And planes loaded with fuel have crashed into big tall buildings before, but the buildings have never collapsed; before or since. But, you don't want to talk about 9/11? Fine. For those that do, here is my latest blog about 9/11, written last night in response to Dr. Leroy Husley, the Chair of the Engineering department at UA Fairbanks, a civil, environmental, and forensic engineer, explaining why NIST is wrong about Building 7 having collapsed from fire.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/09/i-listened-to-dr.html
The link you provided which trashed John Armstrong's work was the website of Jeremy Bojczuk. Whether that is his real name or not, I don't know. I know he's in the UK. I also know that he couches himself as a skeptic of the official story but then trashes the things that are most damaging to the official story, such as Armstrong's work. He's an example of a guy who pretends to be a skeptic and in sympathy with CTs, just to win their confidence, and then goes about selectively undermining their suspicions about some things while letting them hold on to other doubtings which are less threatening. Suffice it to say that he made no substantive rebuttal to John Armstrong.
And what I said about Borjczuk applies equally to the HSCA. Their ridiculous contention that there was a second shooter who shot and missed and then got clean away like a fart in a high wind, never to be found, where he disappeared into the ether, is as preposterous as the Single Bullet Theory. And their suggestion that the Mafia was behind the assassination is also preposterous- as if the Mafia would have sought Oswald to be their shooter, a guy who couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun according to his Russian friends.
So now listen, and listen good: the HSCA was just Warren Commission II. But, since their investigation was prompted by the outrage over the public viewing the Zapruder film, they found it necessary to throw the CTs a bone, hence their ridiculous conclusion. They knew that if they just endorsed everything the WC claimed that there would be greater outrage. Tell me, how many law enforcement agencies went looking for that other shooter? How come Jimmy Carter and his Attorney General didn't open up a criminal investigation in response to the HSCA Final Report? And Jimmy Carter was a Democrat and the first President after Kennedy who didn't have blood on his hands in Kennedy's death. And yet, Carter ignored it too. So, don't pretend that the HSCA was anything but another government cover-up and whitewash.
And you're wrong about Robert Groden. He was NEVER an advocate of Oswald in the doorway. Never. And tell me, if Groden wanted to know the truth, why didn't he take Lovelady to Dallas and photograph him wearing his shirt in the doorway to see if the shirt he claimed to wear looked like the one in the Altgens photo? Nobody would have bothered him. Nobody bothered me when I did it in 2012. Don't speak to me of Robert Groden being a genuine Oswald defender. He is not.
And regarding your other witness to the long package, she was Frazier's sister, and they lived together. So, that hardly counts as a separate and independent witness. They weren't separate and they weren't independent.
And let's remember also that there was a 4th witness involved: Oswald himself. His vote counts. So you had Frazier and his sister saying one thing, and Oswald and Doughterty denying what they said. That's 2 vs 2. But then when you consider that authorities were unable to find anyone else in that building that Oswald had to pass while walking through to supposedly bring his rifle up to the 6th floor to hide it, even though there were numerous workers up there working at the time, it means that the preponderance of evidence leans towards no such bag.
But, I didn't say that there was no bag at all. Oswald said he brought his lunch. I believe him. And my presumption is that he brought his lunch in some kind of bag, perhaps a grocery bag. I only meant that he didn't bring a bag with a rifle, not that he brought no bag at all. Lunch implies a bag. He obviously didn't have a lunch box, so that means he had to have some kind of bag for his cheese sandwich and apple.
And regarding Frazier's claim about the curtain rods, I can only speculate about where it came from. Oswald's boarding room had curtains. So, there is simply no reason to think that he raised such a discussion with Frazier. Furthermore, Oswald didn't have any curtain rods at Ruth Paine's house. If he was aware of some curtain rods there in the garage, they weren't his. Was he just going to steal them without asking her? When she was domiciling his wife and kid at no charge? Why would he do that? And considering the amount of cash he had on him, which was substantial, why wouldn't he just go out and buy curtain rods? And why would anyone expect a disassembled rifle to be mistaken for flimsy curtain rods anyway? How could Frazier see a rifle in a bag and believe it when he was told that it was skinny, lightweight curtain rods? So, the story has no credibility whatsoever, and Oswald denied it. And his denial counts every bit as much as Frazier's claim.
And what are you talking about Frazier's 50 years of guilt for? At the very time, meaning more like 50 minutes afterwards, as opposed to 50 years, he claimed that the bag was 2 feet long; he said that the bag was no more than two feet long. And Sparta, you're not an architect; you're not an engineer; and you're not a psychiatrist. So keep your psychoanalizing to yourself. I'm not interested in your opinions.
Ken Brooten was a top HSCA lawyer, and he went to Colorado to interview Billy Lovelady. And keep in mind that just before that, he went to Mexico City and formally deposed someone from the phony Mexico City saga for over 6 hours. He was a very tenacious interrogator. But, Billy Lovelady was someone who should have been brought to Washington to answer questions before the panel- as so many witnesses were made to do. But, Lovelady must have communicated to Brooten his dread of doing that, so Brooten did a very informal, non-hostile, non-confrontational relaxed interview instead. And Lovelady went along with it. He said the things that he knew Brooten wanted to hear. He was trying to get out of having to go to Washington, and he'd have given his right arm to get out of it. A Congressional committee can force you to testify, where you can't say no. Brooten must have told him, "If you can give me what I need on tape here, I should be able to get you out of testifying." Lovelady would have said ANYTHING at that point. And it was very different with Joseph Ball. With Ball, Lovelady didn't want to lie. He drew an arrow to another figure in the photograph, Black Hole Man, to identify himself. But, he never articulated it. He never said it out loud. He knew the 800 pound gorilla (Ball) didn't want to hear it. He was trying to tell him- gently.
OIC Chairman Larry Rivera made an overlay of Lovelady (using the FBI photo from 2/64) showing the perfect match, not to Doorman, but to Black Hole Man. The fact is that Lovelady was in the doorway. He was standing next to Oswald in the doorway. This is what Larry Rivera produced:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.