I am going to claim something that I have been pondering for years. I am not claiming it with 100% certainty, but I am claiming it with very strong conviction. You'll understand as I proceed.
It is that it wasn't Oswald in the films of the Oswald shooting; that they used an Oswald double for that.
Now, it definitely was Oswald in the "iconic" photos of the Oswald shooting: Beers, Jackson and Johnston. But, I have been saying for years that those photos were taken at a photo-shoot before the televised spectacle.
Dr. Fred Bieberdorf testifed that reporters started gathering very early in the garage, but about 9:45, the police ordered everyone out, including him. And no one was allowed back in until 10 minutes before the spectacle began.
Why did they empty the garage? For one thing, they were expecting Ruby, whom they had to grab, and they didn't want anyone but police to be there for that. But second, they had to take the iconic photos.
And those two things may have overlapped. Ruby may have gotten there right during the taking of the iconic photos.
And the very fact that they took those iconic photos argues for Oswald not being there for the televised spectacle because it explains why they needed the advance photos. If they didn't take them, they wouldn't have had any images of the real Oswald supposedly being shot.
What this comes down to is looking very closely at the images of Oswald in the films and seeing if it's him. We don't have much to work with, and the quality of both films (NBC and KRLD) are very poor. They are very blurry and very poor resolution.
The KRLD footage barely shows Oswald at all. This image shows him for a fraction of a second, but that's it.
We see Oswald like that for several seconds before the Shooter comes in. You can't tell whether it's him. One thing that bothers me is that he had his head cocked to the right slightly, and I don't recall Oswald doing that. it is a subconscious postural habit, and perhaps the Oswald double had that habit, but the real Oswald didn't.
He comes closer, and we do see his ear. Make a note of that.
Then, a tenth of second later, the ear instantly disappears. Look: no ear.
So now, Oswald has no left ear, which means they acted to remove it. Why would they do that? Because ears are very unique and distinctive, and if he wasn't Oswald, his ears may have been very different from Oswald's.
But, this comparison of the Oswald in the footage with the real Oswald is the best we have. I'm sorry, but there is nothing better. So, clear your mind and just consider: do you think that guy on the left is really Oswald? Notice how swollen Oswald's left eye is in the mug shot. We don't see that on the guy in the film. The very fact that they obscured his ear argues that it's not him. This was 1963, and I know movie cameras were not as good as they are today, but they weren't as bad as this. So, the very fact that the film is so blurry and of such poor resolution argues strongly that it's not him. They just did not want us to get a good look at him.
As I look at those two images, I see the hair of the man on the left being straighter and lying flatter. I see his neck as being shorter than Oswald's. Look how close his head is to his shirt collar; that guy had a short neck.
But, I'll put it in perspective: I would stake my life that it's Oswald in the doorway of the Altgens photo. I would also stake my life that it was James Bookhout masquerading as Ruby at the Garage Spectacle. But, I can't tell you that I would stake my life that it wasn't Oswald in the films of the Oswald shooting. However, if there was a way to bet on it, I would stake my money that it wasn't Oswald at the Oswald shooting.
And it makes sense that it wouldn't be. Because: how could they trust Oswald? How could they be sure of what he would do on camera? What if he responded by kicking Bookhout in the testicles?
Furthermore, they had to shoot Oswald under controlled conditions, with perfect placement of the bullet. And those controlled conditions included that Oswald had to be sedated first. They had to knock him out before they could shoot him. They had fast-acting sedation drugs in the 1960s, such as Thiopental Sodium, but it had to be administered intravenously.
I have been saying for years that Oswald was shot in the Jail Office, but they had to start early. They couldn't just wait until after the Garage Spectacle and then somehow drug him and then take their carefully placed shot. So, I think it's very likely that once they used him to take the "iconic" photos (Beers, Jackson, Johnston), that they were done with him. So, they started their operation of killing him, starting by sedating him.
I am going to finish this by showing you something else that I am 100% sure of; that I would stake my life on.
There is footage of Oswald being brought down and led into the garage, but it is definitely not Oswald in that footage.
On the right below is the Oswald double; on the left is Oswald from the Johnston photo, one of the iconic photos taken at the photo-shoot beforehand.
The man on the right is definitely not Oswald. His nose is shorter and blunter, and his tip cartilage doesn't dip as Oswald's does. You can see that his left ear was smaller than Oswald's. You can see that his hair was shorter and had more recession. And he did not have the prominent sternocleidomastoid muscle that Oswald had, which is the long ropy muscle that goes from your collar bone to the mastoid process behind your ear.
He was an Oswald doppelganger, and it is an amazing resemblance. But, he was not Oswald, and I would bet my life on it. I was a doctor my whole adult life, and I know damn well, from having examined people, that the man on the right is not the man on the left.
So, you see, they had an Oswald double. And I already said: Attorney H. Louis Nichols never met with the real Oswald. Watch the Midnight Press Conference and observe how impassioned Oswald was that he wanted a lawyer. He never would have turned Nichols down. They waited until Oswald was taken to his Saturday evening interrogation before putting the Oswald double in his cell and bringing Nichols up there to talk to him.
And finally, just for comparison, here are two images of Paul McCartney.
Some people, to this day, believe that in November 1966, Paul died in a car accident in England and they replaced him with "Faul." Well, do the same kind of photo comparison that I did above for Oswald. In this case, it's Paul McCartney in both photos, and the people who claim otherwise are out of their friggin' minds. And it's not just because the photos match so well (and they do). It's because the idea that someone else could not only look identical to Paul, and sound identical to him, but also have his 1 in 50 million musical talent? And the same resonnace of his voice? And both happened to be left-handed? As I said, the "Paul is dead" people are out of their friggin' minds. But, I assure you; I am not.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.