simultaneously, go to the cell of Lee Oswald and do the exact same thing? The answer is very simple: they knew better. There never was an investigation; there was only a frame-up. It wasn't about learning the truth; it was about dealing with a logistical problem and putting out a fire. 

Oswald in the doorway is, by itself, sufficient to establish Oswald's innocence. But, there is more. There is the fact that the paper trail linking Oswald to the purchase of the rifle from Chicago is patently bogus. As many have pointed out: it isn't even credible that Oswald could have gotten it from the post office since the name A. Hidell wasn't listed as a signatory of the P.O. box.  But, the whole timeline falls apart when you realize that he supposedly mailed his order on one day and it arrived in Chicago and got processed the very next day. From Dallas to Chicago? That's impossible! It's impossible today, even with all the advances in automation, but it was super-impossible back then. Overnight delivery wasn't even available as an option in 1963. 

The so-called fingerprint evidence against Oswald stinks out loud, with the Dallas Police finding nothing, and then the FBI changing the story to finding a partial fingerprint of Oswald's on the triggerguard. But, rest assured that had Oswald lived and been tried, that evidence would have been challenged by the defense in court with their own expert witnesses. 

The Backyard photos would have been exposed as the frauds that they are. Marina Oswald, instead of being the foremost witness against Oswald, would have been his defender. Had Oswald lived and been tried, she never would have said all the lies she told the Warren Commission. Exactly how they "flipped" Marina and got her to say all those awful things about Oswald- lies through and through- remains a mystery. What MK-ULTRA tricks did they play on her? But, she wouldn't have said them had he lived, and we can be sure of that. 

There really is no significant and sustainable evidence against Oswald, and that includes the so-called eye-witness testimonies, from people who thought they saw him in the 6th floor window or at the Tippit murder scene. And keep in mind that that kind of evidence is notoriously weak and unreliable. The many dozens of men whom the Innocence Project has gotten off Death Row wound up there because of such evidence. And in this case, especially, it was like a Stalinist show trial where pressure was applied to witnesses to report seeing Oswald. It took extremely strong character to resist the tsunami of pressure from the State that Oswald did it, and few had it, and none of the witnesses did. The Gestapo was saying that Oswald did it, and you don't argue with the Gestapo.  

Although Oswald in the doorway was and is the centerpiece of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, there are other discoveries in this case that are far less widely known but just as important, at least to me.  One is the fraudulence of the Moorman photo. And keep in mind that I do not accuse Mary Moorman of any wrongdoing, except perhaps of trusting authority. But, even that is an innocent mistake. Whatever photo Mary took got replaced with another image which I believe came from the set of photos that "Babushka Lady" took (whoever she was, and note that I do not support the claim of Beverly Oliver of being Babushka Lady)  But, Mary's photo must have contained some incriminating revelation against the official story, which is why they had to get rid of it. And note that for you to believe that Moorman photo is authentic, you must believe that the FBI borrowed it from her and then accidentally got a white thumbprint on it. Do you believe that? If you do, you just bought the Brooklyn Bridge. 

And then, there is the issue of Jack Ruby, whom everybody and his brother on both sides of the debate thinks killed Oswald, but everybody and his brother are wrong. Jack Ruby was innocent. Jack Ruby was finagled, through drugs and suggestion, to go to that garage. He got there earlier than reported. He was pounced upon and hustled up to the 5th floor. And that's where he learned, for the first time, that he shot Oswald- something he believed only because he was told it. Jack Ruby was mentally ill, and part of his mental illness consisted of having an extreme and bizarre admiration of and fascination with the Dallas Police. I have to wonder if it was infused in him, as in The Manchurian Candidate, with soldiers saying, "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful man I've ever met." What we got from Jack Ruby is that he had no desire to shoot Oswald, no intention of shooting Oswald, and no awareness of shooting Oswald. He didn't even expect to see Oswald. He accepted that he did it only because his heroes, the Dallas Police, told him that he did. But, the fact is: THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT RUBY HAVING DONE IT. THE IMAGE OF THE GARAGE SHOOTER IS NOT A MATCH TO JACK RUBY, RATHER IT IS A MATCH TO FBI AGENT JAMES BOOKHOUT.   

Besides Bernard Wilds, I want to thank American Amy Joyce for her contributions to my blog, and also another British man whom we refer to as The Wizard. I also want to thank Dr. James Fetzer for having me on The Real Deal, Gary King for having me on The New JFK Show, and OIC Chairman Larry Rivera for his excellent leadership and copious research, culminating in his recently published book, a masterpiece: The JFK Horsemen. 

Going forward, I have no doubt whatsoever that JFK truth will prevail and Lee Harvey Oswald will be vindicated. The killing of Kennedy was a State Crime followed by a State Lie. But, State Lies don't last forever. They didn't in the Soviet Union, and they won't here. And when this lie collapses, the big question will be, not who killed Kennedy, but who covered it up and how that cover-up became systemic so fast and for so long. Thank you, Bernard.    

Friday, November 16, 2018

Great song here by Harry Warren, real name Salvatore Guaragna. He wrote more songs than Irving Berlin and had as many #1 hits, yet, few today remember or recognize his name.  He wrote At Last, sung so beautifully by Etta James, Celine Dion, and Adelle. They're great vocalists, for sure, but you can't sing it until somebody writes it. So, how about giving a little credit to Harry? And he wrote this fabulous song, The More I See You.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

I am going to add as a p.s. to my previous piece that if you do the Math, it makes perfect sense that Oswald was in the doorway, and then left right about the time of the fatal head shot, and then took a little over a minute to get to the second floor lunch room slightly ahead of Marrion Baker. All Oswald had to do was go through the double doors, and then turn right to access stairs that were in the southeast corner of the building. He climbed the stairs to the second floor, and then he walked from there to the northwest corner of the building where the lunch room was. 

The exact time it took is unknown. Marrion Baker was timed several times doing what he said he did, and the results fluctuated. According to Dr. David Drone, there was one take in which Baker did it in 70 seconds. But remember that he was running whereas Oswald just walked. And apparently he walked at a very relaxed pace because he was not out of breath when Baker saw him. 

So, with Baker running and Oswald walking, and with Baker also losing time figuring out what to do about the stuck elevator before deciding to take the rear stairs, it's impossible to know exactly how their "race to the lunch room" played out. But, I do believe that if we assume that the Baker/Oswald encounter (where Baker saw Oswald passing through the vestibule room into the lunch room through the glass in the door) took place approximately a minute and a half after the last shot, we will be on pretty safe ground. And that coincides with the length of time it would have taken Oswald to make the trek starting from the doorway. Mrs. Robert Reed (her first name was Geraldean but, amazingly, she testified as Mrs. Robert Reed; talk about being old-fashioned) was standing right in front of the doorway, and it took her 2 minutes. She was timed at it too. Her desk was at the northwest corner, close to the lunch room.  

Amazingly, this company was in the very simple business of buying text books wholesale from publishers and then selling them, supposedly to schools, although there is no evidence of any school-size orders, rather, only small orders. So, why would there be any need for a large clerical staff? If you've seen images of the 2nd floor, it's rows of desks. There was only one shipper, Troy West. How could he be shipping enough books to require oodles of clerical workers? We have never seen even one prepared parcel, a book order that was packaged, labeled, and stamped. We don't even know how they got labeled and stamped. Yet, there was enough revenue from Troy West's wrappings to generate income to pay all those salaries? 75 people worked for the TSBD, and that is a lot of salaries. How could one guy wrap small orders of books all day and generate enough profit to pay the salaries of 75 people, plus all the other expenses of the business? I'm telling you: the book distributing was just a front for the TSBD; they were really a CIA front company whose real business was espionage, hunting for Communists, and according to William Weston: gun running.

But, to return to our original topic, another thing that cements Oswald in the doorway is the high degree of correlation between his trek to the 2nd floor lunch room from the doorway, and Marrion Baker's trek there the way he did it. It really makes sense that they would meet up there at about the same time. Oswald started right with the fatal head shot, and we know that from Wiegman: the fact that they had to put that other phony Doorman in after Oswald left. 

So, if Oswald left the steps at the time of the fatal head shot, and Baker reached the steps about 10 seconds later (giving Oswald a 10 second head start) it makes sense that they would get there about the same time since Baker was hustling and Oswald was not. The Math works. It adds up. And nothing else adds up. There is no basis to say that Oswald was anywhere else. He could not possibly have come down from the 6th floor because Oswald entered the lunch room from the office side, for which there was no access from the 6th floor. Oswald did not use the rear stairs to get there. He used the front stairs. These stairs:

And this is the route that he took:

So, you see the icon for the stairs on the lower right. Those are the stairs Oswald used. And then he could have either walked the hypotenuse of the triangle, as I have indicated, or walked the base and altitude of the triangle, but I assume he walked through the office area for two reasons: 1) because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and Oswald knew that, and 2) he walked through the office area upon leaving the lunch room, which is how he crossed paths with Mrs. Reed. 

All of this makes sense. All of it works. And there is no alternative to any of it. This is what happened. 

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

In addition to all the visual reasons I've given for why it had to be Oswald standing in the doorway, there is also the simple fact that there is no place else he could have been but the doorway.

He wasn't up the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, and I'm not talking to the pinks and punks here. I'm talking to Professor James Norwood. Oswald wasn't up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, now was he, Dr. Norwood? So, if you don't think that's him in the doorway, where do you think he was? He had to be somewhere. And don't you think that after denying that it's him in the doorway, that you might feel a responsibility to say where he was? It is a very finite situation. There aren't that many places he could have been. 

Do you think he was in the lunch room? But, Oswald said he ate his lunch in the first floor lunch room (where he always ate lunch) early in the lunch break at a time that James Jarman and Harold Norman were milling around. And that was definitely early in the lunch break because they said so. It had to be because by 12:30, they were up on the 5th floor where they were photographed. And all Oswald had to eat was a cheese sandwich and and apple. How long does it take to eat that? And it probably wasn't a very big apple because Ruth Paine had young children, and she wouldn't be buying big apples; she'd be buying little ones.

That is what Oswald told police, and they had the means to confirm it. They could have gone to that lunch room and looked for the remnants of his lunch: a small paper bag, an apple core, crusts of bread, wax paper? There had to be some refuse. But, they never mentioned doing it. If I could think of it, don't you think the Dallas Police could? But, who is to say they didn't? Who is to say they didn't go there and collect that evidence and destroy it? But, the point is that they could have done it, and if they didn't find it, they could have said so. "Oswald told us he ate lunch in the lunch room, a cheese sandwich and an apple, but we found no remnants of it in the garbage." What I'm saying is that it implies that Oswald was telling the truth, since if he was lying, they could easily have proven it. 

Oswald got off work at 11:45, just like everyone else. So, why wouldn't he proceed to eat his lunch? He hadn't eaten all day. We know that for sure. Ruth Paine said that the only thing he had that morning at her house was coffee. And he worked all morning, schlepping books around, filling those orders. So, why wouldn't he be ready to eat at 11:45? And what did he have to do instead of eat? Nothing. So, he said that he ate then, and it makes perfect sense that he would have eaten then. And therefore, it makes no sense that he would be eating at 12:30, which was 45 minutes later.

And remember the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker, who said that he saw Oswald just entering the lunch room on the 2nd floor at 12:31. Repeat: Oswald was just getting there at 12:31 when Baker saw him. So, since he was just getting there then, there is no basis to claim that he was there a minute before. 

So, there is no basis to claim that Oswald was in either lunch room at 12:30. So, where else could he have been?

There is no other place that he could have been, that is, there is no other place with any credibility.  Do you want to say he was in the bathroom coaxing his bowels? Sorry. You can't say it. You have no basis to say it. You see: you can't make things up. You can only go where the evidence leads. And speculations that are not tied to the evidence do not belong in the discussion.  

So, since Oswald wasn't up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, and since he wasn't in either of the lunch rooms at 12:30 (Note: he did get to the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31 but we're talking about where he was 12:30), there really is no place else but the doorway that he could have been. So, the doorway wins even by default. And the reality of that makes the photographic evidence of him in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman film even more compelling. 

But, my point is that, for the people who object to him being in the doorway without stipulating where he was instead, that it demonstrates how vacuous their thinking is, how faulty their reasoning, and helpless and hopeless they are at studying the case. 

It is a sad and pathetic state of affairs when someone reaches the point that they simply want a certain outcome in the JFK case, that they want something to be true because emotionally they need it. 

If Oswald had lived and been tried (and that is purely theoretical because they were never going to let that happen) the State would have been screwed. If he had survived the Sunday plot with James Bookhout pretending to be Jack Ruby, say if Parkland doctors could have saved him, they would have thought of another way to kill him. They could never, under any circumstances, let him to be tried. Remember: all the evidence against him was fake. He never ordered or owned any rifle. Read John Armstrong.  And as soon as he talked to a lawyer, the lawyer would have realized that the authorities weren't just mistaken about Oswald, rather, the authorities were framing him. And think also about the fact that if Oswald had lived and been tried, the State would never have been able to do its Stepford Wife thing to Marina, and she would have been Oswald's witness and testified for him. You've heard of spousal privilege?  And there are more reasons why a trial of Oswald would have turned into a trial of the State. 

So, Oswald had to be exterminated, and no matter how many times it took to do it, they'd have done it. But theoretically, if a trial had ensued, his presence in the doorway would have been the core of his defense.  And that's because a defendant's alibi is always the core of his defense. 

Yet, alas, it's true that in all the mock trials, and there have been quite a few, the only one in which it came up was the 1984 British one, which was the most elaborate one, and in it, Gerry Spence only tepidly suggested that it was Oswald in the doorway. He didn't pursue it vigorously. After he got Marrion Baker to admit that the Doorway Man looked like Oswald, Vincent Bugliosi put the demented Frazier up there, who said it was Lovelady. And that's when Spence should have treated Frazier as a hostile witness and really gone after him. But, he didn't. He was soft and gentle with Frazier, and I think it's because Frazier has got this child-like quality about him. Spence didn't challenge him at all. And the result was that his brief foray into the doorway question did absolutely no good. He should have made it the crux of Oswald's defense. 

But, you can be sure that in real life, if a trial had happened, the doorway would have been the core and the crux of Oswald's defense. Have no doubt about it. You know how adamant Oswald was, and he would have adamantly told his lawyer or lawyers that he was in the doorway. And that's especially true after they showed him the Altgens photo, which they surely would have.

But, what I'm getting at is this: if there were a mock trial in which Oswald's presence in the doorway was the basis for his defense,  then people like James Norwood would hope and pray that he gets convicted. That's how sick and twisted the situation is. He would jump for joy as soon as he heard the word, "Guilty." And again there isn't even another theoretical place Oswald could have been but the doorway. Oswald was DEFINITELY in the doorway. People like Norwood can't even proffer an alternative. So, what does that tell you? 

But, the good news is that we have made an awful lot of progress. and people like Norwood are irrelevant. Oswald in the doorway is back, and he's back for good. He is never going away again. And the fact of his presence in the doorway will be at the fore and forte when JFK truth triumphs. 

Do you realize that from November 22, 1963 on, the number of times that Billy Lovelady went before the public is zero? He essentially spent his entire post-assassination life in hiding.  He did his first media interview in May 1964, and it was also his last, but no image of him was taken. That was with with Jones Harris. There apparently was an interview of him for the 1967 CBS 4-hour JFK Special, but that got nixed - along with the entire coverage of Doorway Man. When Tink Thompson was writing his book, he covered the Doorman issue, but instead of interviewing Lovelady, he interviewed CBS about Lovelady. 

Lovelady went into virtual hiding. He moved to Colorado. His wealth took a big jump up. No more $1.11/hour jobs for him. His wife Patricia died a wealthy woman with vast real estate holdings across Colorado. 

But, you know what happened in the 1970s with the HSCA. Instead of ordering Lovelady to Washington, as they did many witnesses, they sent their lawyer, Ken Brooten, to him. And then it got weird. Brooten quits his job with the HSCA to become Lovelady's lawyer. Think about that a moment, how unusual it is, how one-of-a-kind it is. Why WHY WHY would Brooten do that? It obviously wasn't for financial reasons. People move around on jobs a lot because of money, that could not have been the determinant in this case. IT'S OBVIOUS THAT BROOTEN, UPON MEETING LOVELADY, SAW PERIL. He saw an accident waiting to happen. He saw that Lovelady was unsteady and unstable, that he would NOT hold up to any cross-examination on the Doorman issue. 

But, why did Lovelady need a lawyer? Well, perjury is a crime, and not just in court. One can be charged with perjury for lying to the FBI or lying to a government committee.   And apparently, the Doorman issue was front-burner at that time, and Lovelady was being harassed by reporters and researchers- and buffs. Hence, Brooten felt he needed a lawyer. And when Lovelady died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 41, right when the HSCA Report was coming out in January 1979, Brooten held "conspiracy theorists" responsible. Of course, dead men tell no tales. And Lovelady's wife Patricia was so tender about it: "I've had to answer about this for 15 years, but now I don't have to answer about it any more."  

To this day, the only uncontrolled image of Lovelady that we have is the one pirated by Mark Lane, in which Lovelady is clearly no match to Doorway Man.

This is the only un-whitewashed image of Lovelady in existence, and his baldness, his protruding ears, and the shape of his face are clearly in conflict with Doorway Man. 

And there is no point in using any other image of him because every other image of him is under suspicion. THEY DON'T MATCH WITH EACH OTHER, NEVER MIND WITH DOORWAY MAN.

That's why I say, there's a stench to this. Something is rotten, and I don't mean in Denmark. Lovelady is the square peg forced into the round hole. People from all over the world thought they saw Oswald in the doorway, and the Lovelady claim was a whitewash from Day 1. This thing reeks of malfeasance, including the way Lovelady died. He was very likely murdered. And of course, we know that many people were murdered to silence the truth about what really happened in the JFK assassination. 

The Russian people eventually found out that the Bolsheviks slaughtered the Romanov family. So determined were the Bolsheviks to hide their ghastly crime, they actually tried to dissolve the bones- in fear that somebody would dig them up. And, the American people will eventually find out that the equivalent of our Bolsheviks slaughtered the Kennedys, starting with John, then Bobby, and then JFK Jr.  

Monday, November 12, 2018

Here we have the Lovelady shirts compared. On the left is from the clip that surfaced in 1966, said to be from the Martin film but it does not occur in the Martin film as we look at it. So, it's really just a lip-flapping thing; there is no evidence that it's from the Martin film other than the lip-flap. But supposedly, it was taken 10 or 15 minutes after the assassination when Lovelady was milling around outside the entrance, smoking. It could not possibly have been him since Lovelady reported that he left immediately with Shelley for the railway yard and then went to the back door to reenter. But, whoever this guy was, he was wearing a shirt with a pocket flap, which you see boldly in the center of the image on the left. You see how the pocket flap, which was largely orange or red, overlapping the blue-black color which was the alternating color within the pattern. On the right is the shirt that Lovelady posed in for Robert Groden in 1976, and on it, there is no flap, and the only sign of a pocket at all is the stitching on the left side. It's strange that the pocket would lie so flush with the shirt when Lovelady habitually stuffed packs of cigarettes there.

Here is a collage of two Lovelady impostors.:

These are supposedly the same guy, filmed one hour and fifteen minutes apart, the one on the left occurring first. Notice how massive the arm is on the guy on the right. Notice the pocket flap on the guy on the left. Notice the pack of cigarettes on the guy on the right. The guy on the left was smoking but there were no cigarettes in his pocket. So, where did he get the cigarette? Do you think he bummed it off someone else? But, no one else in the image is smoking. Notice that the guy on the left's shirt is not spread open at all. So, what are we to think? That he had it spread open in the doorway, as seen in the Altgens photo, and then he buttoned it up after the shooting, and then he spread it open again a short while later? Then, they adjusted the aspect ratio to slenderize the guy on the right.
Why would anyone make excuses for this? It is obviously a sea of manipulation, a frenzy of photographic lies. There is a stench to it, and it stinks bad. And why would anyone who recognizes that the entire story of the JFK assassination, that Oswald shot Kennedy, is a lie defend this? If they would lie about what essentially happened, if they would start off with a gross lie in which an innocent man was framed, and where it involved, in advance, establishing phony Backyard Photos (how can any Oswald defender say they are real?) a phony paper trail of Oswald having ordered the rifle (read John Armstrong) then how can any of this be real? Why would any Oswald defender defend this and say that nothing is suspicious here; that nothing is out of line; that this part of the JFK story is OK? 

It is NOT OK, and the people who say it is OK are not OK. And I don't mean those who are paid to say it is OK. Those people are bad, but they are not hard to understand. But, it's the people who publicly say, unequivocally, that Oswald was framed and innocent, but then go on to defend this- they are the ones who are twisted. Of course, it may be that their public defense of Oswald is just a ploy to manipulate those who really do defend him- and that would be understandable too. It's a straight-up con job. But, I am talking about the people who sincerely say that Oswald was innocent, framed and innocent, and yet go on to defend these trumped up images of Lovelady- they are the twisted ones. They are disturbed. They are the ones who have truly lost it, mentally. They are having a nervous breakdown- intellectually. You wouldn't want to be one of these guys, Norwood I. 

Sunday, November 11, 2018

This is the FBI image of Lovelady's face from February 1964. Why does it look like it's shaped like an s?  I mean: that's freaky. 
I believe it looks like that because they manipulated the photo to hide the fact of Lovelady's protruding ears. 

So, that's supposed to be the same guy, and it is the same guy. But, there is a disconnect between the images. That tells us that one of the images must have been manipulated, dishonestly. So, who do you think did it, the chicanery? Do you think it was the FBI (on the left), or do you think it was Mark Lane (on the right)? I know it was the FBI, and I know why they did it: they were trying to hide the fact of Lovelady's protruding ears, since Doorman doesn't have them. 
I used to wonder: Why didn't they put Lovelady in front of a sea of cameras to show the world how much he looked like Oswald? The answer is: because he didn't look like Oswald. 

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Lovelady had an unusual face in that he had very prominent cheek bones and a depression in the temple area. 

It's even more exaggerated in the FBI photo, to the point of looking weirdly s-shaped.

But, there is no trace of it on Doorman, whose face matches Oswald's contour to a tee. 

What reason is there to think that there is an s-shaped face there on the left? You know there isn't. It's just one more reason to admit that he is Oswald. Denying it now is beyond stubborn. It is really diabolical. 
Fact: we only have one reliable image of Billy Lovelady, which was taken by Mark Lane. Can you trust the FBI? Do I have to ask? Do you realize that this is one of the greatest photojournalist coups of all time, the capturing of this photo? This is how Billy Lovelady looked at the time of the assassination. This is how his hair was. This is how his ears were. They stuck out. It's a pretty severe degree of prominent ears. 

Of course, this is a far cry from the FBI photos. But, who are you going to trust, Mark Lane or the FBI?  Do you think Mark Lane would have altered and falsified a photo? Of course not. But, the FBI? Of course, they would, and they did. 

There is really no point in comparing any of the other photos of Lovelady to Doorman except this one because it is the only one we can have confidence in.   

So, it' either that or this:  Who matches better?

Let's take a close look at these images of Lovelady. Are they all the same guy? And are they all the same shirt? 

Does that look like the same guy to you? The first guy looks like an Olympic weightlifter, doesn't he? How heavy were those boxes at the TSBD, and was Lovelady stacking them by hand? Three at a time? The second picture was only 1967, so what happened to his muscles? And, I can understand a man's body getting thinner, but how does his head get thinner? And compare the shirts. There is a pocket stuffed with a pack of cigarettes above, but no visible pocket at all below it. I understand that pockets can lie flat, but that's usually when the shirt is new, and this shirt was old in 1963. Mrs. Lovelady said that she bought it at a thrift store. So, it was well-used before Lovelady got it. And if he had the habit of keeping his cigarettes there, and I emphasize that cigarette smoking is a habit, then the pocket should have been well-stretched by 1967. So, did he iron it flat? But, why would he do that? 

Then, there is this picture, which was reportedly taken by Robert Jackson in 1971. 
How did he wind up with buttons on both sides of his shirt?
And notice that the button at the junction of the V is like a puzzle. What side of the shirt is that button on? 
Is it on the left? Is it on the right? 

And what about the bottom button? What is going on there?

What is supposed to be the button there? There's something with a black halo around it that's very centered, and then something white that is off-center below it. Which is supposed to be the button? 

We'll come back to this.  

Friday, November 9, 2018

It is noteworthy that in the Wiegman film, Doorman's shirt looks uniform and consistent.

How do you equate those two shirts? What's the talking point for it?  And when I say talking point, I mean excuse. 

Thursday, November 8, 2018

Years ago, Lance Uppercut created a series of GIFs to show the very discernible pattern of Billy Lovelady's shirt. (if new here, there's a link right over there to his page >>>>>)

Lovelady's shirt had a series of horizontal and vertical, black and white stripes There was something unique about the stripes as well. The horizontal white stripe alternated as to being either above or below the black stripe.

At least the Punk acknowledges that Lovelady's stripes were horizontal and vertical. But as for Lance Uppercut (whose real name is Steve Haydon) he seems to think that Lovelady's stripes were diagonal. At least, that's how he drew them below. 

In his ignorance, Haydon tried to imply that Doorman was leaning, and that's what made his stripes diagonal. However, Doorman was NOT leaning. And you know that because his head is straight and vertical. I drew an axis line through Doorman's head, and you can see that it's vertical.  And when a person leans his body, his head goes along for the ride. 

The head leads, and the body follows. The whole purpose of leaning is to get your head somewhere. Well, not when you stretch, but when you are trying to see something, yes. You wouldn't lean your body and leave your head behind. 

And we know that Doorman wasn't leaning because we can see him at the exact same time in the Wiegman film standing perfectly straight. 

So, Haydon's  art work is nonsense. He doesn't know what he is talking about. And the truth is that there are no lines: vertical, horizontal, or otherwise on Doorman's shirt. And there is no plaid pattern to it. There isn't a single box on it. It's not like Lovelady's shirt, on which you could play checkers. 

And keep in mind that that wasn't really Lovelady's shirt. The shirt he wore on 11/22 was this one:

Lovelady's shirt is unbuttoned because he is demonstrating the look of Doorway Man. But, why would he do that unless it was the shirt he wore that day?

The above images were taken by the FBI and sent to the Warren Commission, although they didn't do anything with them. We don't even know if anybody even looked at them. But then, in the 1970s, when the HSCA was re-examining it, they decided to add more shadow to the FBI photos, particularly the center one. 

It makes quite a difference, don't you think? He looked thuggish in the original photos, which they apparently didn't like. 

 Lovelady was seen standing in and identified in the photo as standing in that spot, at that moment in time.

Oswald wasn't. By anyone. Ever.

Now, here are the facts: 

The Warren Commission had Lovelady, and they had Altgens, and Altgens had his camera.  So, all they had to do was have Lovelady stand in the doorway- in whatever shirt he claimed to have worn- and have Altgens take another picture. In other words: duplicate the doorway image with just Doorman. But, instead of doing that, they settled for lip-flapping. But not just any lip-flapping. They settled for pre-screened lip-flapping -  people that they knew ahead of time were going to say that Doorman was Lovelady. 

One of the people they got was a woman, a Mrs. Donald something. I forget her last name. But, she wasn't even there that day. And yet, they got her to look at the picture and say that Doorman was Lovelady. Why did they resort to her? Why didn't they get someone else who was there, such as Joe Molina or Sarah Stanton? Apparently, there weren't too many people willing to say that Doorman was Lovelady.  The pickings were slim. 

And Lovelady, himself, did not testify that he was Doorman. He and Joseph BOTH talked around it. They just talked about arrows in the the light and in the dark but without plainly stating that Doorman was Lovelady. Why didn't they say it? Well, Lovelady didn't want to lie, but he also didn't want to upset the 800 pound gorilla that Joseph Ball was. So, what he did was draw a tiny little arrow to another figure, as if to whisper to Ball, "Psst. I really wasn't Doorman."

So, the big arrow that is mostly in the white on the left was Frazier's, and the little line on the forearm of Black Hole Man was Lovelady's. But, most of Lovelady's arrow was drawn in the black space of the enclosure of Lovelady's arms. And that is how it wound up being two arrows, one in the white and one in the black, but pointing to two different people.  Of course, Joseph Ball didn't point out that they were pointing to two different people. Instead, he quickly changed the subject. 

It was like a Stalinist Show Trial, and if you didn't give the right answer: Lovelady, you were not allowed to testify to the WC. And, I'm sure you heard a mouthful after that too. 

So, the fact that the Warren Report contains no testimonies that Doorway Man was Oswald is the most obvious, "Duh" in the history of duhs. They were never going to allow that because it would have eviscerated the Warren Report.  

In his book The JFK Horsemen, Larry Rivera describes how one of the witnesses, Buell Frazier, was monitored and tracked and controlled after the assassination. And it's still true to this day, except that he has other handlers today, such as Debra Conway. 

But, what about others who were in the doorway, such as Joe Molina? How come we have never heard a word FROM Joe Molina?  When you think about all he went through- where they stormed his house in the wee hours and treated him like he was Oswald's accomplice. It is ludicrous because the people high up knew very well that Oswald was innocent. So, if Oswald was innocent, how could Molina be anything but innocent? 

It's clear that they wanted to scare the shit out of Joe Molina. They wanted to harass him. It's all in Larry's book. He was fired, and it was hard for him to find another job- and he had a large family to support. He eventually found one as the bookkeeper for a credit union- but at much lower pay than he was making at the TSBD.

It's funny that they could pay high salaries to some people when the only income stream was from "order-fillers" ferreting out small book orders from the maze of boxes they had piled up randomly there and bringing them to one shipper, Troy West, who wrapped them in brown paper and tied them with string. How he labelled them we don't know to this day because we have never seen a labelled parcel or any outgoing parcel from the TSBD. Not one. 

Think about that for a minute, that we have never seen a single outgoing parcel, even though the entire revenue stream of the business depended on whatever margin they had on those small book orders. Supposedly.

And yet, they had this large clerical staff with rows of desks on the second floor? It makes no sense, which is to say: it doesn't add up, in dollars and cents. 

And why, since Joe Molina was interrogated by Joseph Ball, the same lawyer who interrogated Frazier and Lovelady and others about Doorman, why didn't Joseph Ball ask Molina about Doorman? He didn't. 

But, the point is that we know that Buell Frazier is damaged goods, and I wonder what mental state Joe Molina is in. He's alive, and he still lives in the Dallas area. 

That Oswald was the Man in the Doorway is settled now beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. Larry Rivera's overlays alone settle the matter. 

And there is nothing that the pinks and the punks can do about it. 

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

It is November, and the JFK anniversary is fast approaching. What will happen this year? I predict: very little; that is: very little coverage. I won't be surprised if some news outlets don't mention it at all. And among those that do, I assure you that all they are going to say about the controversy (if anything) is that some Americans still don't accept that Oswald acted alone, implying, of course, that no one doubts that he acted. 

And that, of course, is a bold-faced lie because the vast majority of those who dispute the JFK assassination do so on the basis of Oswald being innocent. And of course, he was innocent; he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. 

But, here's a piece of irony: There are a lot of newscasters, and they're Americans too. So, if 60% of Americans dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, then why shouldn't some of them be newscasters? In other words, some newscaster may spew the party line but not believing a word of it. And when he gets to the part about some Americans doubting that Oswald acted alone, his own conviction may be that Oswald didn't act at all. But, he gets paid to say the things they want him to say; so he says them. He's got to make a living.  

It is plainly and visibly true that the JFK assassination is the second-most disputed event in American history. You know very well what number one is: 9/11. And please note the term I used: disputed piece of history. I used that term instead of "conspiracy." I don't like the term "conspiracy" and I never refer to myself as a "conspiracy theorist." That term is a derogatory one invented by the CIA in the 1960s. And the ridiculous thing is that they refer to 9/11 truthers as "conspiracy theorists" even though the official story is just as much a conspiracy.  

But regarding JFK, what I suggest you do is what I do: If someone calls me a "conspiracy theorist" I respond by saying that I am not one; that I am am an "Oswald defender."  That's my preferred term. Oswald innocence is what interests me and drives me. I don't mind discussing who was really behind the JFK assassination, but it is not my cardinal interest. My cardinal interest is in exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald. 

So, regardless of who committed the JFK assassination, Oswald was innocent. And by innocent, I mean completely and totally innocent. I don't mean that he was working with the conspirators but just not as a shooter. I don't mean that he lied to the police by telling them that he knew nothing when he really knew everything.  And I don't mean that he had foreknowledge of the assassination. He did not. He did not go to work that morning knowing that JFK was going to be gunned down in Dealey Plaza. He did not even know that JFK's motorcade would be passing his place of work. He really didn't. He asked James Jarman why people were congregating on the sidewalk that morning. He really didn't know. 

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

What impresses me about this song about tenderness is that the composer, Water Gross, came up with some very tender chords to express it. It was written in 1946 with lyrics by Jack Lawrence. It was introduced by Sarah Vaughan in 1947, and when Rosemary Clooney recorded it in 1951 (my birth year) it made her a superstar.

Monday, November 5, 2018

When one goes about JFK research like a bull in a china shop, the results are predictable and certain. It's like the saying goes: garbage in; garbage out. To do this effectively takes the ability to think, and that requires a limber mind, one that isn't stiffened by callous, superficial assumptions. 

Take for instance, Doorman's shirt. Does it have a "bold plaid" pattern like one H.M. Rowland said? 

To even begin to answer the question, you have to be aware of what you are looking at. And what you are looking at is a very tiny image that has been blown up enormously. And when that happens, it causes distortion. 

So, one first has to recognize that there is a lot of distortion in Doorman's image. How stupid would we be if we point to some distortion and describe it as an object? Pretty damn stupid. 

 On the left is Doorman's shirt, and on the right is the shirt of the Lovelady impostor from the fake video that was made in 1966, I presume by the FBI. I hope you know that, in this case, they are the bad guys and not to be trusted. On the left, we see variation in Doorman's shirt, meaning, light and dark. But, what accounts for it? It's not a shirt pattern because nobody would design a shirt like that. It is ugly, and nobody would buy it. What that is is light reflection off Oswald's very grainy shirt, plus some haze and distortion from the extreme enlargement. That's it. That is all it is. It is not a "plaid" pattern like we see on the right. 

Plaid refers to horizontal and vertical lines which cross and form boxes. You can see the boxes on the impostor's shirt on the right. But, there isn't a single box on Doorman's shirt. There isn't a single horizontal or vertical line. It's just random splotchiness. And one would have to be very obtuse, and well, stupid, to say they are the same "pattern." But, let's move on.

Mr. Rowland submitted this image on the left, taken by Robert Jackson- the same guy who was involved in the monstrously altered image of Oswald supposedly being shot by Jack Ruby during the televised spectacle. It is of Billy Lovelady in 1971. 
Note first that I don't even know if that is Billy Lovelady. As I told Mr. Rowland, the only reliable, trustworthy image we have of Billy Lovelady is the Mark Lane image, which I have added.  Do they look like the same guy to you? It certainly doesn't jump out at me that they are the same guy, and if they are the same guy, then the Jackson photo must be, once again, severely altered. Do you understand that Billy Lovelady had clinically protruding ears? You can see it on him. The other guy does not have it, nor does Doorman. 

And, the fact is that "Lovelady" posed on the wrong step in 1971. He stood on the third step whereas Lovelady said he "on your top level." In other words, he was on the platform above the steps. It's in his Warren Commission testimony. 

But, the main thing I want to point out here is that Mr. Rowland took the plaid shirt on the left and equated it with Doorman's shirt on the right, which, as I said, is splotchy not plaid. They cannot possibly be the same shirt. So, it really is stupid to equate them. It is unthinking. It is the antithesis of thinking. 

Next, Mr. Rowland submitted my own image to me, the one demonstrating the parallax effect in the doorway. I made this to explain why Doorman's right shoulder isn't seen in the Altgens photo. It was not because he was behind the column. He was in the center of the doorway. It's because the west side of the doorway was cut off to Altgens' camera because of the angle from which he shot.

So, that is where Doorman was, on the top platform, next to the median handrail, slightly west of center. The parallax line went directly through his right shoulder, which is why it's out of view. His left shoulder is also out of view but not because of parallax. It's out of view because of the massive alternation that was done to the photo, including installing the man to his left, who was put there to hide the very unique construction of Oswald's Russian shirt. 

And finally, Mr. Rowland posted this image of Doorman from the Wiegman film which is not legitimate. It is a bogus image that was added to the photo because Oswald was gone by then. He left for the lunch room.  But, they needed a Doorman there, so they put this guy in. 

If you are wondering how they could add a still image to a movie, they only added it to a few frames. You understand that that's all a movie is: a series of still frames. It's still the case today. So, they added that figure to the film for a tiny fraction of a second. He wasn't Oswald. He wasn't Lovelady. I don't know who he was. 

You have to remember that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event of all time. 

I'll admit that I don't have much patience for people like Mr. Rowland. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and he shouldn't be doing this. He does not have the thinking skills to do it. 


Sunday, November 4, 2018

I just came up with a great new collage of Oswald and Doorman.

Do you understand that it is preposterous to think that Oswald and Lovelady matched that well in their features? You see the ears matching. You see the long exposed nostril. That is an excellent correlation, and Billy Lovelady looked nothing like it. This is November 2018, and there is no longer a sliver of doubt that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of JFK. 
Why did Dan Rather lie about being at the Oswald shooting? What was he trying to hide? And remember, he didn't just say he was there. He gave an elaborate narrative about how he was at the local CBS affiliate KRLD, and he was on the phone with Nelson Benton, who was at the garage and hammering him to come to them. Then, he was talking to New York trying to get them to do it, but without success. And all this because Oswald was, supposedly, going to be walked 30 feet to a car and driven off. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.  
This FBI memorandum about George HW Bush doesn't make sense. He said he heard hearsay "in recent weeks" that a man named James Parrot said he was going to kill the President when he came to Houston. But, why would he wait until after the President was shot in Dallas to report that? Why wouldn't he report it to the FBI and the Houston Police immediately? Wouldn't you? 

There is a third image, a lateral image, of Oswald taken in New Orleans by the New Orleans Police.

So, it's the one on the left, which I had not seen until now. 

We can use it to confirm that the autopsy photo is indeed Oswald.

That's him: same eyes, same nose, same ears, and same long, hairy neckline in back. I'm starting to wonder if barbers didn't clean up the back of the neck back then because his hair looks short, like his last haircut was recent, yet, he's got hair growing all the way down to his collar. 

Here's a comparison of N.O. Oswald to the guy getting out of the elevator with the cops. Notice Oswald's longer nose, less receded hair and very different shaped ear. 

Here's another view:

Notice how they built up the lobule of his ear on the right. That is a really big lobule. That man had small, compact ears, and they were trying to make his look like Oswald's. Oswald's eye brows didn't track above his eyes so closely. They did medially but not laterally. 

So, on the real Oswald on the left, there is divergence between the eye brow and the eye laterally, while there was convergence medially. On the other guy, there was even tracking all the way across.

You see the wavy divergence in all Oswald's photos. 

Wow. That one is a really bad and divergent comparison.

Here's another:

Different guys for sure. Compare the eye brows in relation to the eyes, the noses with so much more flare and exposed nostril on the real Oswald on the left, plus Oswald had a longer neck on the left. 

I don't know where they got that guy on the right, but he was not Oswald. They probably used him to talk to Attorney Nichols. The real Oswald would not have turned down legal help.