Richard Mchugh

41 mins · 

Today marks the 51 st anniversary of the assassination of Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King in Memphis ,TN. The killers, plotters have not been brought to justice.

Ralph Cinque Agreed. But, do you know why they killed him? It wasn't because of civil rights. They knew that was coming. It was because MLK was the most eloquent spokesperson there was against the Vietnam War.

I have stated that they were NEVER going to let Oswald go to trial. Although they spoke, with bravado, about wanting to try him and being confident of getting a conviction and a death sentence, it was all bluffing. They were, not only, never going to let Oswald go to trial, they were never going to let him see a lawyer. They couldn't because in minutes, Oswald would have established with his lawyer that a) he didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit, b) he didn't order or own a rifle, c) he didn't pose for the Backyard photos, d) he didn't build a bag out of paper and tape, e) he didn't bring a long object to work, f) he didn't go to Mexico City, g) he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD during the shooting, and more.  And this would have revealed to the lawyer that not only was Oswald innocent but that he was being framed, and the government was involved. And he would not have had to be that smart a lawyer to realize that if the government was framing Oswald for the murder of JFK then the government must be behind the murder. 

OSWALD'S LAWYER WOULD HAVE GLEANED ALL THAT FROM ONE MEETING!

Now, can you see why they couldn't let him see an attorney? 

And perhaps you will also understand now why I am 100% convinced that Attorney H. Louis Nichols never saw the real Oswald on Saturday afternoon. 

But, put Nichols aside for now. Just look at the fact that, on Friday, Oswald appealed to the public for legal assistance several times, culminating in his world appeal at the Midnight Press Conference, in which he started by saying that he complained to the judge that he was being denied counsel. Then, he said he was asking someone to come forward to provide legal assistance. 

Now, how does that mesh with "I want Abt and only Abt"? It doesn't.  Oswald may have brought up Abt, but the idea that he didn't want immediate local counsel is contradicted by his very words to us, which we can hear with our own ears.

So, no trial for Oswald. That was never going to happen. And no lawyer for Oswald either.  THE REALLY STRANGE THING IS THAT JACK RUBY NEVER ASKED FOR AN ATTORNEY, BUT HE WAS BROUGHT ONE IN JUST A FEW HOURS. So, why not one for Oswald? And why no cabana outfit for Oswald?

I am bringing this up again because I thought of a parallel: The United States demanded that the government of Afghanistan turn over Osama bin laden. We said he was responsible for 9/11. They asked for evidence; we said fuck you. But, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE WITH BIN LADEN? I mean if they turned him over to us. Would we have tried him? 

Well, to answer that, you just have to look at the targeting of bin laden in 2011. Why didn't we just apprehend him then? Bin laden hadn't been tried in a court of law. He was never even formally charged with the crime of 9/11. So, what gave us the right to just kill him? 

Now, I'll point out that I am one who believes that bin laden died in 2001, as reported by many. And that raises the question: did they actually kill someone in 2011 at that compound in Pakistan? Reportedly, both bin laden and one of his sons were killed. But, I don't claim to know.  I am an agnostic about the whole thing.

But, let's just talk about it theoretically. Did we have the legal right to kill bin laden in 2011? He was never tried and convicted. And if you try to say that he wasn't a U.S. citizen and therefore was not entitled to U.S. Constitutional rights, I say bull shit. WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND A SET OF VALUES WHICH SAY THAT ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS ARE FORBIDDEN. That's what the "rule of law" means. And in my movie, My Stretch of Texas Ground, I actually have the warmongering Senator Cruthers refer to the "rule of law" as something we are fighting for in Afghanistan. Like hell we are. 

So, we didn't bring bin laden back for trial in 2011. Therefore, if the Taliban had turned him over to us, what were we going to do with him? Just kill him outright? But wait. How could we? I mean: if they turned him over to us, he'd have probably been in handcuffs, right? Maybe his ankles shackled too? Such a man is not a threat. You really don't have any grounds to kill him. I would tell you that they didn't have any grounds to kill him 2011 either. 

But, I don't think they could have tried bin laden. I don't think they wanted to try bin laden. And I say that, first, because I don't believe for one second that he carried out 9/11. But, regardless of that, he was a former ally of the United States. We provided him with weapons and other support during the Mujahideen war with the Soviets in Afghanistan. And there are widely circulated reports that he was a CIA asset, and that he even had a Western name: Tim Osman. Here is a discussion of it on RT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbF5zt_i8D4  

Obviously, if all that came out at his trial, and his lawyers would have brought it out, it would have looked very bad for us. And that's why I say that they were never going to try bin laden. They were just bluffing. So, what would Bush have done if the Taliban had handed bin laden over, as demanded? I honestly don't know, but I sure do wonder about it. 

The same problem existed with Saddam Hussein. Was he really tried? I and a whole lot of others don't think so.  And that includes Saddam's wife. She said it wasn't him. Here's a report from the Columbia Journalism Review:

https://archives.cjr.org/blog_report/saddam_hussein_or_body_double.php

The Saddam who was tried had crooked teeth while the real Saddam had a Colgate smile. 

So, "Saddam Hussein" was tried but only for something that had happened many years earlier in which he executed some men who had tried to assassinate him. In other words: it had nothing to do with the United States and his ties to us. Why didn't they instead try him for gassing the Kurds? That was worse, wasn't it?  

But, my big question is: did they really hang a Saddam double? Nah, they couldn't have. Right? 

So, did they really kill the bin laden double at the compound in Abbattabad, Pakistan? 

Anyway, Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama bin laden had something in common: They were both accused of terrible crimes, but neither was ever going to be tried. 

The discovery of the Fritz Notes in the 1995, with the inclusion of "out with Bill Shelley in front" was the most important evidence discovery in the JFK case since 1963. Finally, we had Oswald's alibi in writing.

It not only established Oswald's alibi, it also established that the cops, including Hosty, Bookhout, and Fritz himself, lied about what Oswald said. Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees during the shooting. What a crock of bull! First, Oswald never ate with anybody, not even on a good day. And second, who were these other employees who preferred to eat with Oswald rather than watch the Leader of the Free World and his glamorous wife pass by? Obviously, it wasn't anybody. And you can't say that Oswald lied and told that to Fritz because Oswald wasn't stupid. He wasn't going to falsely use someone as his alibi. 

But, how did the trolls respond to the discovery of "out with Bill Shelley in front"? They tried to spin it, of course. They tried to say that Oswald meant that he was out with Bill Shelley in front AFTER the assassination when he left for home. But, that's impossible. Shelley and Lovelady left immediately for the railway yard, joining the throng that did that, and we can see them doing it in the Couch film. Then, they went around to the back of the building to re-enter. They never returned to the front. So, there is NO CHANCE that Oswald encountered Shelley when he left for home.

And if you think Oswald just made it up, again, he wouldn't have, because he knew police would talk to Shelley. And, it is ridiculous because Oswald didn't need an alibi for that. No crime went down at that time. He didn't need to prove that he left the building. No one doubted that he did. So, Oswald had no reason to lie or to create a phony alibi for that. And actually, being innocent, he didn't need to lie about anything. 

So, "out with Bill Shelley in front" could only have referred to the time of the shooting. And Fritz would have asked him for his alibi for the shooting. That's what police do.  Just watch Law and Order. 

So, "out with Bill Shelley in front" has got to be Oswald's alibi for the shooting. And it is powerful because how else could Oswald know that Shelley was out there other than by seeing him there? And how could he see Shelley there unless he was there himself? He couldn't. Oswald had to be "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting.  


Now, that stands by itself, and nothing derails it. "But, if Oswald was in the doorway, why didn't anyone see him, and why didn't they say so?" That's naive.  No one was allowed to say that. If they tried, it was Gestapo time. And that is exactly what happened to Carolyn Arnold.

The point is that it's over. It is resolved. Oswald was in the doorway. And if Larry Schnapf and the CAPA folks don't include it at their conference in November, they will be failing Oswald.  









   

When you tell adversarial JFKers that it was Oswald in the doorway, they usually reply with rapid dismissiveness, quickly saying that two government investigations found that it was Lovelady. And they're right. Two government investigations found that it was Lovelady, with the operative word being government.  Government. GOVERNMENT. Government. The Almighty Government. The Leviathan Government. That Government killed Kennedy. Do you understand that? So, when we say that Oswald was framed and innocent, who do you think framed him? It was the government. The FBI is an agency of government, is it not? 

But, we have to make a distinction here. If you are someone who claims that Oswald was guilty, then you defend the Leviathan Government. You are working for the Leviathan Government- whether or not you are being paid. 

But, if you maintain that Oswald was innocent- framed and innocent- then I presume you know that the Government killed Kennedy. We know that LBJ was a major plotter, and he was the VP at the time, and he immediately became President when Kennedy stopped breathing. So, when the President of the United States is involved, you know that the Government is involved. 

So, since you know that the government killed Kennedy, then you should know better than to cite any government investigation of Kennedy's death.  Government protects itself. That's what government does. Government hides its crimes. And since the government killed Kennedy, every government investigation of Kennedy's death has and always will seek to protect the government from being exposed as Kennedy's killer. 

So, the reason the government investigations found for Lovelady is because the government was hiding its own guilt. Those government investigations of the Doorman question started with the pre-conceived conclusion that it was Lovelady, and they sought to showcase it in a Stalinist way. 

So, it means absolutely nothing that the WC only produced witnesses who vouched for Lovelady as Doorman (although that does not include Lovelady himself- they could not get him to say it.) And it means nothing that Robert Groden of the HSCA said it was Lovelady. Robert Groden has been a traitor to the JFK truth movement and to the Oswald innocence campaign. Robert Groden has done more to hurt the cause of Oswald innocence than John McAdams and David Von Pein combined. And then there were the anthropologists with their flipped photos that were also manipulated and falsified in other ways.  They too started with their pre-conceived conclusion. They knew what the HSCA wanted from them. And really the whole Warren Commission did the same thing. LBJ GAVE THEM THE MANDATE TO FIND FOR OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT! He told them: "Either find for a lone gunman, or it's going to be World War 3 with 100 million dead."

So, if you are an Oswald defender, don't ever cite those government investigations to me.  And I have a piece of advice for you: STOP CALLING YOURSELF AN OSWALD DEFENDER. You are not one. You are an Oswald accuser; you just don't know it. 

The matter is resolved. It was Oswald in the doorway. Only in a Bizarro world could Lee Oswald and Billy Lovelady look and dress this much alike. 

And, it's a matter of maturity, which is something woefully lacking among the trolls who do battle with me. It's obvious to any sober and mature viewer that those two are the same man. It takes  extreme stupidity or extreme malice to deny it. And remember: the one and only reliable image we have of Lovelady is the one taken by Mark Lane. And, this nearly bald, Dumbo-eared Lovelady cannot possibly be Doorman. 

So, it's over and it's settled, although the WC defenders will keep flapping like fish on the pier. Let them. They've had it. But, if you are someone who defends Oswald then you have to know better. I've said many times that if you are an Oswald defender you have to accept that the Backyard photos are bogus. There is no choice. Either accept it or stop calling yourself an Oswald defender. And the same is true for Oswald's alibi. Oswald defenders need to believe Oswald. He said that it's not him in the Backyard photos, even though it looks like him. Believe him. He said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Believe him. 

Heart and Soul by Hoagy Carmichael I have been listening to my whole life, but no matter how many times I hear it, I always enjoy it. It always tickles my eardrums.  It always makes me feel good.  And that it can keep doing that after so many decades attests to the genius of Hoagy Carmichael, who is definitely one of the greats, one of the immortals, and one of my heroes. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kC7MNhrYVc&feature=youtu.be

The Taliban website is down again, i.e., it is unavailable in the U.S. But, they still have a Twitter page, and that's where I go now. They have this article about 5 former Guantanamo Bay inmates who were freed in a prisoner exchange in 2014, where the Taliban released 1 U.S. soldier in exchange for 5 of theirs: these five. And now these 5 former Guantanamo Bay inmates are sitting across from American generals and admirals at the negotiating table in Qatar. 

Were these guys ever terrorists? We wouldn't be negotiating with them if they were, would we? I'm sure they were fighting us back in 2001. I don't doubt that. But, we crossed an ocean to attack their country. We may have crossed two oceans. Our ships had to cross the Atlantic, but then what? Did we go all the way around the horn of Africa to enter the Indian Ocean to get to them? Or did we traverse the entire length of the Mediterranean Sea and then go through the Suez Canal and down the long length of the Red Sea and then through the Arabian Sea to get to them? I don't know which route we took, but either way, it was one hell of a long journey. It was half-way around the world. And that's as far away as you can get because if it was any farther, you could just go the opposite direction. We went all that way just to start a war.  No war existed, but the nightmare, the horror, and the unspeakable misery and death of war was what we wanted. And we don't let anyone question our right to have a war if and when we want one. No nation gets to judge us. We get to judge anyone else who starts a war. We get to condemn other nations for starting wars, but no one gets to condemn us because, well, we are the United States, and the United States can have whatever war it wants. And even though we know beforehand that the killing and maiming are going to be horrific, we reserve the right to decide that it's "worth it." Some people will just have to die so that we can accomplish our objectives, whatever they may be, and even though the vast and overwhelming majority of the people we kill never took any action against us and never thought to, we have dominion over their lives; we have dominion over all lives on Earth. That is what "American exceptionalism" is all about. 



  

OIC Chairman Larry Rivera made this MP4. The autopsy photo is real. It may "doctored" but it's real. It's not as though they had any spare dead bodies around. But that guy on the stretcher with the Pinocchio nose, he was not Oswald. That was taken later in a reenactment. What does that tell you? It should tell you that they were trying too hard to sell the story, the story of how Oswald met his end. That story is bogus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6NocbakzCg&feature=youtu.be