Wednesday, December 5, 2018

There is a Youtube video in which Rob Clark, who is a troll who sounds like he's from the hood, trashes Oswald in the doorway. I bring it up because his arguments against it are so plainly stupid.  For instance, he dismisses "out with Bill Shelley in front" from the Fritz Notes on the grounds that "we don't know the question," that Fritz might have asked Oswald where his co-workers were at the time of the shooting, and Oswald may have told Fritz that they were out with Bill Shelley in front. 

That is ridiculous. Oswald was suspected of being the assassin, the lone assassin, of JFK. So, why would Fritz ask him where "his coworkers" were during the attack? And why would he expect Oswald to know where his coworkers were? And, his coworkers were scattered all over the place; they weren't all out with Bill Shelley in front. James Jarman and Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams were up on the 5th floor. So, they weren't out with Bill Shelley in front. But, the most important thing is that this was a murder investigation, and Oswald was the prime and only suspect, and it makes sense that Fritz would solicit his alibi.   

Then, Clark brings up the time-worn argument that no one reported seeing Oswald out front. People ought to dwell on what happened to Joe Molina, whose home was stormed by Dallas Police on the night of the assassination. Why? Supposedly because they 
suspected he was involved with Oswald.

That, of course, was ludicrous. How could he be involved with Oswald when Oswald wasn't involved? It's unclear whether Oswald and Molina ever exchanged words- even once. The idea that they were involved in killing Kennedy together is ridiculous, and it was ridiculous then. 

But, somebody wanted to make hell for Joe Molina. But why? Did he say something that expressed doubt about the official story? He was in the doorway. So, did he start to say something? Something forbidden?  

The point is that you couldn't say it. You couldn't say that you saw Oswald in the doorway because if you started to say it, the Gestapo was going to come down on you like a ton of bricks. Look what happened to Carolyn Arnold. That naive young woman, who was only 19, thought that she could be honest, and she was honest: on November 26, when told the FBI that she was quite sure she saw Oswald standing AT the doorway shortly before the shooting. She said she was already outside, and she turned around, and that's when she saw him, peering through the glass.  The FBI agent who interviewed her designated a time of 12:15 that this happened, and he must have thought that that still left Oswald enough time to get upstairs, build the Sniper's Nest, build the rifle (using a dime as a screwdriver) and get in position at the window to start shooting. But, wiser men than him at the FBI realized that they were still screwed. So, they swept back into the TSBD in March and demanded signed statements from all the employees, including Carolyn Arnold, and by then, she realized that she had committed a faux pas, in spades. And forget in spades; make it in plutonium. 

So, Carolyn Arnold compliantly said she didn't see Oswald at all, and after saying that, she gave the correct time that she got outside, which was 12:25. 

The point is that it is meaningless that there are no published reports of TSBD employees saying that they saw Oswald in the doorway. If anyone tried to say it, they were quickly told, "You didn't see him because he was up on the 6th floor by then, and if you say it again, we are going to XXXXXXXXXXX..."  And you can fill that in with whatever you think they would have threatened, what J.Edgar Hoover's FBI would have threatened.

There is absolutely no doubt that it was Oswald in the doorway, and that's because the likeness to Oswald, and that includes both the likeness to him and to his clothing, are way, way, way beyond the threshold of adequacy to establish it. The idea that that there was this much likeness between Oswald and Lovelady, in the way they looked and the way they dressed on 11/22/63, is, in a word, preposterous. 

It is downright childish and stupid to think that this much likeness in physicality and dress were possible between Oswald and Lovelady. What we are seeing above is like stuffing the ball in  basketball, meaning that the score was made with authority. That is the same guy wearing the same clothes; period. And anyone who denies it now is either flat-out lying or is evading reality, big-time.  


No comments:

Post a Comment

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