Amy Joyce found this, and it's staggering. It really is like something out of The Twilight Zone. It concerns the preparations for moving Oswald, but keep in mind that we are talking about walking a man 30 feet to a car. If they had done it in the dead of night without fanfare, there would have been no need to do any of it. And just think: they could have backed a police car up to the double doors. They could have literally backed it up into the hallway. He was safe within the building, wasn't he? Nobody acted like he was in any danger inside. So, they could have backed the car up snug to the door. And, they could have had a line of cops in front of the car. How hard was it to move Oswald without getting him killed? This is from the Warren Report:
"Shortly after 9 o'clock Sunday morning, policemen cleared the basement of all but police personnel. Guards were stationed at the top of the Main and Commerce Streets auto ramps leading down into the basement, at each of the five doorways into the garage, and at the double doors leading to the public hallway adjacent to the jail office. Then, Sgt. Patrick T. Dean, acting under instructions from Captain Talbert, directed 14 men in a search of the garage. Maintenance workers were directed to leave the area. The searchers examined the rafters, tops of air conditioning ducts, and every closet and room opening off the garage. They searched the interior and trunk compartment of automobiles parked in the garage. The two passenger elevators in the central part of the garage were not in service and the doors were shut and locked; the service elevator was moved to the first floor, and the operator was instructed not to return it to the basement." ~WC Summary
How illogical do you have to be to do all that rather than take the easy route of moving him quietly at night without fanfare? If the danger to Oswald was so great, why would they care about patronizing the media? What did they owe them? What obliged them to put on a show for them? And if the media complained about it afterwards: "We didn't get to see Oswald being moved; boo hoo" you give them the stock answer: "F U and the horse you rode in on." How hard is it to do that?
What I'm saying is that if ANYBODY, in this day and age, claims to believe that the Dallas Police really believed that they had an obligation to provide the media with a viewing of the jail transfer, that this was part of their responsibility as police, and that they really sought to protect Oswald, and that Jack Ruby just got the better of them despite all their efforts to secure the basement, that he slipped in without being scene, pulled his gun and shot Oswald, then I am telling you that YOU are living in The Twilight Zone. There is NOTHING about the official story of the Oswald shooting that is true. If you believe any of it, you are nuts. It was a spectacle to get Oswald killed in front of millions, where the filming of it would authenticate it precisely because it was filmed. But, if you believe that it was anything but a dog and pony show, a ruse, and a staged spectacle, then you are being very stupid, very gullible, very manipulated, and very robotic, and at a very low level of robotic intelligence. You are just lapping up their poison milk or you could say drinking their Kool-Aid. It really is sad and pathetic that any adult person would do that, believe this horrendous story of Bizarro World stuff.
OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
www.oswald-innocent.com
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
For quite a while now, Amy Joyce, the Wizard, and I have been discussing the heating/air-conditioning duct in the garage, its dual locations. Amy was the first to notice it.
So, the duct was represented two ways: flush with the corner, as on the right, and inset a rather great distance, as on the left.
It couldn't be both ways, so which was it? It was flush with the corner.
So, why did they depict it as inset both in the Jackson and Beers photos?
So, why'd they do it? At this point, we don't know. We are bantering around some ideas. Here is a view of it from nearly the top of the ramp. Note that Detectives Lowery and Combest both denied that they had any visibility of Ruby as he came down the ramp.
But, as you can see, Lowery (L.) and Combest (C.) would have had no trouble seeing Ruby as he walked down the ramp. Of course, I say that the one who would have been walking down the ramp minutes before the spectacle was James Bookhout. Ruby got there much earlier, and I don't presume that Lowery and Combest were even there when the real Jack Ruby did it.
This is what Lowery said about it:
Mr. HUBERT. Did you follow the car, or the Pierce car up the ramp with your eyes, I mean?
Mr. LOWERY. No, sir; if you will notice this [indicating] there is an offset here, and from my position here I would only see a short distance up the ramp, and there is also a drop down, air-conditioning and central-heating unit back in here that I would--if my view hadn't been obstructed by the line of people on that side I wouldn't have been able to see more than a few feet up the ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you see anybody coming down? I understand from your statement that you could not have seen their faces as they came down the ramp because of the obstruction, but you could have seen feet, couldn't you?
Mr. LOWERY. I wouldn't be able to. I didn't see anybody come down the ramp. They could have possibly gotten down there without me seeing them, but I didn't see any feet, or any person come down the ramp at all.
Here is what Combest said. It is weird how both he and Lowery brought up that A/C duct, which makes me think they were coached.
Mr. HUBERT. And I'm writing on the map, "Position where Ruby was first seen by Combest." Was he standing still then?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; he was stepping forward and--or lunging forward, I guess would be the best way to put it.
Mr. HUBERT. You had not seen him, of course, prior to that moment?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; I had not.
Mr. HUBERT. Had you seen him in the crowd at all?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; I had not.
Mr. HUBERT. Had you seen him coming down ?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; when I was standing with the crowd I couldn't see the ramp there, the Main Street ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. You could see a part of it, couldn't you, the bottom?
Mr. COMBEST. Well, no, sir; it slanted up and they had an air conditioner sitting across here where you have to be almost in your--standing directly in the bottom of the ramp you couldn't see the top of it very clearly.
Mr. HUBERT. But, you testified that you knew Ruby's face well enough so that you could distinguish it in a crowd?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You had looked into that crowd and your eyes had become accustomed to the lights?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I ask you if you saw him in the crowd before he lunged forward?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir.
It couldn't be both ways, so which was it? It was flush with the corner.
This is what Lowery said about it:
Mr. HUBERT. Did you follow the car, or the Pierce car up the ramp with your eyes, I mean?
Mr. LOWERY. No, sir; if you will notice this [indicating] there is an offset here, and from my position here I would only see a short distance up the ramp, and there is also a drop down, air-conditioning and central-heating unit back in here that I would--if my view hadn't been obstructed by the line of people on that side I wouldn't have been able to see more than a few feet up the ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you see anybody coming down? I understand from your statement that you could not have seen their faces as they came down the ramp because of the obstruction, but you could have seen feet, couldn't you?
Mr. LOWERY. I wouldn't be able to. I didn't see anybody come down the ramp. They could have possibly gotten down there without me seeing them, but I didn't see any feet, or any person come down the ramp at all.
Here is what Combest said. It is weird how both he and Lowery brought up that A/C duct, which makes me think they were coached.
Mr. HUBERT. And I'm writing on the map, "Position where Ruby was first seen by Combest." Was he standing still then?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; he was stepping forward and--or lunging forward, I guess would be the best way to put it.
Mr. HUBERT. You had not seen him, of course, prior to that moment?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; I had not.
Mr. HUBERT. Had you seen him in the crowd at all?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; I had not.
Mr. HUBERT. Had you seen him coming down ?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; when I was standing with the crowd I couldn't see the ramp there, the Main Street ramp.
Mr. HUBERT. You could see a part of it, couldn't you, the bottom?
Mr. COMBEST. Well, no, sir; it slanted up and they had an air conditioner sitting across here where you have to be almost in your--standing directly in the bottom of the ramp you couldn't see the top of it very clearly.
Mr. HUBERT. But, you testified that you knew Ruby's face well enough so that you could distinguish it in a crowd?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You had looked into that crowd and your eyes had become accustomed to the lights?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I ask you if you saw him in the crowd before he lunged forward?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir.
OIC member Robert Jordan noticed that, besides the car and the tire, they made the dashboard light-blue a well. And now I notice that her son's sock is also that color. It's a sea of light blue.
I don't know why they did this, but I think it's very important that we found out because of the very idea that they would alter this photo. It goes to show that there was a tsunami of photographic alteration going on. If they would alter this photo, they would alter any. Do you know that, to this day, there are still people who deny there was any alteration of JFK assassination images? Amazing.
I just thought of something. I found visible proof that they photoshopped the blue color into Ruth Paine's car in the picture taken at the time. We know it was green. She said it was green. And we can see in the pictures with the collector from Virginia who bought it that the car was green, not blue.
So, why it looks blue in the famous picture is anyone's guess, but here's the proof that it was photoshopped: they made the ring on the tire the same light blue color as the car. Automakers don't make their own tires, and you can't tell me they bought tires with a matching color from Firestone. Furthermore, you can see in the picture with the guy from Virginia, that the ring around the tire was white.
You see. The tire was not light blue. It's just more JFK assassination photographic fakery, of which there is a tsunami of it.
So, why it looks blue in the famous picture is anyone's guess, but here's the proof that it was photoshopped: they made the ring on the tire the same light blue color as the car. Automakers don't make their own tires, and you can't tell me they bought tires with a matching color from Firestone. Furthermore, you can see in the picture with the guy from Virginia, that the ring around the tire was white.
How could this have happened? Now, I am accusing Robert Jackson of being a liar:
It is important to note that Lee Oswald was killed at 11: 21 am, after questioning had delayed his transfer. That gave Jack Ruby less than 4 minutes from the time he sent the wire at 11:17 to walk to the police station and down the ramp before shooting Oswald. Why Ruby was let down the ramp we will never know, but his actions that morning changed history. The Jackson’s told us that after the shooting Jim Leavelle asked Jack Ruby, “Why did you do that?”, to which Ruby replied, “Well, I just wanted to be a hero, and I guess I really messed up, didn’t I?” Jim said, “Yeah, you did.”
Are we supposed to believe that Robert Jackson overheard that conversation between Leavelle and Ruby? When was it supposed to happen? It certainly didn't happen in the garage. Leavelle stayed with Oswald, remember? And if it happened in the jail office, how could Robert Jackson have heard it when he was stuck in the garage? Remember all the cops and detectives with their arms spread wide, holding people back? Jackson was still out there when Oswald was rolled out on the stretcher, and he took his second picture. So, when could he have possibly overheard that conversation between Leavelle and Ruby?
It's bull. If anything, it was probably something Leavelle told him, Jackson, that it had occurred. You can't tell me it happened during the melee, and there is no time it could have happened afterwards. It's just another phony piece of JFK assassination lore.
It is important to note that Lee Oswald was killed at 11: 21 am, after questioning had delayed his transfer. That gave Jack Ruby less than 4 minutes from the time he sent the wire at 11:17 to walk to the police station and down the ramp before shooting Oswald. Why Ruby was let down the ramp we will never know, but his actions that morning changed history. The Jackson’s told us that after the shooting Jim Leavelle asked Jack Ruby, “Why did you do that?”, to which Ruby replied, “Well, I just wanted to be a hero, and I guess I really messed up, didn’t I?” Jim said, “Yeah, you did.”
Are we supposed to believe that Robert Jackson overheard that conversation between Leavelle and Ruby? When was it supposed to happen? It certainly didn't happen in the garage. Leavelle stayed with Oswald, remember? And if it happened in the jail office, how could Robert Jackson have heard it when he was stuck in the garage? Remember all the cops and detectives with their arms spread wide, holding people back? Jackson was still out there when Oswald was rolled out on the stretcher, and he took his second picture. So, when could he have possibly overheard that conversation between Leavelle and Ruby?
It's bull. If anything, it was probably something Leavelle told him, Jackson, that it had occurred. You can't tell me it happened during the melee, and there is no time it could have happened afterwards. It's just another phony piece of JFK assassination lore.
I wrote this for Brian Doyle on Facebook, who is a JFK assassination fantasist, one of many who like to exaggerate Oswald's involvement with U.S. intelligence. Yes, Oswald had some involvement with U.S. intelligence, and he knew some people in U.S. intelligence. However, you can't conclude from that that he was informed about the JFK assassination, that he was part of the plot. Oswald said that he knew nothing about what happened, and he wasn't lying. And it would have made no sense for the plotters to tell him anything about it. There was nothing he had to do for them. He didn't have to open any doors or inspect any weapons. All he had to do was be the patsy, and therefore, he didn't have to know anything. And, he didn't know anything. He didn't even know that JFK's motorcade was going to be passing the TSBD that day. He asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk outside that morning. He honestly didn't know. He wasn't putting on an ignorance act.
Just because Oswald had intelligence connections does not mean that he had any knowledge of the JFK assassination plot. This is from Facebook: And I'll add one more thing to it: Why would Oswald keep clamoring for a lawyer if his intention was to lie to him? If Oswald wasn't going to be honest with his interrogators, then you can't assume he was going to be honest with his lawyer. And, if he wasn't going to be honest with his lawyer, then how could his lawyer help him? The very fact that Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer should be taken as evidence that he was being truthful in what he told police. And what he told police is that he knew nothing about the assassination. "I don't know what this is about." He kept saying it, over and over again. He was being truthful.
Just because Oswald had intelligence connections does not mean that he had any knowledge of the JFK assassination plot. This is from Facebook: And I'll add one more thing to it: Why would Oswald keep clamoring for a lawyer if his intention was to lie to him? If Oswald wasn't going to be honest with his interrogators, then you can't assume he was going to be honest with his lawyer. And, if he wasn't going to be honest with his lawyer, then how could his lawyer help him? The very fact that Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer should be taken as evidence that he was being truthful in what he told police. And what he told police is that he knew nothing about the assassination. "I don't know what this is about." He kept saying it, over and over again. He was being truthful.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
The Wizard sent me this. It's from the 1992 movie Ruby starring Danny Aielo. They had the nerve to make it that the cops cuffed Ruby in the garage.
Of course, they should have done that, and in any normal police operation, they would have done it. But, they didn't do it, and this was a historical story. So, how dare they misrepresent it?
But, it goes to show how implausible it was- WHAT THE DALLAS COPS DID- the way they dragged the shooter into the building without first cuffing him. Here, he was a guy who (supposedly) fatally shot one man and tried to shoot another, yet, they saw no need to cuff him.
And, in the process of cuffing him in the movie, they did something that cops always do, and that is, push the violent offender all the way down to the ground.
Of course, the Dallas Police did NOT do that in the garage. They claimed to do it in the jail office, but I do NOT believe it. Remember, it was Bookhout, and I am sure they skirted him out of there as quickly as possible. What really happened is that they passed him off to Boyd, Sims, and Harris, who were waiting there for him. They flighted him up to the 3rd floor, and that's where that that elevator picture was taken. And whether they did anything else with him first, I don't know, but it couldn't have been much because Bookhout was freed and assumed his own identity, and he got down to the jail office BEFORE the ambulance attendants arrived. That was his story, and I don't doubt it because we can see Bookhout following behind the stretcher.
In the WFAA film, you can hear Bill Lord say just as the ambulance attendants started removing Oswald from the jail office, "the current time in Dallas is 11:24". The shooting took place at 11:21. So that means that Bookhout was held in custody for less than 3 minutes total. It was well less than that because once released, he had to go somewhere and change his clothes, remove his wig, etc., and that took time. So, I'm thinking that it could not have been more than 2 minutes that he was held in custody. Here he is following the stretcher further. It is the Davidson film, but note that all that darkness is artificial. It's the same environment as the image above. They deliberately darkened it to obscure it.
So, what must have happened is that Boyd, Sims, and Harris rushed Bookhout up to the 3rd floor, and they must have ran into an NBC cameraman who was still there. I'm sure that was unexpected. And so, this picture got taken:
So, I wonder how the Dallas Police finessed it with NBC. They had to be concerned about that image. They knew it wasn't Ruby. Did, they bluntly tell NBC? Or did they resort to some bull shit reason why "you better blacken his eyes"? National security, and all.
Of course, they should have done that, and in any normal police operation, they would have done it. But, they didn't do it, and this was a historical story. So, how dare they misrepresent it?
But, it goes to show how implausible it was- WHAT THE DALLAS COPS DID- the way they dragged the shooter into the building without first cuffing him. Here, he was a guy who (supposedly) fatally shot one man and tried to shoot another, yet, they saw no need to cuff him.
And, in the process of cuffing him in the movie, they did something that cops always do, and that is, push the violent offender all the way down to the ground.
In the WFAA film, you can hear Bill Lord say just as the ambulance attendants started removing Oswald from the jail office, "the current time in Dallas is 11:24". The shooting took place at 11:21. So that means that Bookhout was held in custody for less than 3 minutes total. It was well less than that because once released, he had to go somewhere and change his clothes, remove his wig, etc., and that took time. So, I'm thinking that it could not have been more than 2 minutes that he was held in custody. Here he is following the stretcher further. It is the Davidson film, but note that all that darkness is artificial. It's the same environment as the image above. They deliberately darkened it to obscure it.
So, what must have happened is that Boyd, Sims, and Harris rushed Bookhout up to the 3rd floor, and they must have ran into an NBC cameraman who was still there. I'm sure that was unexpected. And so, this picture got taken:
The Wizard sent me a NBC video, a retrospective about their coverage of the assassination. In it, you see Ruby being led down the hall on the 3rd floor, and led into the Homicide bureau to get to Fritz' office. But then, it's followed immediately with the same thing in which he's coming from the opposite direction.
So, that's Ruby, and he's about to turn to his left/our right to get through the door, and you can see the direction he came from.
Below he does the same thing but approaching from the opposite direction.
Obviously, it had to be spliced because he couldn't go through the door and then be in the hall approaching the door. They did these things, and they didn't expect anyone to think about it, and I'm sure most people don't.
Then, it goes immediately to the image of Bookhout by the elevator with the three detectives.
What I notice is that on this one, they really blackened his eyes. Bookhout looks like a freakin' raccoon.
And that is ridiculous. Why would his eyes be so blackened while Boyd's were not?
They did that because that is James Bookhout on the right, and if his eyes were showing, there would have been no chance of passing him off as Jack Ruby.
Here is a frame from it that the Wizard added some illumination to:
Look how ridiculous his eyes look, especially his right eye on our left. It's obviously blackened. They got out the black paint.
Below he does the same thing but approaching from the opposite direction.
Obviously, it had to be spliced because he couldn't go through the door and then be in the hall approaching the door. They did these things, and they didn't expect anyone to think about it, and I'm sure most people don't.
Then, it goes immediately to the image of Bookhout by the elevator with the three detectives.
What I notice is that on this one, they really blackened his eyes. Bookhout looks like a freakin' raccoon.
And that is ridiculous. Why would his eyes be so blackened while Boyd's were not?
Here is a frame from it that the Wizard added some illumination to:
Look how ridiculous his eyes look, especially his right eye on our left. It's obviously blackened. They got out the black paint.
Oswald had no driver's license and couldn't drive. It's true that Paul Bentley said, in an off-hand remark, that there was "driver's license and credit cards" found in his wallet, but it wasn't true. Bentley admitted that he got Oswald's address from his library card. Now, if you opened a wallet and saw a driver's license and a library card, which would you rely on to get an address?
And Oswald had no credit cards. It was 1963. It wasn't like today, where any hobo and his derelict brother can get a credit card- or a mortgage on a house. The Oswalds were poor. They had to depend on the largess of others, like the White Russian community, to survive. They didn't give credit cards to people like that back then. Today, they do, but not then.
And in those days, credit cards came with annual fees. Oswald would not have wanted to pay that. And Marina- she came from a culture in which credit cards were completely and totally non-existent. So, not even she would have been pressing Oswald to get a credit card.
If Oswald had a credit card, we would know all about it; the things he charged with it; where he used it; the debts he ran up. He obviously didn't have one, and he didn't have a driver's license either.
And it stands to reason that Oswald couldn't drive. When could he have learned? He had no father to teach him. His brothers were long gone, and they never taught him. If Robert Oswald had claimed to teach Lee how to drive, we would know about it. His mother never taught him. Did the Marguerite of fame even drive, herself? She definitely didn't own a car at the time of the assassination. She tried to get Bob Schieffer to send a car from CBS to drive her from Ft. Worth to Dallas because she had no way to get there.
Oswald dropped out of the 9th grade at 17 to join the Marines without having learned to drive. They don't teach you to drive in the Marines. And after the Marines, he went to Russia, and he definitely didn't drive in Russia. That's well established. And when he got back from Russia, he started working odd jobs in Dallas, but he still couldn't drive. So,how could he drive in New Orleans?
YOU REALIZE THAT FALSE OSWALD SIGHTINGS ARE ABOUT AS COMMON AS UFO SIGHTINGS, DON'T YOU?
If Oswald had a driver's license, we would know when it was issued, which state issued it, plus his whole driving record, whether he had any tickets, accidents, etc. But, there is nothing. He did not have a driver's license.
Oswald couldn't drive. Marina said he couldn't drive. He was rarely ever in a car even as a passenger. He was just learning to drive (from Mrs. Paine) at the time of the assassination. How friendless was he if he had to depend on Ruth Paine for that?
Lee Harvey Oswald definitely did not have a driver's license, and you shouldn't listen to idiots who tell you otherwise.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Richard Miodownick, who runs the Oswald Innocent Facebook group and is also a member of the OIC, made an interesting reply to my post in which I criticized Oswald for not being more forceful at the MPC.
And he's got me rethinking it, that perhaps I was wrong; that really Oswald did a fine job at the MPC. Richard's point is that in coming across very calm and polite and restrained at the MPC, Oswald made himself look good. In a word, he came across as: civilized. He did not seem at all like a mad-dog killer. He came across totally, completely sane. He didn't seem the least bit wild. And Richard suggests that the reason he wasn't allowed to speak longer and answer questions longer is because he was doing such a good job in coming off as reasonable, mature, in control, etc.
So, even though I expected more adamance and defiance from him, perhaps I was confusing my personality with his. There was really nothing wrong with the way he handled it.
So, here is what Richard Miowdnick wrote and my response to him.
And he's got me rethinking it, that perhaps I was wrong; that really Oswald did a fine job at the MPC. Richard's point is that in coming across very calm and polite and restrained at the MPC, Oswald made himself look good. In a word, he came across as: civilized. He did not seem at all like a mad-dog killer. He came across totally, completely sane. He didn't seem the least bit wild. And Richard suggests that the reason he wasn't allowed to speak longer and answer questions longer is because he was doing such a good job in coming off as reasonable, mature, in control, etc.
So, even though I expected more adamance and defiance from him, perhaps I was confusing my personality with his. There was really nothing wrong with the way he handled it.
So, here is what Richard Miowdnick wrote and my response to him.
