The main MacCammon photo has become very famous because it shows Oswald being restrained outside the theater, and you see Detective Paul Bentley brandishing a cigar and a shit-eating grin.
Now, why is that image incriminating of Oswald? What about that photo implies his guilt? I say that in regard to that photo, the title of the article was pure dis-info, and by that I mean just saying something to plant a thought without any basis whatsoever; only the thought, only the idea.
But, there is another lesser known image that MacCammon took inside the theater:
Reportedly, that is Oswald seated inside the theater. You see two cops in uniform, and one of them is restraining him. And you see two men in suits. I don't know who they are. But notice that it does not show Oswald brandishing a gun, and he's not resisting that we can tell. To me, this looks like several men restraining another man, but there is nothing incriminating about the photo from Oswald's perspective.
But, this is what TIME said about that photo:
Alright, so this is the meat of what they were saying in the title, that the photo would explain why he's guilty. But, it doesn't! It just shows Oswald being dominated and restrained. Do you see Oswald with a gun? Do you see him acting in a violent way towards anyone? There is NOTHING about the photo that suggests anything bad about Oswald. He seems to be the victim there, not the aggressor. He doesn't even seem to be resisting, from what I can tell. There is nothing incriminating about this photo at all. It doesn't prove or even suggest any of what they said.
So, what they said was, indeed, pure dis-info. But, let's look at it from the standpoint of the charges that they made:
1) They charged that Oswald took out his pistol and pointed it at Officer MacDonald and pulled the trigger, with clear intention to kill him. That is completely and totally unsubstantiated- by this photo or by anything else. You should know that Officer Nick McDonald changed his story several times about what happened. It didn't start off with him wedging his hand into the hammer space. It started off with the claim that the gun misfired. But then, FBI experts determined that it did not misfire. And that's when MacDonald changed his story and started saying that he wedged his hand in there, to prevent it from firing.
There are numerous problems with MacDonald's ever-changing story, but TIME addressed none of them, and they certainly didn't provide proof of his claims. Nor does this MacCammon photo have any bearing on MacDonald's claims whatsoever. We don't even see MacDonald in the photo. Where is he? He is not either of the uniformed cops, and he wasn't wearing a suit.
Oswald most certainly did NOT try to shoot at Officer MacDonald, and he would have had to be utterly insane to do so. He hadn't committed any crimes that day, so why would he start by murdering a police officer? And what would he expect to happen next? Was it going to enable him to escape? Of course not. If anything, it very likely would have brought lethal fire down on him from the cops. So, was it suicide by cop? You think Oswald wanted to die? That's ridiculous. A new baby daughter had just come into his life. Don't you think he wanted to stick around for Marina, June, and Rachel?
2) They pointed out that Oswald took a pistol into the theater, and it's true that he did. But, the odds are like 1000% that somebody told him to go to that theater. You don't think he had a hankering for a war movie that afternoon, do you? And whoever told him to go to the theater must have also told him to bring the pistol. They needed Oswald to be armed because that would provide the pretext for the police to kill him. The plotters were really hoping that he would die in a firefight there that afternoon. But, how would it look if they gunned down an unarmed man? A skinny 131 pound unarmed man. So yes, Oswald was armed but it was because it was essential that he be armed, and he was told to be armed. And: someone may have given him the gun, and I mean handed it to him that very afternoon; it's very possible.
So, the fact is that Oswald was manipulated into being armed, and that's why he was armed. It does not make him guilty nor does it make him look guilty- at least not to an enlightened person.
3) Now we get to the one and only thing that TIME magazine got right: Oswald did take a swing at the cop, and he admitted it. But, it is erroneous to say that he started a fight.
Note that, unfortunately, there are multiple and conflicting accounts from witnesses about what happened in that theater as the cops approached Oswald, and even the testimonies of the cops who were involved do not mesh. Contradictions abound. So, this is a very difficult thing to cipher. But, by all accounts, MacDonald grabbed at Oswald BEFORE Oswald took a swing at him. MacDonald got physical with Oswald BEFORE Oswald got physical in return.
In other words, Oswald was provoked.
Now, was it smart for him to take a swing at a cop? Of course not. Did it do him any good? Absolutely not. I attribute it to a sudden impulse to resist being manhandled. In other words, it was like a reflex.
I had a dog for 15 years, and he was a very strong, athletic dog, a cream-colored lab. But, because of a head injury he sustained as a puppy, he developed epilepsy. And it was an awful thing when he had seizures because he seemed so agonized. Once, when he was having a seizure, which started suddenly when we were out on a walk, I made the mistake of going right up to him. And he bit me. He bit me hard and deep in my hand. I had to get medical attention. And I know he didn't want to. It was a reflex.
Well, that's how I look at Oswald swinging at the cop in the theater. It was a sudden reflex when the cop grabbed at him.
It was a mistake. He shouldn't have done it. But, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether he killed Kennedy and Tippit. He most certainly did not.
TIME magazine has always been despicable and statist about the JFK assassination, and when the truth comes out that they have been spewing lies about it for over half a century, I hope that their guilt puts them out of business.
http://time.com/3804560/an-end-to-conspiracy-rare-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-arrest-suggests-why-hes-guilty/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.