It's a lot harder to frame somebody for a phony bus ride and cab ride than it is to make a phony movie. A phony bus ride and phony cab ride require phony witnesses; a phony movie does not. A phony bus ride and phony cab ride have to displace the real thing that happened, the real thing that Oswald did, which could have its own set of witnesses and evidence that conflicts with the phony story. But, if you alter the film and add the content that you want (which was Lovelady sitting at the desk) you just eliminate the original so that the phony one is all there is; there's no alternate. And last but not least, if the whole idea of falsifying a movie is beyond the mindset of most researchers, you have even less to worry about.
Millions of JFK researchers believe that the Zapruder film was altered. I'm just asking them to consider that other films were altered as well.
OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
www.oswald-innocent.com
Backes, you consort with those who say Oswald "locked and loaded" from the 6th floor. No real Oswald defender would do that.
The original version of the Dallas PD footage was the real footage; they just added the Lovelady figure to it. So, it was nothing like what you described. It's simple; the desk was unmanned, unoccupied; and they added the Lovelady figure to it.
It was a video merger. Understand? So, take everything you said, and cram it the same place you cram your proscenium arches. And quit misrepresenting my work.
And I know that McWatters, Whaley, and Bledsoe weren't actors, but, according to you, they were asked to act. They were telling an untrue story as if it were true. That's acting, Azzhole.
And it's also painfully obvious that this guy is not the same guy.
That is not the same guy, Backes. That's right; his arm is bigger, thicker, and much more muscular. It's a different arm; it is a different man.
Glance your eyes back and forth, Backes. Two different arms. Two different shirts. Two different men. You deny obvious reality as you knowingly consort with the agents of murder. Name one other Oswald defender who consorts with the likes of bpete. Ptoi! That's in your face, Backes. You collude with bpete who places Oswald on the 6th floor "locking and loading" on Kennedy. You don't give a shit about Kennedy, and you certainly don't give a shit about Lee Harvey Oswald. You are a fake, a fraud, and a Kennedy-killer, which I'll tell you to your face. You lost Mark Lane, and I won him. You lost Gerald McKnight, and I won him. You've lost every battle. Pow! Bop! Bang! Bok! Boom! Splat! I'm not even winded.
The original version of the Dallas PD footage was the real footage; they just added the Lovelady figure to it. So, it was nothing like what you described. It's simple; the desk was unmanned, unoccupied; and they added the Lovelady figure to it.
It was a video merger. Understand? So, take everything you said, and cram it the same place you cram your proscenium arches. And quit misrepresenting my work.
And I know that McWatters, Whaley, and Bledsoe weren't actors, but, according to you, they were asked to act. They were telling an untrue story as if it were true. That's acting, Azzhole.
And it's also painfully obvious that this guy is not the same guy.
That is not the same guy, Backes. That's right; his arm is bigger, thicker, and much more muscular. It's a different arm; it is a different man.
Glance your eyes back and forth, Backes. Two different arms. Two different shirts. Two different men. You deny obvious reality as you knowingly consort with the agents of murder. Name one other Oswald defender who consorts with the likes of bpete. Ptoi! That's in your face, Backes. You collude with bpete who places Oswald on the 6th floor "locking and loading" on Kennedy. You don't give a shit about Kennedy, and you certainly don't give a shit about Lee Harvey Oswald. You are a fake, a fraud, and a Kennedy-killer, which I'll tell you to your face. You lost Mark Lane, and I won him. You lost Gerald McKnight, and I won him. You've lost every battle. Pow! Bop! Bang! Bok! Boom! Splat! I'm not even winded.
Here you have a spokesman for Ted Olson telling Larry King that Barbara Olson reported terrorists with "knives and cardboard cutters" which is the only reference thereto, and he said that she said the pilots were huddled in the back of the plane along with the passengers. Supposedly, she asked Ted what he thought the pilots should do? Can you imagine that?
http://letsrollforums.com/fbi-says-ted-olson-t20631.html?s=2a3e5eb3b57a7c0e64414c0a98a7ae21&
Friends, those pilots NEVER would have turned the planes over to guys waving box-cutters. Do you hear me? They would have fought to the death. Captain Charles Burlingame, a decorated Navy pilot who taught counter-insurgency at the Pentagon, did not surrender control of that plane. Plus, I just learned from Rob Balsamo that Charles Burlingame was 6'5". That is six feet, five inches tall.
Hani Hanjour was barely 5 feet tall.
Below are the words of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a place where bpete has pretended to be a supporter.
http://letsrollforums.com/fbi-says-ted-olson-t20631.html?s=2a3e5eb3b57a7c0e64414c0a98a7ae21&
Friends, those pilots NEVER would have turned the planes over to guys waving box-cutters. Do you hear me? They would have fought to the death. Captain Charles Burlingame, a decorated Navy pilot who taught counter-insurgency at the Pentagon, did not surrender control of that plane. Plus, I just learned from Rob Balsamo that Charles Burlingame was 6'5". That is six feet, five inches tall.
Hani Hanjour was barely 5 feet tall.
Below are the words of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a place where bpete has pretended to be a supporter.
The first change of heading select to start the aircraft back toward the
pentagon is at 12:54:11 according to the cvs file.
That means it took Hani Hanjour a little over 3 minutes to bust into the cockpit, point a boxcutter at Charles Burlingame and told him and the First Officer to go to the back of the aircraft. Charles Burlingame gave up his airplane in a little over 3 minutes to a hijacker with a boxcutter. Charles Burlingame..a 6'5" Military trained Captain, trained in Anti-Terrorism...
"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters"
Regardless of what the press may have told you about the old Common Strategy of "Full cooperation", this was not part of it. The old Common strategy was to take hijackers where they wanted to go, if they had more than a boxcutter, but not to give up your airplane... and certainly not in a little over 3 minutes. The Captains number 1 priority is passenger safety. How does that fit with this scenario?
Two minutes later.. the transponder was turned off at 12:56:35.
That means it took Hani Hanjour a little over 3 minutes to bust into the cockpit, point a boxcutter at Charles Burlingame and told him and the First Officer to go to the back of the aircraft. Charles Burlingame gave up his airplane in a little over 3 minutes to a hijacker with a boxcutter. Charles Burlingame..a 6'5" Military trained Captain, trained in Anti-Terrorism...
"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters"
Regardless of what the press may have told you about the old Common Strategy of "Full cooperation", this was not part of it. The old Common strategy was to take hijackers where they wanted to go, if they had more than a boxcutter, but not to give up your airplane... and certainly not in a little over 3 minutes. The Captains number 1 priority is passenger safety. How does that fit with this scenario?
Two minutes later.. the transponder was turned off at 12:56:35.
Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
David Ray Griffin
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2
Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3
However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.
Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7
However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.
American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8
In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.
Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.
Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.
This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians
Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11
According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15
The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16
Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
NOTES
1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).
5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).
6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).
7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.
8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin,9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.
9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).
15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).
16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.
17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.
This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin’s new book, “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press,” (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.
“9/11 Contradictions” may have the best chance of any of DRG’s books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.
FAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!
We were fed a lie by Ted Olsen who served as Solictor General for the Bush Administration, when on 9/11 he held a press conference to tell America and the world that his dead wife had called him before her demise from the jet she was on that had just been hijacked.
Personally, I thought it was odd at the time that a man would decide to hold a press conference minutes after hearing of his own wife’s death, when it happened on 9/11. If my own wife had just died, the last thing I’d want to do would be to talk to anyone, let alone call a press conference. It didn’t “smell” right.
Now we know why it didn’t smell right. It was a lie. The FBI has reported that no such call between Barbara Olsen and Ted Olsen ever took place on 9/11/2001.
It was part of the rapidly unraveling scam that is the official story of 9/11.
In fact, Griffin went on to explain that there is zero evidence that any hijackers had commandeered a plane at all. True Bush believers will say, whao, wait a minute, we all know they did. How do you know? Because Bush told you.
But, as Griffin rightly points out, in this interview, there is no “EVIDENCE” of their existence.
Which also reveals that mis-information shill, Popular Mechanics, in their 9/11 interview on the Charles Goyette Show months ago, lied when they told us there was DNA evidence of the so-called Muslim hijackers. LIES, all lies.
Find links to the entire interviews of February 19, 2008, at:http://www.911blogger.com/node/13946
When will corporate media stop their participation in a criminal cover up? If the former Solicitor General lying to America by creating a complete fabrication he spread around the world through corporate media, is not a story worthy of CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Democracy Now, The Nation, Rolling Stone, PBS, NPR, and all the other fourth estate . . . then they have no right to refer to themselves as media.
They should forever in the future refer to themselves as “The Propaganda Ministry.”
So, how can we break through the hijacking of our media in America? How can we get the mass culture to be exposed to hard questions around 9/11?
We must use guerilla tactics, and take opportunities when they come.
On January 22nd, 2008, a New York Times best selling novelist, put his career on the line to write an explosive new edu-tainment book called “The Shell Game.”
Since that has happened he’s been attacked, his personal emails have been publicized, his home address, a google map to his home, his phone number and other personal information has been posted on the internet.
Media that had interviewed him on all his other books have shunned him. The big publishing houses that would have published his normal thrillers closed their doors to “The Shell Game,” and major book publicizing events he’d been invited to in the past, have mysteriously cancelled his speaking engagements.
In spite of that in the 2nd week of “The Shell Game”s release, it rose to #31 on the New York Times best seller list. A growing army of Americans hungry to create a mass demand for a new 9/11 investigation have come to support the success of “The Shell Game.”
Why? Within the pages of “The Shell Game” real 9/11 research is exposed. The Shell Game’s websitewww.TheShellGame.net has links to most major 9/11 truth websites.
Author, Steve Alten, has hitched his explosive novel to be coupled with David Ray Griffin’s upcoming non-fiction book, in order to give it more exposure faster.
Anyone who wants to create a mass demand for 9/11 truth and a new investigation, should do everything in their power to promote “The Shell Game,” in every way they can think of doing. At www.TheShellGame.net they’ll find to powerful 90 second video trailers that warn the public of false flag terror strikes by an American President to fool us into war with Iran.
Last week, both Bush and Chertoff warned we’d see a devastating attack on America soon. “The Shell Game” warns of just such an event. To get the most massive number of Americans reading such a book, will make it VERY difficult for Bush/Chertoff to realize their dream of another false flag attack on America.
SPREAD THE WORD, WIDE, FAR AND FAST – WWW.THESHELLGAME.NET
By William E. Douglas, Jr., who is author of "The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts," "The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- US Media's Dirty Little Secret," "Good Night, and Good Luck - WMD, NIST, Popular Mechanics, 9/11 and Media Crimes" and also "Why the Jewish Community Should Demand 9/11 Truth."
So, Backes thinks it's outrageous that they made a phony movie of the walk-by at the PD, even though I showed him how utterly conflicted and irreconcilable the two Lovelady figures are:
Those two cannot possibly be the same man, Backes. They are vastly different men. They have vastly different builds. Vastly different muscularity. Their shirts are arranged differently. Their ears are different. Their hair is different. They are different men. Different. Different. Different.
So, something is fishy here; something is phony here. And it cannot be denied.
But, making a phony movie is NOTHING compared to concocting a phony bus ride and cab ride, which you believe Dallas police did.
So, tell me, Backes: How is it that you put the Dallas Police up to concocting a phony bus ride and cab ride but not a phony film? If they would frame Oswald with a phony bus ride and cab ride, why wouldn't they frame him with a phony film? And which was harder to do? The phony bus ride and cab ride had to be done immediately. They entered the phony bus transfer ticket into evidence at 4:00 PM on the Friday. That means they were committed to the phony story before Oswald was even finished giving his first interview. The phony bus and cab ride involved producing phony witnesses who had to be interrogated and cross-examined. But, there were no witnesses involved with the phony movies. They didn't have to produce any personalities to discuss it.
So, who made the decision to go with the phony bus and cab rides, Backes? You think it was Henry Wade? Did he come up with the general idea or did he write the exact script? And presumably once they decided on a particular bus for Oswald, they tracked it down to the one driving it, Cecil McWatters, but how did they come up with Whaley and Bledsoe? Did Whaley drive anyone to N. Beckley at 12:45 or was the whole thing made up? Was Mary Bledsoe on the bus at all? Not according to you. You have her getting on the bus at Marsalis, even though she said she got on at St. Paul. But, how did they recruit her to tell this story about seeing Oswald on the bus? When did they get to drill her about what to say? Explain exactly how this whole ruse went down.
If you look at these two versions of the Dallas PD walk-by footage, you will see that there isn't a single frame that overlaps between the two of them. I mean there isn't one single frame that you can see in both versions of the film. Not one. They are two entirely different movies. How do you account for that, Backes?
There isn't one frame that matches between the two even though they are supposed to be the exact same thing at the exact same time. They are two completely different versions of what is supposed to be the exact same moment in time and in a very small space. Yet, there is a complete absence of any frames that look alike.
Those two cannot possibly be the same man, Backes. They are vastly different men. They have vastly different builds. Vastly different muscularity. Their shirts are arranged differently. Their ears are different. Their hair is different. They are different men. Different. Different. Different.
So, something is fishy here; something is phony here. And it cannot be denied.
But, making a phony movie is NOTHING compared to concocting a phony bus ride and cab ride, which you believe Dallas police did.
So, tell me, Backes: How is it that you put the Dallas Police up to concocting a phony bus ride and cab ride but not a phony film? If they would frame Oswald with a phony bus ride and cab ride, why wouldn't they frame him with a phony film? And which was harder to do? The phony bus ride and cab ride had to be done immediately. They entered the phony bus transfer ticket into evidence at 4:00 PM on the Friday. That means they were committed to the phony story before Oswald was even finished giving his first interview. The phony bus and cab ride involved producing phony witnesses who had to be interrogated and cross-examined. But, there were no witnesses involved with the phony movies. They didn't have to produce any personalities to discuss it.
So, who made the decision to go with the phony bus and cab rides, Backes? You think it was Henry Wade? Did he come up with the general idea or did he write the exact script? And presumably once they decided on a particular bus for Oswald, they tracked it down to the one driving it, Cecil McWatters, but how did they come up with Whaley and Bledsoe? Did Whaley drive anyone to N. Beckley at 12:45 or was the whole thing made up? Was Mary Bledsoe on the bus at all? Not according to you. You have her getting on the bus at Marsalis, even though she said she got on at St. Paul. But, how did they recruit her to tell this story about seeing Oswald on the bus? When did they get to drill her about what to say? Explain exactly how this whole ruse went down.
If you look at these two versions of the Dallas PD walk-by footage, you will see that there isn't a single frame that overlaps between the two of them. I mean there isn't one single frame that you can see in both versions of the film. Not one. They are two entirely different movies. How do you account for that, Backes?
There isn't one frame that matches between the two even though they are supposed to be the exact same thing at the exact same time. They are two completely different versions of what is supposed to be the exact same moment in time and in a very small space. Yet, there is a complete absence of any frames that look alike.
Keep in mind that we know for certain that there were different versions of the walk-by footage because the Lovelady figure looks so different. He looks thick and muscular, and he looks scrawny. He has his hair combed back, and he has it combed over. He has his shirt spread open, and he has it cinched up. He has his whole arm on the table; and he has only his elbow on the table. He is only and always turned left, and he is always and only turned right.
Pow! Bok! Wop! Bang! Thud! Crack! Zing! And that's just what reality is doing to you, you blood-soaked killers. Different men!
