The show went very well tonight. They started with an audio clip from Black Op Radio in which Jim DiEugenio was talking about the Doorman issue. It sounded like he was saying that maybe Oswald was the Doorway Man, but because the image is so blurry, we'll never know for sure, and it's just not that important.

No, Jim. It's important. You, not so much, but it very much. That's because it is Oswald's alibi, and he needs one as much as any other defendant. 

You would think that DiEugenio would have deepened his discussion by considering where Oswald might have been if he wasn't in the doorway. If he wasn't on the 6th floor locking and loading on Kennedy, and if he wasn't in the doorway watching the motorcade, like most everyone else who worked there, then where was he and what was he doing?    

What is wrong his DiEugenio's mind that he can't see that placing Oswald SOMEWHERE is vitally important? There was a horrific, monstrous crime taking place, and Oswald was accused of doing it. If he didn't do it, then he had to be somewhere else doing something else, so what was it?

There is a logical sequence here. The first stop is: did you do it? If you say yes, then the case is solved, and the rest is minutia. But if you say no, then the next question is: "Then where were you and what were you doing?"

Think of it like a computer algorithm. I took a very elementary course in programming a long time ago, just for fun. And they talked about a binary flow sheet, where you ask the user for input, which would be basically I or O. And if "I" was indicated, there was a certain flow of follow-up, and if O was chosen, then there was a different flow of follow-up. 

So, in this case, the first I/O question is: Did you do it? And if the answer is no (O) then the next followup question is, "Where were you at the time of the murder?"

In other words, it was the second most important piece of information to get from Oswald after finding out how he plead. 
That's how important it is. 

On the show tonight, I put up this collage of Oswald and Doorman.

 And I pointed out that for a work-day experience of seeing two workers at the same place looking as much alike as this and dressing as much alike as this is a VERY unusual experience. How unusual is it? If we think of a "workplace workday" as a day at work at a particular workplace, and that's the unit, then seeing this much likeness in the man and the clothing between two different and unrelated men happens once in how many workplace workdays? 

If you said one time in a million workplace workdays, I'd say you're being way too conservative. I'd be inclined to say once in ten million workplace workdays- if at all. That's how rare it is. 

And that's because it's like winning the lottery- twice. You'd be winning it once for the men to match as well as this. And you'd be winning it again for the clothes to match as well as this. It is 10 million times more likely that they look so much alike simply because they are the same man.

And the other collage I used on the show is this one:

And I explained that I like this one very much because the ocular expression matches so well. The tension around the eyes is the same on both. The depth of the eyes is the same on both. The prominence of the cheekbone below the eye and the prominence of the browbone above the eye are the same on both. It's the same eyes. Notice also on Oswald that we are seeing pattern and contrast on his shirt. That was due to the fine, grainy pattern that it had, but also to light reflection. And that's all there is to the so-called "pattern" on Doorman's shirt. It is certainly not a plaid pattern. 

I'll be getting a link to the show which I'll post here. It was me and Larry Rivera mostly, but with some commentary by Jim Fetzer, and also the host, Gary King.    

That can't be Hickey. It's not even mechanically possible. Facing that direction, he didn't have any place to put his legs. He wasn't standing because he's not high enough to be standing. And he's not kneeling because he didn't say anything about kneeling. There is simply no way to explain his being there in that position.

And you know of course that is hairline is all wrong.

 They're different men. Period.

That means the Altgens photo was definitely altered to put that fake Hickey in there. And that means it most definitely did not go out to the world at 1:03 PM. That claim is gone with the wind.

But, why did they have to replace Hickey at all? He was there. He was captured in the picture. What the hell was he doing? Flipping someone the bird? No, of course not. But, he may have had a look that just wasn't appropriate. Maybe he was frowning or snickering. Maybe he looked cunning and devious. Who knows? But, another possibility is that he was one more person peering at Roberts on the phone. 

   
So, they figured that they would turn a lemon into lemonade by taking him out and putting in a replacement who was doing the right thing: looking for the source of the shots.

That was stupidity because the right thing to do was to get Kennedy out of harm's way. Their intent, upon realizing JFK was under attack, should have been to get the limo driver to floor it and to get Kennedy and the other occupants to get low. They should have been directing all their attention to the limo, yelling at them, screaming at them, making as big a ruckus as possible- the very act of which would have alerted the shooters that the SS men know what was happening. Might have spooked them. 

Instead of talking on the phone, Roberts should have stood up tall and raised his arms high in the air. Secret Service agents were willing to take a bullet for the President, isn't that what we've been told? 

But, there is a smudge of his mouth to hide the phone. 

That is not a spontaneous photographic happening; it is a deliberate photographic obfuscation. So, we have that and the fake Hickey.

They altered the photo, which means they had the time and took the time to alter it. There is no doubt about that.

Stop the insanity!  All honest persons, who now know this, will stop saying that the Altgens6 photo went out to the world at 1:03 PM. It's a bloody lie. It is a lie of the bloodied.

I am going to be featured this evening on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer, his online video podcast. OIC senior member Gary King will be sitting in for Jim Fetzer as host, and also appearing with me will be OIC Chairman Larry Rivera. 

We will be talking Oswald in the doorway, plus the latest revelations about Emory Roberts and George Hickey in the Secret Service car in the Altgens photo. 

I don't know if it is going to be broadcast live or put online later, but it starts at 8 PM Central. 

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/

Oswald and Lovelady were BOTH in the doorway, standing next to each other. That's how much Lovelady knew that he wasn't Doorman and Oswald was. 

So, Oswald spent the night of Thursday, November 21 at Mrs. Paine's house. I'm thinking that he must have decided that very day to go there. That's because he didn't have anything with him, no change of clothes. 

If, when you left for work in the morning, you knew you weren't going to be coming home that night, but sleeping elsewhere, wouldn't you at least bring a change of underwear and a toothbrush? And you'd put them in a bag, right? 

Well, Oswald didn't do that. He was asked repeatedly by police what he brought with him from Mrs. Paine's house, and he said only his lunch. He even detailed the lunch: cheese sandwiches and an apple. It's in the Fritz Notes. 

But, if he also had a bag of his soiled clothes, he'd have said so, right? Can you think of any reason why he would lie about that?

So, I'm thinking that he decided to make that trip that day, the Thursday.

What reason did he give for going there that Thursday? According to Frazier, it was to get curtain rods. But, supposedly, that was just an excuse he gave Frazier, and really he was getting his rifle which was stored in her garage- unbeknownst to her. 

But, why did he really go there? It wasn't to get curtain rods, and it wasn't to get a rifle. So, why did he go? 

I don't know, but as you know, I don't believe in coincidences. And I especially don't believe in JFK coincidences. So no, I don't think the conspirators just got lucky that Oswald had a reason to go there on Thursday. I think they put him up to it. I think they gave him a reason. It may have involved that wad of cash that he left with Marina. And it may have involved Ruth Paine telling him that he couldn't come that weekend because of a children's party or because Michael Paine was going to be there, and it would be too many people, or something else. 

So, he gets there Thursday evening, and you know he ate there. You know that Ruth Paine fed him, right? And then he gets up early Friday morning. Marina doesn't get up. She stays in bed. It's just him getting up. So, does he decide to help himself to her food, to fix a lunch for himself from her provisions? 

Would you do that? You know very well that there is no way you would do that. Unless your host urged you to make and take a lunch, you'd never do it. You wouldn't dream of doing it. And I don't think Oswald did either. I think Ruth Paine must have gotten up, and she saw to it that Oswald left with a lunch. I think it's likely that she made it for him. 

Who would be comfortable going through another person's kitchen, sorting through their provisions, to make yourself a lunch? It would not be comfortable, and I doubt that Oswald did it. I think Ruth Paine did it. I think she picked the food, and I think she picked the bag. Frazier described it as a "grocery bag" and I presume he meant a regular, standard, grocery bag, which is a lot bigger than a lunch bag. 

Frazier never said that anything stuck out from the bag. He never described any object that he saw sticking out from the bag. He said that Oswald carried it by tucking it into his armpit, and then securing it with his hand at the bottom. And that's with nothing sticking out, where all he saw was bag. Brown bag. 

Now you tell me how that reconciles with any kind of grocery bag. They don't have bags like that at the market. It is just another Buell Frazier contradiction of which there are many. And remember, we have a picture of the bag.

Now, the mofos can't take the bag back, and that's because I won't let the mofos take it back. That's the bag. That's the bag that Frazier described as a grocery bag, but it's obviously not a grocery bag. Where did it come from? Did Oswald supposedly bring it with him on the Thursday evening? But, where did he get it? Where does anyone get a bag like that? Where would you get one? And remember that the rifle wasn't in that bag at Ruth Paine's house because it was wrapped in a blanket. So, did he look for something and find it in her garage at her house? 

The rifle was, reportedly, wrapped in a blanket. That's how it was stored. Ruth Paine denies knowing that it was there. So, whose blanket was it? Was it hers or his? Did he show up at her house with the rifle in plain view and then find a blanket of hers in which to wrap it for storage? It would be extremely presumptuous to think that. And when you consider that he didn't want to tell her that he was leaving it there, why would he commandeer one of her blankets? Wouldn't that only draw more attention to it? Create more of a problem? Even more disarray? If he wanted to be quiet and discreet about leaving it there, wouldn't he wrap it in his own blanket? Something that she wouldn't miss or be looking for? 

So, his rifle was wrapped in a blanket and presumably his own blanket. So, why not take it that way? Why not take the whole thing? Why mess with it? Why take the rifle, in all its many parts, out of the blanket, only to have to noisily put them all in a bag when you could just take the whole blanket, as is? Just pick it up and go. Wouldn't that be the easiest thing? Wouldn't it be the fastest thing? How much time could he spend milling around in her garage? 

He didn't tell Ruth Paine that he put the rifle there, and he didn't tell her that he was getting it. If that was his intention, why would he engage in a transfer operation out in her garage? It was a small house with thin walls. How could he do that without her knowing it? Considering everything, don't you think he would have just taken the damn thing the way it was? 

But, that's not his story at all, is it? Oswald's story is that all he brought to work was a bag containing his lunch. And I maintain that Ruth Paine must have offered to provide him a lunch and that she made it for him. And she provided an oversize bag, a grocery bag. She probably had lunch bags because she had kids old enough to need lunch bags. But, she made sure that he had an over-size bag. And maybe she padded it. Will Fritz said in his notes that his lunch consisted of "cheese sandwiches". Not a sandwich but sandwiches, plural. And an apple. Maybe she put a wad of paper towels in there too.

But obviously, you wouldn't carry a bag like that by tucking it under your armpit and securing it with your hand from below. You would just carry it like a normal person. In fact, curtain rods are light as a feather, and no one would carry curtain rods that way either. In fact, no one would carry a disassembled rifle that way either; there would be no need to; there would be no practical advantage. It would be far more cumbersome than just carrying it normally. What's the advantage of tucking it under your armpit? 

Joseph Ball asked Jack Dougherty whether Oswald had anything "in his hands" when he came into the building that morning, and Dougherty said no. 

Mr. BALL. In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. I would say that — yes, sir

But, we are not talking about just having nothing in your hands. We're talking about what Frazier said- having something tucked under your armpit and then holding it at the bottom with your hand. That's a whole different thing. It's a gymnastic thing. With that, you are doing something with your whole body, not just your hands. If Dougherty saw Oswald doing that, he surely would have noticed.

Who are you going to believe here, Frazier or Dougherty? I sure hope it's Dougherty. 

The whole rifle-to-work story is full of so many holes, so many contradictions, and so many ridiculous, preposterous assumptions, it is laughable. It is, in the words of the vernacular: horse shit. 

The people who are fighting me and the OIC about this are doing so from a bizarre space, a bizarre mental space. 

There are those who are fighting me based on Oswald being guilty, but that's insane. There is no case against Oswald.  There is no way he could ever be convicted in a court of law. 

They don't even have a case for him bringing the rifle into the building. Buell Frazier insists that the bag he saw Oswald with was not big enough to contain the rifle. In 2013, Buell Frazier went to the Dallas Police Department and demanded that they make the record clear that he denies that Oswald brought any rifle. At trial, Frazier would be a defense witness on that issue- not a prosecution witness.  

They don't even have a case for Oswald knowing that Kennedy would be passing the building that day. Just because it was published in the newspaper- sparsely- they have no evidence that Oswald ever saw it. Just because someone said Oswald sometimes read the newspaper at lunch does not amount to evidence that he learned the motorcade route that way. There is no evidence he read the specific editions that contained it, and they were very few. If he knew that Kennedy was going to be passing his building that day, wouldn't he probably have mentioned it to his wife? Wouldn't it likely have come up in conversation between him and Frazier? They were stuck in a car together. What, do you think they rode in complete silence? But, Oswald didn't know, and Frazier didn't know either. James Jarman didn't know as well. He found out that morning, and he's the one who told Oswald. But, coming to work none of them knew. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of TSBD employees went to work that morning not knowing that JFK's motorcade would be driving right past their building that day. They didn't make an announcement about it the day before. What right is there to presume that Oswald knew about it when there is no evidence that he did? 

Oswald passed the paraffin test, the nitrate test. That's powerful. His fingerprints weren't found on the rifle, and only after he was dead was his palm print found. Why wasn't it found immediately?

The links in the chain of Oswald supposedly having bought the rifle from Klein Hardware have been torn apart by Gil Jesus. 

The very fact that Bonnie Ray Williams was alone up on the 6th floor until at least 12:20 obliterates any chance that Oswald would have had the time after Williams left to go up there, retrieve the bag with the rifle parts, assemble the rifle using a dime as a screwdriver, adjust the scope, set up the Sniper's Nest moving countless boxes of books, to be poised and ready to shoot Kennedy by 12:30. It is preposterous. 

Oswald could never be convicted in a court of law. Think about it. All his lawyer would have to do is come in with this collage:

Only 1 juror out of 12 would have to think, "Bingo! That's Oswald!" to make it a hung jury. Again: 1 out of 12 is all it would take. And if the prosecution chose to retry the case, the situation would be exactly the same: only 1 in 12 would have to think it. 

In fact, that one juror wouldn't even have to think "Bingo!" He or she would only have to think "Maybe." Maybe that's Oswald. It could be him. Remember, if there is reasonable doubt (and that would certainly comprise reasonable doubt) the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant in our legal system. Oswald could never be convicted in a court of law.   

So, I've got those people fighting me over Oswald in the doorway even though they're fighting a lost cause. They can't possibly win. 

But, I've also got people fighting me who do, allegedly, support Oswald's innocence. But, not one of them offers an alternative location for Oswald during the shooting. They claim to be Oswald defenders but they give him no alibi? Unbemotherfrickinlievable!

Imagine if these stupid assholes were his lawyers. They'd be getting up in court and telling the jurors, "I can't tell you where Oswald was when the shooting occurred, and I'm not putting him on the stand, but, I'm sure he was innocent." 

Every lawyer in the whole frickin' world, the very first thing he would ask Oswald would be, "Did you do it?" And after Oswald said no, the very next thing he would ask is "Where were you at the time of the shooting?" 

But, these idiots, apparently, wouldn't do that. They're not interested. They've never devoted one post, one blog, one rant to acknowledging Oswald's location during the murder- his alibi. Backes hasn't. Farley hasn't. Norwood hasn't. 

They're not Oswald defenders. They're just disputers of the official story. You really get the feeling that they don't give a good God-damn about Oswald. 

But, there is a reason why they don't champion any other location for Oswald at 12:30 than the doorway. And that's because there is no other place to put him. Every other place can be ruled out by logical means- and easily. 

He wasn't in the 1st floor lunch room because he was there earlier when Jarman and Norman were around, both of whom wound up on the 5th floor at 12:30, along with Bonnie Ray Williams. 

And he wasn't in the 2nd floor lunch room because, as demonstrated by Gil Jesus, Oswald was just getting there when Baker saw him. Baker saw Oswald BEFORE Oswald entered the lunch room. He saw him going into the little ante-room. And he followed him into that ante-room or vestibule, using another door, and from there, he saw Oswald walking through the lunch room. But, Oswald had just arrived. He just got there. There is no way that he was there a minute and a half before. This really cinches it.

 I'm telling you, you've got to listen to Jesus. Gil Jesus. Hallelujah.
  
Where else could Oswald have been? There's no place else. Once you admit that he wasn't up on the 6th floor, "locking and loading" on Kennedy, it turns out that there is no place but the doorway for him to have been. That is, unless you are going to start getting wily and arbitrary, such as saying that he may have been in the bathroom. But, if he was in the bathroom, surely he would have said so. It's no crime to use the crapper, is it? We're all human, and when you gotta go; you gotta go. 

So, the point is that the people who are fighting me who also claim to be Oswald defenders really need to go to the bathroom themselves because they are completely full of shit. They don't know what they are talking about.

This is like a chess game in which the only move remaining to avoid checkmate is to move the Oswald piece to the doorway. 

And you know who else put Oswald at the doorway? Carolyn Arnold. And I don't mean the Carolyn Arnold of 1978. Forget about her. I mean the Carolyn Arnold of 1963. She claimed that she went outside to watch the motorcade (and it's known that she was among the last to get out there) and when she turned around and looked towards the building, she saw Oswald standing between the double doors, meaning: just inside the doorway. That was just minutes before. 

You take that; you take the Fritz Notes; and you take the powerful photographic evidence such as this:

    
and it puts Oswald in the doorway as much as the Gospels put Christ on the Cross. More actually. Much more. 

So, I've got clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right, and all of them are in fact: liars. They are lying to others, and some of them are lying to themselves. They are liars, and they are deniers. And their reasons for doing it are as stupid as they are diabolical. And they are very diabolical. 

But, fear not. There is only one way this is going to end, and that is with universal recognition of Oswald innocence and Oswald in the doorway. And those two things are indivisible, inseparable, and indisputable.  

We have had a very active day in the OIC with some interesting exchanges. I am going to post a very thought-provoking missive from John Hankey, which concerns Presidential submissions, that, in the end, they always do what they're told- at least since Kennedy they have, and it's because of Kennedy that they do. That's John's take. 

But, if you don't know of John Hankey, he has done the definitive work on exposing the role of George HW Bush murdering JFK. You can visit his website at bushkilledjfk dot com. Catchy title, eh?

http://www.bushkilledjfk.com 

And John Hankey has also done the definitive work on the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr. too. You should watch his film about it on youtube: Dark Legacy II. Dark Legacy I can also be found there, which is about Bush Sr.'s role in killing JFK. Both are riveting.  

But, before I post John's analysis of Presidential submissions, I want to point out that the office of President, which was always powerful, has become increasingly more powerful. 

For instance, do you realize that every war since WW2 has been a Presidential war? The last time that the United States declared war on a country constitutionally, that is, by an act of Congress was for World War 2. Since then, the Presidents have started all the wars themselves and done so without a Congressional act of war. 

Fact: The US Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, and fund war, and take this country to war. And the Founders made it that way on purpose because they figured some hothead might become President, and since war involves tremendous loss of life, horrific carnage and vast devastation, better to make sure that cooler heads are involved in the decision. 

But, when Truman entered the Korean War without getting an Act of War through Congress, that did it. Every President after that said, "Hey, I'm just doing what Truman did. If he could do it, I can do it." 

But, why didn't Congress stop them? Why didn't anyone use the Constitution and the laws of this country to stop them? I think the short answer is that they have all been fascist wars, and in a fascist system, it's efficient to have a fascist leader. It's been building in that direction for a long time.  

But, I think John's point is that this power of the President, which has been growing, is largely an illusion, that these Presidents do the bidding of the real powerbrokers who run the country and put them in office. And if they don't, they just might have a rendezvous with a lone nut the way JFK did. And they know it.  Here is John:

Dear Jim (and everybody!)

I agree so wholeheartedly with the major points that you made in this last post that it seems like quibbling to object to the relatively minor point of whether or not Johnson was involved. I have, furthermore, since 1965, harbored very hard feelings towards Johnson for his responsibility in the death  and dismemberment of so many Americans and Vietnamese. I first met you 10 years ago at a 9/11 truth conference, and you explained your reasoning for thinking that Johnson was involved to me at that time. And it is hard to imagine anything more obvious and reasonable, than to think that the killers of JFK would feel that they needed to have Johnson on their side.

I also agree very enthusiastically that it is necessary to take in the big picture when trying to answer this question.

I have had 10 years to think it over- and to observe how every President since Kennedy has been used and abused by the killers. For example:

There are two irrefutable sources showing that Johnson knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incidents were frauds, and said so, and said that he had no intention of sponsoring the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; which, not coincidentally, was written by McGeorge Bundy, before the incidents were falsely alleged to have occurred. As you have pointed out, this same Bundy wrote NSAM 273, reversing Kennedy's Vietnam policy, and he wrote it BEFORE Kennedy was murdered. Bundy then handed the memo to Johnson, and shoved him into his first meeting with the Joint Chiefs, on the afternoon of Kennedy's funeral. I used to blame Johnson for this memo. But now, having studied the big picture, I know that Kennedy did not keep Johnson in the loop; and it is unlikely that Johnson appreciated that 273 was a reversal of 263. In fact, 273 says that it was written to reaffirm the continuation of Kennedy's policies. I have no doubt that Johnson really thought that that's what he was doing in endorsing 273. I can find you 10,000 so-called historians who will tell you the same thing, that Johnson continued Kennedy's Vietnam policies.

Nixon knew he had a tape machine in the White House. He told us, on that machine, that investigating E. Howard Hunt would uncover the whole Kennedy assassination, "that Bay of Pigs thing" as he called it. So, Nixon knew that Hunt was involved in murdering a President of United States. Do you suppose he wanted such a man to have an office in the White House? I do not. Nixon was, supposedly, "paranoid". He would've been terrified. He was terrified. I think that he had Hunt and the entire Watergate burglary shoved down his throat. Ehrlichman and Haldeman agree with me. He did what he was told, in fear for his life.
  

When Jimmy Carter refused to allow the Shah of Iran to come to the United States, he received a visit from Nelson Rockefeller, who insisted that Carter allow the Shah in. Carter says he asked Rockefeller, "you advise me to do this? And what will you advise me to do when the Revolutionary guards seize  the Embassy and take everyone hostage?"  You know what happened next. Carter let in the Shah, and the Embassy was seized. Why? Why did Carter give in? I would suggest that they showed him the Zapruder film.
  

(P.S. from Cinque: Similarly, when the HSCA issued its Final Report in January 1979, it was laughable. They said there was "probably" a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but it didn't involve the CIA, the FBI, the Russians, the Cubans or anyone else, except that Oswald, who did everything the Warren Commission said he did, may have had an accomplice shooting from the Grassy Knoll who got clean away like a fart in a high wind. But, the HSCA did, in fact, recommend that the Justice Department reopen the case and look for that Grassy Knoll shooter. So, why didn't Carter, who was a Democrat like JFK, and the first President to assume office since JFK who didn't have JFK's blood on his hands, why didn't Carter act? Why didn't he order his Attorney General to act? I would suggest it's because he'd seen the Zapruder film.) Back to John Hankey:

Reagan went to Helsinki and, to his surprise, found the Soviets to be reasonable, and enthusiastic about making peace.  He came home, likewise enthused, and was shot. And he kept his nose out of politics thereafter, leaving all such matters, especially Iran Contra Cocaine to Bush.

Bushes, obviously are not included in this list of abused presidents, though W appeared scared shitless during most of 9-11; but I think he was just scared of getting caught.
  

Obama sent Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, and Joe Biden out to give speeches saying that the government in Afghanistan was too corrupt to possibly justify the loss of another American life. He leaked a top-secret letter from his ambassador which was promptly printed on the front pages of every major newspaper, saying the exact same thing. Then two  uninvited guests, the Salahis, made their way into the most high security function ever held at the White House, and walked up and shook hands with Obama, Biden, and Pelosi. A few days later, Obama sent 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
  

That is a short version of the big picture. I don't think the killers feel like they need to have the President on their side. But, I'm sure they want the President understand where his self-interest and self-preservation lie. Certainly they don't want the President to think that he is an equal.  They want him terrified. They want him to know that disappointing the Power Elite has major consequences: deadly serious ones. In Dealey Plaza, both Hunt and Bush were arrested as shooters and brought to the police station, walked in the front door, and were quietly walked out the back door. The killers didn't need Johnson or Hoover on their side.  All the killers had to do was get away clean, and they did. They had Lansdale on the scene to make sure that they did. And the next day, was Hoover's top undercover informant in the field. They called in Bush the same day, they called in Lorenz, Hemmings, Sturgis, and who knows who else.  They knew they were all in Dallas, but they couldn't prove anything. And I don't think they even knew Hunt's name.  I think the killers wanted Johnson to be terrified of them. Helen Thomas says that he was. And she didn't know the story about Johnson being found in the bathroom on Air Force One, sobbing, and crying "they're going to kill us all." I believe that is the relationship that the killers want with the president, unless they can have one of their own, a Bush or a Rockefeller, or a Romney, in the White House.
  

Now. Vernon Walters says that Hoover wrote a memo to all the FBI offices saying that there was going to be an assassination attempt in Dallas. I find it inconceivable that Hoover would not have shared that with Johnson. I believe he shared it with Kennedy. And I believe that the Secret Service used the two supposed foiled "attempts" in Chicago and Miami to persuade Kennedy that they were very competent, and on top of the situation, and that everything was well in hand; so that Kennedy was persuaded to disregard this warning from Hoover. Sheee-it. They told him that what the FBI was hearing was merely the Secret service's own "Able Danger" project, a "B team", of Secret Service employees, going through the motions of plotting to kill Kennedy in order to see whether the Secret Service could pick up the reverberations of their plotting.  I believe these "plots" in Chicago and Miami were frauds, designed for that particular purpose - to give Kennedy false confidence in the Secret Service. I have heard Malcolm Kilduff say that these foiled attempts showed that the Secret Service was doing a great job. I think we all know better. I'm sure that Johnson trusted Hoover more than he trusted the Secret Service. I don't know who the other people were with whom Johnson was communicating on a walkie-talkie, but I don't have any good reason to think it was the killers. There are several channels on those things.  It is reasonable, to me, in any case, that someone in the political leadership would want to be in communication with the police officials, or others in charge of the technical details.  So I don't find Johnson's possession of a walkie talkie especially incriminating.

I suspect that Johnson knew what Kennedy knew, of Hoover's warning. Only Kennedy was taken in by the Secret Service's lies, and Johnson was not.
  

More big picture: the morning after the assassination, at 9 o'clock, McCone called Johnson to tell him that the CIA had audiotapes showing that Oswald was working for the Russians. 40 minutes later, Hoover called Johnson to tell him that the tapes were fraudulent, that the CIA was lying, trying to provoke war with Russia, or at least an invasion of Cuba; neither said that this fraud implicated the CIA in the assassination, but it was clearly understood. No? How not?

More big picture: Hoover wrote the memo, entitled "Assassination of JFK", naming Bush as a CIA supervisor of the "misguided anti-Castro Cubans." He busted Prescott in 1942 for being a Nazi, and seized his bank. He hired Oswald and used him to bust up the CIA terrorist camps at Lake Pontchartrain. He told Johnson that the CIA was lying to him about Oswald in Mexico, and implicated them in the assassination, the morning after. He clearly was not in with the killers. I don't care what any of the whores who worked for Murchison say to the contrary.

As I say, I have been thinking about it for 10 years.  

Allan G. Johnson

3:35 PM (20 minutes ago)

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 7:21:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote: 

- show quoted text -

   Why is it that when you post the Altgens photo of Lovelady in the
doorway that you always post a picture of Oswald beside it?, like that is
evidence it is actually Oswald in the doorway.  Why don't you ever post an
actual picture of Lovelady next to the Altgen's photo of him in the
doorway?  That would show it is really Lovelady because it would be an
actual resemblance.  The question answers itself, I guess. 

Ralph Cinque:

No, Allan. The question is: Why don't YOU post an image of Doorman and Lovelady? You're the one who claims they are the same identical person, not me.

I post an image of Oswald and Doorman because how striking their likeness is, per the man and the clothing. 

And I guarantee you that most people have no trouble seeing it. You JFK buffs live in your own little distorted world-another dimension. But, in the real world, people can see it. 

But, if it makes you happy, here is an alleged image of Lovelady taken 15 minutes after the shooting. 

Happy now? You've got a winner here, do you? 

GKnoll

Sep 28 (19 hours ago)

It is obvious that JFK was struck by two shots to the head.

The first shot is obvious. It pushes his head down.

The second shot pushes JFK to the LEFT.

Watch JFK's right arm.

https://goo.gl/photos/sg2wqxxxJDJuNUCz8

(click on the gif ( by Gerda Dunkel ) to enlarge it) 

Ralph Cinque:

No. I don't think so. If he were shot in the back of his head, we'd see it just as we see the shot to the side of his head. That little head-nod prior to the fatal head shot was probably just a little head-nod. The head naturally does that. If you stop holding it up, that's what it does. He was tired. Stop reading so much into it. It's nothing. 

Mark OBLAZNEY

3:10 PM (10 minutes ago)

- show quoted text -

Yes........ after proudly announcing the arrival of each new 'senior
member', never a word about Judy, Jabba, Wim, Richard Hooke, Gary fanin'
the flames, Professor Norwood......... and all the rest who left the
Titanic instead of just re-arranging the deck chairs, singing "Nearer my
God, to The OIC".

Ralph Cinque:

And yet, our numbers are higher than ever and are about to grow again. 

With the exception of Professor Norwood, all of our dropouts have concerned one thing and one thing only: Judyth Baker. 

Well, that is just too damn bad. But, I can handle the situation with Judyth Baker, and I can handle the situation with you. I slam right through pinkery. It doesn't even slow me down. 

So, Gerry Spence pulled out the Altgens photo and got Marrion Baker to admit that "he resembles Oswald."

But, Bugliosi, of course, wasn't going to let that stand without rebuttal. So, he brought Buell Frazier back. Frazier had already been questioned by both attorneys and was presumably done. But, Bugliosi brought him back.

Who's that?

That's Billy Lovelady?

Who was Billy Lovelady?

He was an employee of Texas School Books.

Were you standing near him?

Yeah, I was standing back up in the shadows where you can't see me, up several steps back. He was standing down in front of me.

(That's impossible. Doorman was on the top level. Nobody was above him, and there were no steps behind him.)

Spence crossexamined:

You were way back in the shadows, you say?

Yes, I was way back in the shadows.

How far back would you say you were?

I would say 3 or 4 steps back up.

(3 or 4 steps back up? That's impossible. There were no more steps and no more up!)

Did they look alike, Oswald and Lovelady?

Not really, except that they both had a high forehead. But, Billy was a short and stocky, while Lee had more a slender type frame.

So, you were 3 or 4 steps back up behind Billy? 

Yes, Sir.

Did you ever tell that to anybody prior to today?

I don't believe so. 

*       *      *       *      *      *      *     *      *     *     * 

I must admit that as I watch it, and I hear and see Frazier saying "That's Billy Lovelady" it makes me cringe. 

But, here's how I wish Spence had done his cross, in light of what we know today:


Gerry Spence:

So, Mr. Frazier, you say this man (pointing to Doorman) is Billy Lovelady? Is that right?

Yes, Sir.

Are you sure about that?

Yes, I am.

OK, then take a look at this comparison of Oswald and Doorman.

Have you had a good look?

Yeah.

Well, what do you think? Do they look alike? Would you say they resemble each other?

Yes, they do look alike.

Now, let's divide this into two separate categories: the man and the clothes. First, the man. Would you say they look alike as per the man: I mean their size, their shape, their frame, their anatomy. Even their face. 

Yes, they kinda do. 

But, didn't you say that Oswald and Lovelady had different builds? I believe you said that Lovelady was short and stocky, and that Oswald had a slender frame. I can have the court reporter read it back to you if necessary.

No, that's OK. It's true what I said that Lovelady was short and stocky while Oswald was slender. I'll admit they look alike here, but I can't explain it.

Alright, let's move on to the clothes, Mr. Frazier. Do they look like the same clothes to you, the same outfit? 

Well, they do sorta look the same. There's nothing that jumps out at me as being different. 

Mr. Frazier, do you have a recollection of Billy Lovelady being dressed the same as Lee Oswald on November 22, 1963?

No, I don't have a memory of that. 

Do you recall how Billy Lovelady was dressed that day?

Not really. I really haven't thought about it until now that you're asking me.

So, your testimony is that you don't recall how Billy Lovelady was dressed on November 22, 1963?

I guess I really don't recall. 

But, would you agree that it would be a very unusual thing, a very uncommon thing, for two men on the same day at the same place to be dressed as much alike as this? I am referring to what they are wearing and how they are wearing it. 

Bugliosi- OBJECTION! Calls for speculation on the part of the witness for which he is not qualified. 

Spence- Not qualified? Your Honor, we've all been looking at people and how they dress our entire lives. Aren't we all qualified to answer this question?

Judge- Objection overruled.

Frazier-  Yes, it would be uncommon to see that much likeness in the way two men are dressed on the same day. 

Spence- Thank you, Mr. Frazier. No further questions.