Friday, November 22, 2019

I just checked, and none of the corporate media news websites are saying a word about JFK on this the 56th anniversary of his assassination.  That's what I expected. After the 50th in 2013, it all went dead, and I think it will continue that way, until 2023 when perhaps they'll cover it again for the 60th. 

I watched parts of Ruby and Oswald again, the tv movie from 1978, and it's interesting that depicted Oswald as snarly and street-tough and punk-like, which he wasn't. Recall his temperament at the Midnight Press Conference. In the movie, they made him ooze with criminality. And they had Fritz ask him whether he mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, and Oswald replied with a wisecrack, "How was I supposed to do that on my salary of $1.20 an hour when I can barely afford to feed myself."

But, the fact is: they never informed Oswald of anything pertaining to Chicago. They simply asked him if he owed a rifle, and that's it. 

So, why didn't they show him the evidence from Chicago? And why didn't they ask him about his P.O. Box? I think I can answer that one. It's because he didn't have a P.O. Box, and they (the FBI) knew he didn't have one, so why ask him about it? It would only have alerted him to the fact that he was being systematically framed. 

And note that they didn't show him the rifle either. They could have but they didn't. I suppose it's because they knew that Oswald would say that it wasn't his and he never saw it before. 

And why show him the Backyard photo? Oswald said right away that it wasn't him and someone put his face over the body of another man, and that it was a photographic trick that he could demonstrate. There really was no need to show that to him. 

So, why did they do it? It may have happened by accident. They may have hoped that it would be discovered after Oswald was dead. They were discovered in the Paine garage on Saturday afternoon, but Oswald was supposed to be killed in the theater, and that didn't work out, and I believe he was then supposed to be killed at the Midnight Press Conference, and that didn't work out either. 

Think about how much better it would have been if they never showed them to Oswald. He would have never denied they were real. Supposedly, Marina told the FBI that they were real, but she first said that she only took one, not several, and that it was taken in February, which was before Oswald supposedly got the rifle. Later, she changed her story accordingly, but remember: in FBI custody, Marina became the Stepford Wife of the FBI, and you can't rely on anything she said. In a word, they flipped her. The combined effect of whatever mind-control techniques they were using on her, including drugs, and the tremendous "green poultice" that she got after the assassination, including not just contributions from the American public, but a movie deal with an Italian film company for a movie that was never made. It was something like $150,000 in 1963 money. Do you realize how much that is equivalent to today? Marina got rich off the assassination. And that Italian film company was very mysterious and suspicious. You can't find anything that they've done. It just vanished after that. Apparently, it was just CIA-generated money, and the Italian film company was a facade. They were paying Marina off for her cooperation. But, what a tortured life because deep inside, Marina had to know what she did to Lee.

And if they were going to show the Backyard photo to Lee, why not the Altgens photo? The controversy about it started right away. We have it in writing that they were talking about it on 23rd. The evening of the 23rd is when the Dallas Police and FBI stormed Billy Lovelady's house, with a copy of the Altgens doorway "as big as a desk" according to his wife Patricia. What justification was there for showing the photo to Lovelady and getting his take on it but not doing the same for Oswald? There was NO justification for that. They weren't going to show it to Oswald because they knew very well that he would identify himself as the Doorway Man, but I think he also would have recognized that the image was altered, that they moved the top of Lovelady's head over to him. He would not have recognized it as Lovelady's, but he would have realized that it was somebody else's and not his. You can see how well these hairlines match between Young Lovelady and Doorway Man, but the image of Lovelady is from the 1950s, probably 1957, and he lost a lot of hair after that. So, why would Doorway Man have the hairline of 1950s Lovelady? He couldn't. He couldn't if he was Oswald, and he couldn't if he was Lovelady. He just plain couldn't. 


I don't know why Lovelady on the right has that black mark on his forehead. I suspect it's an artifact. The white arrow points to where the junction may have been. So, everything above the arrow is Lovelady, and everything below the arrow is Oswald. 

Oswald recognized what they did to the Backyard Photo, so he may well have recognized what they did to this. So of course they weren't going to ask him about it. 

But, if you look at Oswald's image on the left, you can see how freaky it is, with all that distortion on the right. And it's just one of many weird distortions in the Altgens doorway. It really is a freak show. Remember, the song we wrote:

The Altgens Family
Da nah nah nah.

Da nah nah nah.


Da nah nah nah; Da nah nah nah; Da nah nah nah.

They're creepy and they're kooky, 
Mysterious and spooky, 
They're all together ooky, 
The Altgens Family. 

Their doorway's a museum 
Where people come to see 'em 
They really are a scree'um 
The Altgens Family. 

Neat.

Sweet.

Petite.

So get a witches shawl on 
A broomstick you can crawl on 
We're gonna pay a call on 
The Altgens Family.


Their names are still debated,
Black Hole and Obfuscated,
Their histories are related,
The Altgens Family.

See Oswald is the Doorman,
He doesn't have a prayer, Man,
Lovelady's got no hair, Man,
The Altgens Family

Lee.


Shel-ly'.


Bil-ly'.


Lee's innocent, you dodo,
Scan Altgens' altered photo
For characters we all know,
The Altgens Family.



So, as we ponder this the 56th anniversary of the JFK assassination, one thing is certain: the official story is dead- completely and totally dead- and only fools and State pigeons, both paid or unpaid, spout it, and half of them probably don't believe it. Oswald's innocence is clearly established, proven, and widely recognized, and in time, Ruby's will be too. 
     






No comments:

Post a Comment

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